HISTORY abounds in preachers of peace. But it is
hard to find in its annals an ideologue that has been
capable of presenting the concept of peace as a
complete ideology. Perhaps this is why over the
centuries no revolution in the true sense of the word
has been brought about on the basis of peace.
Although we have had a number of peace-loving
individuals, the establishment of a peaceful society
on a mass scale has never become a reality. Human
interests have been very deeply associated with
peace. That is why every individual, for personal
reasons, wants to have a peaceful life.
But he is repeatedly faced with such diverse
situations that he needs an ideology of peace to
guide him. For peace being the human need is not
enough to make him exercise restraint and remain
peaceable in all situations. He needs an ideology
which convinces him at the conscious level of the
necessity to keep the peace at all times.
We can find examples of this in human history. For
instance, let’s take democracy. Man has always
instinctively cherished the idea of a democratic
polity and we find some instances in human history
where such a system had been successfully
established, although only in a partial way. But the
advent of a full-fledged revolution on the basis of
democracy became a reality only when the thinkers
of modern Europe presented the instinctive
aspirations of human beings in the form of a
comprehensive ideology.
The same is the case with peace. Peace has always
been, in every age, a human need. However, in
modern times, peace has become so vital to the
survival of mankind that it has now literally become
a matter of life and death for humanity. Peace
means life: its absence means death.
The writer’s aim is to present peace in the form of a
complete ideology—an ideology which awakens
human consciousness; which provides the answer
to all life’s problems in terms of peace; which
describes the utmost importance of peace, right
from the individual to the international level. Peace
is a prerequisite for all kinds of human progress.
With peace, we progress: without peace, we face
ruin.
Why should an ideology be required for peace?
There are two principal reasons for this. When one
focuses on an objective, one has to adopt one factor
and discard another. This can be done with
conviction only when one has clear and specific
theoretical justification for it. Without this, one
cannot be wholehearted in one’s acceptance or
rejection of any concept or practice. For instance, if
the notion takes root in the minds of certain
individuals that their rights have been usurped and
that to redress their grievances they must resort to
violence, it will be impossible to dissuade them,
unless we are able to prove with forceful arguments
that violence is not the solution to their problems,
that such a course will only aggravate matters and
will never restore to them their rights. To bring
these individuals to the path of peace, it is essential
that they should be convinced by an ideology based
on reason that, to achieve their objectives, they must
essentially renounce violent methods and conduct
their struggle along peaceful lines. Ideology gives
us the logical basis as to why one course of action
should be rejected and another course of action
should be adopted.
Man can properly fulfill any given mission only
when he is ideologically convinced of its validity.
Ideology provides man with the necessary
warranties, otherwise he fails to act with the
necessary energy and enthusiasm so vital to the
success of any struggle.
In similar vein, courage is the greatest energizer in
the journey of life. A courageous man can climb to
the top of a mountain, whereas a man devoid of
courage cannot even proceed along level pathways.
But what is man’s source of courage? It is ideology
which provides man with the courage to tread the
path of peace. It has been rightly said that “Man is a
rational animal” and also that “man is an
explanation-seeking animal.” Both these sayings
convey the same point: that man derives mental
satisfaction from his actions only when the goals at
which they are aimed have been established as right
by rational argument. Attempting to evolve a
complete ideology on the basis of peace is indeed as
important a goal as peace itself, and vice versa. Both
are interdependent. The one cannot exist without
the other.
Such violence as has been witnessed in modern
times has never hitherto been experienced. Wartime
depredations and violence by unauthorized groups
in the form of proxy or guerilla warfare have
inflicted such great harm upon humanity that this
seems to be undoing all our progress. This is a
reality which is being experienced by all concerned
inhabitants of the earth.
How can this be explained? The reason is clear:
people do not possess a complete ideology, which
favours peace, whereas the sole justification for
violence is the force of public sentiment. When an
activist feels the urge to become a world leader or
when a community is provoked into avenging the
losses it has suffered, no need of logical or rational
justification is felt. The force of sentiment is
sufficient to activate leaders and followers alike. But
where adhering to peace or adopting a peaceful
course of action is concerned this is possible only
when there is a very strong justification for peace.
While violence is instinctive, peace calls for strict
mental discipline and self control to be exercised,
everyone wants to assert himself by negating
others, so that, one short emotional outburst is all
that is needed for violence to be indulged in, unlike
peaceful action, which requires serious thought to
be given to it.
The only solution to this serious problem is for man
to be in possession of a complete ideology of peace.
The actual problem of today is that no ideology of
peace in the real sense exists. Why is there this
negative side to human psychology? It is directly
related to the creation plan of the Creator. It
acquires meaningfulness only in terms of God’s
plan of creation.
The present world has been designed by its Creator
as a testing ground for mankind. Man has been
granted full freedom of will in this world. But this
freedom is not meant to produce anarchy. Its
objective is to demonstrate whether man, despite
having full freedom, can lead a disciplined life. He
has to raise himself from the level of animal
amorality to the level of human ethics. In spite of
experiencing feelings of hatred and having the urge
to be violent, he should become the embodiment of
love and peace. When negative sentiments corrode
his heart, he should be able to rid himself of them
and make himself a positive thinker.
To put it briefly, despite possessing total freedom,
he should of his own free will become an example
of moral, disciplined behaviour. One who thus
conducts himself will pass God’s test. Only those
who act in this way will be selected by the Lord, the
Creator and Sustainer of this universe, as the
beneficiaries of that most wonderful blessing—
eternal paradise.
The study of psychology tells us that human beings
are by nature egoists. Whenever their ego is hit, a
hostile reaction is produced which easily becomes
converted into hatred and the urge to do violence.
This point has been dealt with very clearly by C.M.
Joad in his book: “The Modern Wickedness.” It is
this psychological weakness in human beings due
to which we find that differences often take the
form of animosity, which frequently leads to
violence.
This shows that violence is in no need of any
ideology. Violence flares up, or can flare up on its
own. But, so far as peace is concerned, it is a course
that we adopt by choice. One has to make oneself
intentionally peace-loving. That is, while violence
occurs on its own, restoring a state of peace requires
a positive and determined struggle.
Willingness to keep the peace—a matter of
conscious decision-making—is a noble human
quality. For peace, man has to curb his anger and be
forgiving. He has to control his feelings of hatred
and project feelings of love for others. If peace is to
be maintained, negative thinking has to be
suppressed and replaced with positive thinking. For
peace to be a reality, he has to be a well-wisher
rather than an ill-intentioned person.
For violence to erupt, provocation is enough, while
for peace to prevail, man has to nullify provocation
with moderation and restraint.
In the use of violence, man simply follows his basic
instincts, while to promote peace, man has to give
himself a complete moral overhaul. Only after such
a conversion is the individual able to play the role
of a peace-loving person.
The need is to convert non-peace into peace, for
only after this conversion is he able to play the role
of a peaceful person. That is why a comprehensive
ideology of peace is necessary. Simply making
appeals and pronouncements will not suffice for
this purpose, for they will not persuade people to
adopt peaceful ways.
This has been borne out by historical events and it is
likewise my own personal experience. I have been
engaged in a peace mission, for the last fifty years,
and I can say with conviction that hundreds and
thousands of youths who, spurred on by their
emotions, had taken to violence or militancy,
underwent a revolution in their thinking after
listening to my reasoning and studying my writings
which, by means of forceful arguments, established
the paramouncy of peace. They abandoned the path
of violence and opted for the path of peace.
I found that those youths, out of a lack of
awareness, had mistakenly thought that violence
was to be equated with bravery, and peaceful action
with cowardice. They thought that there was
everything to be gained by violence, but that
peaceful methods would bring them nothing. This
misapprehension caused them to think that violence
meant advancement, and peace meant regression.
In other words they had an ‘ideology’ of violence,
but no ideology of peace. Yet they became
convinced by my arguments that there was no real
ideology in favour of violence, and that positive
ideology was only in favour of peace, in the real
sense. Furthermore, the realization dawned on them
that the violent course of action which they had
taken in order to advance their own interests was
ultimately suicidal, while the peaceful course of
action which they had thought unproductive was,
in fact, the true path to advancement.
After this intellectual discovery, their lives
underwent a transformation. From being violent
activists, they turned into peaceful activists. Indeed,
in various parts of the world, there are a great
number of youths who, after becoming fully aware
of the truth of this matter, have abandoned violence
in favour of engaging their energies in peaceful
spheres of life—for instance, in education, social
reform and the preaching of peace.
Ref -The Ideology of Peace
- by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
