18 October 2001, 12:29am IST
Kailash Vajpeyi.
In a world full of hatred, chaos and contradictions, one is tempted to ask if pacifism or the idea of peace is just an illusion which will never be practised, at least by megalomaniacs, with obsession for power. in reference to the first war of this century it would be relevant to ask if peace can ever be accepted as a mega-value or for that matter can man still hope to find inner harmony in the jungle of skirmishes and wars that our world has become. the term inner harmony is not being used here as a catch phrase often repeated by drug addicts. similarly the word ‘peace’ describes a general social condition, where people are not agitated or discontented due to economic or other disparities. the term ‘peace’ also emerges here as a consequence of healthy relations among nations. we begin our inquiry with the assumption that peace is a rare phenomenon; that the challenge of ‘peace’ is more demanding than that of war; that the man in the process of civilising himself has reached a stage where all the niceties of life are judged according to their utility. but how did it happen? in india tirthankar mahavir, the first metaphysical rebel, renounced the world only in protest against suffering and violence. although an atheist, he emerged as a messiah of peace, and is today remembered for his philosophy of non-violence and many-sided approach to truth or anekant . in the western hemisphere, the history of thought took a new turn through the introduction of reason by plato whose theory of ideas promotes the notion that god is good so whatever he has created is good and for the best. in his book the dynamics of culture sorokin has mentioned that in the past 900 years most of the countries were involved in warfare 50 per cent of the time. fighting according to him seems so natural with the human temperament that no amount of education can cure this universal malady. happiness, said freud, ‘is no cultural value’. in a letter to einstein he wrote: ‘‘conflict of interests among mankind is in the main usually decided by the use of force. this is true of the whole animal kingdom from which mankind should not be excluded’’. according to freud the normal state of mind is: bellum ominum contra omens or everybody is against everybody. dynamic psychology deals with this problem from the point of view of the individual. it is because of competition, diffidence and personal glory that men tend to become violent. moreover, there is an innate tendency of destruction in man that leads to ‘asocial’ inclinations. we are living in a society which promotes utilitarian culture, where men are mere objects of utility. men, though they refuse to be treated as things, are made to believe by politicians that war is indispensable. according to prof griffith, ‘‘the art of politics is to persuade people that they make decisions while ensuring that they do not’’. technology enhances this illusion further. mass media has made every human situation so absurd and abstract that a civilian can never sense the real horror of war. the news of killing, publicised side by side with an exotic ad makes it hard to believe that the people being killed are made of flesh and bone. technology in a way has ‘sanitised’ war, as the blood shown on the television screen leaves no mark. modern thinkers induce a new sense of morality when they discuss the challenge of peace against war. for them goodness, love or kindness are social products like any other commodity, the over-supply of which might reduce their price. similarly, the production of arms in a highly industrialised society cannot be stopped for a hundred and one reasons especially because of a complex system of economy and international trade. power politics is the one greatest factor that mars the cause of peace. the decisions at this stage are taken on the basis of group-thinking or group-stupidity. ‘group-think’ is a stultifying, dull and tedious job. decision, especially crucial ones, are taken by a group of people. its paradox is that the individual seldom suffers from a sense of guilt. as a team, group-think members suffer from the illusion of being true and sincere. ‘a thousand days’ by arthur schlesinger is a burning example of group-irrationality. how can one then cherish the idea of peace in modern times? now since faith has been replaced by reason, religion by politics, conscience by military strategy, personal courage by mechanical adventure, god by party boss and the individual by group-stupidity, it is better to fight against these and wage a war against the hell that is all around us.
No comments:
Post a Comment