Are Peace and Non-Violence Outdated Concepts?

Peace & Non-Violence reminds us of NAM.

NAM is a group of people that are not formally aligned or against any major power bloc.

The question is not only whether it has any relevance or validity to India or any other countries post-cold war era of today but also if the policy has served the young nation as it was believed it would do in defending & promoting the national interest.

One of the unfortunate aspects of the foreign policy debate in our country has been that there has been no debate.

The argument was that we needed peace in the world to devote all our energies and resources to development work. It was India's role and duty to prevent from being sucked into the ideological war. The non-aligned community made an important contribution in arresting the deadly rivalry between capitalism and communism and thus saved India, and other non-aligned countries, from becoming pawns in the global game of the super powers.

On the whole, NAM did not bring any particular benefit, political or economic, to India. India does not need to belong to an amorphous group or give any label to its foreign policy to achieve its goals. We do not need to hanker after leadership. Leadership has to be recognised by the followers, it cannot be a self-appointed affair. India has to be a strong power, not to bully anyone but merely to defend itself against the hostile forces in the region. An economically strong India, which alone can become militarily strong, will earn respect and leadership.

Pragmatism, and not a profession to some outdated concept, must be the guiding principle of our diplomacy.

Hello guys.

Today the real meaning of peace is not really understood properly. When you ask what peace means to a school-going guy like me, he would say "when there are no wars". An office-going man would say "when there is violence". But what do "peace" and "non-violence" really mean? There is no real 'definition' for these words, just like there isn't for a pen or a country. But it really 'means' a lot.

I understand 'peace' as when everyone is cool from the mind, can think clearly and understand and respect others. So basically, peace doesn't just mean "when there are no wars" or "when there is violence". Then what is non-violence?

Violence is generally accepted as when there is unrest or disturbance, which leads to directly and (mostly) physically harming someone or some people. So non-violence is when a disturbance rises, you handle it 'peacefully' and not 'violently'.

Coming to the main question : are these terms outdated? The obvious answer is NO, they aren't. These thing apply to humanity as a whole and are definitely very, very important and ever-essential for our very survival. If there is violence, all life is bound to disappear. More importantly, there have to be 'feelings' and 'sympathy for others'.

So, these aren't just words that have become history like/and Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They continue to be here forever and are ever-modern. How is one even supposed to exist without these?

I vehemently believe that peace and non-violence uphold the spirit of mankind in the truest sense. Man was never meant to be violent. It is unfortunate that the scenario has changed drastically. We are all stuck in the rat race and have tendencies to outplay others by employing shallow means. One must understand that there is a thin line between violence and aggression. It is high time that non-violent men and women raise their voice against violence through peaceful demonstrations and buttress and propagate the concept of peace. Fighting for your rights is not violence provided you don't hurt anyone in the process intentionally. Wars has never done good to mankind if one views the world as one entity. It is true that wars have eliminated or destroyed certain evils in the world. But at what cost? At the cost of lives of innocent and ingenuous men and women being devastated?Is that justified?There are always more peaceful ways to combat terrorism and violence I. E through dialogues and better intelligence etc. Therefore, to conclude I believe that peace and non-violence will never ever be out-dated concepts-rather they are essential for the survival of mankind as a whole.

Definition : Nonviolence is the personal practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition. It comes from the belief that hurting people, animals or the environment is unnecessary to achieve an outcome and refers to a general philosophy of abstention from violence based on moral, religious or spiritual principles.

FOR THE MOTION :

1. A big example where non-violence was easily applicable, Muzaffarnagar riots. A muslim youngster teasing a Hindu Jaat girl. This issue could have been resolved by filing an FIR against the youngster and getting him penalized. Instead he was murder and one thing led to another and eventuating into inter-communal violence. Over 1000 people died, 2500 injured and around 50,000 displaced.

2. Non-Violence is applicable to every contentious issue provided the people are ready to amicably resolve it.

3. Violence and vandalizing does not bring about any result rather aggravates the situation further.

The widespread destruction in due course eventually costs huge to the bearer.

4. Many sensitive inter-religious issues can be contained peacefully without use of violence which is better for both the people and the environment.

Well I think when it comes to your home your personal matters your state. Things can be sought out by peace and non violence. Corruption is that which we have created our ministers have created and it can be dealt by peace and non violence. But I must state everything can't be achieve by alone peace and nonviolence. There are things situations where we have to fight where we have to be violent and it is not at all wrong if we are fighting for something good. If these terrorist are attacking us we must attack them too, here peace and violence fails.

If the other community or country is violent then we have to be violent. Even if you are talking about our country past that because of "only" Gandhi ji and his non violence and peace activities we got independence. I am sorry whosoever stated this was not exactly correct. Our revolutionaries who shed their blood for us for our country not Gandhi ji. They were the people who never died but sacrificed their life for us. They were the real heroes behind our independence. At the end I must contribute that peace and non violence can't work everywhere we have to be violent for the violent terms.

To resolve matters, one must have a clear mind. If a meeting aimed at solving an issue is held, and we approach it with a hot headed attitude, obviously the expected results cannot be attained. Human beings have the ability to think and reason with others. I believe that a peaceful mind is necessary for one to reach a sensible conclusion, one that is not cluttered or affected by thoughts of violence. Decisions taken under the influence may solve an issue temporarily but it may lead to greater problems in the future. A decision taken after careful contemplation and logical reasoning will surely have a positive impact. But there are people in this world, who are too stubborn to reason, or to sit down at a table and discuss matters peacefully, I would suggest the path of peace to them, but if that doesn't work, I bet a strong hand is what it takes to bring such people to understand. Let me quote, "An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind", So, I don't believe that non violence can always bring a solution to a problem, but as my friends said above, if you can't deal it with any other way, this is the way you have to choose.

Peace and Non-violence can never be outdated concepts. In the past, Mahatama Gandhi ended the rule of Britishers over India by strictly non-violent means. And even in the current scenario, recently, Anna Hazare had set such a great example in front of the world by fighting the corruption disease in a non-violent and peaceful way, in which he succeeded. Hence, no doubt Peace and non-violence are Result-oriented tools. A Simple Boycott to a guilty person or organization can make him/it feel its guilt, there would be a change in its soul, which any war can never bring.

Although in some situations, we can raise our hands along with our voice. But that should be in a self-defence. There is a clean difference between Self-Defence and Violence. People must understand that if someone is trying to hit us with anything, we can reply him on the spot by giving him the taste of his own medicine, but the first hand must not be raised by us. Our Constitution also states that we can be violent in case of a self-defence action, it is in our human rights.

Well, according to me Nonviolence and peace are weapons that are powerful enough to combat with the most dangerous forms of Power and Destruction.

Words in my opinion are an inexhaustible source of magic that can heal injuries. Words have such a powerful impact that leaves a long lasting impression. Injuries caused by war or duels that may crop up in certain nasty circumstances are guaranteed to heal with the passage of time.

However, words have the ability to strike a person's mind directly and are not easily forgotten. While in some cases instead of words we might need actions to be performed, as for example when people are tortured by terrorists and are trapped in the net of their barbarity words won't lead to a fruitful outcome. You might end up causing lots of innocent lives getting nipped in the bud. In those cases, we need stringent actions to be performed. Hence the fact that word and actions when combined together and handled in a proper way, can work wonders.

Peace and non violence were never the main tools of war in the very past. We specially found its implementation in Indian freedom struggle, all because of the efforts Mahatma Gandhi. If we read through the pages of Indian freedom struggle we will realize the power of non violence. Today nothing can be said with stress if peace and non violence are outdated concepts or not, because we find wars and destruction everywhere. Again there are still groups of people who trust in non violence and the profit of sorting out disagreements through peaceful negotiations. Young minds have become aggressive. But it is because they find the people around them adopting violent means to get there things done. Its like-One rotten apple in a basket, can ruin all the other apples present in the basket.

But again it depends on what do we trust -whether the destructing violent means or on ideals and principles of peace and non violence.

Hello friends!. This is Manthan and I have just completed my 12th. According to me peace and non violence can never be outdated but violence also can never be eradicated. Because in today world, there some things which can be solved only by non violent and peaceful means but sometimes the person or community with whom you are treating may not believe in the same concepts and so at those time you have to use violent means instead of peace and nonviolence.

So one cannot only stick to peace and non violent concept instead everyone should react according to the situation as nobles and ideals may sometime don't work as you have thought. Many of my friends here gave the example of Gandhiji but no one seen the blood shedded because of that, so our approach to the problems depends on the nature of problems. So my conclusion is peace and non violence are not outdated but also not the must do concept.