PEACE FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

The correct approach to peace is to associate it with opportunities for constructive engagement, rather than linking it with the pursuit of justice.

Some scholars define peace as ‘the absence of war.’ But people who have unleashed war in different places in the name of rights and justice do not accept this definition. They argue that there is nothing as peace for the sake of peace, or peace for its own sake. According to these people, the peace that is acceptable is peace with justice, not peace without justice.

But this is an example of unrealistic thinking. The fact is that peace needs to be established first. Once peace is established, conducive conditions then emerge that make it possible for people to avail of the available opportunities. A situation of war is an obstacle to availing of opportunities. Establishing peace for its own sake enables people to remove obstacles in this path. By availing opportunities in a climate of peace, people can eventually obtain the rights or justice that they seek.

If a person’s thinking is such that he sets conditions for establishing peace with his opponent, that is, only if, along with peace, he also gets what he regards as justice, he will never attain peace, nor will he secure justice. Such peace is simply not possible in this world for anyone. This sort of thinking is not in line with the law of Nature, and so it can never produce a positive outcome. The right way of thinking in this matter is that peace must be linked with opportunities for engaging in positive actions, and not with obtaining justice.