Global conventional and nuclear disarmament.
Preservation of environment and ecology.
Resolving the population, poverty and unemployment menace.
Thinking more of peace than about war and weapons.
Globalisation with a human face.
Evolving a world culture where smallest should feel the tallest.
Security without Weapons
Security for Gandhi is not merely strategy and technique of defeating aninvading army. It is not an international, as it were, wrestling amongnations with weapons of mass destruction. Security, for him, does notmean disbandment of modern armies and other disciplined forces. It isalso not merely self-defence. Security, for him, initially is a notion basedon logic of why should there be a threat in the absence of some solidpolitical and economic gain. In other words, gainful motive has to bethere. The nature and perception of such a motive emerges here as moreimportant.
Peace and development through security are the essence of modern conceptionof security.
Instead, for Gandhi, security is possible through peace and development only.
The major difference in these two views is primarily that of emphasis. The Gandhian perspective considers security as a natural corollary of development and peace. It is not weapons and machines but pulsatinghuman beings who are of real significance. Everything else is secondary.An inherently ever widening twenty-first century contradiction andsecurity predicament is there in available stockpiles of weaponsproviding a peculiar sense of security replete with threats of completehuman extinction.
Modern security is possible through mutual assureddestruction (MAD).
What a dilemma it is
This trend shows a specificdirection of thinking. This needs transformation. That is why Barash andWebel say:However one judges the desirability of peace orlegitimacy of (at least some) wars, it should beclear that peace and war exist on a continuum of violent / nonviolent national behaviours andthat they constantly fluctuate. Neither should betaken for granted, and neither is humanity’s