By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai
I. The Context: Saying No to War
On January 09, 2025, inaugurating the 18th Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (Bhubaneswar), the Indian Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, thought it fit “to tell the world that the future lies not in war, but in Buddha (भविष्य युद्ध में नहीं है, बुद्ध में है)”. Hopefully, this crisp but sagacious primer would become an Indian mantra for 2025 to be a global solution provider for some 59 conflicts in 34 countries (PRIO, June 10, 2024) that play havoc with global peace and prosperity. It is significant to have the prime ministerial assertion to “say no to war” in the land where Emperor Ashok renounced throne after witnessing brutality resulting from the Kalinga war.
There has been a persistent hammering by the Indian PM that this is “not an era of war” and to reject idea of strength “on the battlefield”. It has come out vividly in some of the PM’s recent addresses such as the UN Summit of the Future (September 23, 2024), Indian diaspora in Warsaw (August 22, 2024), G20 Summit (September 09, 2023) and the Joint Sitting of the US Congress (June 23, 2023). The PM has suggested the time tested tools of “dialogue and diplomacy” that are the basic tools for peaceful settlement of international disputes (Part VI and VII of the UN Charter). The elevation of such foreign policy posture at the highest level makes great sense even as it fits into the Indian civilizational ethos too. For instance, in 1942, Mahatma Gandhi, in the context of Second World War had called for imbibing the no-war mantra and observed: “The warring nations are destroying themselves with such fury and ferocity that the end will be mutual exhaustion. The victor will share the fate that awaited the surviving (victorious) Pandavas”. Historically, war has been regarded as an appalling evil.
II. War: An Appalling Evil
It is worrisome that in the third decade of the 21st century, some 2 billion people live in global conflict zones. Therefore, it makes great sense to raise the Indian foreign policy bar to ‘say no to war’. Emerging from the ashes of the Second World War and the League of Nations, UN Charter (adopted June 26, 1945) ushered the humankind “to find a way to end wars”. The US President Harry Truman humbly expressed thanks to the Almighty God to usher 50 founding ‘United Nations’ to “search for peace through world organization”. “If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it--millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die”, Truman prophesized in the closing address (UNCIO; San Francisco). Yet, within 41 days, same Truman ordered first dropping of the two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). It killed between 150,000 and 246,000 people and inflicted the first major blow to the Charter blueprint wherein all members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force” [Article 2 (4)]. In its 80th year, the UN is struggling to douse all raging warfare even as the UN Security Council (UNSC) struggles to adopt even ceasefire resolutions since invisible hands of P5 lurks behind many of the conflicts.
The question of Legal Controls of International Conflicts, taught for years by this author, has remained a scholarly quest for elimination of the scourge of war that has been considered ‘extra-legal’ – neither legal nor illegal. There has been a persistent quest for ‘outlawry’ as seen in 1907 Hague Peace Conferences, 1919 Treaty of Versailles and 1928 Pact of Paris. After the advent of the 1945 UN Charter, notwithstanding the ‘blueprint’ for the prohibition of war [Article 2 (4); Article 51], wars have remained a scourge for the humankind. In 2018, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded, to Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad, “for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict". Growing weaponization of sexual & gender-based violence (Author: SGBV in International Law (2022; 2023) has become the biggest menace in all conflicts. “If we want people to say ‘no more war’, we have to show how brutal it is”, Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said.
The world has experienced the highest number of 59 conflicts (2024) with military spending reaching US dollar 2.2 trillion (2024) and Global Humanitarian Overview (2024) predicting 300 million people in need for humanitarian aid. As per UN Women estimates of 2024, 6oo million women and girls (300 million in 2017) faced risks of violence in conflict zones. In a worrisome 2025 UNICEF Global Outlook, armed conflicts also pose serious risks to over 473 million children living in conflict zones.
Mike Walz, US Congressman and incoming national security adviser, observed on January 12, 2025 that the Ukraine war has become a World War One-style "meat grinder of people and resources" with "World War Three consequences". “I just don't think it's realistic to say we're going to expel every Russian from every inch of Ukrainian soil, even Crimea”, Walz said. On the other hand, though news of a ceasefire deal (January 18, 2025) in the Gaza war, has brought relief, Hamas is insisting for full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, whereas Israel won’t end the war until Hamas is dismantled. During last 3 years, these two wars alone have killed thousands and displaced millions of people.
III. Invoking Dialogue and Diplomacy
Since seeds of warfare lie in human minds, complete elimination remains a utopian goal. How to give effect to the assertion that “this is not an era of war”? What will it take to bring about sanity among the warring groups driven by greed for power, past baggage, control over resources, proxy wars and sheer banality. Therefore, it would be the biggest service to the humanity, if India can rise as a “global solution provider” (SIS Blog: March 22, 2024; October 01, 2022) to end some major conflicts especially impinging upon vital national interests. The tools of ‘dialogue and diplomacy’, based upon the bedrock of International Law, could comprise use of negotiations, good offices, mediation and roles as deal maker or trouble shooter. It would entail reaping ‘peace dividends’ through select constructive engagements by leveraging civilizational links, democratic credentials, reservoir of goodwill, economic capacity, military prowess and intellectual wherewithal. Any such Indian engagement would require meandering through diverse players, processes and problematique.
IV. Conclusion
Within the limit of time and space of this blog, the primer on ‘dialogue and diplomacy’ entails adherence to the PM’s assertions on “relevance” and “commitment” to International Law to work out appropriate conflict-specific solutions. Such an audacious Indian role, would necessitate entrusting the task to a resolute person duly backed by a university-based scholarly architecture to lay groundwork for conflict resolution. There is no substitute for cutting-edge solution-oriented research. To institutionalize an Indian role as a global solution provider including ‘saying no to war’ calls for setting up of a diplomatic university led by a genuine and forward-looking thought leader.
This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.
It is the 12th article in the author's SIS Blog series on : USE OF WEAPONS OF WAR.
Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is the former Chairperson and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), initiated and coordinated the futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24), the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam).