THE IDEOLOGY OF PEACE
HistOry abounds in preachers of peace. But it is hard to find in its annals an ideologue that has been capable of presenting the concept of peace as a complete ideology. Perhaps this is why over the centuries no revolution in
the true sense of the word has been brought about on the basis of peace. Although we have had a number of peace-loving individuals, the establishment of a peaceful society on a mass scale has never become a reality. Human interests have been very deeply associated with peace. That is why every individual, for personal reasons, wants to have a peaceful life.
But he is repeatedly faced with such diverse situations that he needs an ideology of peace to guide him. For peace being the human need is not enough to make him exercise restraint and remain peaceable in all situations. He needs an ideology which convinces him at the conscious level of the necessity to keep the peace at all times.
We can find examples of this in human history. For instance, let’s take democracy. Man has always instinctively cherished the idea of a democratic polity and we find some instances in human history where such a system had been successfully established, although only in a partial way. But the advent of a full-fledged revolution on the basis of democracy became a reality only when the thinkers of modern Europe presented the instinctive aspirations of human beings in the form of a comprehensive ideology.
The same is the case with peace. Peace has always been, in every age, a human need. However, in modern times, peace has become so vital to the survival of mankind that it has now literally become a matter of life and death for humanity. Peace means life: its absence means death.
The writer’s aim is to present peace in the form of a complete ideology—an ideology which awakens human consciousness; which provides the answer to all life’s problems in terms of peace; which describes the utmost importance of peace, right from the individual to the international level. Peace is a prerequisite for all kinds of human progress. With peace, we progress: without peace, we face ruin.
Why should an ideology be required for peace? There are two principal reasons for this. When one focuses on an objective, one has to adopt one factor and discard another. This can be done with conviction only when one has clear and specific theoretical justification for it. Without this, one cannot be wholehearted in one’s acceptance or rejection of any concept or practice. For instance, if the notion takes root in the minds of certain individuals that their rights have been usurped and that to redress their grievances they must resort to violence, it will be impossible to dissuade them, unless we are able to prove with forceful arguments that violence is not the solution to their problems, that such a course will only aggravate matters and will never restore to them their rights. To bring these individuals to the path of peace, it is essential that they should be convinced by an ideology based on reason that, to achieve their objectives, they must essentially renounce violent methods and conduct their struggle along peaceful lines. Ideology gives us the logical basis as to why one course of action should be rejected and another course of action should be adopted.
Man can properly fulfill any given mission only when he is ideologically convinced of its validity. Ideology provides man with the necessary warranties, otherwise he fails to act with the necessary energy and enthusiasm so vital to the success of any struggle.
In similar vein, courage is the greatest energizer in the journey of life. A courageous man can climb to the top of a mountain, whereas a man devoid of courage cannot even proceed along level pathways. But what is man’s source of courage? It is ideology which provides man with the courage to tread the path of peace. It has been rightly said that “Man is a rational animal” and also that “man is an explanation-seeking animal.” Both these sayings convey the same point: that man derives mental satisfaction from his actions only when the goals at which they are aimed have been established as right by rational argument. Attempting to evolve a complete ideology on the basis of peace is indeed as important a goal as peace itself, and vice versa. Both are interdependent. The one cannot exist without the other.
Such violence as has been witnessed in modern times has never hitherto been experienced. Wartime depredations and violence by unauthorized groups in the form of proxy or guerilla warfare have inflicted such great harm upon humanity that this seems to be undoing all our progress. This is a reality which is being experienced by all concerned inhabitants of the earth.
How can this be explained? The reason is clear: people do not possess a complete ideology, which favours peace, whereas the sole justification for violence is the force of public sentiment. When an activist feels the urge to become a world leader or when a community is provoked into avenging the losses it has suffered, no need of logical or rational justification is felt. The force of sentiment is sufficient to activate leaders and followers alike. But where adhering to peace or adopting a peaceful course of action is concerned this is possible only when there is a very strong justification for peace. While violence is instinctive, peace calls for strict mental discipline and self control to be exercised, everyone wants to assert himself by negating others, so that, one short emotional outburst is all that is needed for violence to be indulged in, unlike peaceful action, which requires serious thought to be given to it.
The only solution to this serious problem is for man to be in possession of a complete ideology of peace. The actual problem of today is that no ideology of peace in the real sense exists. Why is there this negative side to human psychology? It is directly related to the creation plan of the Creator. It acquires meaningfulness only in terms of God’s plan of creation.
The present world has been designed by its Creator as a testing ground for mankind. Man has been granted full freedom of will in this world. But this freedom is not meant to produce anarchy. Its objective is to demonstrate whether man, despite having full freedom, can lead a disciplined life. He has to raise himself from the level of animal amorality to the level of human ethics. In spite of experiencing feelings of hatred and having the urge to be violent, he should become the embodiment of love and peace. When negative sentiments corrode his heart, he should be able to rid himself of them and make himself a positive thinker.
To put it briefly, despite possessing total freedom, he should of his own free will become an example of moral, disciplined behaviour. One who thus conducts himself will pass God’s test. Only those who act in this way will be selected by the Lord, the Creator and Sustainer of this universe, as the beneficiaries of that most wonderful blessing—eternal paradise.
The study of psychology tells us that human beings are by nature egoists. Whenever their ego is hit, a hostile reaction is produced which easily becomes converted into hatred and the urge to do violence. This point has been
dealt with very clearly by C.M. Joad in his book: “The Modern Wickedness.” It is this psychological weakness in human beings due to which we find that differences often take the form of animosity, which frequently leads to violence.
This shows that violence is in no need of any ideology. Violence flares up, or can flare up on its own. But, so far as peace is concerned, it is a course that we adopt by choice. One has to make oneself intentionally peace-loving. That is, while violence occurs on its own, restoring a state of peace requires a positive and determined struggle.
Willingness to keep the peace—a matter of conscious decision-making—is a noble human quality. For peace, man has to curb his anger and be forgiving. He has to control his feelings of hatred and project feelings of love for others. If peace is to be maintained, negative thinking has to be suppressed and replaced with positive thinking. For peace to be a reality, he has to be a well-wisher rather than an ill-intentioned person.
For violence to erupt, provocation is enough, while for peace to prevail, man has to nullify provocation with moderation and restraint.
In the use of violence, man simply follows his basic instincts, while to promote peace, man has to give himself a complete moral overhaul. Only after such a conversion is the individual able to play the role of a peace-loving person.
The need is to convert non-peace into peace, for only after this conversion is he able to play the role of a peaceful person. That is why a comprehensive ideology of peace is necessary. Simply making appeals and pronouncements will not suffice for this purpose, for they will not persuade people to adopt peaceful ways.
This has been borne out by historical events and it is likewise my own personal experience. I have been engaged in a peace mission, for the last fifty years, and I can say with conviction that hundreds and thousands of youths who, spurred on by their emotions, had taken to violence or militancy, underwent a revolution in their thinking after listening to my reasoning and studying my writings which, by means of forceful arguments, established the paramouncy of peace. They abandoned the path of violence and opted for the path of peace.
I found that those youths, out of a lack of awareness, had mistakenly thought that violence was to be equated with bravery, and peaceful action with cowardice. They thought that there was everything to be gained by violence, but that peaceful methods would bring them nothing. This misapprehension caused them to think that violence meant advancement, and peace meant regression.
In other words they had an ‘ideology’ of violence, but no ideology of peace. Yet they became convinced by my arguments that there was no real ideology in favour of violence, and that positive ideology was only in favour of peace, in the real sense. Furthermore, the realization dawned on them that the violent course of action which they had taken in order to advance their own interests was ultimately suicidal, while the peaceful course of action which they had thought unproductive was, in fact, the true path to advancement.
After this intellectual discovery, their lives underwent a transformation. From being violent activists, they turned into peaceful activists. Indeed, in various parts of the world, there are a great number of youths who, after becoming fully aware of the truth of this matter, have abandoned violence in favour of engaging their energies in peaceful spheres of life—for instance, in education, social reform and the preaching of peace.
