War hunger but no place for peace

News has just circulated on television screens that Putin has called off the war, expressed remorse over what he had done, expressed deep regret at the horrors that had happened. He has also publicly apologized for the mass killings and the suffering caused to the survivors. This has a tremendous impact on other modern warrior politicians. George Bush and Tony Blair both apologized for the devastation in Iraq. Suddenly, we, humans, are on the verge of a dramatic, radical change in the way we view the world and think about ourselves. This is a real step towards a peaceful world; In which wars have no place and violent conquests are a thing of the past.

Despite a brutal war affecting the entire world I’ve allowed my imaginary imagination to take flight – there’s hardly a good time for moral self-indulgence. Still, seems reasonable to me because something like this has happened at least once when, around 260 BCE, Ashoka famously abandoned war and conquest. Since then the common people have opposed the war. Our times have seen a massive popular protest against wars. But to my knowledge there is no other instance when a conqueror condemns his own actions and leads mankind in a new moral direction.

It did a cataclysmic act to replace Ashoka. Because till then he himself was a follower of warrior policy. In the pre-Ashoka elite culture, highly masculine qualities were praised. In the Rigveda, Indra, the god of sky, rain and thunder, who, though strong and violent, is the god of war. Blessed with fleshy physique and formidable demeanor, he, through his pure ego, is able to push the world into two halves (heaven and earth), release the primordial waters, split the cosmic mountain so that the incense of captivity and cattle can be freed. with him Ojas, a Sanskrit word that denotes both physical strength and the power to dominate, Indra destroys rivals. To politically subjugate the enemy, he happily destroys, crushes, isolates, kills and breaks his soul. The real Purusha, the most important Vedic deity, takes Indra as the ideal and is called ra (“big/strong man; champion”). They are skilled in horse and chariot warfare. They flex muscles in cattle raiding missions and glorify battle. Here, violence and conquest are a way of life. The invasion and occupation of someone else’s territory is considered completely legitimate.

anti war consciousness

Ashoka himself followed this policy until the conquest of Kalinga when the scale of the horrific destruction, the displacement of 150,000 people and the death of at least 100,000 distraught him and changed his outlook. “On conquering Kalinga, the beloved of the gods (Ashok) regretted it, because, when a free country is conquered, the slaughter, death and exile of the people is extremely tragic… all the survivors.. . Victims of violence, murder, and isolation from loved ones. Even those who have escaped its direct effects suffer the misfortunes of their friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and relatives.” Thus, Kalinga The war had tragic consequences for practically every inhabitant of the U.S. “If even a thousandth of them were killed or exiled today, it would have weighed on his mind”, he adds.

Romila Thapar has rightly written that ‘remorse and remorse over the suffering in Kalinga is not the remorse of a person who is motivated by a passing emotion, but the meaningful repentance of a person who is consciously aware of the suffering caused by him. Was’. Subsequently, Ashoka publicly denounced the glorification of victory and rejected the idea that fame and glory are goods in themselves. The kind of fame and glory he aspired to is the same as what comes from practicing and following the Dhamma, that is, public and political morality.

From now on, at the center of the king’s Dhamma is Universal:, universalStrike (The welfare of all living beings in this world and hereafter). War and conquest hampered the physical security of humans as well as the legitimate pursuit of these goods. Therefore they should be avoided. True pride lies in raising the sustenance of ordinary people above power and victory. Thus, by composing the Dhamma, Ashoka attempted to completely reshape the Brahmin-Kshatriya male culture. By rejecting warrior ethics, Ashoka introduced a radically new vision of kingship in which violence became a casual rather than a necessary, constitutional feature.

In Ashoka’s ethics, wars, organized violence between or against groups, bring chaos and devastation. They do not arise from human nature nor are they intrinsic to the human condition. They stem from insatiable greed and arrogant ambition. Although it is hard to imagine a world without anger and aggression, or the conflict-free human condition, many ways exist to manage and control them. Violence and war on a large scale can be avoided.

Humanity’s refusal to learn

Still, the human species refuses to learn. The alternatives to organized violence lie before us, but powerful rulers go on regardless. Worse, they always justify their cruelty, offer childish arguments and continually reinforce the belief that war is a part of human nature and that violence is inherent in our DNA. A subtle justification for war points to its good results. Didn’t the condition of women improve after World War II? Didn’t war get Europe’s welfare state? Didn’t it improve longevity by improving education, technology, and medicine? These arguments are absurd. Of course, bad things have unintended consequences that can be good for us in the long run. But that’s not reason enough to aim for the bad. We must seek the best peaceful alternatives to secure the good. In any case, we cannot forget that war is instigated by strong, ambitious men to intimidate the weak into giving up something usually valuable. Wars bring destruction to many to bring enormous material gains to some. That is why it is sad to see that our elected governments talk nonsense about peace. In international forums, we condemn acts of war and take pride in their futility. But in the same breath we ridicule the peacemakers. Our public discourse is full of glorification of mechanism.

no relief from wars

Ironically, human awareness against the inevitability of war has increased at a time when the frequency and scale of war has increased rapidly. The 20th century can aptly be described as the era of wars, with the first quarter of the 21st century already expanding into the 20th century. I would not be surprised if in the last 100 years not a single day has passed without large-scale violence and destruction in some part of the world. And not a single year has passed since the so-called ‘Long Peace’ in which the world’s most powerful countries have not bombed one of their enemies. Long after the formal war ended, ordinary people in some region of the world had to face its brutal consequences. It has been more than 2,000 years since we developed a clear moral consciousness against war. But humanity is nowhere close to talking.

Rajiv Bhargava is a political theorist and an Honorary Fellow, Center for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).