The debate of disarmament has been going on for some time now but why hasn’t it then resulted in a real change, asks Rajyogi Brahmakumar Nikunj Ji
An unbiased review of the world, especially with regards to events happened in the recent past, would say that despite bold steps taken for development, there has been a constant deterioration in the overall state of affairs of the world. Everyday, we wake up to read in the newspapers that a new war has begun in some part of the world, a previous conflict has escalated or that police has fired on a mob. The world seems to be in a state of utter confusion and great turmoil. Political, economic and communal structures seem to be in a state of constant repair. There are efforts everywhere for mending and patching up, yet daily, we appear to be drifting away from a healthy, normal and peaceful condition.
Arrogance, insatiable lust for name and fame and an unstoppable race for power and position seem to have gripped even the minds of religious high-ups. The situation has become so bad that one cannot utter a word of advice in good faith even to friends and younger brothers or juniors today. Faith, love and non-violence are now non-virtues and are now considered as signs of weakness will or a submissive culture. One is asked to be smart, assertive, extrovert and even exhibitionist to the point of being clever, manipulative, cunning, rude and boisterous. There is indiscipline rampant in many institutes of learning and education. There is flagrant violation of law even by those who are supposed to be the custodians or the protective arms of law. In short, there is tension almost everywhere.
The debate on disarmament has been going on since decades but it seems that the leaders of world are in a different mood altogether. Hence, a solution to this problem seems to be too knotty to be resolved. The state of affairs of the world is such that today, if a country sincerely makes a withdrawal and ceasefire offer to another, the latter rejects it by saying that it is too late. Hence, one may question, “In such a scenario, who will prevent whom from aggression and nuclear weapons?” “Is there a single soul on the world scene who has such a moral authority, an unblemished record and a universal popularity who can exert his moral influence because of his own stature and appeal to halt such aggressive acts?” “To a world that has ignored the advice of Christ or Buddha or Mahatma Gandhi to give up violence, who can morally compel all to give up arms and work with love and compassion?”
By nature, man generally wants to avoid tough questions and hard realities of life. If anyone points out, in advance, the coming obnoxious events, seeing the shadows cast by them before, the former does not take the latter kindly and think over his words of caution with calmness and the attention it deserves. Same might be the attitude of people in this case. But one would be neglecting one’s sacred duty and constraints of honesty and sincerity if one does not speak the plain truth in such matters and say with a firm voice that man should be realistic in thinking over such issues. He should ask himself with boldness whether he really thinks in the depth of his mind that disarmament will ultimately be achieved in fact? Or does he think that the series of events over the century is taking the world rapidly to an end so as to begin building a new civilisation which has no violence and wars?
