Introduction

Once members of a society become fully aware of certain common interests and common values building community of peace can become possible, unconsciousness about these common elements makes conflict unavoidable. This new consciousness is the central feature of many fields of study in the sciences, social sciences and religions—the three basic sources of human knowledge—as each of the branches expresses various intellectual perspectives on the world. Social scientists are carefully struggling to liberate the rule of power, interest and ideology in knowledge. Based on the assumptions about human nature, the nature of state and international system, they have constructed various approaches to grasp the role of science and technology in resolving the problems of human societies. Today, the increasing fragmentation of sciences and social sciences into several disciplines has, however, produced mind-numbing specialization and divided their constituencies accordingly beyond the capacity of human beings to imagine, perceive and integrate.

The word religion is derived from Latin, religio, which means, "to re-link" or to re-connect people of various social, economic and geographical origins into a normative framework for socialization and norm-based action. Building a community requires not only the application of “reason” which is the sovereign domain of science and social science but also feeling, emotion and normative bonding derived from the spirituality of humanity and religion. It is only the philosophy of religion that is trying to establish the bonding of human beings through faith and feeling. Religion is a moral substratum of human life. "For religion is a major factor of peace and war—depending on whether the re-linking vision encompasses all or against somebody" (Galtung, 1995:64). Realists are oriented more toward order than law, morality and peace. The idealists are the community builders because they see the importance of shared values, institutions and practices for a peaceful life. The central reflection of the spiritual awareness is to develop an "oneness with all, a sense of belonging to the universe as a whole" (Capra, 2002:59). Noted scientist Albert Einstein resolves the dilemma between science and religion in this way: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (1979:46). Knowledge about the whole and one's own place in it provides one to systemic orientation.

Religion is close to the idealism of peace rather than realism of power because it rests on the confluence of civilizations rather than a balance of power. Idealists believe that balance of power among nations cannot help to achieve world peace whereby world community can escape from perpetual anarchy of free wills that characterizes today’s international system. Neither imperial (domination of people and nation-states), nor hegemonic (partitioning the world into sphere of influence or divide and rule) nor even muscular (eliminating opponents and suppressing the dissenting voice) peace can ensure a wider system of mutual security. Only a democratic peace based on participatory structures can satisfy the needs of diverse societies and resolve their conflict non-violently. The first task of social science, like religion, is to liberate human being from the state of nature by creating community capable of subduing chaos and constructing public order; the second task is to negotiate a social contract that puts moral and constitutional checks on the holders of power; and the third is to establish a condition to balance freedom with public order and justice for the peaceful life of people.  These conditions are important at a time when international system has not undergone a true transformation away from anarchy but reflecting historical patterns analyzed by realist school of social science. The power of reason espoused by social science has its own limitations. The great Enlightened Philosopher Emmanual Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" shows that "human knowledge is constrained not merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by a sensory apparatus of perception" (D' Souza, 2007).

Peace politics largely counters four institutional sources of violence—the hegemony of reductionist disciplinary knowledge and perspective derived from single subject such as economics, political science, sociology, history, theology, geography, etc; disciplinary order built on rigidly institutionalized social division of labor based on caste, class and gender; the constitution and institutions not conforming to the aspiration of people for freedom, human rights, social justice and peace; and disciplinary politics incapable of fulfilling basic needs and representing social diversity into political power thereby provoking multiple opposition, resistance and rebellion and stoking perpetual fear among people. The counter-narrative posed by idealists hopes to ameliorate the instinct inherent in animus dominandi, through laws, peace and institutions.

Cosmology of Peace in Nepal

The meaning of Veda and Buddha is enlightenment--self-realization, nirvana and awakening. It also denotes the condition of human happiness arising out of the absolute cessation of desire, renunciation and the development of some conception of a sanatan dharma, higher law than the projection of greed, grievances and self-interest. The Hindu treatises Ramanayan, Mahabharat and Bhagbad Geeta, like Bible, have defined the code of conduct for a just war to eliminate the root causes of evils in society. To both religions, war can be justifiable for only higher level of ends. The Hindu religion offered poly-theistically inclined worldviews and accepted others' values and beliefs. Nepalese consciousness is determined by the co-evolution of Hinduism, Buddhism and many local faiths rather than exclusion of one at the cost of other. Like Christianity, both accept the culture of kshama (forgiveness), empathy and compassion for the reconciliation of conflict-torn society. "Victim communities and their tormentors need to do much more to transform the past and present into a redemptive future" (Gopin, 2004:124).

Buddhist worldview evolved in the 5^th century BC is non-theistic. But, like all religions, it cherishes the highest aspirations for altruistic compassion, humility and enlightenment. Buddhism shares with Hinduism the law of karma (the social theory of cause-effect relationship) and moksha (emancipation) from the cycle of suffering and rebirth.  Gautam Buddha’s earlier teachings preserved in Suttas seek to address the problem of universal sorrows through morals, such as charity work, right conduct, meditation and mental training aimed at self-improvement. It is based on transcendental knowledge that frees human beings from their super ego and selfish ends that underlie the root causes of all conflicts.  The transcendental knowledge of Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel and Karl Marx resembles a common theme of emancipation with Asian religions. Like Marxism, the Asian religions talk more about human emancipation than human rights and prefer, like Jacques Derrida, the deconstruction of structural injustice from society for better form of social cooperation. In no way, however, they defended the anomie of secular post-modernism. Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism provide lessons on "how religion and governance can be juxtaposed and how belief can inform policy and action" (Carter and Smith, 2004: 286). But, like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, none of these religions defend conversion of faith.

For Hindu, yagna-- a process of achieving knowledge of ultimate reality through reason, distinction between eternal and ephemeral phenomenon and a culture of sacrifice-- is the path to nirvan (enlightenment). The faith in enlightenment fostered a rational contestation of reason and principles to solve the existing problem of society, build moral leadership and promote inter-faith dialogue.  The Hindu-Buddhist treatises are concerned not only with the ends of politics but also the means and lay down the theory of karma—a law of causation, which operates at physical, mental and moral spheres of human beings and transcends several generations. Those who perform virtuous karma (conduct) receive good result independent of one’s own wish and desire while bad conduct yields vicious results, dukha (suffering) and conflict thus producing a source of bad conscience.

The Hindhu-Buddhist dharma-mediated statecraft puts inner moral checks on the rulers’ will to absolute power and makes them conscious about their accountability to the public. Hinduism accepts and tolerates a culture embracing diverse norms, beliefs, cults and practices. It has neither any beginning nor any founder like Christ or Allah, not even any authority figure to impose structure, discipline and punishment. Discursive formation of knowledge is, therefore, very important to evolve consensual code of conduct for diverse society for enlightened coexistence. Hinduism regards all phenomena as imperfect manifestation of one reality.

The Buddhist revolt against karmakand (orthodox Brahmanism) was partially prompted by a generous idealism to rectify the priestly aristocratic bearers of effective social power rather than total negation of Hinduism. It involved the contestation of subjection of people, offered alternative institutional model and underlined the principles of social change. Gautam Buddha spread the consciousness of world brotherhood and attempted to transform dukha (misery and pain) into sukha (bliss and well-being) through structural change, education and right conduct. To him, society is not the divinely ordered nature of things but is a human creation brought into existence by choice and action. Johan Galtung in his “Buddhism: A Quest for Unity and Peace” underlines that the application of Buddhism can help to solve global problems of peace, social development, human enlightenment, nature balance and cultural adequacy. For Buddhist, there is no “higher bliss than peace” (1993: 1-6). The inner peace is the peace of mind, which is related to outer peace where human beings live with their fellow beings in a reasonable harmony with nature and culture akin Rousseau's general will. Social change has to begin with the individual and that only by living in the right way one can achieve self-fulfillment.

Both Hindu-Buddhist religions see individuals in relationship to a higher system. This is the reason they give primacy to a balance or the middle path (Golden Mean) between the greed of individual and the need of human beings, and between individuals’ quest for freedom and system’s imperative for order, stability and coherence for the promotion of collective good. Unlike Hindus, Buddhists oppose war whether it is “righteous” or not and argue that a durable peace can be achieved by only peaceful means.  True Buddhists maintain a truly pacifist position, renounce violence as a policy tool to achieve certain objectives and engage in peace education and action. The Buddhist Sangha remained as monastic community based on the principles of peace, tolerance and non-violence like Gurukuls, Guthi, Math and temples as well as several charity organizations of Hindus. They, like Confusians, considered that engagement in education, civic life and toleration of differences are central to the resolution of conflicts. "The cure of souls, is very important, both in protestant and Catholics Churches"  (Foucault, 1991:342).

Nepal’s Public Space

Many of Nepal’s traditional civil societies, such as religious organizations and social institutions are duty-based, have had organic formation and advocate ahimsa (non-violence) as a tool for political socialization in gurukuls (residential schools) like Plato’s Academy in Greek city-state. Historically, the shastrarartha (discourse) organized in public places, temples, open theater  and public inns was opened to all people. "A portion of the public sphere is constituted in every conversation in which private persons come together to form a public" (Habermas, 2000:288). They aimed to train people not only in scholarship but also in wisdom and right conduct. King Janak encouraged sastrartha (discourse) in his palace aiming to liberate political power from its oppressive content, shape public opinion and reach a shared understanding of the situation in regulating and reproducing forms of cultivated social life.  His contemporaries have also stressed on the conduct of dharma (good public action) for value integration among various societies and laid the groundwork of cosmopolitan order akin to Immanuel Kant’s vision of perpetual peace rooted into universal reason, cooperation, humanity and justice. Dharma, however, neither means a religion nor spirituality. It is a duty-based behavior of holders of position and power and absolutely independent of religious doctrine. Sastrartha performed in King Janak’s palace was a rational process of deflating dogmas and reaching mutual understanding and consensus among all the concerned participants, mediation of radical disagreements and application of reason and various perspectives for conflict resolution. Discourse made self-righteousness of leadership difficult and self-criticism quite easy. Like Confucianism, this has facilitated the non-violent resolution of conflict and enabled citizens to become peaceful members of a community.

The Hindu religion puts sanatan dharma (the higher form of cosmological order) above barnashram dharma (social division of labor) and raj dharma (national governance) and articulates the interconnectedness of human life and natural world. Vedic ethics is concerned more about moral conduct of human beings towards each other and nature than with religious problems. Sanatan dharma has always propagated peace and universal brotherhood and generated suitable environment for harmonious co-existence. According to sanatan dharma, a society, which is highly resistant to adaptation and change, is conflict-prone. This means, like Judaism, both Hindu-Buddhist religions propagate the concept of “positive peace” grounded in changing needs of human beings. Judaism suggests that if "peace is to endure, parties must transform themselves—their thinking, their actions and their relationships" (Carter and Smith, 2004:282). Many Hindu treatises including Kautilya's Arthashastra, have defined the reasons of state not only in realpolitik term but also normative values, combined morality with politics and defined mutual rights and obligations of states and people. Gandhism justifies satyagraha (non-violent civil disobedience) against the hegemony of unaccountable power. Both Hinduism and Buddhism claim that the universe is a web—each part is related to the whole aiming to integrate itself into universality. Only recognition to each other’s space and identity makes peaceful coexistence possible. Otherwise, in a state of nature, peace will remain as a tragic symbol for human being. Peace without justice, fairness and equity simply cannot endure. This is the essence of Bhagbad Gita. It allows legitimate opposition, resistance and even rebellion if the foundation of political power is unjust and unaccountable.

Structural Condition of Peace

Conflict becomes inevitable when political order is maintained despite structural injustices, inequality and exclusion and consent of people is sustained by the effective use of force, media manipulation, false consciousness and hegemony. The historical condition of social orthodoxy, gender inequality, conservatism, caste hierarchy of human beings and bureaucratization of society in Nepal has undermined traditional social fabric and social capital and generated a dynamic tension between the civic and un-civic power.  The corrupt and patronage-based fundamentals of the regimes of all types— based on nexus to power remained unchanged despite regime change several times which is a barrier to the negotiation of a lasting social contract between the state and society. This tension for the redistribution of resources even linked local power struggle to regional and global geopolitics and scuttled the prospects for democratization, modernization and rationalization of society. This means peace politics is not essentially a static and anti-change (negative peace). It involves the contestation of ideas about good life and renegotiation of political space. In negative peace, political actors are less able to coordinate their actions in the quest of a common good as they are not cohesive enough and each actor tries to maximize its individual gain rather than social utility. And the rationality of action is determined by self-interest rather than morality and the conception of dharma.

The responsibility of policy makers lies in developing a converging policy between the two forces—forces of status quo and forces of radical change and politicize the decision-making for the creation of peaceful society amenable to steady change articulated in Golden Mean. The roles of social scientists lie in unpacking the clustering themes—conflict management, conflict transformation and conflict resolution—and defining the task for each of these components for peace building.  The hierarchical social reality of Nepal describes precisely the relationship between people and their space in power dynamics. Nepal's power complex is non-linear, therefore, the process of modernization based on linear progression of development alone cannot settle the interconnected social, economic and political contradictions. The narrow definition of peace espousing anti-war posture, absence of violence or anti-state discourse cannot address societal grievances. Violent mode of resolving political conflict is ultimately self-defeating and unsustainable as it fosters a culture of violence, not the culture of peace. Only a practical rationality governed by a conscious goal of peace is expected to foster harmony.

Contemporary Peace Movements

Have peace movements in Nepal contributed positively to deescalate conflicts? Has the public opinion pro-actively mobilized by peace movement efforts separated politics from violence? Have the peace movements been helpful to moderate the partisan, conflict-prone, power-oriented behavior of leadership? Are political actors looking for an incentive to co-operate with each other and break the cycle of zero-sum game that made Nepal’s politics immobile, opaque, disengaged and deadlocked due to growing pressures from the peace movements? How peace movements can generate enough costs for leadership to cooperate for peaceful conflict transformation?

The contemporary peace movements in Nepal began with the protest against intense human destruction caused by the escalation of CPN (Maoist) People's War, counter-insurgency operations following the growth of a politics of clientalism oriented towards monopoly of resources controlled by the state, insurgency of non-state actors and movement-oriented groups and federations for representation. The perpetuation of conflict in Nepal is attributed to each actor’s claim to the legitimation of power, the defense of one’s own rights, absolutization of particular interests and a refusal to accept common good, common ground and national interests. The Nepalese raj dharma (polity) has been subverted from within by the primacy of loyalty of leadership first to their affno manchhe (primary groups), then to political parties and less to the nation and its citizens. The system of governance has lost its legitimacy due to the inability of political leadership to prevent conflict, economic down turn and social injustices and discover the common ground of reason upon which they all take their position. Against the background of the state’s lack of legitimacy monopoly on power, the political conflict provided a space for manifold social conflicts and broke the political connection of citizens with the state. The Nepalese citizens still have a chance to stand up and stake their claim on peace and justice against their leaders who know no morality of power except competition of self-interest. They failed to learn to communicate among themselves except through media and, consequently, are indulged in perpetual struggle for power lusts devoid of inner moral springs and checks.

Most of peace movements organized by civil society in Nepal have latent consequences as well as manifest, immediate ones as they reacted against escalating factors and highlighted the root causes of conflict. The latent consequences cannot be measured by a specific peace campaign against the use of child soldiers, use of force against non-combatants, ban of landmines, protection of human rights, abuse of women etc. After the signing of Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the ruling seven-party alliance and CPN (Maoist)  one can  measure several peace indicators, such as mode of de-escalation of conflict, change in the behavior of actors, transformation of contexts, issues, goals and identities, defining of common stakes  and developing people’s capacity to comprehend facts and issues. National policies have established some of the structures and procedures for resolving conflicts and formulating and implementing rules. These are necessary conditions but by no means sufficient to guarantee the establishment of peaceful legitimate order unless the CPA regulates the behavior of drivers, actors and stakeholders of conflict system through a new social contract through Constituent Assembly. A peace monitoring mechanism must be set up from the independent people. The growing tendency to projectize civil society and human rights institutions and their instrumetalization against the state has de-politicized their capacity for the social emancipation of people and an  élan vital for collective action.

In a broader sense, peace movements have the goal of establishing a “positive peace”—a peace that constructs a modicum of legitimate order in society based on social justice and transformation of violent social relationships into non-violent ones. In positive peace, political actors are able to coordinate their actions in quest of common goals, such as human rights, democracy, equity and ecological balance and thwart the efforts of disruptive forces. Similarly, it establishes the compatibility between the ends and means of politics and rationality of action is determined by value-orientation as well as goal orientation underlined in CPA. Contemporary peace movements in Nepal are pluralistic and multi-thematic in nature ranging from inter-faith dialogue to anti-war demonstrations. They flourish with an awareness of interconnectedness and interrelated transformation thereby linking the underlying deep division of society and seeking the peaceful resolution of conflict. A democratic constitution that is broadly respected and keeps the balance between the Spirit of Age and the needs of Nepalese people can only hope to resolve conflict peacefully. Only then personal and inter-personal transformation and democratic legitimacy through the consent of people can help to construct an edifice of order. Enforceable rules and authority relationship are important for maintaining the structural stability of the polity and developing harmony between the state and society. Unity of interests between the two makes peace both realistic and possible.

One key problem in Nepal is that due to often anti-state and pro-market discourse articulated by civil society and human rights, their interest in working for national or broader public interests have been questioned by the public. And due to upholding of particular ideology civil society’s capacity for social integration of subsidiary identities (gender, ethnicity, religious, caste groups) and transforming them into enlightened citizenship have been contested. The immediate reason of the conflict springs from the status quo and delay in necessary reform programs although CPA has aimed at conflict management through social change and cultural, economic, political and social transformation.

The communities for peace in Nepal are too diverse lacking any coordinating mechanism for sustained collective action. Similarly, the multiplicity of actors pursues their interests irrationally. This is preventing the non-violent resolution of conflict. This means inter and intra-party peace building process is required to pursue them for rational behavior in times of crisis. The gaps between civil society actors should also be bridged though consensual means and a rainbow coalition should be created for peace, solidarity and public action. In Nepal, the state has ceded some of its powers to private sectors and civil society in the peace process and the laws provide roles for them in local and national level of conflict resolution. But, political will, skills and ability of civil societies to address the critical social needs of citizens, prevention of violence and creation of an environment for dialogue and compromise have been limited.

The activists of peace movements are politically divided along partisan lines. The approach to peace movements appears top-down that focuses on working within the political system to influence decision makers. There is a need to strengthen and expand local peace committees so that local conflicts rooted in structural injustice are mediated through resolutionary change. An economic cost of militarization of society is not properly highlighted. Peace activists have not forwarded the vision regarding civil society development which is shaping the dynamics of conflict. The triumph of civil society over the state has weakened the common identification of people with nationality and its role as an arbiter of contending interests.

Conclusion

One can agree with Kant that deeply rooted and widely diffused conflict cannot be resolved by either by utilitarian doctrine of politics or its step-mother of socialist discontent but only by the realization of rights by the people (Hastie, 1891:XXXVII). Although awful applications of religions and social science have caused violence and war their original aim was to moderate various forms of extremes in society, resolve differences through norm-governed conduct and shape collective future.  They also advocated the de-legitimization of violence as a policy tool to achieve goals. Thinking about the articulation of alternative viewpoints and development of a political culture of tolerance is central to break the chain of power and personality-centric politics devoid of common good. Science can restore the reason to a normal mind while religion has the moral power of consolation and reconciliation.

All conflicts between groups are capable of solution through negotiation and compromise if they are dissolved into a representative framework acceptable to all. Peace can be achieved by changing the root causes of conflicts. Integrated framework of peace building requires the ability of people to generate social capital so that they can face the future with great confidence.  And accordingly, "rebuilding what has fallen apart is centrally the process of rebuilding relational spaces that hold things together" (Lederach,2005:75). Since the cause and effect relationships are often irreversible only the elimination of root causes can make a critical dent on the conflict system. Integration of concept between peace education and peace action requires the establishment of joint civil society and NGOs in crisis zone, strengthening the connectors of society, building their capacity and doing activities there including early warning and early response to conflicts seeking a new social order. If religious framework of ethics disappears from the society, the rationalistic and scientific tradition of competition alone would not be able to offer resolution.

References

Capra, Fritjof. 2004. The Hidden Connections, New Delhi: Harper Collins Publishers.

Carter, Judy and Gordon S. Smith. 2004. "Religions and Peacebuilding," eds.Harold Cowards and Gordon S. Smith, Religion and Peace building, New York: State University of New York, 2004.

D' Souza, Dinesh. 2007. "What Atheists Kant Refute: Reason Must Know its Limits," The Christian Science Monitor, October 17, 2002. 

Einstein, Albert. 1979. Ideas and Opinions, New Delhi: Rupa and Co.

Foucault, Michale. 1991. The Foucault Reader eds. Paul Rabinau, New Delhi: Penguin Books.

Galtung, Johan. 1993. Buddhism: A Quest for Unity and Peace, Colombo: Sarvodaya Books Publications.

Galtung, Johan. 1995. "The Challenge of Religion: Transcendent or Immament, Hard or Soft?" eds. Alan Race and Roger Williamson, True to This Earth, Oxford: One World.

Gopin, Mark. 2004. "Judaism and Peacebuilding," eds.Harold Cowards and Gordon S. Smith, Religion and Peace building, New York: State University of New York, 2004.

Habermas, Jurgen. 2000. "Public Sphere," Kate Nash ed. Readings in Contemporary Sociology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Hastie, W. 1891. Kant's Principles of Politics, Edinburgh: T. Clark.

Lederach, John Paul. 2005. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Published in Civil Service Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2008.  

Comments (1)

All religion is in favor of peace and against violence and war but it happens in the world. Is it cause of inividuals' interests and selfness?

Commented by Sarama Rai - August 28, 2008 @ 10:06 PM

Post Your Comment

* Name
* E-Mail
*
* Security code
* Comment