War, Peace, and Future of (United) Nations
Moral
Courage in Troubled World Essential
Vanam
Jwala Narasimha Rao
The
Hans India (March 29, 2026)
{The
193-member UN’s record in preventing wars and sustaining peace remains deeply
contested with limited successes. It is more a forum for debate than decisive
action. A significant gap persists between the UN's founding ideals and present
realities. The structure of the Security Council, particularly the veto power
enjoyed by the five permanent members, frequently renders the organization
ineffective in moments of crisis. It often becomes a passive platform for
deliberation rather than decisive intervention} - Editor’s Synoptic Note
Despite
varying geographical conflicts, patterns of rivalry, strategic interest, and
human suffering remain similar. Reflections drawn from earlier global crises
represent decades of inquisitiveness concerning war, peace, and international
responsibility. Consequences of tensions between nations, often with little
regard for civilian safety, transcend borders. An old Turkish saying that, ‘The
horse kicked the mule, the mule kicked the horse, and it is the poor donkey
that gets the shot’ is apt in modern geopolitical conflicts. The vulnerable,
especially in the developing world, caught between the strongest powers, face
untold misery.
The
United Nations Organization (UNO) was born out of the ashes of the Second World
War, when humanity resolved that another catastrophe must never occur. Sequence
of historic developments, culminating in the San Francisco Conference on June
26, 1945, adopted the UN Charter. The UNO formally came into existence on
October 24, 1945. The intention was to create a permanent global forum where
disputes could be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy rather than war,
embodying the collective conscience of humanity.
Tehran
that figured in early diplomatic efforts during formation of UNO now finds
itself at the Center of grave tensions. It faces disruption and uncertainty
amid ongoing hostilities, with civilians struggling to maintain normalcy. The
situation once again illustrates how regions, central to diplomacy in one era,
can become theatres of conflict in another.
Meanwhile,
the statesmanlike approach of Prime Minister Narendra Modi deserves applaud. Briefing
the Lok Sabha on March 23, 2026, he described the West Asia war as ‘deeply
concerning,’ cautioning that its consequences are likely to be felt for longtime.
In
a world increasingly marked by fragmented responses and reactive policies, such
clarity, restraint, and emphasis on national unity stand out as a model of
responsible leadership. Equally noteworthy were the Centre's measures on nation’s
energy needs, demonstrating foresight and preparedness amid global uncertainty.
Significantly,
he urged Members of Parliament to rise above differences and ensure that India
speaks in a ‘united and unanimous voice’ on the issue. This call reflects Modi’s
political maturity and profound understanding of India’s moral responsibility
in global affairs. These elements represent a policy response, as one of the
finest examples of balanced and statesmanlike leadership in recent times.
Interestingly,
the same day, a contrasting development unfolded in the United States. Donald
Trump, known for his uncharacteristic ‘point of no return’ decision-making style,
who had earlier issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to reopen the Strait of
Hormuz or face strikes on its power infrastructure, in an unexpected U-Turn,
postponed his own decision by five days, citing what he described as ‘very good
and productive talks with Iran.’
Equally
motivating was Narendra Modi’s X Post the following day that, for ensuring that
the strait of Hormuz remains open, secure, and accessible, which is essential
for the whole world, he and Trump agreed to stay in touch. Next day, Iran
dismissed US proposal to end the war, and set out its own terms for peace.
Israel continued strikes on Lebanon. USA Military was preparing to deploy
additional troops. Meanwhile, Iran while thanking India for its ‘Significant
Help’ in the context of its sunken vessel in US attack, allowed its ships
through Hormoz Straits, along with three other countries.
193-member
UN’s record in preventing wars and sustaining peace remains deeply contested
with limited successes. It is more a forum for debate than decisive action. A significant
gap persists between UN’s founding ideals and present realities. Member Nations
continue to pursue strategic interests overriding collective decisions. The
structure of the Security Council, particularly the veto power of permanent
members, frequently renders the organization ineffective in moments of crisis.
It often becomes a passive platform for deliberation rather than decisive
intervention.
History
offers numerous examples of how regional leadership and global power politics
intersect. In the Middle East, figures such as Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat,
and Muammar Gaddafi shaped their nations’ trajectories while navigating complex
global dynamics. Similarly, leadership in the United States has long influenced
international relations through diplomacy, alliances, sanctions, and, at times,
military action. These leaders emerged during periods of transformation. Their
decisions reflected both national priorities and the pressures of an evolving
global order. The interplay between power, ideology, and strategic interest
continues to shape international outcomes.
A
deeper philosophical question persists: why does humanity repeatedly return to
war despite centuries of painful lessons? Part of the answer lies in the nature
of power itself. Nations pursue security, influence, and prestige. In this
context, ethical reflection becomes essential. Bertrand Russell devoted much of
his intellectual life to the cause of peace, warning that technological
progress, particularly nuclear weapons, fundamentally altered the nature of
war.
At
this juncture, it is both relevant and enriching to recall that long before
modern political theory evolved, the Adi Kavya Valmiki Ramayana articulated
profound insights into the conduct of power and responsibility. The epic never
glorified war as an end in itself, but presented it as a last resort, guided by
dharma. Strategy, in this classical narrative, was in service of balance, not
domination. The vision of a cosmic order, where actions are inseparable from
universal consequences, urges leaders to think beyond narrow identities and
immediate gains. In a contemporary context, this translates into a deeper sense
of civic and global responsibility during times of conflict, where decisions
taken by a few reverberate across millions.
Movements
for peace often arise from courageous intellectuals, scientists, writers, and
civil society leaders. Among them, recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize hold a
unique moral position. Their voices serve as reminders that the ultimate
purpose of power and diplomacy must be the preservation of human dignity. When
they advocate restraint and dialogue, they help restore perspective in moments
of crisis. Education, public discourse, and responsible leadership all play
vital roles in this transformation. If the international community truly seeks
lasting peace, institutions designed to safeguard it must evolve.
When
peace is seen as strength rather than weakness, leaders are more likely to
pursue diplomatic solutions. In an interconnected world, conflicts produce
ripple effects far beyond their immediate regions. Human history demonstrates
both the tragedy of war and the possibility of peace. Institutions created
after the Second World War were built on the hope that humanity had learned
from its past. Whether that hope endures, depends on the choices made today by
nations and their leaders. A renewed commitment to dialogue, restraint, and
mutual respect remains essential.
In
reflecting on future, the enduring relevance of Valmiki Ramayana offers a
subtle yet powerful reminder that the true strength of any civilization lies
not merely in its capacity for power, but in its ability to exercise restraint
with wisdom, the Modi way. As the world grows more complex, these lessons
encourage the cultivation of inner weaponry, wisdom, compassion, restraint, and
resolve.
Such
qualities are indispensable in shaping a balanced and humane global order. Ramayana
thus, ceases to remain a story of the past, and instead emerges as a living
guide for the present and the future.
Despite
its limitations, the United Nations continues to represent one of humanity’s
most ambitious efforts to maintain global peace. Its humanitarian work,
peacekeeping missions, and diplomatic platforms continue to serve millions. The
real challenge lies not in its existence, but in the willingness of member
states to strengthen and reform it for the collective good.
In the evolving international landscape, the role and outlook of leadership in major powers naturally attract global attention. The policy approach of Donald Trump, once again entrusted with high office, is observed with interest. Understanding the broader framework guiding such leadership, its goals, methods, and long-term vision, remains essential for strengthening global stability and the collective pursuit of peace.
