Question · 2385 words written
There never was a good war or a bad peace
Opening
"How badly did they torture you?" asked the Journalist
"The torture was quite bad. There comes a point where you think 'death is simpler', but fortunately for me, the last part i.e. the third degree part, did not start."
This was the first interaction of Group Captain K Nachiketa with the world on how he was tortured post his capture during Kargil war of 1999.
As we remember fallen heroes on the 25th anniversary of the Operation Vijay where India won a decisive
and a crucial war protecting its territory. One cannot help but think "The peaks have been captured The land restored, yet the heart remains empty"
It shows the reality of wars. Where the tangibles are restored to the victor yet the intangible souls of the heroes are lost.
The concept of war is not new. Historically speaking, war can be traced back to ancient ages. When the wars were fought for land, territories or cattle. Be it the attack by Alexander to be the world conqueror to the blitzkrieg of Hitler, wars have existed since time immemorial.
What has been the constant feature throughout is that there have always been reasons to justify the war. To classify some of them as good wars.
Good wars can be said to be the ones where the end goal is a justified one. At least justified for one party involved. But however good or bad the motive may be, war and peace cannot stand on the same pedestal.
Similarly, the bad peace concept is one where peace leads to some negative outcome. For instance, accepting oppression by the mighty as a way of life is antithetical to the literal meaning of peace.
Body
Good war and bad peace: an oxymoron
on close observation and analysis of the issue, one may decipher that indeed there was never a good war or a bad peace.
This is because from an ethical perspective, means do not justify ends. No matter how good or positive the end goal may be, the path should also be a legitimate one. For instance, post world war 2 began, the allies tried to defend their actions as of those bringing peace to Europe. Yet, it was their own actions post Treaty of Versailles that led to war.
Thus, their justification of intervention in the war does not hold ground in face of massive human life crisis and destruction.
Secondly, it can be rightfully said that there are no winners in the war. Eventually it is the humanity which loses in the longer run. While it can be said that the allies won world war 2. Yet, modern day reality of Europe casts a shadow on the slogan of Never war again.
Thirdly, any war - no matter the reason, impinges on the human progress made so far. All the talks of peace in middle east, Abraham Accords and the statement
of Jake Sullivan, national security advisor of President of USA render themself mute at the current state of affairs.
"The middle east region is quiter today than it has been in the two decades."
This was Sullivan's statement a week before October 7 attacks on Israel. Fast forward ten months, and we are still figuring out for a humanitarian aid and a ceasefire.
War also impacts the psychology of people who are a constant spectator of misery, destruction and mockery of human life. It impacts the children disproportionately as they have a
bleak future ahead in a war torn country.
Not only the societal aspects of displacement and refugee crisis, a war also exacerbates the economic turmoil where it takes decades to reconstruct a country ravaged by war. The recent coups in countries like Kenya, Gabon speaks volume of the poverty and inequality stricken societies.
Similarly, bad peace also remains a myth. This is because good peace is relatively much better than any war as it brings a sense of semblance and development in societies. Yet it is often undermined by war hungry humans since there are no victors in the peace.
Even though peace may not be ideal in outcomes, yet it does bring societies closer and create a sense of fraternity and brethren. The reason as to why Truth and Reconciliation committee was formed in South Africa post the end of apartheid regime by Nelson Mandela.
Furthermore peace in form a temporary truce should also not be considered bad since it gives time to think over the solutions. when M G Ramachandran Chief minister of Tamil Nadu had hiccups while meeting the chief minister of Kamaka who offered him water, he said -
“maybe, my hire ups are representatives of Chennai's state.. today will you offer it offer water too”
They both laughed, the protests ended and Cauveri water was released to Chennai next day. This peace may offer some insights to the present water crisis between the two states and lead to development of future peaceful co-existence.
Having discussed the myth of good war and bad peace, it becomes pertinent to look at if history shows any signs of a real good war or if at all there was a bad peace? While the instances may be few, yet in this vast expanse of journey of human existence, exceptions are not so uncommon.
An example of good war is closer home when India fought with Pakistan in 1971. It led to liberation of Bangladesh and freeing up of tension on India's eastern border.
Further, India's call for end to terrorism and hosting of no money for terror conference sheds light on the need to eradicate terrorism.
On the other hand, an apt example of bad peace could be talks between USA and Taliban held in Qatar on the future of Afghanistan. The abysmal state of the citizens climbing on the airborne plane to migrate to
peaceful countries due to the takeover of Taliban qishons the legitimacy of our capability to even have peace talks.
It thus becomes clear that good and bad are relarve terms. They can be used for war and peace interchangeably, albeit not so frequently. The modern world is neither good nor bad, rather it hangs somewhere in the middle close to the grey zone.
Having said that, the importance of peace should not be undermined as it should always be the priority, and war always an exception. It becomes pertinent to understand how the world should move ahead from the grey zone?
A wake up call for peace
The first step should be to adopt a policy of peaceful resolution to every conflict. India set an example for the world when it created a common platform for Korean crisis resolution resulting in a ceasefire.
Nations can also undertake peace as the natural course. while the preparation of war should only seem to act as a deterrence.
India is a vishwagram in this domain through its no first use nuclear policy. And it is the only country to get a nuclear supplier group waiver to create a credible deterrence.
day reality where subduing the enemy may not be needed and bringing temporary peace. But not letting the issue go to battle, rather bridging peace should be the acme of skill.
Section B
" He who will not economize will have to agonize "
In the early 2000s, Anil Ambani was seen as a beacon of success and potential in the corporate world. Following the split in Reliance family, he took charge of the newer, forward looking ventures while Mukesh Ambani got the traditional core businesses. The emerging sectors growth made him surpass Mukesh Ambani in wealth and became world's sixth wealthiest individual.
Fast forward 25 years to 2024, Mukesh Ambani's net worth exploded to over 100bn dollar while Anil Ambani's net worth diminished to zero.
How the fortunes of two seemingly similar individuals can diverge significantly in a little over twenty years calls for a deeper understanding of the need to economize. Before delving deeper, it becomes imperative to understand what is meant by economize.
In a narrow sense, economize as a term is associated with finance. It refers to curtain unnecessary expenditure, practise thrift and save for the future.
However, in a broad sense, term has a connotation in diverse fields. It can be related to efficiency where the capacity
of a plant is benchmarked with the maximum efficiency possible.
Similarly, focus on reduce, reuse and recycle has become a cardinal call for responsible consumption. Prime minister himself acted as a beacon of change when he wore a sleeveless sadri jacket made from recycled plastic bottles during the meeting with Bill gates.
Furthermore, the call for limiting the use of fossil fuels is also a case of economization since they are limited and depleting in nature and need to be preserved for future generations.
In the similar way, the clarion call of "minimum Government maximum Governance"
can also be a form of economization. On the other hand, to agonize is to be agitated by not getting the outcomes one desires. While in certain cases agony comes from uncontrollable factors, But in most cases, an individual's own actions can enhance or reduce agony. For instance, if a child prefers to play over completion of homework he will have to agonize the next day in class. Or if a report asked by the team leader is not completed due to procrastination, agony is inevitable.
Economization: A treasurehouse of growth
The need to economize is crucial for achieving growth in any field. There are few reasons for it.
Firstly, the resources on earth is limited which makes it incumbent upon us to use them judiciously. In the context of India - India has only 2.4% of global land yet it has to support 16% of global population.
Additionally, resources can only lead to sustainable growth when they are economized. If future generation will have a legacy from our current generation, it should be a one which they cherish, not
despise. which can only come from sustainable use.
Also as humans, it's innate in us to move to an efficient system from old and archaic systems in any field. for instance, old license regime hindered India's growth upto 1990s. The need to economize became inevitable post the economic crisis. Its fruits are evident today when through economization, India has become fifth largest economy.
Additionally, to economize is to also use time more judiciously. It leads to overall societal progress and better economic activities.
Lack of economization : Increase in agony
It is indeed true that those who will not economize will have to agonize. At an individual level, those who do not economize face economic and social issues. Wasteful expenditure and a lack of savings culture will lead to agony due to being trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty and debt.
At the family level, it impacts household savings, standard of life and compromise on health and education. This starts the inter-generational transmission of agony.
Society also bears the brunt of non-economization as it
perpetuates inequality and leads to widening gaps between have's and have nots.
Nations who do not economize face severe debt crisis economic misfortunes and are left at the mercy of debt relief. Srilanka being a case in point. The populist measures being used to remain in power eventually led to agony and economic collapse.
Similarly, the recent climate crisis and changing monsoon pattern has caused havoc in wayanad with tragic death over 150 in landslide. It reflects on our incompetencies to economize in the environmental domain leading to
mother nature being in fury of agony.
Can economization have an evil face
While the benefits of economization are unseen. There are few anomalies as well, for instance, we humans have two kidneys and extra capacity in many of our organs. This is because nature likes to overnurse itself unlike humans who is increasingly engaged in debt.
This concept of redundancy is explained by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book Antifragile, where he quotes -
“Redundancy is ambiguous because it seems like a waste if nothing unusual happens. Except that something unusual happens – usually”.
A similar unusual event happened in 2012. A 8.6 magnitude of earthquake in Japan not only caused loss of human life but also impacted the operations of Toyota. The company pioneered in lean manufacturing systems and six sigma had to crumble due to non-availability of car components amidst the global supply chain crisis. It seems that over-economization is as much a bane as non-economization.
To economize is to ease out life
Close
It is evident by now that the viscous way forward is to economize - In right quantity At right place and At right time.
While the fruits of economization are clear, the path needs to be laid out.
Firstly, values of thrift and saving need to be instilled in children in families and schools. As children learn by watching adults, a simple act of turning off the unnecessary light or closing the tap while brushing can create values of economization.
In monetary sense also, if children are taught the importance of financial planning in school and colleges, they may not agonize much in future while filing their taxes.
Additionally, our institutions need to be quality driven and discussion oriented. The budget making process can be more participative where citizens are more aware of the nation's finances.. This will help them in not only getting agonized by increase in taxes, but appreciate the robustness of economy as well as the complexity of economic decision making.
Role of media also needs to be thought about. As they act as a medium for celebrating good economization practices. Rise of social media channels like Thinkschool helps in propagating case studies regarding best practices of economization in different fields.
Further, robust international consensus are needed to bring to fruition all the economizing done in domain of climate awareness. The setting up of Global stocktake in COP28 Dubai is a welcome step. But it will only benefit if the implementation is also economized.
Lastly the word of mahatma Gandhi can act as a guide for us
on the path of economization The dictum "There is enough in the world for everyone's needs but not for everyone's greed" In this way, one can learn and practice the quality of economization to have a peaceful, happy and agony free life