India has to be a Pacifying State, Internally and Externally

Rao V. B. J. Chelikani 

I. The State is for the People: 

When Sir Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar on behalf of India, along with 49 other countries signed the Charter and joined the United Nations Organisation on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, USA, a new world order was born with the promise of lasting peace among the states. It is an appeal for ―a general international organization, based on the principle sovereign equality of all nations.‖ Since then, there are now 193 states that claim to adhere to the UN Charter. It is a declared realization that hereafter, the states are meant for the people; not the other way round. The people cannot be sacrificed to make the state appear more powerful and glorious. This lamentation came after the two World Wars by the states that have a matured history, when crores of human beings were put to tremendous damage, suffering and death. Though a majority of the states claim to be democratic by definition, they are run by a new political class formed into political parties and a perennial bureaucracy, in the place of former feudal lords, royal dynasties and Imperial families. Paradoxically, the newly liberated and independent states from Asia, Africa and Latin America claimed absolute sovereignty over the lives and destinies of their nationals and mutually ensured by Accords that no state should intervene in the 'internal affairs‘ of other states. Yet, many states still want to extend their territories by waging wars, without accepting to negotiate or to reconcile or any arbitration. The diplomats on either side go on discussing about the 'confidence-building‘ measures to be taken in order to begin the real negotiations. 

But, ever since the beginning of the 21st century, the world and the people have evolved in such a way that all the political entities called states, including the Indian state, have to accept certain minimum obligations to fulfil sincerely towards the people living under their custody. The state has to promote and respect the fundamental human rights of all human beings living within and beyond its boundaries, including the right to peace and development. As announced by Eleanor Roosevelt while initiating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the rights of the individual are above the rights of the state. But, in practice, as our experience confirms the state, by its very political nature, seeking and exercising power over others, has been unable to bring or maintain harmony in the society, and among the states. Now, in all democracies, the citizens want the state to be credible by becoming accountable and transparent about how it spends the public money collected as taxes. 

The second phenomenon we observe is that the states are always in constant conflict, open or imminent while playing the game of balancing power, which is always unstable. At the same time, there has been a change in the world's demography. Gradually, every individual, in whichever country s/he might be living, has been, increasingly escaping from the total control of the state and is managing to develop some link, affinity or complicity or dependence or interest with people living beyond the national frontiers. 

The world has become an interdependent global village. No country can live isolated without exchanging some goods or services with other people in other countries. All human beings are equally valuable and respectable. No people are chosen by the God and no land is holier than the other. Since the state is not the same as a society, the state should serve the society by promoting social and human development. Social transformations should take their own course and evolve; they cannot be dictated by the operators of the state. The state and its governments cannot pretend to work for abstract groups in the name of tribe, region, race, nation, or religion. It has to work to empower each and every individual who votes and pays taxes. In toto, it means that the operators of the state (political class and bureaucrats) should let the citizens participate directly in the governance, since it is technically possible now, instead of leaving everything to the Representatives. Since, peace, like development, is indivisible and inseparable, the state has to work for and with its own people, as well as for all the peoples in other countries to have peaceful relations. 

II. India’s Internal Pacification and Emotional Integration is still an Unfinished Job:

 The Indian state owing to its long history, diversity, open culture, philosophy and size has a specific role to play, both internally and externally to pacify the inevitable conflicts among the people. Further, the unique way it handled its occupying colonial forces to liberate itself designates it for a unique mission among the nations and the people in the world. During the freedom struggle, it adopted pacific attitudes and methods and non-violent activism as successful strategies to improve human relations between the dominating rulers and the submissive people. Unfortunately, after independence, such humanist strategies are not continued in internal governance. As a consequence, many diverse ethnic groups, religions and regions continue to fear the domination of others and continue to quarrel to liberate themselves from the power of the entity called the Indian state that replaced the British rule. For all these 75 years of governance by the class of politicians, who became the new rulers and the bureaucracy that succeeded and continued the British style of administration have not been able to inspire in them any trust to live together with other Indians. 

Many residents in India are not emotionally integrated into the Indian society to cultivate the art of living together with a sense of humanist mission or vision. India, if it is keen on its pacifying mission, should have by now eliminated the possession of firearms in the hands of private individuals, at least in some states. Ineffective presence and interventions of the Police and extraordinary delays in the judicial proceedings are prompting the public to keep arms for self-defence, and if possible, for aggression. While the material conditions of law and order are maintained by the political class and the state employees, the spirit and aspirations of the residents are to be promoted only by the civil society movements of a non-governmental nature, which, by vocation are not tempted to exercise power over others. They only can educate the public to adopt a culture of peace and understanding. They can integrate peace education and conflict resolution strategies into formal and non-formal schools and help them cultivate empathy and cooperation from a young age. Thanks to modern technologies of communications, using Social media and online platforms, civil societies can both promote dialogue and understanding and share positive narratives and experiences. 

Currently, in most democratic regimes in developing countries, the real watchdog functions are being performed not by the Opposition political parties but by civil society organisations only. A government that does not tolerate them is called an authoritarian regime. A state has no longer any satisfactory justification to claim our loyalty and our tax money by saying that it is operating to defend us against our internal and external enemies. Mostly, these rivalries and enmities are between the states and not between the people. The state and its governments cannot spend tax money claiming that it is to become a powerful and glorious state among other states. In reality, most states operate only for the power and benefit of a class of politicians and their parties, as well as for the benefit of a vast number of state employees. A good part of its income is spent on maintaining itself and strengthening itself militarily. Though the regime is called democratic, the people remain only objects of political manipulations and only eventual indirect beneficiaries. They are not individually empowered. 

III. External International Cooperation for Peace and Development:

In today‘s world, global dialogue and cooperation are a pre-condition for human development and social development to happen in diverse societies, as it is no longer possible to promote them autonomously and separately in each country. It is proved beyond any hope that the national diplomats and armed forces are not able to settle the disputes bilaterally between the diplomats. Further, by forming Groups and joining Blocs, we are only enhancing the scale of conflict and violence. Instead, India has to take up a new mission of pacification of human relations with other people in other states, without conveniently limiting itself to state-to-state diplomatic negotiations and transient political considerations. Since it is the people who make a state, it is they who should have a philosophy and a way of life that is pacific and cooperative in spirit and attitude that would facilitate living together with other people who are naturally different. 

To realise a respectable level of development after a century of efforts i.e. by 2047, India should not only adjust to the rising international trends but become proactive and mitigate the rising geo-political risks and new crises that are disturbing the world peace and contribute to global economic growth. India‘s external relations should reflect the virtues for which it has been known for centuries. In fact, in the globalised world that we are living in, all human beings should have the freedom to have direct non-political and non-diplomatic relations with people-to-people, whether they are living within our borders or in the neighbourhood or in distant places. In the 21st century, man has conquered distances; one can communicate with anybody in any place. That is for this reason that we can safely close our embassies and consulates abroad and save a lot of foreign exchange. 

IV. The Global Governance: 

Now, the ultimate political power has to be concentrated in the UNO as the ultimate depository of paramount Sovereign power, which is to be exercised democratically by its member states. The state and its governments need not have absolute sovereignty over its citizens; further, the UN bodies should have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a state, when it deems necessary. Instead of multi-polar relations, India as an active member of the UNO‘s different Agencies, should maintain international dialogue for peace-making and cooperation for development through the UNO only and not separately. Global governance should follow the Representation or Delegation of Power principle, which is based on the principle of Subsidiarity. It's a principle used in the governance by the European Union (EU) to determine when the EU should intervene in areas where it shares power with its member states. 

It means exercising the power of decision-making is to be placed at each level where there is responsibility; since one tends to use authority more judiciously if one knows that one will be held accountable for the results. At international, national, municipal and micro community (Resident Welfare Association) levels, the decisions and the operations should take place by the people that are affected. This is the decentralisation of power and decision-making in the context of real situations by the well-informed, where there will be synergy between functions, functionaries and funds. Where a lower body can perform, a higher body need not intervene. It permits constant checks to verify the operations, by those who have voted for it. If there is friction or disharmony in decision-making, the higher body will prevail, thereby there will be no need for force or violence.