IF YOU WOULD HAVE PEACE,MUST YOU PRERARE FOR WAR?
In the era of superpower rivalry, it was felt that to be prepared for war was one of the most effective means of preserving peace. At first hearing, this piece of advice sounds plausible. It means that if a nation is well-armed and ready for war, other nations will be chary of attacking it. In this way it will avoid war and have peace. Whereas an unarmed nation will be an easy prey to any enemy. No doubt there is an element of truth in it. But does preparation for war really make for peace? Let us examine this statement. A tree must be judged by its fruit. In 1914, all the big nations of Europe (except, perhaps, England) were armed to the teeth.
What was the result? Peace? No, war _____ the most widespread and devastating war in the world’s history. It was the enormous enlargement of armies and fleets, the crushing burden of ever-growing armaments, and the mutual fear and suspicion engendered thereby, which finally resulted in the explosion of the first Great War. The lesson of that Great War is that if you prepare for war you will have war. This has since been proved time and again renew in the second World War, in the wars between India and Pakistan, in the Gulf War. That method of securing peace has failed miserably.
We must take another motto: If you would have peace, prepare for place. Let the nations prepare for peace, by cultivating mutual goodwill, by the amicable settlement of disputes by arbitration, by agreeing to universal disarmament by friendly co-operation instead of suspicious rivalry. Ultimately to preserve peace, the causes of war need to be eliminated. The disparities between the rich and the poor, between the exploiters and the exploited, have to be eliminated. It is not arming oneself with weapons, but arming oneself with knowledge, development and belief in the unity of mankind which can herald an era of peace.
THE DOCTRINE THAT THE CURES FOR THE EVILS OF DEMOCRACY IS MORE DEMOCRACY IS LIKE SAYING THAT THE CURE OF CRIME IS MOR CRIME. (H. L. MENCKEN)
Democracy has been described as the best form of government. But the best may not be good. When we say that something is good, it means it possesses intrinsic goodness, an absolute quality. Something which is “the best” is always in relation or comparison to other things. Democracy may be the best form of government but only in relation to various other forms of government hitherto tried by man. Democracy is certainly not a flawless or ideal system of government. Man is still groping in the dark to discover an ideal system. The ideal may be unachievable but man, as a result of his continued search, may discover a vastly improved system in place of the democracy we know of today. Democracy has obvious evils though the nature and magnitude of these evils may differ from country to country. Democracy can’t effectively deal with evils originating from economic insecurity, inherent weaknesses of capitalism, liberty taken as licence, exploitative and dictatorial tendencies of “democratic” rulers, religious extremism, corruption, and the character and mindset of the rulers as well as the ruled. According to certain ‘sages’ the cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy. “Like curing the like” may be a golden principle of Homeopathy, but it does not certainly apply to politics. Here the therapy has got to be different. ‘Unlike curing the unlike’ would be more to the point.
Those who believe in the doctrine of ‘more democracy’ are either naïve, self-styled intellectuals for whom simplistic solutions to grave problems are perfectly satisfactory or those clever vested interests who wish to continue, election after election, their loot and plunder. We, in Pakistan; have seen many general elections and each time the brand of rulers these elections throw up happens to be worse than the previous one. I do not wish to suggest that democracy should be done away with. What I emphasize is that the evils of democracy should be dealt with an iron hand. They should be crushed as and when they raise their head. If we do not nip the evil in the bud, it will assume menacing proportions by the time next elections and held. ‘More democracy’ theory is simply casuistry _______ the use of clever arguments to trick people. Surely one would not advise a diabetic to eat more sweets if he wishes to get rid of diabetes.
Liberty is Not a Personal Affair; it is a Social Contract
His religion, his political beliefs, the way he lives his life so long as it does not affect others adversely, are one his personal affairs. But the bounds of his liberty do not extend beyond that. He can claim liberty but not licence. Immunity from all law and all restraint is anarchy. It jeopardises liberty rather than preserve it. In the absence of laws made by the State, the law of jungle is likely to prevail. That would hardly be conducive to the promotion of liberty. The freedom one demands ought to teach one to respect the freedom of others. If an individual does not respect the freedom of others, they will not respect his. By challenging their freedom, he will only be putting his freedom in peril. He is free to believe in what he likes but if his views clash with the views held by others, he must allow them the freedom to hold theirs.
The liberty of one individual has always to be restrained so that the liberty of others may be adequately accommodated, for liberty is not a personal affair only but a social contract. One has the liberty to play a guitar in one’s house, but one must play it in such a way that one does not disturb others, for they have the liberty to enjoy uninterrupted hours of work or sleep. John Stuart Mills gives a very apt remark, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited, he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” Charles, Baron de Montesquieu clinches the whole issue when he says, “Liberty is the right to do everything which the laws allow.”
LIFE IS ACTION, NOT CONTEMPLATION
It was the well known German poet and philosopher Goethe, who wrote this thought provoking line which inspires us to know the real meaning of life. Ordinarily, life appears to us as an admixture of similarities and dissimilarities, birth and death, sorrow and happiness. Similarly contemplation and action are two important facts of life. One is likely to get a contemplative mood every now and then, followed by an urge to go for instantaneous action.
Contemplation can be interpreted in two ways. According to the first interpretation, it is akin to meditation and is a positive quality. It helps one to acquire peace of mind and tranquility. Particularly, when a person faces adverse circumstances and is denied hope, he has no course left open to him but to derive sustenance from contemplation and meditation in order to recover his confidence and recharge the battery of his mind. On the other hand, contemplation can also imply just brooding over the past happenings. This is the worst kind of mental exercise which any sensible person should dislike to perform. Such a state of mind makes him utterly inactive. He loses all initiative, desire and enthusiasm, Goethe referred to as bad. Every great man’s story of success is a story of his actions. All the great statesmen, builders of nations scientists explorers, navigators, mountaineers, sportsmen have been men of action. Similarly, business and trade have developed tremendously simply because some men of action have worked in this field. All these people did not just brood over their failure, nor did they just spend their lives in idle contemplation. They rose to the occasion, fought the challenges of life valiantly and ultimately succeeded in their objectives. These great men learnt the secret of success which, according to them, consists in action, and not in idle contemplation.
|