|
|
Today the world we live in is acutely afflicted with conflict. It has occasioned a serious problem in our life. It shows little signs of abating. We hardly see a basis for believing that it is likely to come to an end. We see a reason for being worried about it not only because it has deprived us of peace but also because it has affected other spheres of our life adversely. The fact is that there is no such a basis as is logical enough to make what causes conflict seem justifiable. The need of our time is to establish conflict (in its severe and therefore destructive form) - free society. It is important that we attain a clearer and fuller understanding of the process involved in the emergence of conflict. Therefore, this essay does justice with some general factors accounting for conflict in more broad general terms.
It is never the case that both sides involved in the conflict choose simultaneously to fight each other before the conflict occurs. For the most part, the side that some kind of injustice has been done to chooses to fight the side that has done this injustice. In a situation in which the side that chooses to fight before the conflict arises chooses to stop fighting the other side, the conflict is more likely to come to an end. It is because although the latter is willing to do injustice to the former, it is not usually willing to fight in such a situation. The latter chooses to fight the former not because it is really willing to fight but because it has to choose between stopping doing injustice or fighting back when attacked. Therefore, once the former stops fighting, the conflict is more likely to come to an end. The former stops fighting only when the latter stops doing injustice to it. The problem lies in the fact that the latter usually does not become ready to stop doing injustice to the former; it also lies in the fact that when the latter is to choose between stopping doing injustice or fighting back when attacked by the former, it chooses the latter.
It is more unlikely that there arises a situation in which the side injustice has been done to becomes strong enough to make the side who has done injustice stop doing injustice, and the latter becomes powerful enough to weaken the former to such an extent that the former can never make an attack on it to any possible degree. Being weak of the former does not guarantee that it stops getting involved in the conflict; it does not necessarily imply that although conflict exists, it is less severe than before. The fact is that the conflict that exists when the former becomes relatively weaker than the latter is likely to be more severe than the one that exists when both have more or less equal strength. It is because the latter is likely to fight the former indirectly by, say, in such a way as to affect the ordinary people who are no longer involved in the conflict.
Originally, religious and cultural conflicts usually result from the fact that one religious and cultural group shows no respect for another religious and cultural group. It rarely happens that they result from the fact that the two groups show simultaneously no respect for each other's religion and culture. This is not to say that this fact is not attributable to the conflict's being complicated more and more. Of these two groups, the first shows no respect for the second's religion and culture because it really dislikes it. The second shows no respect for the first's religion and culture not because it really dislikes it but because the second shows no respect for its religion and culture. Cultural and religious conflicts originally occur when the second reacts violently to the first’s showing no respect for its religion and culture. They gradually become complicated even further because the first also reacts violently to the second's violent reaction; this results in a series of violent actions and reactions that aggravate the conflict even further.
Conflicts resulting from ideological contradiction occur when one particular ideology is in practice, and a violent effort is made to replace it with another particular ideology. Such conflicts come to an end only when another one replaces the ideology already in practice. The conflict between two groups believing in two fundamentally opposed ideologies is less likely to come to an end because each group is less likely to be powerful enough to destroy the other entirely. An ideological contradiction should not be equated with doing injustice. Therefore, the conflicts they lead to should not be equated with each other; they should be dealt with differently.
To ensure that peace is always there in the days to come, it is necessary to create a situation in which a prospective conflict stops being prospective so that it will never occur; it is necessary to end the conflict that has already occurred. To ensure that a prospective conflict stops being prospective, it is necessary to end the condition that is likely to cause it. Similarly, it is necessary to make such an attempt to end the conflict that has already arisen. Because it is not possible for a weaker social entity to influence the cause of conflict, youth must organize themselves into a robust social entity both at national and international scale to ensure that they become strong enough to end the conflict.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Ajit Rai
I take a deep interest in development and underdevelopment as well as in politics, especially in its relation to economics. Currently, I am undertaking systematic research, and intend to theorize about Nepalese development and underdevelopment from a socio-philosophical approach.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
