11 ^Utility, a way of approach, and it is an objective that most vc, but generally cannot because of factors often beyond ik little doubt that over the centuries man has failed to . have been wars, conflicts and armed clashes in many every few years, so much so that peace has come to be _iy people as a short respite, an interregnum, from fighting I Objective, or for mere defence against a greedy aggressor. .(tilt Bnd bungling in the art of peace is writ large on history. I IW» and the military expenditure running into astronomical | Convincing proofs of this bungling. Idmlttedly a precious commodity; it is essential for social, I political progress, tout it must not be bought at too heavy a Kinder of principles or of national territory, integrity, honour , Peace must not mean appeasement of war-mongers; history lly that wherever peace has been bought at the cost of honour, 1-llved and transitory. India has stood for peace throughout I it has had to fight many wars, both internal and external. m~ is evidence of a passion for peace, but then there are | Compulsions of various kinds, notably the economic interests urers of weapons and the armaments industry as a whole, I that feeds it ceaselessly.
industry and the manufacturers sell lethal weapons. es and expand sales the weapon barons cause a scare to bring about the horrors of war. This tribe prospers on »»ction of other people. Ironically, with the advance of all-rvI md civilisation, the manufacture of weapons of various types ItM most prosperous and flourishing industry in the world. Wars, 1UM of weapons and yet more weapons, bring substantial profits I lituation has assumed such a sordid shape that disarmament _ ‘”*« for durable peace threaten to bring ruin and disaster to me IllHHUfacturers. No wonder, the leading producers of armaments, |(H iOphisticated nuclear armaments, have become very influential fMfU circles and manage to manipulate foreign policies. They have 1 Into the decision-making bodies at the highest levels. While man, i flgards war as a catastrophe that should be avoided through all means, the weapon manufacturers regard peace as a veritable catastrOphe which signals the onset of a period of heavy losses and setbacks to the’r economic well-being.
The fact that man’s heart is in his weapons is also proved by the mount­ing expenditure on the purchase of weapons by apparently peace-loving coun­tries which have nothing to gain by going to war, and which urgently need long periods of freedom from conflicts for economic development. It has been found as a result of prolonged studies on a worldwide scale that man­kind has known only 292 years of peace since 3600 B.C. According to a book called “Evidence For Prosecution”, jointly authored by Russian authors J. Firsova and G. Gurkov, a gold band 130 km wide, 20 metres thick and running aU ajound the earth, could be purchased in exchange for all that mankind has lost in material terms in these wars.
Over one million dollars have been spent for military purposes during each minute in last few years, more than is required to feed thousands of badly undernourished children in the poorest countries for an entire year. If someh°w the worldwide military expenditure could be stopped for one mjnute, 2,000 children could be saved; if the expenditure could be halted for eight hours (one working shift in factories), the menace of malaria could be eliminated from the world. The challenges are grave, but the earnest and repeated appeals of well-wishers of humanity fall on deaf ears. The military expenditure graph continues to soar, regardless of the human misery and the setbacks to social welfare it invariably causes.
More effort, energy and money are being spent in the world today on the production of weapons’, than on health, social reconstruction, relieving poverty and promoting economic development. Highly sophisticated war mac[]inery is speedily devised as soon as one war ends and a peace agreement is signed; in other words, active preparations start for another round of confiict to wreak revenge.
War capability is considered essential, and science and scientists are being utilised intensively to devise more and more destructive weapons. It is estimated that more scientists in the leading countries are engaged in research on military matters than on work for peaceful reconstruction. It is widely recogoised that a nation which is militarily weak cannot exercise much influ­ence”11 international affairs; it is military might that determines a country’s international image and influence and ensures for it a voice in shaping things.
Mankind seems to have realised that patriotism and a policy of peace and advocacy °f non-violence are not enough. These are regarded as signs of weakness and often amount to invitations for attack. Countries, it is said, must speak from positions of strength, which means that a large percentage Of ^eir annual budgets must be earmarked for military purposes. This is precisely what is happening.
If man’s heart had not been in weapons, then most of humanity would h»ve been peace-loving and would have instinctively despised weapons, wonpon producers and sellers. But, unfortunately, the reverse is the case. Genuine peace lovers, who are willing to go to any length to check war and diftcourage the manufacture of the weapons of wai”, are in a small minority; Ihelr voice is lost in the wilderness. The armaments lobbies succeed in the loading countries. Weapons and more weapons seems to be the accepted policy of most countries, big and small, strong or weak. Each country buys weapons on a massive scale and at any cost—even by borrowing money.
Surely, the services of the millions of workers, including scientists of ill categories, currently engaged in arms manufacture and weapons research, Can be usefully utilised in scores of constructive projects. Science must help build, not destroy, and man himself must ensure reorientation of outlook and interest. Even if there are some temporary economic losses, the long-term gains would be more than make up for them.