Dec
11
War has a Role in Peace[1]
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?
Mahatma Gandhi on Wars
As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.[2] He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.[3] Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.[4]
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.
Changing standards of Noble peace prize community
Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:
“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”[5]
That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.
How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?
Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”
Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars
Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly —
- Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India [↩]
- Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia [↩]
- Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia [↩]
- World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia [↩]
- Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org [↩]
Related Posts
125 views7 Responses to “Noble Laureate Obama and Afghanistan”
Leave a Reply
GP Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 7:26 amAre wars necessary to sustain peace?
==> For Afaganistan case..Yes! Its essential to destroy support system fo Talibaan. NOT only Afganistan they shud attack on terrorist camps in Pakistan too.
Terrorist only understand the language of force and military. They do not understand - peace talks, dialogues and discussion.By the way - What INDIA achieved so far through discussion and bilateral dialogues with pakistan? Our Hon. home Minister also not ready to guarantee that - terrorist attacks like 26/11 won’t happen in future. If thats the case - whts the way to bring peace between two nations?
— — — — DO NOT POST BELOW — —
Hope u publish my comments posted in serious mood :-)and try to answer them logically (if u got answer) . I mean I just don’t want to get feeling that you are running out of arguments on my comments hence, not publishing my comments. I mean how about - giving your readers chance to read my comments and let them comment on it ( if they want to)
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 7:52 amLol, so you believe that every Afhan is terrorist? How about the five year old boy who was killed along with his mother last month in Afghanistan in an army recourse? Was he terrorist? Or is US army terrorist?
How many people were killed in World Trade Center? Some 3000? almost 6000 US soldiers have been already killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many innocent people have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan?
Much more than 3000 US citizens and 6000 US soldiers.
Its not peace, its death, yes after death everything is peaceful. Funny isn’t it?
So you see, 10 misguided youth came to India, attacked on Hotel Taj, and you want Indian government to wage a war Against pakistan and kill millions of innocents who never thought anything bad about India and you say it peace? its crime. Its terrorism. Your support to war is terrorism.
Are the individuals of Pakistan or India supporting killing of each other?
may be some irrational fanatics in India and pakistan want war and violence, obviously you are one of them.
They can kill innocent people either in India or in Pakistan only by means of government support, so instead of waging war, what about removing government of both Pakistan and India?
Without coercive governments, obviously Both country will be peacefull.
You already have read the article “Why there are Wars, terrorists and Militants”
There is an answer for you.
US is fighting against terror since last 10 years, millions have been killed billions of dollars have been wasted but result is NILL. How can you say that it is not terrorism? This is the real terrorism. US Army is the actual terror.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 7:57 amAbout 26/11.
Rather than a victory of some misguided terrorists, it was failure of Indian Government at their work to keep good security of India.
If your idiot Minister says that he is not sure of Indian security, he should resign and allow Private companies and free market take the responsibility of Providing Security. Competition in security provision will certainly reduce chances of accidents of any sort (including terroristic accidents) to minimum levels.
By saying That inspite of having a government, India is unsafe, he means that Government is wastage, it cannot provide security to its citizens, obviously citizens should think of better ways for their security.
Government obviously is unable because of lack of any competition.
GP Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:28 amAs for example, first you will say Government is meant to help poor people by deciding minimum wages, than when someone will objectively proove that poor are being victimized because of it, you say, only those are victimized who are worthless. So, government will decide who is worthless. Lol, why not free market? which surely works to increase worth of every person included?
==> I never said - “Govt decide who is worthless” - Its up to individual to recognise his/her worth. Those who couldn’t , they just blame govt. for their poor situation. While those who recognise their self worth and ready to overcome their weaknesses can excel in anything they do.
FREE MARKET will just aggravate situation for those poor unskilled ppl coz - it will be competitive and fierce so those poor workers who are not skilled enough will be thrown out. Atleast now they are getting Rs 80/- ( minimum wage) under minimum wage law. wht’s your solution on this?
You know, I have a life, I have my profession, I have my family. i can’t keep engaging myself to quench your thirst of fun at disregarding the reason and logic behind an issue and keep digressing the issue with your irrational arguments.
==> Really?..I don’t think so. Generally when ppl run out of arguments - They either retreat OR went into denial mode. I think you just - delete the comments. I mean how else once can explain “NOT publishing reply to my comments?”
even in Gandhi -series , you just preferred to publish comments of ppl who supported your ideas and convenietly ignored those who opposed it and supported Renegade. I understand its your site but when u run out of arguments you just delete the therads or comments just like u do in your other communities.
so you believe that every Afhan is terrorist? How about the five year old boy who was killed along with his mother last month in Afghanistan in an army recourse? Was he terrorist? Or is US army terrorist?
==> Nobody likes killing innocents but you can’t avoid civilian cajualties in Air strikes. For greater good you have to make small sacrifices.There is nothing wrong in it.
Its not peace, its death, yes after death everything is peaceful. Funny isn’t it?
So you see, 10 misguided youth came to India, attacked on Hotel Taj, and you want Indian government to wage a war Against pakistan and kill millions of innocents who never thought anything bad about India and you say it peace? its crime. Its terrorism. Your support to war is terrorism.
===> Well, i guess you are saying so bcoz you are NOT the victim of terrorist activities. Ask those who lost their dearones and you will get the answer. Another thing is - Nobody is asking a full fledge WAR , even destroying terrorrist training camps in PAK and Pok wud be enough. But it needs political will
which is currently lacking. By the way those 10 were not misguided youth - They were TERRORIST ( atleast for me) .
US is fighting against terror since last 10 years, millions have been killed billions of dollars have been wasted but result is NILL. How can you say that it is not terrorism? This is the real terrorism. US Army is the actual terror.
==>Can you answer, what INDIA achieved through peaceful dialogues with PAK over the years?…..Atleast US was able evict most of the Taliban from Afganistan and there wasn’t any 9/11 in US after 9/11. By the way -US is doing great favour to INDIA by launching their war against terrorism which needs gr8 political will and determination.
Most of my readers (around 50 regular readers, have personally requested me at one time or other, to NOT to publish your comments, they find them disturbing or in their words “noisy”.
==> Well, I don’t know why but I just get the feeling that - you are making that up OR your readers cudn’t digest comments with practical thinking.
Renegade Division Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pmGP Dude you are more than welcome to comment on any other author’s articles. I don’t censor, edit, delete or block any non-spam, non-troll comments from my articles. Although I do not have time to respond to all your comments, but I unlike Diva I don’t consider comments page as a direct chat link to the author of the page, but more like you post your views about the article and now if someone disagrees with you then they can write something there, or if I feel like dealing with a point I will.
Also please learn to use the <blockquote> </blockquote> tags instead of ==>
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pmMy closer one’s were killed cold bloodily by Indians. Those Indians were no less terrorists. So you know, I can understand what it is, may be you cannot.
Lol, even India have fought three full-fledged wars against Pakistan, it never solved the problem. Since last 60 years Indian troops are on borders, apart from some incessant peace times, there always remains a war like situation, a wastage of people’s money. Nobody want it but some dreadful people.
Also, do you even think that Pakistan army and government will allow you to invade their territory? Will China let Indian government do so? Will US not intervene? So you want to commence a war of world order just because some misguided teenagers attacked Hotel Taj.
Even if you by yourself go in POK and by your hands put bombs on every strategic place you find suspected and blast it, what will it do? After say 1 year, there will again be a new camp. Now don’t tell me you will appoint Indian police/army guards to keep a check inside POK. Even if you do so, it will increase terrorism and nothing else, furthermore, than the present terrorist won’t remain terrorist, they will become Freedom Fighters, much more morally righteous than you, you being an invader infiltrator and terrorist.
Lol Why don’t you try to answer, what India achieved through its war plans since last 60 years?
There was never peace between India and Pak. There always were fires and bombing across the borders.
Now tell me this, were those 10 kids representing Pakistan? Do the 100 some politicians of Pakistan represent Pakistan?
What about those Indians who were helping those misguided teenagers? Should Indian government wage a war against Indians too?
Yes they were terrorist, Was Indira Gandhi not a Terrorist?
She was Not Misguided, she knew what will be the consequences of emergency and her ill-sensed actions.
After the war of India and Pakistan, India suffered no less than Pakistan.
Wars never solve the problems, they never did. Indian government tried its best to solve the problem through wars, It was impossible.
GP Says:
December 14th, 2009 at 2:47 amLol, even India have fought three full-fledged wars against Pakistan, it never solved the problem. Since last 60 years Indian troops are on borders, apart from some incessant peace times, there always remains a war like situation, a wastage of people’s money. Nobody want it but some dreadful people.
Lol Why don’t you try to answer, what India achieved through its war plans since last 60 years?
Now tell me this, were those 10 kids representing Pakistan? Do the 100 some politicians of Pakistan represent Pakistan?
What about those Indians who were helping those misguided teenagers? Should Indian government wage a war against Indians too?
Yes they were terrorist, Was Indira Gandhi not a Terrorist?
She was Not Misguided, she knew what will be the consequences of emergency and her ill-sensed actions.
After the war of India and Pakistan, India suffered no less than Pakistan.
Wars never solve the problems, they never did. Indian government tried its best to solve the problem through wars, It was impossible.