Fear arises from guilt-consciousness, suspicion or enmity, says Rajyogi Brahmakumar Nikunj ji
The term security is as ambiguous in content as in format. Since years experts have been arguing over questions like, whether is it a goal, an issue-area, a concept, a research program, or a disciplineIJ There is no one concept of security as such, and terms like national security, international security, and global security refer to different sets of issues and have their origins in different historical and philosophical context. For example, the concept of international security might most appropriately describe current security affair. However, in the long run the world might be moving in the direction of a global security system if institution-building continues and leads to common practices, rules, and enforcement capabilities.
In present world many people consider survival and security as prime values. They argue that if a person does not survive, then what value the other values have for him. In a similar vein, they further argue that if a person lives in a state of constant insecurity and fear, then what is the charm, the joy, the fun or the zest in livingIJ Because the quality of life of a man in fear is like that of a man in a state of suspended animation and it’s not at all cherishable, relishable, enjoyable or valuable. On the other hand there are other people who question the contention of the former kind of people. The questions they raise are that ‘after all what is the purpose of survivalIJ’ and ‘what is the goal of lifeIJ’. Further they ask that ‘what do we want to achieve by living or while livingIJ’. They argue that the difference between a human being and an animal is narrowed down to zero if man also, like other animals, is concerned primarily and mainly about his physical survival only. They feel that there should be some higher and nobler aim of human existence and that there should be something more worthy for humans to be achieved. Arguing thus, they ask: If personal survival is the main value, then why do army men endanger their own survival or sacrifice their life at the battle-front in order to keep intact the sovereignty of the nationIJ Again, why did the heroes of Indian Freedom Struggle happily embraced death for the sake of independence of their motherlandIJ Why did kings in the olden times, give up their palaces and bodyguards and went to the forest-retreats in pursuit of truth, endangering their life, knowing well that there were tigers and lions thereIJ With these questions in mind, they further argue that why should man have fear if he has moral and spiritual strength and has good relations with all the human beingsIJ Because fear, they assert, arises from guilt-consciousness, suspicion or enmity. So, man should be free from these negativities rather than have additional negative tendency or emotion, namely fear because one’s survival should normally be an assured thing if one's actions are in harmony with other beings, with the environment and with the moral and physical laws. Each one of us must understand a fact that our life and death, or survival and happiness, are governed by the law of karma and if our karma is good, why should we fearIJ
Though this second line of argument is more potent and valid because it helps build a society where there is rule of law and where people care for each other, yet there are people in this era, who have their own typical way of thinking. As they try to solve their personal problems by employing the ethics of survival, so also they try to solve the national and international problems by employing this crude ethics. The leaders, as individuals, have their personal whims and fancies, aims and ambitions, and they handle the affairs of nations also as affairs between individuals, groups or tribes. So, they employ personal ethical beliefs that are right or wrong in solving issues of national importance also. Moreover, as even the computers are not programmed for all the causes and eventualities, these leaders, cannot foresee the consequences. Goaded and prompted by their own traits and notions of ethics and having no ability or means to calculate and compute the multi-dimensional results and innumerable repercussions and consequences of their doings, they take certain decisions and do certain acts that affect millions of people for millennia.
The paradigm of national security emerged in a specific historical setting. With the birth of the nation-state in the 17th century and its interest in national survival, security assumed prime importance. Instances in this regard are the recent missile and nuclear weapons testing done by few countries of the world, and the announcement by their respective governments of their decision to have a more such testing to ensure complete security for their nation from every kind of threat. As a step of remonstrance against their vanity, India also test fired its nuclear devices justifying this as essential for their security and survival. Now! it is this kind of wrong ethics and negative thinking that has led to a sort of cold war situation in which each country will take steps to defeat the other in the arms race and thus everyone would indulge in sabra-rattling. Thus it’s clear from all this that belief in the survival of the militarily fittest and the faith in ethics, based on this are erroneous. Remember ! these wrong beliefs will not lead to order and harmony in the society, instead they will give rise to more and more hatred, anger and suspicion, leading nations from cold war to hot war. It is, therefore, in the interest of all countries, to give up this wrong philosophy and ethics that leads to a war like atmosphere where each country has tension and spends billions on weapons of mass destruction. We must all remind ourselves that as children of One Almighty, our duty is to seek right knowledge and improve the quality of our karma, which would in turn make our life peaceful and blissful .