Anybody in the Manipur, in fact almost the entire northeast theatre of conflict, would not have realised how complex and complicated peace can be even a few decades ago. Now there would be few, if anybody, who does not understand this. One thing is certain. Peace is not merely an absence of violence. It is much more. It is a complete state of mind forged by an overwhelming sense of justice and security.
Understandably, this is a utopian condition to strive for always, without being under any illusion that it is totally achievable. Advocating peace in this way is rather ironic, much like the insurance company which by the logic of their business have to set about soliciting prospective customers, conjuring up macabre situations to instil in them an acute sense of vulnerability to fate, thus making it sound prudent for them to insure their lives and properties with the company at a premium. However, once enlisted, the company would then be wishing none of the macabre situations they evoked ever becomes reality, for every catastrophe that befalls their customers or the latter’s insured properties, would be a business loss for them.
We say this because as in this situation, there is one other thing about the quest for peace which seems equally certain, and this one is rather disturbing. If the classical academic approach of depending on bare data as referral point and evidence of a phenomenon were to be totally relied on, it would seem violence and wars are an uneasy part of human destiny. If human history, and indeed the pre-historical mythological era were to be scanned, much to our unease, it would be discovered there has never been a community or period which has not known violence and wars.
Even in the Bible, if the first sin was that of the eating the forbidden fruit by Eve and Adam, the first crime was that of a murder in the dispute between the first-born children of Adam and Eve – Cain and Abel. Cain killed his younger brother Abel. Likewise, violence forms an inextricable part of every mythology belonging to every other religion and community.
German author and Literature Nobel Prize winner, Gunter Grass, had a very nice and humorous way of describing this ironic situation in his book “My Century” which sketches the general mood at various momentous junctures of the 20th Century, the century Grass lived and experienced. In the build up to World War-I for instance, to capture the mood in middle class Germany amidst a dangerously escalating arms race in Europe, he makes two German friends correspond with each other on the situation, and one of them at the end of an exchange of letters concludes his note with the words “I like to be a prince of peace, but a well-armed one.”
Grass is a known opponent of war, and many of us would remember his open criticism of former American President George W Bush, for his invasion of Iraq. In the mix of emotions in the letter quoted, one which tells of an overall insecurity which caused the arms race, juxtaposed against a false sense of security at being well-armed, Grass conveyed the sense that this is no solution to violence, and indeed, rather than stop the World War-I, such a mood hastened it. Indeed, we too have no doubt, there can be nothing as a peaceful weapon, or a “peace N-bomb”.
It is easier said than done, but peace efforts will have to undergo a paradigm shift. It must cease to be about a balance of weapons or military strength. It must on the other hand be forged through a deepening of democratic values, and its spirit of problem resolution through rational discourses, based not just on the selfish belief of what one perceives as one’s rights alone, but also of the rights of others even when this means a little compromise on one’s own self presumed entitlements.
Incidentally, this fact is supported by empirical data. As the UN Human Development Report, 2003 noted, ever since WW-II, democratic countries have seldom gone to war with each other. In this sense, it is unimaginable now that countries of Western Europe would ever go to war with each other again, for they have evolved other much more effective democratic means of resolving conflict. But for such a condition to come about, the balance of insecurity so pronounced in regions where democracy and its values have not sunk deep enough, must first be overcome. All must agree to be princes of peace without the need for arms to guarantee security.
Manipur, and its many communities, most urgently need to reflect on this and agree to settle all their outstanding disputes through democratic dialogues and negotiations, and not continue to live under the illusion weapons are the ultimate guarantor of peace and security.
Editor, Imphal Review of Arts and Politics and author
