1

Philosophy of Peace/Peace Studies

Complementary Course – 4

Credits: 4

Objectives:
To equip the students with philosophical analysis of the socio-political issues of contemporary life.

Module – I
Concept of Peace- interpretation of the term truce between war - positive meaning, quiet and
tranquility. Issues related to Peace-Justice. The dignity of Man. Human Rights violation. Human
Equality. Reconciliation and Democracy. Tolerance versus Acceptance. Insider-Outsider.

Module – II
Peace in Indian Tradition- Vedic concept of three kinds of disturbance of peace, from a living
being, unseen forces, body and mind, and a quest for Eternal Peace. Peace and concept of Dharma.
Gita concept of Lokasamgraha. Buddha’s concept of Happiness and Pleasantness for all, Peace
through the elimination of ignorance. Gandhi on Peace through Satyagraha. Concept of National
Integration, Dalai Lama- True peace comes from within.

Module – III
Theories of peace – Hobbes’s concept of Quarrel-Competition, desire for safety, desire for
recognition. Kant’s concept of a morally autonomous being. John Rawl’s rules of people. Gandhi
on moral and soul force of Satyagraha. Law and Civil Disobedience.

Module – IV
Peace and International Society- Philosophical analysis of peace initiatives: Coercive (threat
system), Co-operative (regulated exchange system), Convergent (trans-national integration
through values), and Non-violent resistance.

References:
Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, (chapter 9)
Peter Singer, One World, (chapters 4 & 5)
T.M.P. Mahadevan, Invitation to Indian Philosophy
J. B. Kripani, Theory of Satyagraha and his life and thought
Dalai Llama, Speech on receiving Nobel Prize.
Ranabira Samaddara, Introductory Essay-Peace Studies
R. Balasubrahmaniam, Technique of Non-violent resistance, Gandhian thought.
 2

Introduction
“I am convinced that a non-violent society can be built only on the foundation of harmony
and cooperation, without which society is bound to remain violent. If we argue that this cannot be
done it will mean that a non-violent society can never come into being. In that case, our entire
culture would be meaningless”, Mahatma Gandhi. Peace is essential for individual well-being. It
is well known that human beings have paid much interest in peace from ancient times until now;
at the same time, peace has become the fundamental concern of everyone and every nation today.
In the changing international context of our lives, an attempt to establish peace in the global world
is a serious concern. It is only with the advent of modernity that peace ceased to be merely a passive
concern. The evolution of ‘Peace studies’ as a discipline is much younger than mankind’s abiding
concern for peace. Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist, and mathematician is the father of
peace studies. While the concern for peace is as old as mankind’s first recorded histories of war,
(that is the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides in the West and the Mahabharata War in the East),
it evolved into a discipline only with the advent of modernity predominantly in the West. The
Peloponnesian War was an ancient war (431-404 BC) fought by the Athens Delian League against
the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta. The Kurukshetra War (400 BC) was between the
Kauravas and the Pandavas.

Nature and Scope of Peace Studies

The nature of peace studies is interdisciplinary and multifaceted, encompassing a broad
range of topics and approaches to understanding and promoting peace. Here are some key aspects
that define the nature of peace studies:
i. Interdisciplinary approach: Peace studies draw from various academic disciplines,
including political science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, international relations, law,
economics, history, and more. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a comprehensive
examination of peace-related issues from multiple perspectives.
ii. Holistic view of peace: Peace studies take a holistic view of peace, recognizing that it is
not merely the absence of violence but a complex and dynamic process involving social, political,
economic, environmental, and cultural dimensions. It goes beyond the traditional focus on conflict
resolution and explores broader aspects of peacebuilding and conflict prevention.
iii. Focus on conflict analysis: A significant part of peace studies involves the analysis of
different types of conflicts, their root causes, and how they manifest at various levels – from
interpersonal conflicts to intrastate and interstate conflicts. Understanding the nature of conflicts
is crucial for developing effective peacebuilding strategies.
iv. Non-violence and conflict transformation: Peace studies often emphasize the
importance of non-violent approaches to resolving conflicts and promoting positive social change.
Non-violence is considered a powerful tool for achieving sustainable peace.
v. Peacebuilding and conflict resolution strategies: Peace studies explore various
peacebuilding strategies and conflict resolution techniques. This includes mediation, negotiation,
reconciliation processes, and diplomacy, among others.
vi. Social Justice and human rights: The pursuit of peace is closely connected to social
justice and the protection of human rights. Peace studies examine how addressing social
inequalities and upholding human rights contribute to sustainable peace.
vii. Global and local perspectives: Peace studies look at peace and conflict issues on both
global and local scales. It considers the interconnectedness of local conflicts with regional and
global dynamics, recognizing the need for collaborative efforts in promoting peace.
 3

viii. Practical applications: While peace studies have an academic foundation, they also
emphasize practical applications. Peace researchers and practitioners often work directly with
communities, organizations, and governments to implement peacebuilding initiatives and policy
recommendations.
ix. Gender and peace: The gender dimension of peace studies acknowledges the distinct
experiences and roles of women and men in conflicts and peace processes. It highlights the
importance of gender equality and the inclusion of women in peacebuilding efforts.
x. Environmental peacebuilding: With the recognition of environmental challenges' impact
on conflicts, peace studies have also expanded to include the relationship between environmental
sustainability and peacebuilding.

The scope of peace studies is broad and encompasses a wide range of topics and areas of
focus related to understanding, promoting, and sustaining peace. Here are some key aspects that
define the scope of peace studies:
i. Conflict analysis: Peace studies involve the examination and analysis of various types of
conflicts, including interpersonal, communal, ethnic, religious, and political conflicts.
Understanding the root causes and dynamics of conflicts is essential for devising effective
strategies for conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
ii. Conflict resolution and mediation: Peace studies explore different conflict resolution
approaches and mediation processes aimed at finding peaceful and non-violent solutions to
disputes and disagreements.
iii. Peacebuilding: One of the central aspects of peace studies is peacebuilding, which
involves efforts to prevent the escalation of conflicts, promote reconciliation, and establish
sustainable peace in communities and societies.
iv. Non-violence: Peace studies emphasize the principles of non-violence and the role of
non-violent resistance as a means to address conflicts and bring about positive social change.
v. Human rights and social justice: Peace studies recognize the importance of human rights
and social justice in achieving lasting peace. It involves examining the relationship between human
rights violations and conflicts and advocating for justice and equality.
vi. International relations and diplomacy: The scope of peace studies extends to the realm
of international relations and diplomacy, where scholars explore how countries and international
organizations can work together to resolve conflicts and promote global peace.
vii. Gender and peace: Peace studies focus on understanding the impact of gender in
conflicts and peace processes, as well as the role of women in peacebuilding efforts.
viii. Environmental peacebuilding: With the recognition of the interconnectedness between
environmental issues and conflicts, peace studies have expanded to include the relationship
between environmental sustainability and peacebuilding.
ix. Education for peace: Peace studies involve educational initiatives aimed at promoting
peace, tolerance, and understanding among individuals and communities.
x. Policy and governance: Peace studies often extend to the examination of policies and
governance structures that can contribute to or hinder peacebuilding efforts at the local, national,
and international levels.
xi. Cultural and religious perspectives: The scope of peace studies includes understanding
the role of culture and religion in conflicts and peace processes, as well as exploring ways to
leverage cultural and religious resources for peacebuilding.
 4

xii. Post-conflict reconstruction: Peace studies address the challenges and strategies for
post-conflict reconstruction, including rebuilding infrastructure, promoting social cohesion, and
reestablishing governance systems.
The nature of peace studies is dynamic and adaptive, constantly evolving to address
emerging global challenges related to peace and conflict. It seeks to contribute to a more peaceful
and just world through research, education, and practical action. The scope of peace studies is
comprehensive and continuously evolving to address the complexities of peace and conflict in the
contemporary world. It seeks to provide insights, strategies, and tools to individuals, organizations,
and policymakers to build a more peaceful and just global community.

Module 1: Concept of Peace

Etymology
The word peace comes from the Latin word pax, which means a pact, a control, or an
agreement to end war or any dispute and conflict between two people, two nations, or two
antagonistic groups of people. The English word ‘peace’ came into use in various personal
greetings in 1300 as a translation of the Hebrew shalom. Such a translation is imprecise as shalom,
which is also cognate with the Arabic salaam, has multiple other meanings in addition to peace. It
includes justice, good health, safety, well-being, prosperity, security, good fortune, etc. Peace is
the absence of disturbance or agitation. In many languages, the word for peace is also used as a
greeting or a farewell. In English, the word peace is occasionally used as a farewell especially for
the dead, as in the phrase ‘rest in peace’. Peace has always been among humanity’s highest values.
Peace is seen as concord, harmony, and tranquility. It is viewed as peace of mind or serenity.
Definition
There is no agreed-upon definition of what peace in reality means. Anyhow, we shall
attempt to give a few definitions here. Peace is a state of harmony characterized by the lack of
violence, conflict behaviors, and freedom from fear of violence. Commonly understood as the
absence of hostility, peace also suggests the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or
international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment
of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all. In international
relations, peacetime is not only the absence of war or violent conflict but also the presence of
positive and respectful cultural and economic relationships. The idea of social harmony or
tranquility has been intrinsic to peace for many cultures and religions. Harmony is conceived of at
two levels: that is our objective relations and that which is mental or spiritual. The latter view
defines peace of mind. Hence, peace is a socio-psychological existence. It has a dispositional
aspect and it is manifested in the life of the individual or society.
Peace as a social contract is active. It is created through negotiation, adjustment, resolution,
and decisions. It comprises predictions about the future. It is manifested through cooperative
interaction. Its existence depends on congruence with the balance of powers. Peace in any society
reflects and guarantees security in social life. The present state of international society is at least
partially affected by threats, challenges, conflicts, and war. The concept of peace depends on our
worldview, our conceptual models, and the mindset influenced by our traditions and experiences.
Meaning of Peace
We can have three precise directions to the meaning of peace. 1. There is the old idea of
peace as a synonym for stability or equilibrium. This conception of peace refers to the internal
 5

states of a human being, the person who is at peace with himself. 2. There is the idea of peace as
the absence of organized collective violence between major human groups, particularly nations,
but also between classes and between racial and ethnic groups. 3. There is the idea of peace as a
synonym for all other good things in the world community, particularly cooperation and
integration between human groups.
According to American military history, the word peace essentially means - the absence of
war. For Albert Einstein, peace is not only an absence of war, but it means or includes the presence
of justice, law, order, or government in the society he said - Peace is not merely the absence of war
but the presence of justice, of law, of order - in short, of government. His Holiness, the 14th Dalai
Lama, said - Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value...peace can only last where
human rights are respected, where people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free. From
his point, we can say that peace means respect for human rights, the well-being of people, and the
freedom of individuals and nations. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), one of the famous philosophers
in the second half of the 17th century gave his point of view on peace that peace was not an absence
of war, it was a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, and justice. He
gave importance to virtue and a state of mind. Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) emphasized peace
in the sense of a state of mind. Here is his view - Peace is not a relationship of nations. It is a
condition of mind brought about by a serenity of the soul. Peace is not merely the absence of war.
It is also a state of mind. Lasting peace can come only to peaceful people. According to Johan
Galtung, the terms peace and violence are linked. Peace is the absence of violence and should be
used as a social goal. Galtung further stated that like a coin peace has two sides: negative peace
and positive peace. Negative peace is the absence of personal violence; positive peace is an absence
of structural violence or social justice. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines
peace as follows:
1. No war: a situation in which there is no war or fighting
2. No noise/interruptions: a very quiet and pleasant situation in which you are not
interrupted
3. Calm/Not worried: a feeling of being calm, happy, and not worried
As per the definitions and explanations shown above, peace is defined and explained in
different ways. It has various meanings depending on the context of usage namely, peace literally
defined seems to be something as a tool or means to end war or conflict. Peace if discussed and
desired during wartime or the time after the war is the thing that is the opposite of war. It means
an absence of war and/or other hostilities. Peace in this sense seems to be the main definition
undeniably. However, even during a time without war, it does not mean people are at peace and
society is peaceful. Problems or hostilities are still there. That is why some peace scholars are not
satisfied with only that meaning. From their views, peace is the presence of other good things like
virtue, justice, order, good law, good government, good relationships, well-being, freedom, respect
for human rights, security, etc., or an absence of violence. On the other hand, if we focus on the
state of mind, peace is calm, serenity, tranquility, or peacefulness of mind. Furthermore, if we refer
to the state of a place or an atmosphere, peace means quietness and silence.
The term peace has been interpreted in three ways namely in the literal sense; in the
minimalist version and the maximalist version. Literally, the term peace means freedom from war
or the absence of war. According to the minimalist version, peace refers to a state of tranquility
produced by the absence of war. The absence of war and tranquility is in relation to cause and
effect. Tranquility is the effect produced by the cause, the absence of war. The maximalist version
redefines this causal relation and states that peace could be produced which ultimately results in
 6

the absence of war. Peace is a fact created by appropriate human intervention. Thus, the maximalist
version of peace carries three basic concepts: 1. Peace as a cause 2. Peace refers to a state of affairs
and 3. Peace as a fact constructed and determined by the advancement of the understanding of
humans in relation to their living conditions.
Types of Peace
There are different types of peace, namely, negative peace and positive peace. Negative
peace is considered as the absence of war. Negative peace is defined as a state requiring a set of
social structures that provide security and protection from acts of direct physical violence
committed by individuals, groups, or nations. The emphasis is on control of violence. The main
strategy is dissociation whereby conflicting parties are separated. In general, policies based on the
idea of negative peace do not deal with the causes of violence, only its manifestations. Therefore,
these policies are to be thought to be insufficient to assure lasting conditions of peace.
Positive peace, in contrast, is a pattern of cooperation and integration between major human
groups. It is about people interacting in cooperative ways. It is about social organizations of diverse
peoples who willingly choose to cooperate for the benefit of all humankind. It calls for a system
in which there are no winners and losers and all are winners. It also involves the search for positive
conditions that can resolve the underlying causes of conflict that produce violence.
There can be hot peace and cold peace. Hot peace involves active collaborative efforts
designed to build bridges between and among past and present adversaries. This involves searching
for common ground and the development of new non-human enemies-threats to the health and
well-being of humankind and the planet. These new enemies could include human rights abuses,
air and water pollution, destruction of the ozone layer, famine, poverty, and ignorance. Hot peace
promotes global interdependence, human rights, democratization, etc. The object is the
proliferation of cooperative relations and mutually beneficial outcomes.
In cold peace, there is almost a neutral view of the previous enemy. There is little mutual
hostility, but there is also a lack of mutually beneficial interactions aimed at developing trust,
interdependence, and collaboration. There is no clear objective because there is no well-defined
enemy. We can distinguish between at least three different meanings or types of peace.
Similarly, there can be a hot war and a cold war. In a hot war, there is the condition of
mutual hostility and active physical engagement through such forms as artillery, missiles, bombs,
etc. The aim is the destruction of the enemy or his surrender by intimidation. The object is to have
a winner and a loser. In the Cold War, there is mutual hostility without actual engagement. During
the Cold War, nationalism prevails and the object is to have a stalemate where neither side will
initiate aggression.

Different meanings of Peace

We can also enumerate different meanings of peace, namely, 1. Peace as the mere absence
of war, that is, a hegemonic deterrent peace, 2. Peace as functional and economic interaction, what
is called transactional peace, and 3. Peace as a social condition in which accommodation rather
than force mediates change. It is called integrative or perpetual peace. Peace as the absence of
violence or war is passive.
Threat systems, Exchange systems, and Integrative systems
The above-mentioned three notions of peace may be derived from the three basic visions
of social and international life. Kenneth Boulding in his work has used the image of threat systems,
exchange systems, and integrative systems to denote the three basic ways humans relate to each
 7

other in virtually all social arenas, from the family to the international system. He argues that
humans relate to each other in three ways -by means of threats, exchange, and integration.
In a threat system, human relations are regulated by the expectation of punishment and the
desire to avoid it. Threats can serve the goal of peace, at least at a superficial level. Hegemony
(dominance) is seldom an exclusively punitive system. Punishment is never far from the workings
of hegemony. Punishment can take various forms including force. Deterrence is the threat of force
to prevent unpalatable actions by force. Hegemony and deterrence (frightening action) may
achieve superficial peace. A hegemony can use the threat of punishment to stop others from using
force and thus maintain a minimalist peace.
The second way in which humans regulate their relationship is by means of exchange. In
exchange, both sides benefit. The prospect of future exchange for mutual benefit ensures good
behavior in the present.
Beyond threats and exchange, humans can construct various integrative relationships. In
an integrative relationship, humans arrive at a position of ethical respect for and moral convergence
with others. They recognize certain obligations or responsibilities towards others.
Three points are worthy of attention here. First of all, most human relationships are
regulated by a combination of threats, exchange, and integration. Secondly, while any relationship
shows some combination of threats, exchange, and integration, one can think of these systems as
arrayed in ascending order of stability. Threat systems are prone to instability because the promise
of punishment is likely to lose credibility over time. Integrative systems are the most stable and
durable. These are built not on punishment or greed, but on normative commitments issued out of
recognition of common humanity.
The third point worth reflecting on is whether there is a relationship between the three
systems. Is a stable threat system a pre-condition of mutually advantageous exchange relations that
are the foundation for progressively higher-order integrative relationships?
Pathways to Peace
i. Hegemony and Deterrence
In a regional system, there exist potentially two sorts of hegemonies: powerful outsiders
and powerful insiders. In a hegemonic situation, lesser powers might routinely anticipate and
adjust to the hegemon’s wishes, including its desire for regional peace. If not, the hegemony may
construct peace through a deliberate and careful policy of carrots and sticks (rewards and
punishments that influence someone’s behavior).
Powerful Outsiders: South Asia has a history of powerful outsiders involving themselves in
regional affairs. Britain and the US, the Soviet Union, China, and Iran have from time to time
intervened in regional matters. All of them except China have attempted to bring principally India
and Pakistan together so as to avert polarization and war in the subcontinent.
Powerful Insiders: A hegemonic peace in South Asia may be based on Indian military economic
and discursive power. That India has not been able to accomplish such peace with Pakistan is
obvious enough. Concerning the smaller states of South Asia, India does enjoy a militarily and
economically hegemonic position. Over the years various disputes have marked their relations, but
India and the smaller states have not gone to war. There is little prospect that India’s hegemonic
 8

position with respect to the smaller states will change. The new turn in Indian diplomacy has
contributed to a more peaceful South Asia in four ways. First, in promoting agreements with the
smaller states, the doctrine has reduced the resentment and suspicion they harbor towards India.
Agreements with India’s neighbors and the new accommodating style will have a direct economic
benefit. They will help disarm critics of India who oppose Indian trade and investment.
The Limits of Hegemony: A peace that rests on hegemonic forces and economic power is not an
efficient, lasting, and warm peace. As soon as a hegemon turns its back or appears to be losing
military and economic power, hegemonically brokered agreements may unravel.

Deterrent Peace: If you want peace, prepare for war. A deterrent peace is a minimalist peace. It
is the absence of war as a function of mutual threats. While India’s relations with its smaller
neighbors are hegemonic, the relationship with Pakistan is one of mutual deterrence. With the near
nuclearization of the subcontinent, South Asia is moving closer to a deterrent system based on
conventional and nuclear threats. Deterrent systems are ultimately unstable. Minimum deterrence
is a transparent posture. It does not attempt to hide the possession of nuclear weapons.
ii. Functionalist Co-operation: A working peace system that does not abolish but rather
transcends nation-states, is the route to peace. Modern states will increasingly be constrained to
deal with various functional tasks in collaboration with each other. Government experts or
counterparts in other countries will be forced to produce rational solutions to shared problems.
This will necessitate the creation of agencies to implement and manage the agreements and as the
agencies in related functional areas group together, they will likely require budgets and overall
coordinating authority. This functional structure will eventually overlay nation-states in the sense
that it will deliver services and benefits beyond the capacities of individual states to provide. In
such a situation, states will continue to exist, but they will not risk war or else incur the wrath of
their citizens.
iii: Community: The most enduring pathway to peace is the Kantian vision of international life
(The Kantian view regards international relations as a trans-nationally integrated system. For
Kantians, the interests and values of human beings are similar and will gradually be seen to be so).

What is the dignity of man?

Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake and to be treated
ethically. It is of significance in morality, ethics, law, and politics as an extension of the
Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights.
What is human dignity and why is it important?
Dignity is one of the most important things to the human spirit. It means being valued and
respected for what you are, what you believe in, and how you live your life. Treating other people
with dignity means treating them the way we would like to be treated ourselves.
There are 4 types of dignity:
The dignity of the Human Being, Dignity of Personal Identity, Dignity of Merit, and Dignity of
Moral Status.
What does it mean to have dignity?
If someone has dignity, it means they are worthy of respect. If you lose an election, and you speak
nasty things about your opponent and try to undermine her, you are acting without dignity. But if
you graciously congratulate her and accept the results, then you are behaving in
a dignified manner.
 9

Reconciliation in Peace Studies

Reconciliation is generally understood to be the re-establishment of friendly relations, though it
assumes different forms and roles in different contexts. In the case of armed
conflicts, reconciliation incorporates the search for truth, justice, forgiveness, and accommodation
between conflicting groups of people.
Peace and conflict studies explore a broad range of topics, such as conflict theory, the history of
nonviolent protest, and human rights. But this course of study also promotes the development of
transferable “soft skills,” including critical thinking, self-awareness, and communication.
What is tolerance and acceptance?
Tolerance is defined by Dictionary.com as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those
whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from
bigotry”. Acceptance is defined as “favorable reception; approval; favor”
What is the difference between tolerance understanding and acceptance?
According to the dictionary definitions, Tolerance infers “patience” while acceptance infers
“agreement”. In other words, you can tolerate something without accepting it, but you
cannot accept something without tolerating it.
What is the importance of tolerance of diversity for peace?
Being tolerant of each other and caring for each other is what makes us human. By
teaching tolerance, we allow individuality and diversity while promoting peace and civil society.
Our success in the struggle against intolerance depends on the effort we make to educate ourselves
and our children.

Module 2: Peace in Indian Tradition

The term used for peace in Indian tradition is ‘shānti’ which is so fundamental to life. It is
basically a greeting or salutation. It is the state of the mind where one really experiences the joy
and dynamism of life. The entire purpose of life is to maintain peace of mind and heart in order to
lead a meaningful life. The shanti mantras or peace mantrās are Hindu prayers for peace from the
Vedas. Generally speaking, they are recited at the beginning and end of religious rituals and
discourses. This is what is described in Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Buddhism. Lokāh
samastāh sukhino bhavantu is so central to the ancient sages. These mantrās remind us to maintain
peace and harmony in the world. Shanti mantrās are found in the Upanishads where they are
invoked at the beginning of some topics of Upanishads. They are supposed to calm the mind of
the reciter and his environment. Reciting them is also believed to be removing any obstacles to the
task being started. Shānti mantrās always end with the three utterances of the word ‘shānti’ which
means peace. The reason for uttering three times is to calm and removing obstacles in three realms
which are divine, physical, and internal. The Gita concept of Lokasamgraha (welfare of all) and
Vasudaiva Kudumbakam (earth as one family) etc. resonate with the need for peace in the world
at large because the world is a family. Mahatma Gandhi spoke of experiencing peace by way of
holding on to truth (satyagraha).
Indian tradition also speaks of the three basic elements of reality namely sattva, rajas, and
tamas. When these three elements are balanced in a person, he is peaceful. The domination of any
of them or the disregard for any of them will automatically disturb the equilibrium. A human
person experiences restlessness and a lack of peace in life due to different types of disturbances.
In the Indian tradition, we are told that there are three types of disturbances, namely, adhidaivika
(divine), adhibhautika (physical), and ādhyātmika (internal). In other words, according to the
scriptures of Hinduism, the sources of obstacles and troubles are in these three realms.
 10

Adhidaivikam literally means mental disturbance that comes from God. There are things
that are beyond our control. The divine restlessness comes from certain spirits etc. which are
beyond man. For example, earthquakes, floods, natural calamities like tsunamis, etc. come under
this. Here we pray ‘Om shānti’ saying that O’ God, may we be protected from all these obstacles
that are beyond our control.
Adhibhautikam literally means disturbances that come from the world. For example,
mosquitos, noisy neibhours, barking dogs, phone ringing, etc. which can spoil our dispositions.
Here we pray, ‘Om shānti,’ O’ God, may we be protected from the people and surroundings.
Ādhyātmikam literally means disturbances stemming from the self. One who is still
identified with the ego, people, and places experience no peace. The ego is the only obstacle to
true peace. Our attachment to the self, hatred, aversion, etc. causes a disturbance. Here we pray,
‘Om shānti,'O’ God, please remove all the inner obstacles. True peace comes from within.
Peace and the Concept of Dharma
The word shanti is used for peace in Indian tradition and it is associated with the term
Dharma, which comes from the root ‘dr’ and means to hold together or to sustain together. Dharma
is that which holds together or that which sustains the universe. It is translated as righteousness,
duty, religion, morality, etc. It speaks about the path of righteousness. Dharma means at the first
level the natural activity or propensity. For example, the Dharma of a dog is to eat and procreate.
The Dharma of God is to help people and other living beings. In ancient India, spiritual teachings
were equated with Dharma. There is a saying in the Indian tradition: “Dharmo rakshitah rakshatah”
which means “if you protect your religion or Dharma, your Dharma will protect you.” There are
swadharma, rājadharma, varnadharma etc. All Dharmās arise from God only. Hinduism itself is
Sanātana Dharma (eternal duty). It is God’s eternal duty shared by all from the highest to the
lowest, here and after. If we perform actions selfishly for our end, then we are not performing
God’s duties anymore and we become subject to their consequences (karma). God is the upholder
of Dharma and the order of the universe. Bhagavad Gita speaks of the stithaprajňa, the one who is
steadfast in wisdom and spiritual serenity and the importance of nishkāmakarma. In Mahabharatha,
we have the expression: “Dharmakshetre Kurukshetre.”
In Buddhism, the term used for Dharma is Dhamma (Pali). Buddha taught noble truths and
reminded his disciples to experience calmness of mind by way of eliminating all kinds of selfish
desires and human ignorance. Avidya (Ignorance) is the root cause of all disturbances. Real
happiness and peace are possible only with the elimination of ignorance. Buddhism believes that
peace can be attained once all suffering ends. They regard all suffering as stemming from cravings.
To eliminate such suffering and achieve personal peace, followers in the path of Buddha adhere to
a set of teachings called the Four Noble Truths which is the central tenet in Buddhist philosophy.
Jainism aims at conquering all human passions and becoming a conqueror (jīna). The one who has
become ‘jīna’ is a serene and peaceful person.

Module 3 Theories of Peace

i. Hobbes’s Theory of Peace
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1645), a British philosopher who is well-known for his political
philosophy, says the basic nature of a human being is ‘selfishness’ that characterizes him as a
social creature. Human beings are driven by two needs: survival and personal gain. Human life is
characterized by constant conflict-struggle, strife, and war. Man is a ferocious animal. He is of the
 11

view that man is exclusively selfish in all his actions and is not likely to perform any action if such
an action will be of no benefit to him.
1. There is no place for right and wrong, just and unjust in the ‘state of nature’. The only right is
the right of might. There is a condition of war of one against everyone in which case everyone is
governed by his own reason and there is nothing that he can make his life against his enemies. In
such conditions, every man has the right to everything. As long as this natural right of every man
to everything endures, there can be no security for any man. Consequently, it is a precept or general
rule of reason that every man tries to endeavor peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it and when
he cannot obtain it, he may seek and use all the help and advantages of war. Defense and peace
are the two requisites.
2. From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavor peace, is
derived the second law. Man has the right to everything. To lay down a man’s right to anything is
to divest himself of the liberty of hindering another of the benefit of his own right to the same.
Right is laid aside either by simply renouncing it or by transferring it to another. By renouncing,
he cares not to whom the benefit thereof. By transferring he intends the benefit thereof to some
persons. The mutual transferring of rights is that which man calls a contract.
The individuals are in a state of war against each other for self-preservation and gain. The
‘war of all against all’ will eventually create a state of anarchy. Therefore, it is the task of the state
to control anarchy by maintaining peace with force. This required an agreement or contract by
which individuals renounce and pledge their rights for self-preservation to the sovereign power of
the state. The state in turn assures peace and security to its citizens. Thus, the power of citizens
had to be transferred to one single sovereign or a collective body that combined their will. A good
relationship between the sovereign and his people is indispensable in the peace process. The
powerful outsider or external enemy unites a state and provides stability in social life. Whereas a
weak dissident insider may attract social persuasion in state oppression. The main features of the
Hobbsian concept of State are as follows; 1. The absolute sovereignty of strong central authority
2. State which is superior to individuals/citizens 3. Sharp demarcation to the outside world. It is
on this premise that Hobbes begins his discussion on the causes of quarrels in human society. He
points out three origins of quarrels namely, competition or pursuit of gain, desire for safety
(diffidence), and desire for recognition (glory).
ii. Gandhi on Moral and the Soul Force of Satyagraha
Mahatma Gandhi was considered to be one of the greatest moral teachers of the 20 th
century. He was himself a powerful and magnetic moral force. His search for truth was crystallized
in his great vision of Satyagraha. The Sanskrit word satyagraha is composed of Satya (truth) and
agraha (holding on). Literally, it means holding on to the truth. Since truth is God, satyagraha is
the way of life of the one who holds steadfastly to God and dedicates his life to Him. It is a true
force. It cannot be translated into ‘passive resistance’ because passive resistance is characterized
by hatred and violence. It is carried out either against an individual or against a part of the
administrative system whereas satyagraha is moving against the system as a whole. Passive
resistance is the weapon of the weak whereas satyagraha is the weapon of the brave. Therefore, it
is a synonym for force. Satyagraha is a new name for ‘the law of self-suffering’. Truth implies
love and firmness. Its goal is to overcome evil by good, hatred by love, untruth by truth, and
violence by non-violence. Satyagraha acts positively and suffers from cheerfulness because of love
and makes the suffering fruitful.
 12

Gandhi’s quest for Truth rests on the foundation of non-violence. For conflict resolution,
he used the method of satyagraha which has three pillars. 1. Satyagraha is a way of life founded
on satya. It is a relentless search for truth and a determination to search for truth. This implies
openness, honesty, and fairness. 2. Satyagraha refuses to inflict injury on others and never
considers the opponents as enemies. It is inspired by boundless love and compassion. It is opposed
to sin, not sinners, evil, and not evildoers. It involves the general process of conversion by love
and true patience. The purpose of satyagraha is conversion and never coercion. It aims at winning
over a man by the power of love and gentle persuasion and by arousing in him a sense of justice
rather than forcing him to submit out of fear and embarrassment. 3. Satyagraha promotes
willingness for self-sacrifice. He must be willing to make any sacrifice that is occasioned by the
struggle which he has initiated, rather than push such sacrifice or suffering onto his opponent.
Gandhi describes the essential qualities of a satyagrahi based on satya and ahimsa. 1. A
satyagrahi must have a living faith in God that is satya. 2. He should have faith in the inherent
goodness of human nature which he expects to evoke by his truth and love expressed through his
suffering. 3. He should have moral purity in his personal life. 4. He must be a habitual wearer of
khadi and an ardent supporter of swadeshi. 5. He must be fearless in the face of odds. 6. He must
be open-minded to see the other points of view. 7. He should carry out with a willing heart all the
rules of discipline as may be laid down from time to time.

Techniques of Satyagraha
1. Non-cooperation
2. Civil disobedience: Civil disobedience can be defined as an intentional act of a citizen who
violates a valid law for the purpose of registering a moral protest against the state.
3. Fasting and Prayer
4. Boycott: It refers to voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, and dealing with a person.
Certain products for sale are not bought.
5. Hartāl: It is a Gujarati term used by Gandhi which simply means shutting down shops and
offices as a political protest.
6. Strikes: There are different types of strikes (indefinite strikes)
7. Picketing and peace marches: It is a form of protest in which people gather outside the
place of work.
8. Hijārat or Desa Tyāga: It refers to voluntary migration from the land as the last resort as a
protest.
iii. The Theory of John Rawls (1921-2002)
John Rawls is a well-known American philosopher who specialized in political philosophy.
He has written four major books namely; The Theory of Justice, Justice as Fairness, The Law of
Peoples, and The Political Liberalism. John Rawls claims that justice is the first virtue of social
institutions. Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence,
charity, generosity, and compassion. It has been traditionally associated with concepts like fate,
reincarnation, or divine providence. The association of justice with fairness has been historically
and culturally rare and is perhaps a modern innovation in Western societies. The following two
principles summarize the thoughts of John Rawls. Firstly, each person is to have an equal right to
the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties
for others. The basic liberties of citizens are political liberty (to vote and run an office), freedom
of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property, etc. The second
 13

principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be corrected so that they are to be of the
greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.
In the book The Law of Peoples, Rawls addressed the issue of justice beyond the borders
of our society. He believes that well-off societies have significant obligations toward struggling
societies. However, there is a lack of focus on obligation towards individuals who are currently
destitute in other countries. Rawls urges in his book that ‘well-ordered’ peoples have to assist
burdened societies; that is those societies that lack the political and cultural traditions, the human
capital and know-how, and the material and technological resources needed to be well-ordered.
The duty extends only to the requirement of assistance to help the societies to become ‘well-
ordered’ by which Rawls means a society that is designed to advance the good of its members and
is effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. He emphasizes the need for societies to
develop a suitable culture, for he conjectures that there is no society anywhere in the world with
resources so scarce that they cannot become well-ordered. This conjecture may or may not be
correct, but the emphasis on the need for a change of culture leaves untouched the plight of
individuals who are dying from starvation, malnutrition, or easily preventable diseases.

The Rawlsian Ideas

Rawls points out his main ideas in explaining distributive justice. First and foremost is the
concept of the basic structure as the subject. In any development, the basic structures should be
maintained. This could be done in three ways 1. Co-ordination: there are many ways of doing
something. The outcome of coordination is peace. 2. Co-operation: if the various societies and
nations cooperate, there will be a peaceful situation. 3. Re-distribution: Individuals benefit from
entering into relations that exhibit solidarity. For example, they may agree to pool certain risks in
the face of uncertainties.
Secondly, the conception of justice must be free-standing: Rawls argues that a conception
of justice suitable for a pluralistic society must not depend for any of its essential premises upon
controversial religious, philosophical, or moral views. On the contrary, it must be capable of
serving as the object of an overlapping consensus among those who are deeply divided over
questions of value.
Thirdly, justice includes efficiency: Rawls believes that efficiency is not merely a practical
consideration, it is a normative principle that must be incorporated into the theory of justice.

iv. Kant’s concept of Morally Autonomous Being

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher, was one of the main Enlightenment
thinkers. Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be
one’s person. To be autonomous means to be one’s own person, not guided by an external force.
It also implies the idea of living one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s
own and not the product of manipulative external force. It is a central value in the Kantian tradition
of moral philosophy. In the Western tradition, individual autonomy is a basic moral and political
value. The idea is that moral principles and obligations, as well as the political legitimacy of
political authority, should be grounded in the self-governing individual considered apart from
various contingencies of place, culture, and social relations.
Autonomy plays various roles in theoretical accounts of a person’s conceptions of moral
obligation and responsibility, the justification of social policies, and numerous aspects of political
theory. It forms the core of the Kantian conception of practical reason. Moral autonomy refers to
the capacity to impose moral law on oneself. For Kant, it is a fundamental organizing principle of
 14

all morality. Personal autonomy should be distinguished from freedom. Freedom concerns the
ability to act without external or internal constraints and also with sufficient resources and power
to make one’s desires effective. Autonomy can be used to refer to both the global condition
(autonomous personhood) and more as a local notion (autonomous relative to a particular trait).
Autonomy includes responsibility, independence, and being authentic. Lacking autonomy invites
sympathy. Autonomy implies the actual condition of self-government and one’s sovereignty over
oneself. The ideas of self-rule contain two components namely, independence of one’s deliberation
and the capacity to rule oneself. To govern oneself, one must be in a position to act competently
based on desires (values, conditions, etc.) that are in some sense one’s own.
For Kant, the self-imposition of the universal moral law is the ground of moral obligation.
In short, practical reason implies our ability to use reason to choose our own actions and it
presupposes that we understand ourselves as free. The capacity to impose ourselves the moral law
is the ultimate source of all moral values. To value anything means the ability to make value
judgments generally.

Kantian Theory of Perpetual Peace

Kant argues that world peace can be achieved only by a free and morally motivated exercise
of human will, which must be seen as being compatible with the natural course of history but it
cannot be considered as a merely natural phenomenon. Kant’s position on perpetual peace is that
the natural history of humankind might itself bring about perpetual peace. More clearly, the
achievement of perpetual peace can only be accomplished through the moral exercise of free
human will.1
Kant explains that there is in man a power of self-determination independent of any
coercion. Through sensuous impulses, this power of self-determination manifests in the ought is
the will. That means autonomous will gives itself its law. The autonomous principle of the
Categorical imperative2 commands nothing other than its autonomy. 3 Kant holds that there can
only be perpetual peace if all states become republics governed by the will of the whole people-
morally autonomous persons- rather than by the force of the autocrats.4
Perpetual peace refers to a state of affairs where peace is permanently established over a
certain area. The term perpetual peace became acknowledged when Kant published his essay
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795). The means to achieve perpetual peace are the
following:
No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by
inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation
No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state
Exclusion of secret reservations in treaties between states for future war
The forbidding of the acquisition by any means of one state by another
The gradual abolition of standing armies

1 Cf. Paul Guyer, Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness (London, 2000) p. 408.
2 Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a ‘categorical imperative.’ It is imperative
because it is a command (e.g., “Leave the gun. Take the cannula”). More precisely, it commands us to exercise our
wills in a particular way, not to perform some action or other.
3 Cf. Howard Caygill, A Kant Dictionary (Maldane, 1995) pp. 88, 414.
4 Cf. Guyer, Kant, p. 294.
 15

The forbidding of raising national debts for external affairs

Respect for the laws of war.5
Kant suggests three points that would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a
foundation on which to build peace:

The civil constitution of every state should be republican

The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states
The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality

Module 4 Peace and International Society: The Concept of Equality

The present century has seen dramatic changes in moral attitudes. The change in attitudes
to inequality has been no less sudden and dramatic than the change in attitudes to sex, but it has
been more complete. The principle that all human beings are equal is now part of the prevailing
political and ethical orthodoxy. Once we question the basis of the principle that all humans are
equal and seek to apply this principle to particular cases, the consensus starts to weaken. Some
philosophers and lawyers have argued that the principle of equality requires that when allocating
jobs or university places we should ensure that places are given to members of oppressed
minorities. Others have contended that the same principle of equality rules out any discrimination
on racial grounds. We can only answer these questions only if we are clear about what we mean
by equality. Hence a need for an inquiry into the ethical foundations of the principle of equality.
When we say that all humans are equal irrespective of race or sex, what exactly are we
claiming? Racists, sexists, and other opponents of equality have often pointed out that it simply is
not true that all humans are equal. The plain fact is that humans differ and the differences apply to
so many characteristics that the search for a factual basis on which to erect the principle of equality
seems hopeless. John Rawls maintains that moral personality is the basis of human equality.
There are problems with using moral personality as the basis of equality. One objection is
that moral personality is a matter of degree. Some people are highly sensitive to issues of justice
and ethics generally; others for a variety of reasons have only a very limited awareness of such
principles. The suggestion that being a moral person is the minimum necessary for coming within
the scope of the principle of equality still leaves it open just where this minimal line is to be drawn 6.
Human Rights
Every year December 10 is celebrated as Human Rights Day. Human rights are “basic
rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic
origin, race, religion, language, or another status” 7. Human rights are freedoms that are granted
equally to all persons without distinction. In a sense, human rights are universally recognized
standards of behavior. Human rights issues include adequate homing, basic education, human
rights and climate change, civil and political rights, disability and human rights, etc. The violation
of these standards by states or other agents may give rise to situations that lead to the creation of

5 Cf. Caygill, A Kant Dictionary, p. 314.

6 Cf. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, pp. 15-17.
7 “Amnesty Basic Definition of Human Rights”. Amnesty International. http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-

rights-basics. Retrieved 19 June 2011.

 16

refugees. Refugees by definition are victims of human rights violations. Viewing the refugee
problem in the context of human rights is relevant. The origin of international system of refugee
protection as codified in International Refugee Law grew out of concern for the plight of refugees
fleeing from the troubles of post-war Europe.
The idea of developing a system of law that protects the human rights of individuals is also
nothing new. Many states have been established on the basis that individuals have certain inherent
rights that must be respected by the state. The idea of establishing a system of human rights law at
the international level is a more recent development for which the United Nations has been a
catalytic institution. The UN Charter (1945) proclaims in its Preamble that “promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to
race, sex, language or religion” is the primary purpose of the United Nations.
Among the international human rights treaties, India is a party to the two international
covenants in addition to the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination, the convention on the rights of the child, and the convention on the elimination of
all forms of discrimination against women. On a regional basis, several human rights treatises have
also been adopted including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
fundamental freedom. In the international system of human rights protection, the grant of asylum
by a state to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) cannot be regarded as an unfriendly act by another state. This was made in post-World War
II in the context of different problems and this Charter contains 30 articles. The Amnesty
International Organization aims at promoting human rights in the world (1961 in London).
Human Rights Issues
1. Adequate Homing
2. The Issue of Children
3. Civil and Political Rights
4. Human Rights and Climate change
5. Cultural Rights
6. Disability and Human Rights
7. Education
8. Discrimination
9. Food
Using Human Rights to Enhance the Protection of Refugees
To prevent refugee flows, the UN and others (NGO’s) are providing technical assistance
to states within a general human rights framework. This includes the promotion of human rights
standards through the training of judges, lawyers, and human rights activities, giving substance to
educational rights by funding the construction of new schools in war-torn countries, and promoting
economic rights, community-based projects focused on assisting in returning refugees. As part of
the development of human rights principles through UN Conventions, several international treaty
bodies or committees have been established to investigate violations, enforce standards, and assist
states in implementing their ready obligations. These bodies have the authority to examine periodic
state-party reports regarding the implementation of the treaty provisions. Human rights NGOs have
played a key role in educating members of the International and domestic human rights
 17

communities on the linkages between safeguarding human rights and refugee protection. These
initiatives have firmly entrenched human rights issues in relation to the refugee problem.
The Need for a Legal Framework for Protecting Refugees in South Asia
The refugee issue is an age-old problem in India throughout South Asia. The formation of
the modern Indian state coincided with a massive exodus and influx of displaced persons. Today
the refugee population in India is about 260,000 persons. While the government of India
recognizes Tibetans, Chakmas (Bangladesh refugees), and Sri Lankan Tamils as refugees, other
groups are not recognized and are considered foreign nationals temporarily residing in India. In
the Indian context, influxes of refugees have been handled by administrative decisions rather than
through specific legislative enactments. Some specific groups of asylum seekers from neighboring
countries have been accepted as refugees. The Indian government does not recognize certain
refugee groups such as the Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Somalis, Sudanese, and those from Myanmar
(Burma).

Death, Responsibility, Justice

Death brings new possibilities with ending existing geopolitical certainties, possibilities in
the form of funerary baroque. Explorations into the geopolitical ramifications of the so-called
terror deaths can go far. These geopolitical ramifications suggest a new form of war. Death is an
occasion for states to come to sense, the return of the state. Revolution needs deaths, but more than
that a statist counter-revolution needs death as the necessary protocol.
Responsibility is gone with each period of restoration when the victorious power uses
violence indiscriminately, to show the event of restoration is final. The civil wars of mutual claims
of recognition and determination have done away with every sense of responsibility, restoration of
trust, and a just reconciliation of claims. A discriminatory history of responsibility encourages the
global powers to wage new wars. The history of wars and militarism in the Third World loses its
own social and economic specificity in the global mirror. In this world of power interrogated by
considerations of responsibility, more and more the terrain is shifting to the notion of justice that
questions every form of power. Claiming power on behalf of a state to curb violence is not enough
today. To show that the claim is just and responsible is equally important. The challenge to the
state from within and without is now on this new ground which has the advantage of forcing the
most reluctant power to converse and communicate. Such a notion of justice has the added
advantage of crossing the judicial limits of the state. In terms of political technique, it inverts the
moral fabric of the reasons of the state. And in terms of political ethics, this inversion is negative.
It replaces the state agenda with an agenda of expanding the political community, violence with
accommodation, revenge with reconciliation, rights with justice, and power with responsibility.
The potential of an ethical interrogation of political power in terms of responsibility is already
evident. We thus find ourselves in strange times when on the one hand the original challengers to
state theories of dominance have laid their weapons down and on the other hand those who won
the great battle of ideas of the last century are withdrawing from their positions in a moral
language.

In stepping beyond the current wisdom about the congruence between power and
responsibility, received by us from neo-realism and neo-ethics, what is needed is a reconstitution
of the relations between the two. Power is supposed to be accompanied by responsibility, while
experiences of the last century show the powerless have shown responsibility and responsible
conduct has produced a different sense of power that is markedly different from the ruling domains
 18

of power. The failure of the colonial administration to become responsible to the people and the
near-total failure of the government of today to become responsible for the desires and demands
of the people mark the collapse of what is called colonial ‘constitutionalism.’

Interpretation of the term Truce between War

The Charter of International Military Tribunal (IMT) was set up by the Allies (France, the
Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, set up the IMT in Nuremberg in 1945,
to persecute and punish the major war criminals of the European Axis) to try the leading Nazi war
criminals at Nuremberg, gave it jurisdiction over three kinds of crimes: 1. Crimes against peace,
2. War crimes, and 3. Crimes against humanity. In promulgating this Charter, the Allies declared
it a “crime against peace” to initiate a war of aggression; a war crime to murder, ill-treat, or deport
either civilians or prisoners of war; a “crime against humanity” to murder, exterminate, enslave or
deport any civilian population or to persecute them on political, racial or religious grounds. These
acts, the Charter of the Tribunal stated, are crimes whether or not in violation of the domestic law
of the country where perpetrated 8.
Criteria for Humanitarian Intervention
Punishing criminals after an atrocity has occurred is something that most people would
support because of their belief that this is what justice requires. From a utilitarian perspective,
punishing those guilty of past crimes will put others who might do something similar on notice
that they will have no refuge from justice. Since the fear of punishment will not always be
sufficient to prevent crimes from taking place, the question of intervention will still arise. If
punishment can be justified, so can intervention to stop a crime that is about to occur or already in
progress. Kant wrote a “philosophical sketch” entitled Perpetual Peace in which he argued that no
state should by force interfere with the constitution and government of another state. Humanitarian
intervention is justified when it is a response to acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind.
The criteria for justifiable military action are two: 1. A large-scale loss of life and 2. Large-scale
ethnic cleansing.
The Authority of the United Nations
The UN is authorized to protect individual human beings. The Charter of UNO refers to
threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. The Charter places two sets of
obligations on its members, to respect human rights and not to interfere in the internal matters of
another state. The violation of human rights in itself is a threat to international peace. That the
existence of tyranny itself constitutes a threat to international peace. That the rights of domestic
jurisdiction retained by the states do not extend to committing crimes against humanity, nor to
allowing them to be committed within one’s domestic jurisdiction. The Sovereign States who
drafted the Charter were dedicated to peace. They knew the terror of conflicts but knew equally
that there were times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace. Democracies
are the best guardians of peace. No war has ever occurred between two democratic states.
Disobedience: Civil or otherwise
If we draw together our conclusions on the use of illegal means to achieve laudable ends,
we shall find that there are reasons why we should normally accept the verdict of an established
peaceful method of settling disputes. These reasons are particularly strong when the decision
procedure is democratic and the verdict represents a genuine majority view. There are still

8 Cf. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (Hyderabad, 2002), p.113.
 19

situations in which the use of illegal means can be justified. In civil disobedience, the use of illegal
means can be regarded as an extension of the use of legal means to secure a genuinely democratic
decision. The extension may be necessary because the normal channels for securing reform are not
working properly. On some issues, parliamentary representatives are overly influenced by skilled
and well-paid special interests. In others, the public is unaware of what is happening. Perhaps, the
abuse requires administrative rather than legislative change. Perhaps the legitimate interests of a
minority are being ignored by prejudiced officials. In all these cases, the new standard forms of
civil disobedience-passive resistance, and marches-are appropriate.

Johan Galtung’s Idea of Peace

Johan Vincent Galtung’s (born on 24 October 1930, a Norwegian sociologist and the
pioneer founder of peace and conflict studies) first-hand experience of living during World War II
had an impact on his life and he began to search for peaceful solutions to conflict. He has
contributed to peace research through numerous books, articles, and papers and he also mediated
successfully in over 100 international conflicts. His unique imprint on the study of conflict and
peace stems from a combination of systematic inquiry and Gandhian ethics of peaceful means and
harmony. He has developed many important theories such as the distinction between positive and
negative peace, structural violence, theories on conflict and conflict resolution, and theories on
conflict of imperialism. He founded the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO) in
1959, the world’s first research institute with the word peace in its name, and in 1964, he founded
the Journal of Peace Research, which is one of the leading journals in this field.
Galtung’s theory of peace is based on one underlying principle ‘peace is the absence of
violence’. In this sense, Galtung’s is as much a theory that defines violence as it is a theory about
peace. He classified violence into three categories, namely structural violence, and cultural and
direct violence. In structural violence, there may not be any person who directly harms another
person in the structure. Violence is built into the structure and shows unequal power and
consequently unequal life chances. Hunger and poverty are two examples of structural violence
that increase because of unjust policies and the economic system. Cultural violence defends the
injustice and bias perpetrated by structural violence 9.

Dalai Lama’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech (1989)

Your Majesty, Members of the Nobel Committee, Brothers and Sisters

I am very happy to be here with you today to receive the Nobel Prize for Peace. I feel
honored, humbled, and deeply moved that you should give this important prize to a simple monk
from Tibet I am no one special. But I believe the prize is a recognition of the true value of altruism,
love, compassion, and non-violence which I try to practice, in accordance with the teachings of
the Buddha and the great sages of India and Tibet
I accept the prize with profound gratitude on behalf of the oppressed everywhere and for
all those who struggle for freedom and work for world peace. I accept it as a tribute to the man
who founded the modern tradition of non-violent action for change Mahatma Gandhi whose life
taught and inspired me. And, of course, I accept it on behalf of the six million Tibetan people, my

9Cf. A George, “Johan Galtung’s Peace Journalism”, in Divyadan: Journal of Philosophy and Education, Vol. 29,
No. 2 (2018), pp. 209-230.
 20

brave countrymen, and women inside Tibet, who have suffered and continue to suffer so much.
They confront a calculated and systematic strategy aimed at the destruction of their national and
cultural identities. The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage, and determination
as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated.
No matter what part of the world we come from, we are all basically the same human
beings. We all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering. We have the same basic human needs
and its concerns. All of us human beings want freedom and the right to determine our own destiny
as individuals and as people. That is human nature. The great changes that are taking place
everywhere in the world, from Eastern Europe to Africa are a clear indication of this.
In China, the popular movement for democracy was crushed by brutal force in June this
year. But I do not believe the demonstrations were in vain, because the spirit of freedom was
rekindled among the Chinese people and China cannot escape the impact of this spirit of freedom
sweeping many parts of the world. The brave students and their supporters showed the Chinese
leadership and the world the human face of that great nation.
Last week a number of Tibetans were once again sentenced to prison terms up to nineteen
years at a mass show trial, possibly intended to frighten the population before today's event. Their
only ‘crime’ was the expression of the widespread desire of Tibetans for the restoration of their
beloved country's independence.
The suffering of our people during the past forty years of occupation is well documented.
Ours has been a long struggle. We know our cause is just because violence can only breed more
violence and suffering, our struggle must remain non-violent and free of hatred. We are trying to
end the suffering of our people, not to inflict suffering upon others
It is with this in mind that I proposed negotiations between Tibet and China on numerous
occasions. In 1987, I made specific proposals in a Five-Point plan for the restoration of peace and
human rights in Tibet. This included the conversion of the entire Tibetan plateau into a Zone of
Ahimsa, a sanctuary of peace and non-violence where human beings and nature can live in peace
and harmony
Last year, I elaborated on that plan in Strasburg, at the European Parliament. I believe the
ideas I expressed on those occasions are both realistic and reasonable although they have been
criticized by some of my people as being too conciliatory. Unfortunately, China's leaders have not
responded positively to the suggestions we have made, which included important concessions. If
this continues, we will be compelled to reconsider our position.
Any relationship between Tibet and China will have to be based on the principle of
equality, respect, trust, and mutual benefit. It will also have to be based on the principle that the
wise rulers of Tibet and of China laid down in a treaty as early as 823 AD, carved on the pillar
which still stands today in front of the Jokhang, Tibet's holiest shrine, in Lhasa, that “Tibetans will
live happily in the great land of Tibet, and the Chinese will live happily in the great land of China”.
As a Buddhist monk, my concern extends to all members of the human family and, indeed,
to all sentient beings who suffer. I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain
on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a
sense of brotherhood and sisterhood. We need to cultivate a universal responsibility for one another
and the planet we share. Although I have found my own Buddhist religion helpful in generating
love and compassion, even for those we consider our enemies, I am convinced that everyone can
develop a good heart and a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion.
With the ever-growing impact of science on our lives, religion, and spirituality have a
greater role to play in reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two.
 21

Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell
us of the fundamental unity of all things. This understanding is crucial if we are to take positive
and decisive action on the pressing global concern with the environment.
I believe all religions pursue the same goals, that of cultivating human goodness and
bringing happiness to all human beings. Though the means might appear different the ends are the
same.
As we enter the final decade of this century, I am optimistic that the ancient values that
have sustained mankind are today reaffirming themselves to prepare us for a kinder, happier
twenty-first century.
I pray for all of us, oppressor and friend, that together we succeed in building a better world
through human understanding and love, and that in doing so we may reduce the pain and suffering
of all sentient beings.
Thank you
University Aula, Oslo, 10 December 1989.
References
1. Anto Cheranthuruthy, Class notes, PVP, Vadavathoor, 2020.
2. Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer, Johan Galtung: Pioneer of Peace Research (New
York/London: Springer, 2013).
3. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization, Second edition (Hyderabad: Orient
Longman, 2004).
4. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
5. Ranabira Samadhara (ed.), Peace Studies (London: Sage Publications, 2004).

The Prayer for Peace (St. Francis Assisi)

Make me a channel of your peace

Where there is hatred let me bring your love
Where there is injury your pardon Lord
And where there’s doubt true faith in you

Ch: Oh’ Master grant that I may never seek

So much to be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
To be loved as to love with all my heart.

Make me a channel of your peace

Where there is despair in life let me bring hope
Where there is darkness, Lord, your shining light
And where there’s sadness ever joy

Make me a channel of your peace

It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
In giving to all men that we receive
And in dying that we are born to eternal life.