PEACE RESEARCH & MOVEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
Maintenance of domestic and international peace is imperative today. The
two World Wars have taken the toll of humanity. Ensuring a genuine and
stable peace is the major challenge facing the nation states today. However,
since the end of the Cold War, efforts to establish a World without Arms and
Armed Conflict have in-fact failed. There have been numerous intra-state and
inter-state conflicts across states which have resulted in perennial tension and
uncertainty pervading not only within the affected states, region but also the
international arena. It is in this light that the establishment of Peace and Peace
Movements attain relevance and significance. There have been several Peace
Movements in different parts of the world, yet a world sans conflict is still a far
cry. Though the United Nations (UN) has, to an extent, played a major role in
fore-stalling another world war the several conflicts waged/still raging in
different countries/regions, manifest the lack of a sincere effort by Nations to
abjure violence. It is in these circumstances that the role of Peace Movements
across nations becomes very important today.
A Peace Movement is a social movement that seeks to achieve ideals such as
the ending of a particular war/conflict (or all wars/conflicts), minimise inter-
human violence in a particular place or type of situation, often linked to the
goal of achieving world peace. The means to achieve these ends include
advocacy of pacifism, non-violent resistance, diplomacy, and boycott, moral
persuasion, supporting anti-war political candidates, demonstrations and
forming / using National Political Lobbying groups to create legislation.
THE DUALITY OF PEACE CONCEPT
The concept of peace has two connotations- negative peace and positive
peace. Negative peace is defined as not only the absence of organised
violence between such major human groups as nations, but also between
racial and ethnic groups because of the magnitude that can be reached by
internal wars. Positive peace is defined as a pattern of cooperation and
integration between major human groups. Absence of violence should not be
confused with absence of conflict. Violence may occur without conflict and
conflict may be resolved by means of non-violent mechanisms. The distinction
between these two types of peace gives to a four fold classification of relations
between two nations.
a) War which is organised group violence;
b) Negative peace, where there is no violence but no other form of interaction
either, and where the best characterisation is peaceful coexistence;
c) Positive peace where there is some cooperation with occasional outbreaks
of violence and unqualified peace;
d) Unqualified peace, where absence of violence is combined with a pattern of
cooperation.
For peace, like health, has both cognitive and evaluative components; it
designates a state of system of Nations, but this state is so highly valued that
institutions are built around it to protect and promote it.
Since conflicts are inherent in social life, the role of social structure and culture
in shaping how conflicts are waged is highly significant for building peace.
Research findings support the generalisation that integration improves
communication and enhances mutual security and reduces the probability of
countries' waging wars or threatening each other's identity, particularly, when
such an integration is perceived to be equitable.
A fundamental change in ways of thinking among members of one or more
antagonistic sides can be a powerful factor in producing an enduring peace
between them. This does sometimes happen. For example, most Germans
after the defeat of Nazism repudiated what they themselves had believed and
done; instead, they welcomed beliefs, values, and institutions shared with the
victors. To some extent, a similar transformation occurred among Russians as
the Cold War ended. Traditionally, efforts to restore peace after a conflict ends
include policies to redress the grievances that were viewed as the conflict's
source. In recent years, peace workers have been giving considerable attention
to fostering mutual understanding and tolerance among peoples with different
cultural backgrounds living in the same society. This attention extends to
reconciliation between peoples who perpetrated gross human rights violations
and peoples who suffered profound losses during periods of repression or of
violent struggle.
Furthermore, international organisations are increasingly expected to play
critical roles in keeping and restoring peace. The United Nation's peacekeeping
forces have undertaken many more such tasks since the Cold War ended.
Regional organisations and individual countries, particularly the US, have
intervened to restore and sustain peace.

INTERNATIONAL PEACE SYSTEMS

Most peace thinking has centred on the problem of how power shall best be
distributed among the nations of the world. The first model is that of minimum
equality of power which is based on the theory that the international system is
best served by making power the monopoly of one nation or system,.
Examples are the Pax Romana, Pax Ecclesiae, and Pax Britannica. These are
instances of Roman Empire, the Catholic Church and Britain maintaining law
and order over large areas in the globe
The second model focuses on maximum equality, or what is usually referred to
as a 'balance of power' in the sense that no nation or alliance is strong enough
to defeat another nation or alliance. A modern version of this is the 'balance of
terror', in which a nation may defeat other nations, but only at the risk of itself
being completely destroyed.
A third model views military power as best stabilised at a low level; this refers
to all kinds of arms control efforts. The idea is to rule out general and complete
war.
Finally, there is the model that views power as stabilised at a zero level; this
refers to the general and complete disarmament advocated by pacifists.
Pacifism asserts that this state may be obtained unilaterally by the effect of
example, because weapons become meaningless when they do not encounter
similar weapons, and by the refusal of soldiers to use arms, as well as by
governmental decisions.
None of these models are free from limitations. Take the model of minimum
equality. While there might perhaps be agreement among nations about the
appointment of a policing nation in the world there is no unanimity about its
consequences, i.e., that coercive power usually will be accompanied by other
kinds of influence. The major difficulty in the model of maximum equality
seems to be that the system, although in momentary equilibrium, is not in
stable equilibrium. It is based on the relative evaluation of two power
potentials, and since military power is many dimensional, this evaluation may
be far from consensual. There will always be room for the idea that one's own
power is not sufficiently developed. Thus, the basis is laid for arms races.
One major difficulty in the model that focuses on arms control is the
arbitrariness of all borderlines between permissible and illegitimate weapons.
For such border lines to be consensually accepted they must be protected by
some kind of discontinuity, such as the clear line that existed between
conventional and nuclear weapons before they overlap in .
As far as the model of general and complete disarmament is concerned, one
major objection is its failure to consider the need for countervailing power.
One evader of an agreement may dominate the total system if he has an
absolute weapon at his disposal. For this reason, general and complete
disarmament can preserve peace only if the distribution of power in the
system accords with the minimum-equality model, or if provision is made in
the system for the effective use of non-military forms of power, against those
who evade disarmament agreements.
Historical Development
Peace and Truce of God
The first mass peace movements were the Peace of God and the Truce of God,
which was proclaimed in 1027. The Peace of God was spearheaded by bishops
as a response to increasing violence against monasteries after the fall of
the Carolingian dynasty. The Truce of God sought to restrain violence by
limiting the number of days of the week and times of the year when the
nobility was able to employ violence. These peace movements “set the
foundations for modern European peace movements.”
Peace churches
The Reformation gave rise to a number of Protestant sects beginning in the
16th century, including the peace churches. Foremost among these churches
were the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Amish, Mennonites, and
the Church of the Brethren. The Quakers were prominent advocates of
pacifism, who had repudiated all forms of violence and adopted a pacifist
interpretation of Christianity as early as 1660. Throughout the 18th-century
wars in which Britain participated, the Quakers maintained a principled
commitment not to serve in an army or militia or to pay the alternative £10
fine.

18th century
The major 18th-century peace movements were products of two schools of
thought which coalesced at the end of the century. One, rooted in the
secular Age of Enlightenment, promoted peace as the rational antidote to the
world’s ills; the other was part of the evangelical religious revival which had
played an important role in the campaign for the abolition of slavery.
Representatives of the former included Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in Extrait du
Projet de Paix Perpetuelle de Monsieur l’Abbe Saint-Pierre (1756); Immanuel
Kant in Thoughts on Perpetual Peace, and Jeremy Bentham, who proposed the
formation of a peace association in 1789. One representative of the latter
was William Wilberforce; Wilberforce thought that by following the Christian
ideals of peace and brotherhood, strict limits should be imposed on British
involvement in the French Revolutionary Wars.

19th century.
Although the organised peace movement can be said to have begun in the
United States in 1815, with the founding of three peace societies, the first in
New York by David Low Dodge, followed by the Massachusetts society formed
by Noah Worcester, and one in Ohio by two Quakers, it was not until 1843 that
the first international peace congress was held in London. In 1816, ' - the
British Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace was
founded in London; it was designed to print and circulate tracts and to diffuse
information showing that war is inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity and
the true interests of mankind point out the means best calculated to maintain
permanent and universal peace on the basis of Christian principles.
In 1828, the local American societies were joined together by William Ladd, the
most influential of the early American pacifists, into the American Peace
Society on the broadest program of opposition to war though not specifically
condemning defensive wars. Because of the insistent pressure from peace
workers who demanded an uncompromising stand, it revised its constitution in
1837 to express opposition to all wars, defensive as well as offensive.
International Peace Congresses helped to direct public attention to the early
peace movement. The first of these congresses, held at London in 1843, under
the direction of the conservative elements in the peace movement, adopted
resolutions seeking peace by effective propaganda against war and by the
control of the manufacture and sale of munitions and advocated a congress
and court of nations and arbitration clauses in international treaties.
Peace work in the United States waned after 1853. The American Peace Society
had failed to expand into the west and south .At first it evaded the impending
Civil War by stating that its concern was only with international conflicts and
Protest against the support of the war by the American Peace Society led to
the formation of the Universal Peace Union in Boston in 1866.
The second phase of the peace movement began in 1867 with the arbitration
and later a more systematic discussion of international law as its central
aspects. During this period there was wider support among the masses.
Side by side with the movement for arbitration proceeded efforts for the
improvement of international law. Two academic juridical societies were
founded in Europe at the end of 1873, the Institut de Droit International at
Ghent, devoted to the study of arbitration and private international law, and
the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, known
after 1895 as the International Law Association, formed at Brussels to
promulgate a code.
Peace societies were increasing in number and activity during this period.
During these crowded years of peace activity the entire peace movement of
the world was being brought into closer touch with parliaments and
governments and had increasing influence upon governmental policy. This
development was facilitated by inter-parliamentary conferences on peace first
held in 1889 and by the Inter-Parliamentary Union organised in 1892,
composed of peace advocates in the parliaments of Europe and designed to
discuss the most practical means of organising world peace by simultaneous
concerted agitation within parliaments of all countries.
Each year saw some addition to the general power of the peace movements.
The first Women's Peace League was established in 1895. The Nobel Peace
Prize, instituted in 1897, also stimulated much interest in the problem of
peace.

20th century / Gandhian perspective on peace

Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) was one of the 20th century’s most influential
spokesmen for peace and non-violence, and Gandhism is his body of ideas and
principles Gandhi promoted.
To achieve simultaneously the negative aim of conflict resolution and the
positive aim of establishing peace, Gandhi propounded his philosophy of
peace. Our need is to proclaim again and again the significance of Gandhian
pacifism to solve crucial problems of conflict and violence. To prevent
structural violence, Gandhi proposed theories with the ideals of Satyagraha,
Sarvodaya, Swaraj, Swadeshi, Buniyadi Talim, Decentralization of power and
wealth, Trusteeship, Social harmony & Communal unity, Economic equality,
Sarva Dharma Sambhava, Democracy of Enlightened Majority etc. Gandhi's
approach had always been holistic as human life is a synthetic whole, which
can not be divided into watertight compartments of social, religious, political
life etc.
Gandhi asserts that besides individual endeavour corporate actions are also
needed. The most fundamental principle of his philosophy of peace is
"Ahimsa" or nonviolence which is the law of love, life and creation as opposed
to violence or Himsa, the cause of hatred, death and destruction. According to
Gandhi the universal human value of Ahimsa ought to be cultivated not merely
at a personal level, but at social, national and international levels too if we
wish to avoid personal, social, national and international conflicts. It is a very
powerful means to avoid conflict, since it springs from an inner realization of
the equality of all human beings. It is absence of intention of injuring, harming,
disturbing and agonising opponents. It is good will towards all human beings.
Nonviolence at interpersonal and international levels can be defined as
altruistic approach. As a peaceful technique to resist injustice, it includes a
concrete programme and leads to self-suffering and sacrifice. For Gandhi
"Fasting unto death" is the last step to oppose injustice. Gandhi's approach is
ethical, as he believes, that moral degeneration is the root cause of all evils
including conflicts. So he recommends acquisition of moral values such as
truthfulness, nonviolence or love, self-control, forgiveness, non-enmity or
friendliness, compassion, mercy etc. In fact values are the best equipments
discovered by human beings to escape various types of conflicts. Researches
also show that the root of all problems invariably lies in the infringement of
values― moral, religious, spiritual, economic and political and moral principles.
Undoubtedly conflicts are nothing but the illustration of the violation of moral
laws, non performance of duties, negligence of human values, enjoyment of
freedom without caring for responsibility etc. Hence Gandhi appreciates moral
solution, which is inexpensive, and a single person can initiate and undertake
the task of conflict resolution by attracting worldwide attention.
Gandhi, a great political thinker, therefore, recommends that politics should be
a branch of ethics. Moral principles must be adhered to by politicians,
ideologues, social activists as well as ordinary citizens of the world as there is
no dividing line between private and public life. Assimilation of values in one's
character and their expression in conduct is required to avoid conflicts and this
in turn is possible through awakening of “Conscience” at personal, social,
national and global levels. Public awareness of those values which are
conducive to peace building must be evoked through exhibition, education,
public lectures, dialogues and mass communication―T.V., Radio, Newspapers
etc.
Gandhi proposed and adopted "Satyagraha" as a moral equivalent to war and
conflict. As we all know the successful conduct of war involves two things. On
the one hand, suppression of the virtues of kindness, friendliness, forgiveness
and consideration for the sufferings of fellow human beings, and on the other,
encouragement of the feelings of unqualified hatred, anger and hostility
towards so called enemies. Thus war leads to total violation of the liberal
democratic principles of respect for persons and dignity of the individual. On
the contrary, a satyagrahi while resisting injustice shows respect for his
opponent by making moral appeals to him and expecting him to be responsive.
A satyagrahi aims at conversion of the opponent's heart by making him aware
of his ill will or inhuman behaviour through self-suffering. Satyagraha aims at
winning over the opponent by love and gentle persuasion and by arousing in
him a sense of justice rather than forcing him to surrender out of fear.
Satyagraha aims at settlement of issue or issues with the opponent without
causing him even psychological injury as it implies soul-force, courage and
determination. A well-conducted campaign of Satyagraha, absolutely
untouched by violence in word and deed, makes the opponent suffer as his
own moral consciousness exposes the immorality of his action. Gandhi
believed in the technique of Satyagraha, because he had faith in the goodness
of human nature. The moral and humanistic grandeur of Satyagraha as a
method of resolving conflict and securing justice has been appreciated by
several thinkers, politicians and social workers. If we wish to keep peace, we
ought to follow the UN charter of human rights, according to which dignity of
human life must be honoured and maintained without reference to caste,
colour, creed, etc. We have to redefine the concept of development and
progress as Human Welfare and well-being by replacing the prevalent
misleading concept of development and progress in terms of Economic
Development and material progress. If we want peace, we have to replace the
humanity negating industrial consumerist culture by idealistic humanism.
Belief in the spiritual constitution of man led Gandhi to affirm equality of all
human beings and to declare innate goodness of men. Humanism as the
philosophy of Globalism or Global philosophy implies non-discrimination with
regard to race, sex, language, region, religion, political ideology, social and
economic status, international status of the country etc., since the basic
structure and nature of human beings all over the world is same. We must
rationalise our ways of thinking and instead of thinking of the world in terms of
maps and markets, we should think of it in terms of men, women and children
i.e. in terms of mankind. To prevent conflicts caused by religious bigotry,
Gandhi suggested "Sarva Dharma Sambhav". According to him all religions are
true and man cannot live without religion so he recommends an attitude of
respect and tolerance towards all religions.
To Gandhi truth is the core of reality; the law that governs the universe and
gives it its form: Dharma or the force of cohesion that sustains an entity. Love
is a reflection of this force of cohesion among the sentient, as the law of
gravitation is its reflection in the realm of the inanimate. He therefore looked
upon Truth and Love as two sides of the same coin, and declared that as a
votary of Truth or Satyagraha, it was his duty and his Sadhana to serve all
creation. Gandhi too believed that Truth manifested in itself, and was
accessible only through the 'inexorable law of cause and effect'. A cause could
create only the effect that was inherent in it. Conversely, a desired effect could
be brought about only by creating the cause that could produce the effect
(that contained the seeds of the effect). Means and ends therefore become
almost indistinguishably interwoven. An evil effect or negativity can be
removed only by the power of its antithesis or antidote. So to him too, love
was the only force that could overcome hatred and conflict. Gandhi pointed
out that since conflict took birth in the mind, it could be resolved only through
a mental process or mental force, not through the deployment of physical
force. He saw Satyagraha as a mental, moral and spiritual force that the mind
used to work on other minds and to correct attitudes and acts that were
inconsistent with truth, justice or the principle of cohesion that is the essence
of Dharma. Thus Gandhi's recipe for the resolution of conflicts was Satyagraha,
the desire to discover Truth, to insist on Truth, and abandon all that dilutes
Truth or deviated ever so slightly from Truth. This could be achieved through a
joint review of facts and issues; mediation or arbitration; introspection; direct
action that promoted introspection and reminded one of the need for
reconciliation in a society that comes into being, survives and prospers through
interdependence; and tolerance for the residual differences that might remain
on peripheral matters.
The manner in which Gandhi’s techniques have sometimes been invoked even
in the land of his birth in recent years would appear to be a travesty of his
principles. And the world has been in the grip of a series of crises in Korea, the
Congo, the Vietnam, the Middle East, and South Africa with a never-ending
trail of blood and bitterness. The shadow of a thermo-nuclear war with its
incalculable hazards continues to hang over mankind. From this predicament,
Gandhi’s ideas and techniques may suggest a way out. He advocated
nonviolence not because it offered an easy way out, but because he
considered violence in the long run, an ineffective weapon. His rejection of
violence stemmed from choice, not from necessity.
Gandhi did not make the facile division of mankind into "good" and "bad" He
was convinced that every human being—even the "enemy―had a kernel of
decency: there were only evil acts, no wholly evil men". His technique of
Satyagraha was designed not to coerce the opponent, but to set into motion
forces which could lead to his conversion. Relying as it did on persuasion and
compromise, Gandhi’s method was not always quick in producing results, but
the results were likely to be more durable for having been brought about
peacefully.

Keeping aside these basic facts, only a slogan for 'peace' can not change the
society. In education along with spreading ideas of universal love and tolerance
and importance of maintenance of peace for sustaining human development,
there should be sufficient provision to make students conscious about
denouncing extreme inequality in distribution of wealth. A mindset will be
prepared that will help in developing a society where equitable distribution of
wealth will be given due emphasis. Proper concept of human welfare should
be cultivated through education. A humanistic education covering various
aspects responsible for creating social discontents giving rise to conflicts and
emphasizing on maintaining peace in resolution of conflicts, will create a
society worth living as Gandhi visioned and worked for.

The peace movement received a terrible shock when World War I proved how
much stronger was attachment to the nation than adherence to
internationalist and pacifist principles and how much stronger was the fear of
the sanctions of one's own government and compatriots than of the sanctions
of fellow members of organisations. The resolutions passed at the Universal
Peace Congress in Geneva in 1912 were strongly pacifist, but the weakness of
the peace movement then is also its weakness today. Loyalty to the peace
movement is based on normative compliance alone not contractual or coercive
compliance. In times of crisis, only extremely idealistic or very peripherally
located people are likely to remain faithful to their ideals. However, this does
not mean that the peace movement has no impact. Indeed, it serves as an
imperfect substitute for a foreign-policy national assembly, since public
opinion probably has less influence on foreign policy than on domestic-policy
decisions in many countries.

Peace Movements in the Post World War Phase

In the 1950s, there was concern about environmental issues surrounding
atmospheric nuclear tests, a worsening of Cold War, and changes in weapon
technology which led to an appreciation that Europe had become the major
target area. In the 1980s, the breakdown of détente and the deployment of
first-strike weapons in Europe revived the dormant fear of nuclear war. The
protests originated from vast coalitions ranging from the absolute pacifist to
what might be described as the defence pragmatist who could be on the Right
of the political system. The greatest achievement during this phase is that the
peace movements have raised public awareness of nuclear issues across
international boundaries. The peace movements created mass protest; an
unintended consequence was that it taught governments how to successfully
deflect and neutralise mass protest. The peace movements were able to
activate the very best in humanitarian, liberal, and moral feeling. Yet skilful use
of the psycho-political backlash as comfortable psychological norms were
disturbed, may well have aided the election of governments of the Right, for
example the anti-Vietnam War protest destroyed President Johnson and it
certainly helped Richard Nixon, while in the UK the Labour Party's espousal of
an antinuclear defence policy seemed to be counterproductive. The peace
movement has engendered an upsurge in internationalism as exemplified by
the European Nuclear Disarmament movement; the rise of the Swords into
Ploughshares movement in the German Democratic Republic: improved
appreciation of the North-South dilemma; and giving a fillip to international
studies of peace. Yet government's ability to quickly utilise the worst in
nationalism was amply demonstrated in the Argentine-British conflict over
Falkland Islands. Peace is always on the defensive.
USA
Near the end of the Cold War, U.S. peace activists focused on slowing the
nuclear arms race in the hope of reducing the possibility of nuclear war
between the U.S. and the USSR. As the Reagan administration accelerated
military spending and adopted a tough stance toward Russia, the Nuclear
Freeze campaign and Beyond War movement sought to educate the public on
the inherent risk and ruinous cost of Reagan’s policy. Outreach to individual
citizens in the Soviet Union and mass meetings using satellite-link technology
were major parts of peacemaking activity during the 1980s. In 1981, the
activist Thomas began the longest uninterrupted peace vigil in U.S. history. He
was later joined at Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. by anti-nuclear
activists Concepción Picciotto and Ellen Thomas.

In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, President George H. W.

Bush began preparing for war in the region. Peace activists were starting to
gain traction with popular rallies, especially on the West Coast, just before
the Gulf War began in February 1991. The ground war ended in less than a
week with a lopsided Allied victory, and a media-incited wave of patriotic
sentiment washed over the nascent protest movement.

During the 1990s, peacemaker priorities included seeking a solution to

the Israeli–Palestinian impasse, belated efforts at humanitarian assistance to
war-torn regions such as Bosnia and Rwanda, and aid to post-war Iraq.
American peace activists brought medicine into Iraq in defiance of U.S. law,
resulting in heavy fines and imprisonment for some. The principal groups
involved included Voices in the Wilderness and the Fellowship of
Reconciliation.

Before and after the Iraq War began in 2003, a concerted protest effort was
formed in the United States. A series of protests across the globe was held
on February 15, 2003, with events in about 800 cities. The following month,
just before the American- and British-led invasion of Iraq, “The World Says No
to War” protest attracted as many as 500,000 protestors to cities across the
U.S. After the war ended, many protest organizations persisted because of the
American military and corporate presence in Iraq.

American activist groups, including United for Peace and Justice, Code

Pink (Women Say No To War), Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families
Speak Out (MFSO), Not in Our Name, A.N.S.W.E.R., Veterans for Peace,
and The World Can’t Wait continued to protest against the Iraq War. Protest
methods included rallies and marches, impeachment petitions, the staging of a
war-crimes tribunal in New York to investigate crimes and alleged abuses of
power by the Bush administration, bringing Iraqi women to the U.S. to tell their
side of the story, independent filmmaking, high-profile appearances by anti-
war activists such as Scott Ritter, Janis Karpinski, and Dahr Jamail, resisting
military recruiting on college campuses, withholding taxes, mass letter-writing
to legislators and newspapers, blogging, music, and guerrilla theatre.
Independent media producers continued to broadcast, podcast, and web-host
programs about the anti-war movement.

The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran was founded

in late 2005. By August 2007, fears of an imminent United States or Israeli
attack on Iran had increased to such a level that Nobel Prize winners Shirin
Ebadi (2003 Peace Prize), Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams (joint
1976 Peace Prize), Harold Pinter (Literature 2005), Jody Williams (1997 Peace
Prize) and anti-war groups including the Israeli Committee for a Middle East
Free from Atomic, Biological and Chemical Weapons, the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament, CASMII and Code Pink warned about what they considered the
threat of a “war of an unprecedented scale, this time against Iran”, Expressing
concern that an attack on Iran with nuclear weapons had “not been ruled out”,
they called for “the dispute about Iran’s nuclear program, to be resolved
through peaceful means” and for Israel, “as the only Middle Eastern
state suspected of possession of nuclear weapons”, to join the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.

INDIA

The greatest Peace Movement in the World was led by the apostle of Peace
M.K. Gandhi to rid India of British Colonial Rule. India attained independence
from British rule by a peaceful and non-violent movement of the people.
Gandhi’s technique of Ahimsa and Satyagraha caught the imagination of
mankind and has been and is replicated in several protest movements across
the world. Infact the mighty British were forced to grant independence in
1947, due to the power of peaceful protests of the people of India
transcending region, caste and religion. Though there were a few aberrations,
the non-cooperation and civil disobedience methods adopted by Gandhi were
basically peaceful techniques. The British did leave India but left it divided by
partitioning it and creating Pakistan. Over the past decades there has been
conflict and a trust deficit between the two countries. However, for peace to
prevail in the region it is important that the people, civil society and champions
for peace compel the governments of both the countries to work out a
peaceful solution to all outstanding problems, in the interest of stable peace in
the South Asian Region.
In the domestic milieu, the two regions Kashmir and the North-East have
witnessed violent
conflict leading to death and destruction over decades. The people of Kashmir
and the North- East seem to be hapless victims of history and are caught
between the violence of the insurgent/separatist tendencies, as also the
counter action by the men in uniform. Several
groups and members of the civil society have been yearning and urging both
the sides to end the saga of confrontation and work towards a peaceful
resolution of all the issues in contention, politically and through dialogue.
In this regard, the efforts of groups in the North-East viz the Naga Mothers
Association, Naga HoHo Church Organisations and other Civil Society groups
have been responsible for the holding of cease-fire in the state, since 1997.
However, a permanent solution to the problem in the North-East is still elusive.
Both the insurgent groups-operating in different parts of the
North-East- and the government have to seek a peaceful solution to the
problems facing them.
It is imperative to state that no problem can ever be solved by the recourse to
force/arms. The need of the hour today in Kashmir and the North-East is to
ensure stable peace and secure the confidence of the people living there. In
this direction, it is important for the government to end/ re-orient its policy of
using excessive force to suppress dissent. In this direction a re-look at the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958, operative in these two
regions is merited. It is time that the concerned heed to the call of all right
thinking people to do away with the draconian provisions of this Act that has
led to several innocent people being subjected to pain and suffering.

CONCLUSION
Peace movements have shaped history. The list begins with setting limits on
war makers. In raising the cry Never Again peace organisations played an
important role in bringing about the Geneva conventions against the kind of
chemical weapons used in the First World War, just as the campaign for
nuclear disarmament helped insure there would be no repeat of the slaughter
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peace activists helped create climate that led to a
series of Nuclear Arms Limitation Treaties, beginning with the Atmospheric
Test Ban of 1963 and running through the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties of
the 1970s. Peace movements are also important in laying down demands for a
just peace. They were especially powerful at the end of the two World Wars,
when diplomats were under strong pressure to create a world worthy of
wartime sacrifice. Peace movements took seriously the extravagant promises
of a World Safe for Democracy and Deal for a New World and they demanded
redemption of these pledges in industrial democracy, Full employment and
racial equality. They pressured framers of the UN to prevent future wars by
creating international machinery to resolve disputes and by removing the
social and economic grievances believed to be the root cause of war. Peace
movements are also important players in the struggle over the distribution of
resources. The struggle over resources leads peace movements towards social
justice. As Martin Luther King observed Peace is not the absence of conflict, it
is the presence of Justice. Of course, peace and justice movements are no
more effective in ending social injustice than in ending wars, but they can be
important weights in the social balance of power.
It seems unlikely that peace movement will stop the Iraq War any time soon,
let alone the permanent war on terror that started in Afghanistan and Iraq a
few years ago and will expand to who knows where? Linkage between peace
and economic justice would expand the ranks. At the very least, today’s
movement can do what peace movements have always done- claim the moral
high ground by affirming life over death.