Bulletin Monthly Sample July 2013 - Ramakrishna Mission Institute ...

SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN’S REFLECTION ON WAR
PERSPECTIVE
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan’s Reflection on War
SANGHAMITRA DASGUPTA
This discourse deals with the war
concept of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
and is mainly based on his work Is
This Peace? In this book Radhakrishnan
analyses and demonstrates the wartime and
post-war circumstances of the two World
Wars and interprets the nature of war and
peace condition of the modern world.
War, Radhakrishnan thinks, corrupts
many things and one of the many casualties
of war is intellectual honesty. Though in the
modern world people have adequate
knowledge and power to generate wealth,
protect or sustain life and promote human
welfare, they are using this knowledge and
power for inviting death and annihilation.
Hence, war is against human welfare.
After the first World War, political
authorities of the leading nations committed
that human liberty and national security
would not be the mere slogans, but a reality.
But the Second World War shattered that
promise. Therefore, Radhakrishnan has
condemned war, especially in view of the
fact that in the modern world, war tends to
become total, mechanical, and inhuman. It is
contrary to the laws of God and humanity.
In this book–Is This Peace?—
Radhakrishnan quotes President Truman,
who, welcoming the delegates to the United
Nations Conference in San Franscisco, said
‘With ever increasing brutality and
destruction, modern warfare, if unchanged,
would ultimately crush all civilization. We
still have a chance—between the alternatives
of the continuation of the international chaos
or the establishment of a world organization
for the enforcement of peace.’
Radhakrishnan approves the opinion of
Truman that uncontrolled atrocities and
devastation of the modern war is a severe
threat to human civilization. He argues that
modern war is against humanity, liberty,
physical and mental peace.
At the end of the World War II, when
the defeated nations—Germany and Japan—
were not included as members of the United
Nations, Radhakrishnan severely opposed
the move and said that nations with immense
potential resources like Germany and Japan
should not be excluded from the United
Nations only as an act of revenge. Defeated
people, he argued, are also human beings
who possess ambitions and vanities like the
other nations. So, they should not be treated
as criminals. Here, his non-aggressive
humanistic attitude towards the defeated
powers is evident. In this regard, he may be
said to have supported the view of Stalin
who thought that Hitler should not be
identified with the German people or the
German state.
It is true that Radhakrishnan severely
criticized the deliberate and calculated
massacre of the innocent Jews in Nazi
Germany, but at the same time he also
resented the attitude of the victor powers
towards Germany after the First World War.
He condemned specially the economic
exploitation of Germany by the victor
nations and, due to this injustice, he
believed, Germany became so arrogant and
slowly intensified its war efforts. War
actually means war against injustice. The
aim of war is to resist injustice. So, here the
view of Radhakrishnan is quite compatible
2013 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture
333

SANGHAMITRA DASGUPTA
with the traditional Indian concept of affinity
and concern for the defeated nations.
Japan was the ally of Britain and France
in the First World War. As a consequence
of this, when Japan invaded Manchuria
and Korea and attacked China, neither
Britain nor France, ie no big powers of the
world, condemned and opposed this
aggressive attitude of Japan which
was contrary to the international law.
This view of Radhakrishnan delineates
international consciousness which considers
that aggression is inconsistent with peace
and harmony.
Again, the Western democratic powers
did not oppose the aggression of Germany,
Italy and Japan and they remained
completely indifferent as mere observers
until Poland was attacked by Germany.
Radhakrishnan criticized this narrow, selfish
nationalism of the European big powers
which did not show any respect for
international laws and paved the way for
another World War.
Radhakrishnan also denounced the
implementation of the ‘flying bomb’ by
Germany and also the use of atomic power
by the Allied Nations, because all these were
against the principle of humanity. Here,
again, his view was non-aggressive and
humanistic. In the Second World War, no
poison gas was used, not because of ethical
considerations, but due to the fear of reprisal.
Every nation knew that the opponent state
also possessed poison gas and they might
apply it. But in the case of atomic bomb, as
the Axis Powers did not have it, the Allied
powers could quite comfortably use it
without any fear of retaliation. Here,
Radhakrishnan uncovered a pragmatic aspect
of war—that method of war should be
adopted after a clear analysis of the
capability of the enemy states. Moreover, he
makes a distinction between war and
massacre. Attack on unarmed civilians is not
war, but simply killing is completely
immoral. So, he always stressed the
implementation of humanistic norms in war.
The Allied Powers justified the use of
atomic bomb on the ground that it shortened
the duration of war. Radhakrishnan opined
that this cannot be a justification for the use
of such an immensely destructive weapon.
Nations engaged in war consider the enemy
states as demon and try to treat them in a
brutal manner. But Radhakrishnan said this
should not be the attitude of the civilized
world; there must be a humanistic approach.
He closely observed that the Allied Powers
were not severely condemned for this use of
the nuclear bomb though it clearly violated
international law and morality and the sole
justification for its use could be nothing
except military necessity. Here, he expressed
a very pragmatic view and recognized the
significant role of morality even in war. He
pinpointed that even military necessity
cannot be an adequate ground for the use of
atomic bomb.
While discussing the decision of the
War Crimes Commission after the Second
World War, he agreed with the Commission
that demolition of cities and civilians (eg.,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was a serious war
crime. He repeatedly condemned the
aggressive elements of war, laid stress on the
humanistic aspect and opined that no
unethical warlike skill or military ploy was
right for the attainment of victory. War
should be a fair fight and devoid of mass
murder. To avoid injustice, a selfexamination
is required before delivering
justice or giving retribution. Here,
Radhakrishnan gave his exposé of the postwar
attitude towards the war criminals and
held the view that war itself was a crime
which was the fusion of all crimes. War may
be started for a noble purpose, to fight the
evil and brute forces, injustice and
exploitation; but if that war ultimately goes
334 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture
July

SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN’S REFLECTION ON WAR
against human and civilized values then its
purpose gets scotched.
Radhakrishnan further believed that the
Allied Powers became victorious in the
Second World War not for their love of
freedom or morality, but for their physical
power, superior scientific techniques, stable
economy and a strong determination to
defeat the opponent by any means. This
victory was not so glorious in the eyes of
Radhakrishnan as it completely lacked
fairness and any assertive ethical element.
Radhakrishnan maintained that the
defeated powers should be treated
with consideration, sympathy and goodwill
because faith and understanding can
only build a better world. The conquerors,
he argued, should provide economic
and political securities to the vanquished
nations. Thus he was dead against
narrow nationalism and vindictive conduct
that give rise to future war. This assertion
reveals his great concern about global peace
and harmony.
Radhakrishnan warned us against
narrow nationalism. One cannot be a true
patriot, he believed, without a genuine love
for humanity. For this reason, nations should
consider the interest of the entire world
while safeguarding their own national
interests. He recommended that an
international organization should look after
world peace. This advocacy reflected his
international awareness.
In the Security Council of the United
Nations, formed after the Second World
War, representatives were selected on the
basis of power. Radhakrishnan then raised
the question regarding the true nature of the
power and said that it was difficult to define
this power. For, if territorial extent,
strategical situation, self-sufficiency in
agricultural, industrial and mineral resources
were considered to be the criteria of being
labelled a power, then India should be
regarded as one of the great powers of the
world which was quite capable of looking
after world peace. But the selection of the
representatives in the Security Council, he
thought, indicated a very unusual power
concept of the modern world. He observed
that the structure of the United Nations was
such that it could oppose the aggression of
the small powers but not of the big powers.
If this power concept was accurate, fair and
ethical, then there would be no aggression,
for powerful states will have a sympathy and
consideration for the rights of the less
powerful nations. As this is not the real
picture, antagonistic attitude exists.
Radhakrishnan noticed that in the
contemporary world aggression was related
to the imperfect notion of power.
He was of the view that the big powers
should be self-restrained for the sake of
world peace. If there is no self-restraint,
every nation would try to be more powerful
than others and it will attack other countries.
Aggression and war will be the inevitable
consequences of such unrestricted desires
and passions. Hence, to prevent aggression
and war, nations must restrict their desires of
being more powerful. In this case, he upheld
the ancient Indian ethos.
Radhakrishnan also noted that the
feeling of danger brought the great powers
together and when that feeling disappeared
their unity slackened. Obviously, the
intention behind their operation was to
protect their own interests and not world
peace. The ancient Indian epic like the
Mahàbhàrata shows that different states
usually get united for fighting a war. But in
those days that union not only sought to
protect the interest of the nations but also to
preserve ‘dharma’ by resisting injustice and
evil. There lies a colossal difference between
the ethical perspective of ancient India and
the modern approach of big powers.
Radhakrishnan noted another striking
2013 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture
335

SANGHAMITRA DASGUPTA
difference between these two perspectives.
He points out that the ancient Indian view
was that a king got involved in a war only to
make his state prosperous, for prosperity and
resources were required for the well-being of
the state. But modern world believes that a
country, which is economically very much
powerful, may have aggressive attitude and
it can endanger the security of other nations.
Ancient view held that a state could attack
other states and get involved in a war for a
national cause, though war had always been
considered as the last resort by the ancient
authorities. But in the present-day world an
economically powerful state is not satisfied
only with its own prosperity and
development, rather it aspires to be more and
more powerful and, in the process, wages an
aggressive war.
As a post-war policy concerning
the maintenance of the world peace,
the great powers strove for the possession of
the strategically significant places, and
America, Britain and other big powers were
not simply interested in the proposal
of giving independence to the people of
their colonies. They thought that would
geopardize global peace.
So, the contemporary world conceives
that in the interest of world peace economic
power, military bases, and control of the
other nations are inevitable. It means that
world peace depends on the supremacy and
hegemony of the big powers over the small
ones. Radhakrishnan dubbed such thinking
military imperialism which can never bring
durable peace because the subjugated
colonized countries are bound to fight for
their independence sooner or later.
Though Radhakrishnan gave maximum
stress on world peace, he was aware of the
fact that war cannot be absolutely
obliterated. However, he felt strongly that
aggressive wars should be prevented by
minimizing the conflicting elements. And,
for that purpose, an international
organization approved by the entire world is
to be established which will have the
authority to declare war only against
aggressive nations.
Radhakrishnan came to the conclusion
that treaties, settlements, and alliances are
not adequate instruments to assure peace, for
they are concerned only with the existing
causes of war and not with the root of the
problem. The real causes of conflict are the
competitive ways of life of the present-day
society, national and class divisions, racial
and religious differences. Mere treaties and
settlements cannot alter all these facts of life,
hence war is a practical reality which cannot
be totally eliminated. Nevertheless, his
proposition is that war must be nonaggressive
as far as possible.
In his article ‘Mahatma Gandhi’
Radhakrishnan comments that government
and power, and not the common people, are
responsible for modern war. The ruling class
stokes up the fear, self-interest and pride of
the common people and seduces them into
standing behind its anti-human activities.
Thus we find that Radhakrishnan’s view
on war is quite compatible with the Indian
tradition which holds that the existence
of war is a fact, but its aggressive teeth
have to be blunted. War must have a moral
aspect, it should be backed up by humanistic
elements. Non-violence, as an ideal is
no doubt praiseworthy, but violence is a
reality in this world. So, war is. We
must only make an honest endeavour to
make it non-aggressive. •
* Dr Sanghamitra Dasgupta is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Maulana
Azad College, Kolkata.
336 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture
July