Joshua B. Mandelstam15156439Philosophy 725

Is War Inevitable? Human Habit, Aśoka, and Globalizing Perspectives

I. Introduction

Over the course of human history many great writers on politics, philosophy and human nature

have considered war to be an inevitable feature of the human condition. This assumption about war has

defined a good deal of human endeavor, both in fighting wars and preparing for them. The question we

must ask is if such an assumption is justified – for the efforts put into preparing for conflict could be

directed more efficiently for easing the suffering of the human condition – if war were not considered a

necessity.

On the other hand, if war is guaranteed, then it can be seen as both understandable and

justifiable for nations and rulers to prepare for, secure strategic positions in, and use war as a tool for

achieving their own ends.

Thus, the question of the inevitability of war becomes a crucial one in determining the relations

of nations/states to one another, and how the fruits of human labor, ingenuity, and effort are to be

invested. This essay will challenge the assumption that war cannot be avoided, and discuss some

possible alternatives to such a conception.

To undertake this project, we will mention some differences in the conception of human nature,

moving to the theory of John Dewey to provide a description of the relation of internal drives to

standard practices of action. A brief glance will be given to peaceful societies, who seem to manifest

far different patterns while having the same drives and nature as conflict-ridden cultures. This paper

will then go into a detailed discussion of the case of the Mauryian Emperor Aśoka – who modified his

manner of action and attitude from that of being a military commander and conqueror, to that of being

an extreme pacifist, ruling his empire for the well being of all. From that point, our attention will turn

to the alternatives to war proposed by Immanuel Kant in his Perpetual Peace, and William James in his

The Moral Equivalent of War; and whether or not either of these can propose viable solutions for

ending the tendencies of violence on this planet, and how they may deal with the movement of war

from physical force to economic pressure in modern times.

II. Human Nature?

One of the primary reasons that war has been considered inevitable lies in the assumption that

human nature is inherently war-like. This was phrased most explicitly by Thomas Hobbes when he

claimed that the state of nature is “is a condition of Warre of every one against every one. ”1 This is an

extreme statement, whereas Kant also held that war was inherent in the nature of man, phrasing it in a

slightly more refined way: “War itself, however, does not require any particular kind of motivation, for

it seems to be ingrained in human nature, and even to be regarded as something noble to which man is

inspired by his love of honour, without selfish motives.”2

Though there is much evidence for the war-like nature of human beings, it is still a great jump

to presume that this feature is universal. In fact one of the other great political thinkers of the European

tradition, Jean-Jacques Rousseau held that man was an essentially harmonious being and that it was

only the perversions of society that brought about competition and war. Given these opposing views

we may conclude that it is unwarranted to make any broad generalization about the competitive aspect

of human action. Perhaps a more nuanced explanation might be of assistance; one that does not hold

that humans are determined to act one way or another, but that takes our inclinations into account for

describing the wide varieties of possible actions and attitudes. For this, we now turn towards the works

of John Dewey.

III. Dewey – Impulse and Habit

John Dewey considers the attribution of particular actions or motives to human nature to be

very simplistic. Instead he wishes to consider the myriad of factors that are at play in the development

of human actions and patterns. Dewey realizes that it is not simply that innate patterns get manifested

in action, nor that the slate of the human mind begins as a complete blank. He expresses the basic

sentiment as such:

“It would be pleasant if we could pick and choose those institutions which we like and impute

them to human nature, and the rest to some devil […] But such methods are not feasible. The same

original fears, angers, loves, and hates are hopelessly entangled in the most opposite institutions. The

thing we need to know is how a native stock has been modified by interaction with different

environments.”3

He holds that in the patterns of human action there are two forces at play. The first of these is

impulse; inherent, directed towards securing basic needs – the impulse provides the motivational force

1 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 2 Kant, Perpetual Peace; appendix, pg 1093 Dewey, John Human Nature and Conduct, 1922, pg 92

and the substance of the action. This can be observed when impulses demonstrate themselves in the

actions of the yet unconditioned infant – they are starting points, the desire for food, the move to

perceived safety. Yet, they cannot be enough on their own – the infant left with nothing other than its

own resources has scant hope of survival.

“Any impulse may become organized into almost any disposition according to the way it

interacts with surroundings....This depends in turn upon the outlets and inhibitions supplied by the

social environment.”4

These impulses come provide the substance for patterns of action, but it is up to 'habits' to

provide the shape. Habits, for Dewey, are defined by social norms and the indoctrination one receives

during an upbringing. They provide the context and the shape of how an individual acts on an

impulse. Whereas the desire for food by be a basic impulse, the idea that one needs to, or can work for

that food, and that it should be eaten with a knife and fork, are examples of habits. Dewey maintains

that our systems of habits are far more primary, integrated, and less malleable than the impulses

themselves. For anything that might meet the impulse would satisfy it, whereas habits often require

very specific sets of procedures and criteria to be adhered to. Such habits are only acquired through

interaction with the social context, though they come to define what is seen as acceptable or

unacceptable in terms of our actions.

Having established these definitions, Dewey goes on to note that what we see as the tendencies

towards war and violence fall firmly into the category of habit. There are not innate in that they are not

a fundamental drive, but rather have been trained into us as an appropriate reaction to the frustration of

some of our more primary impulses.

“...the trouble lies in the inertness of established habit. [...] Habits once formed perpetuate

themselves [...] They create out of the formless void of impulses a world made in their won image.

Man is a creature of habit, not of reason, nor yet of instinct [...] the direction of native activity depends

upon acquired habits, and yet acquired habits an be modified only by the redirection of impulses”5

Though such habits are difficult to change, Dewey maintains that it is not impossible. It

requires an awareness of the habit, of the basic impulse which feeds that habit, and a method of altering

one's actions in such a way as to satisfy the basic impulses without succumbing to the ingrained pattern

of the habit. The most problematic habits to change are those he refers to as 'custom', having been

established in a society through generations of re-affirming the pattern. Because of this, such actions

have the greatest inertia behind them to frustrate changes in the populace. Dewey then points out that it

4 Ibid, 985 Ibid. 125-6

has only been since elements of society have wanted to change the patterns and habits which have

guided the culture that they are in, that true desire to know what has caused them began: “It is no

accident that men became interested in the psychology of savages and babies when they became

interested in doing away with old institutions”6

With these definitions, we can appropriately see war, and violent conflict, as a habit – a pattern

built out of our impulses, reaffirmed by cultures that glorify war and venerate those who participate.

Using Dewey's framework, it can be understood that these have been developed through the ages,

dating back at least to the beginnings of written history. Yet, Dewey claims, this tradition and custom is

not enough in itself to presume that the change of these patterns is impossible.

“History does not prove the inevitability of war, but it does prove that customs and institutions

which organize native powers into certain patterns in politics and economics will also generate the war-

pattern. The problem of war is difficult because it is serious. It is none other than the wider problem of

the effective moralizing or humanizing of native impulses in times of peace.”7

Though this observation was made 88 years ago, we find analogous reflections being made in

modern thoughts on peace: “Many psychologists […] have stressed that human aggression is a

secondary, or derived impulse, not a primary one, like hunger or sex. It is when primary drives are

frustrated, however, that aggression often results. The aggression may be transformed from its original

target through displacement, or through projection. War may result in not only as one nation frustrates

the attainment of goals of another, and thereby becomes the object of the latter's aggression; but in

some instances war my result from the displacement of aggression generated from other sources, or

from the projection of a nation's own hostile intent to another.”8

We can understand Dewey's insight as meaningful – that it is not human nature itself, as

described by our impulses – but rather, the habits we absorb through exposure to the actions of those

around us as we develop. This understanding allows us to move past brute conceptions of human

nature, into a more refined conception of how patterns of human action emerge. What Dewey does not

state, however, is the content of these natural impulses, molded into habits by cultural and contextual

upbringing. Nor does he establish the methods of promoting particular new habits other than a

generalize mention of the role of education. The values to establish new forms of habituation as well as

the methods by which to do so are absent from his discussion in this work. Though we appreciate the

broadened perspective that Dewey's work gives us, and his support of the notion that war is not

inevitable, it does not alone help us understand the circumstances in which it can be avoided.

6 Dewey, 937 Dewey 1158 Lovell, John P. The Search for Peace: An Appraisal of Alternative Approaches, pg 8 1

IV. Variety of Character

Given the discussion above, it does not seem that human nature is committed in any one

direction; certainly not universally. Though we can agree with Dewey that habits are formed from raw

impulses we may disagree that a competitive or violent drive has become one of the most common

features of habit. Rather, the spectrum of potential human patterns, or more accurately attitudes,

accounts for both the most accommodating and cooperative modes of action, as well as the most

competitive, and least compromising, to the point of violent suppression of other views, and acquisition

of power. In this view, there will always be war-like individuals, even if it is not a given in human

nature.

It is easy for individuals (& groups) who are committed to obtaining power and resources in a

violent way to do so over those who do not have such inclinations, and as such it is easy for them to

obtain positions of authority from which the nations/organizations they are leading can be directed on

the same principles of conflict and competition.

This is the reason war is seen as inevitable – not as an innate universal, present in the

foundations of human nature – but as an oft realized possibility which can easily dominate more

cooperative and pacific modes of action.

V. Peaceful Cultures

Some of the reason that issues surrounding war and conflict have dominated our considerations

and historical thoughts of interaction between nations and societies is because we find such dramatic

shifts through such events. Conversely, peaceful interactions and modes of managing societies tend not

to seem noteworthy, specifically because they lack this element of drama which captures the attention

of the human mind. “If history is a history of war and revolution, that is because historians tend to

focus on periods of violence and rapid change. In periods of peace this year is similar to last year.”9

It seems, though, that certain elements of our thought have evolved beyond this obsession with

the oppositional notion of human interaction. Whether this is because we have progressed to a point at

which it just seems as a repetition of the same pattern which has gotten old, or it is based on a dawning

realization that we must begin to work in more peaceful ways in order to flourish, is a question that

shall be dealt with below. For now, it will suffice to say that in order to change the patterns of conflict

9 Melko 52 Peaceful Societies,, pg 8

that humanity participates in, alternative modes of action would need to be sought. The best place to

begin such an endeavor is to examine ideals and societies which have flourished in a peaceful context.

In contrast to the war-like mentalities discussed above, and to the assumption that this war like

principle in the types of beings that we are we can look at a number of cultures that do not embrace

such forms of conflict. These range in mentality that range from not knowing even what war is to

having a large dislike for violent conflict and avoiding whenever possible often developing alternative

ways of settling disputes with nearby tribes or clans. In the book, Keeping the Peace, an attempt is

made to define a peaceful society in the following terms. For them, a peaceful society is one that:

a) desires to be peaceful and seeks to orientate its culture in that direction

b) has developed cultural means to achieve this aim

c)has achieved some degree of success in this aim.10

The first of these cultures that we will look at is that of the Lepchas, and the Eskimos.

Although wildly different in belief systems, and cultural norms, they share two important features,

which are enough for us to group them together here. The first is that both of these societies exist on

the boundary of habitable environment, far above the arctic circle; the second, that war is not only rare,

but an unheard of concept among these cultures. One reason which we might presume for this is the

sheer remoteness and difficulty of life for these peoples. Until modern times, they tended to live in

relatively small villages separated from each other, and as such, building military units to engage in

battle would have been difficult to do. Another reason that large scale violence would be completely

unfeasible is that survival itself in such a climate required virtually all of the effort and resources that

could be mastered, and as such there could be no surplus to put into militaristic pursuits.

The next culture we will look at is that of the Iroquois nation. The Iroquois established a

confederacy of five tribes whose territory extended from Vermont into what is now Ohio. There were

understandings between these tribes that none would do harm to another and that this agreement

between tribes, or retributions for individual wrongs would be dealt with by the tribal elders. For large

scale disagreement they have devised a game or sport in which the aggressions of one tribe would be

taken out on the other and the victor would have all of the rights of pride and the decision of the

conflict in their favor. Though this was a moderately violent sport with a small number of deaths and

injuries each game it was far preferable to the large scale slaughter that all out war tended to generate.

This sport has survived to us in modern times in the form of lacrosse. Another salient feature that may

have been vital in contributing to the peace of the Iroquois is that their tribal structure was matriarchal

and that all of the major political decisions were made by an elder woman or elder women of the tribe.

10 Kemp, The Search for Peace, pg 6

Modern psychological studies have shown that women in general tend to be more empathetic towards

others, and more apt to try to reconcile differences. Even where it has been said as per the earlier

discussion that mankind is warlike no mention has been made about women for they were considered

irrelevant in political workings. From this example however, we can see that the female of the species

may have a good deal to contribute in working to move away from habits of conflict.

Taking what we have gathered from Dewey's insights on impulse and habit above, we can

understand that these cultures have found a way of satisfying, and striving for the realization of their

impulses, while developing habits that are not conflict-based, as many of the more recognized customs

of history are. When we look at these peaceful cultures we may inquire how useful the examples are to

us, given that they stem from long traditions of peaceful resolution to conflict. However, when dealing

with cultures that are rife with conflict and mentalities that have been indoctrinated to it as we see in

most of the world today we must ask how relevant such examples are. The question then becomes if we

can find examples of a culture or society that shifted consciously from a competition and violence

fueled modality to one that embraced and strove for peace.

VI. King Aśoka

Perhaps the most paradigmatic case of a ruler or governing body which changed tact from a

policy of empire building through war to one of peaceful cooperation and administration is that of king

Aśoka of the Maurya Empire.

VI.i Aśoka´s Story

To understand his transformation, and the policies that followed, it is important to understand

the background of this king. As the third patriarch of the Maurya Empire, Aśoka found himself in the

role of a warrior king. His father and grandfather had secured an empire from Kabul to Bangladesh and

from the Himalaya to Mysore. They did not however have control of a powerful territory on the eastern

seaboard of the subcontinent. As a prince Aśoka was given the viceroy-ship of an area named Ujjain.

During this time, he proved himself as a worthy administrator and fell in love with a Buddhist

concubine by the name of Devi. After the death of his father there are conflicting stories as to how he

got the throne away from his older brother. Most accounts however make some mention of his superior

military and administrative skill. After he ascended to the throne it was four years before he could

consolidate enough support among his ministers and the outlying territories to arrange a proper

coronation. Once his rule was unquestioned he began to organize a campaign against Kalinga, a

powerful territory renown for the size of its elephants. In fact Kalinga itself had established colonies in

Burma and Java across the Indian Sea. Aśoka having formed the largest army of the Maurya empire to

date at numbers of around 600 thousand sought to conquer the Kalinga State. The battle itself was

incredibly bloody and ferocious, with figures between 150-200,000 being killed, and many others

wounded. Though these numbers were obviously rounded and perhaps exaggerated, the level of

magnitude of this war rivaled that of those in the Mahabharata. After the battle, the Maurya empire

under Aśoka controlled almost the entire Indian subcontinent. However Aśoka seemed dissatisfied. The

material we have suggests that he was deeply remorseful about the violence incurred at Kalinga and the

suffering of the victims, the bystanders and the families of those involved. He then set forth to re-frame

his empire and his role as emperor, and it is from this that we get his edicts the Buddhist legends, and

the ideas which we will examine here and question whether these ideals can be of use in reducing the

levels of conflict and war in the world today. “Never before in the history of humanity, nor ever

afterwards, has king publicly expressed genuine grief for a deed commonly regarded as the legitimate

business of kings.”11

In contrast to the historical account, the legend of Aśoka as it has been passed down through the

Buddhist cannon is full of allegory and myth. Though it has importance in a religious sense, and in the

impressions and beliefs of adherents; it does not provided much understanding of actual causes and

events; preferring instead to focus on moral and metaphysical fables. Though we can appreciate both

the aesthetic and the sentiment behind the legend of Aśoka, it will not provide us with much insight as

to how the events and feelings of Aśoka's rule actually transpired; and as such we shall not examine it

here.

VI.ii The Edicts of Aśoka

In order to understand the process and the rule of King Aśoka, we must look at the most

authentic texts we have, in the form of the edicts that he carved into rocks and pillars at various

locations across the empire. Though the meanings had been lost for a number of generations, they

were fortunately recovered in the early 20th century. We can assume that these are his own words, and

as such a direct line into both what he wanted to convey to his own subjects, and the ideas that he wised

to pass down, about how an benevolent state should be administered. Instead of examining each edict

on its own, we shall look here at several themes that emerge from these edicts.

11 Gokale, Asoka Maurya, pg 59

a.) Conversion

The first issue we must consider when examining the works and life of King Aśoka is that

which caused his conversion from king and conqueror to benevolent father of the empire. Though

his own explanation in the edicts which has survived cannot give us a full account of his

psychological transformation, it is the most authentic place from where we can start. In the 13th

Rock Edict, Aśoka states: “Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years

after his coronation. On hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were

killed and many more died. After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to

feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in

Dhamma. Now Beloved-of the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.”

The numbers, rounded (up or down we cannot tell) to significant amounts seem to tell part of

the story. It was perhaps not the carnage itself, but the vast scale on which it occurred that turned

Aśoka's mind (and stomach). In the various accounts, there are descriptions of him overlooking the

battlefield, soaked in blood, and littered with dismembered soldiers from both sides. Described in

appropriate detail, these images seem enough to turn anyone from an inclination towards battle. Yet

history is rife with examples of generals, leaders, and others who could witness such carnage

without a second thought, continuing to fight and instigate wars. Aśoka was without doubt raised as

a member of the Kshatrya caste, as such his primary duties were as a king and a warrior. From a

young age, he was trained in the arts of war, and how to deal with the losses of battle. In fact, it

seems to have been his skill in military prowess which allowed him to succeed his father on the

throne, rather than his older brother. Was the slaughter alone enough to change his attitude from that

of a warrior to a compassionate and empathetic ruler? Why did it affect him in this way, and not

other kings and generals who have surveyed the battlefield after a bloody engagement? Perhaps it

can be seen in his personal history; his grandfather Chandragupta left the throne in order to become

a Jain ascetic, leaving his father Bindusara in power. Did Aśoka have any talks with his grandfather

which may have come back to him overlooking the field at Kalinga? It is also known that his first

consort, Devi, was a practicing Buddhist; their children went on to become a monk and a nun,

spreading the Buddhist message throughout Sri Lanka. Can we from that assume that their

conversations touched on the Heart and mind of the Buddhist doctrine? Or did young lovers have

time for philosophical conversations among the thoughts and actions of infatuation? If so, there still

remains the question of how much these conversations could have affected this to-be king. He did

not take Devi with him to the capital when he ascended to the throne. The invasion of Kalinga itself

occurred after his relationship with Devi seems to have been little more than a distant memory. Do

we assume it was her words and devotion that haunted him as he gazed across the battlefield at the

fragile human forms torn asunder? Maybe it was not the bodies at all, but the tears and wails of

those who lost family members, who were injured, or who died without raising arms. Certainly this

passage of the edict focuses as much on those who were involved incidentally, as those who

participated in the foray.

Where it states that many more died than those who were killed in battle, we can inquire

whether this is simply in addition to those killed in battle, or actually a greater number of civilians

and bystanders killed than soldiers. Further, the question arises if so many were deported, and this

happened under Aśoka's orders after the battle finished – why would he have ordered something that

dismayed him so much, and would he have done so if he was utterly distraught over the battle just

fought. This leads us to believe that his reconsideration took place over a length of time, and not

instantaneously.

Though it is not impossible, it does seem presumptuous to assume that this transformation

occurred on the basis of one event. More likely, it seems that continued consideration and reflection

could have led to Aśoka's change of heart. Not only after the battle at Kalinga, but as a thought and

consideration in the back of his mind as he performed his normal kingly duties – only coming to the

forefront when it spoke to the contradiction of the vivid scene before him on the battlefield, and his

latter recollections of it.

In all likelihood, it was a combination of factors which lead to Aśoka becoming the Buddhist

King, venerated through the ages for his treatment of his subjects, and spreading of the Dharma

(Dhamma). His Grandfather, his first love, and the sight of hundreds of thousands dead and injured

on his command – all contribute to Aśoka's realization that he needs to take a more peaceful and

compassionate approach to ruling an empire and its people. What is not clear is to what degree this

psychological transformation can be repeated, and if so, by what means; though we can say with

conviction that it would be beneficial for more such leaders to undergo similar changes.

b.) Compassion

One of the main characteristics that Aśoka is seen to have exemplified, and has evidenced in his

edicts is that of compassion. A primary tenet of any Buddhist ethics, the Buddha taught compassion

for all beings, not just that of one's close associates or kin. The Buddhist doctrine holds that such

compassion must be directed towards all sentient beings, all things that might feel pain, so that one

might work to lessen the overall amount of suffering in existence in this realm. That this sense of

compassion and empathy found a place in Aśoka's decision making process is evidenced by the

following passage from the 13th Rock edict:“Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods,, is deeply pained by the

killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But

beloved of the Gods is pained even more by this – that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of

different religions who live in in these countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and

father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances,

companions, relatives, servants and employees – that they are injured, killed or separated from their

loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends,

acquaintances, companions, and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all, and this pains

Beloved-of-the Gods.”

Here we see that Aśoka is describing his empathy; for the various castes of Indian society, for

the relations with in families, and for how all involved suffer during a battle or war. Though it may

just be hyperbole, this seems unlikely, for these are thoughts and feelings that were unexpected by

even the best of rulers at this time. Aśoka seems to genuinely want his subjects to understand the

pain he feels empathetically towards them; his compassion towards their suffering. Though other

kings might see the admission of these feelings as a sign of weakness, Aśoka is secure enough in his

position to feel confident. This statement demonstrates a definite interest in connecting emotively to

his subjects, as fellow human beings to each other. He carries this compassion further, extending his

concern over suffering to animals as well, as written in the 4th Rock Edict: “King Piyadasi promotes

restraint in the kissing and harming of living beings...”

c.) Beseeching Citizens

Aśoka seems to have realized that these sudden changes would strike his populace as unusual.

In addition to stating his own, new found position on the issues in various edicts, he also has ordered

their creation in a language that the people could read (Magadi, Aramaic), in order to help his

subjects understand what he expects of them. These are not phrased in a obligatory or forceful way,

but rather as suggestions on the most amenable ways to live life. In the 5th Rock edict, Aśoka

acknowledges the difficulties in acting with compassion and forgiveness, especially when those

towards whom one is acting are doing so on the basis of greed and promotion of harm:“Beloved-of

the Gods, King Piyadasi, speaks thus: To do good is difficult. One who does good first does

something hard to do. … Truly it is easy to do evil.” This recognition does not absolve individuals

from their wrongdoing, though it does provide a basis of forgiveness for those whose motives are

less than pure. In other words, it is saying that though one should not do evil, the causes of it are

understandable, and compassion and forgiveness should be extended to those caught perpatrating

such acts. This is supported by the passage of the 13th Rock edict which states:“...Now Beloved-of-

the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.”

This is only part of Aśoka's request of his subjects. He further asks that they act in accordance with

their dhamma (dharma) or duty, as well as cultivating their own sense of compassion. Again, this is

not done through any cohersive force, or fear of punishment, but as a gentle suggestion, one which,

if followed, would be beneficial for all. This imperative is stated clearly in the 1st Kalinga Rock

Edict: “...Therefore your aim should be to act with impartiality. It is because of these things –

envy, anger, cruelty, hate, indifference, laziness or tiredness – that such a thing does not happen.

Therefore your aim should be: 'May these things not be in me.' And the root of this non-anger

and[is] patience.”

d.) Implementation and Consideration

When describing the theoretical changes that were made in Aśoka's style of governing, one can

easily raise the question how such directives would have any effect on the practical realities of

governance. Aśoka actually appointed officers to maintain the levels of dharma, compassion and

care for his subjects. These Dhamma Mahamatras had a good deal of authority and with the kings

approval checked on the behavior of prison guards, the ethical procurement of food, enforcing the

prohibition of animal sacrifice, and even how regional governors treated their subjects. Aśoka was

proud of having developed official positions for this service to the degree that he felt it necessary to

describe them in the fifth rock edict.

“In the Past there was no Dhamma Mahamatras but such officers were appointed by me

thirteen years after my coronation. Now they work among all religions for the establishment of

Dhamma, for the promotion of Dhamma, and for the welfare and happiness of all who are devoted

to Dhamma. They work among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Gandharas, the Rastrikas, the

Pininkas, and other peoples on the western borders.”

These officers worked through every area of the empire to the most outlining regions and thus

ensured that Aśoka's policies of care and compassion for his people were seen through. These

officers would make sure that all who were acting under the king's name would do so in a manner

agreeable to him and to his beliefs.

e.) Personal Sacrifice

These matters were of great importance to Aśoka to the degree that he felt comfortable

relinquishing some of his royal privileges most notably, privacy and delegation, to ensure that he

would be available to consult on matters of importance at any time. He makes this clear in the 6th

Rock Edict "… it must be reported to me immediately. This is what I have ordered. I am never

content with exerting myself or with dispatching business. Truly, I consider the welfare of all to be

my duty, and the root of this is exertion and the prompt dispatch of business. There is no better work

than promoting the welfare all the people and whatever effort I am making is to repay the debt I owe

to all beings to assure their happiness in this life, and attain heaven in the next."

This was almost unheard of, even through to the royals of modern times to be willing to forfeit

any privacy, personal time, and so for, to be at the back and call of one's ministers or as Aśoka saw it

to the people themselves.

f.) Benevolence

Where Aśoka's ruling ideology becomes truly unique is when he expresses the benevolence he

feels towards all regardless of whether they are his subjects or not, whether they support his rule or

not, whatever religion they held, profession they practiced, or cast they belonged. This is evidenced

by the words he put at the beginning of both rock edicts found at Kalinga.

Kalinga1st “... All men are my children. What I desire for my own children, and I desire their

welfare and happiness both in this world and the next, that I desire for all men. You do not

understand to what extend I desire this, and if some of you do understand, you do not understand the

full extent of my desire.”

This strikes the reader as a direct expression of the universal benevolence and compassion of

which the Buddha spoke. Whether or not Aśoka was able to truly manifest such feelings we can at

least take his words as an attempt to achieve such heights of compassion and consideration. Given

the dirth of these sorts of attitudes in those whom have led empires, having such laudable goals

strikes us as a step in the progression of humanity towards a more cooperative mode of being.

g.) Attitude towards other Countries

Perhaps most relevant to our current discussion, is not how Aśoka treated his own subjects, or

the effect of his decrees within the kingdom, but the attitude his court took towards other kingdoms

around it. Certainly, most empires considered their own safety to be a matter of ensuring that the

lands which it borders being discouraged from taking military action, either through fear of force, or

by pre-emptive military action. Aśoka, on the other hand, seems to have extended his care to those

outside his borders, hoping that a policy of respect, benevolence, and mutual understanding would

ensure peace between his own empire and neighboring kingdoms.

The 2nd Rock Edict at Kalinga states:“The People of the unconquered territories beyond the

borders might thing: ' What is the king's intentions towards us?' my only intention is that they live

without fear of me, that they may trust me and that I may give them happiness, not sorrow.

Furthermore, they should understand that the king will forgive those who can be forgive, and that he

wishes to encourage them to practice Dhamma so that they may attain happiness in this world and

the next. I am telling you this so that I may discharge the debts I owe, and that in instructing you,

that you may know that my vow and my promise will not be broken. Therefore acting in this way,

you should perform your duties and assure them (the people beyond the borders) that: 'The king is

like a father. He feels towards us as he feels towards himself. We are to him like his own children.'”

Though, before we jump to the conclusion that Aśoka was unwilling to use violence at this point

of his rule, we should remember that at no point did he disband his army. It seems he kept an

impressive military force as a deterrent, and though he preferred to deal with issues as they arose by

non-violent means, and express his concern for the well being of his neighbors, he did not see that

military force and the threat of violence was completely unnecessary. Rather, I believe he viewed it

as an unpleasant secondary alternative, and one I am sure he was glad not to have to use again.

VI.iii War as a Requirement for Peace?

One issue that must be raised, if Aśoka is to be held as an example, is whether the policies he

instituted, and his love for peace, would have allowed him to successfully run a peaceful empire if it

had not been for the violent conquest of the territory, and the pacification of neighboring lands through

a combination of force and fear. Certainly the consolidations of territory achieved by his father and

grandfather ensured that there were no close neighbors to worry about, save for Kalinga. When Aśoka

conquered Kalinga to finally secure the Maurya empire, it is seen as the event which solidified the

kingdom. If his forefathers had not been so vigilant in overtaking, and decimating the armies of

neighboring territories, or Aśoka himself had not made Kalinga submit, one questions whether his

idealistic Buddhist kingdom would have been possible. We know from history that the Muaryan

dynasty survived less than a century after his death, and the great empire was chiseled away into

smaller territories. Though part of this is said to be due to the fact that none of the rulers who followed

Aśoka had his determination, dedication, or ideals; we can also see that over a period of a few

generations, the armies who had been decimated by Aśoka and his fathers had an opportunity to rebuild

themselves, and that new leaders came to power in the outlying regions, often with the drive to make a

name for themselves through conquest of their own. Again, we are faced with a quandary: Is the threat

of force required to maintain a peaceful balance between states?

It may be granted that if one takes a completely pacific attitude as a ruler, that those who have

no qualms with violence might take advantage of this for their own gain, as we saw in section IV.

Should we need to look further evidence of this, we can turn back a few more centuries, and look at

the rule of Pharaoh Akhnaton of Thebes, whose rule started in circa 1361 BCE. Breaking from the

tradition of his ancestors, he believed that war displeased the divine. Thus, when Kings under his

protectorate, notably from Syria and Babylon, sent for defenses from the empire to battle the Hittites

who were invading, Akhnaton refused. Continuing pleas came, falling on what seemed to be deaf ears

of this pacifist. Various other nations eroded Egypt's borders, leaving the empire as a small fraction of

what it was before Akhnaton's reign.12

Aśoka provides one example of a leader forged with a mentality of conflict and battle who was

able to change his habits and his values to one of embracing the well being of all. However, it can be

argued that some of his impulses remained the same; specifically doing that he felt would most benefit

the empire under his rule – helping his people and his nation thrive. Although the peace he instituted

was short lived by historical standards we can easily see how his actions might be taken as prove that a

large political state can function on a basis of cooperation an mutual concern.

VII. Kant's Perpetual Peace

Turning our thoughts now to the history of the West and the tradition of European thought we

see that the dichotomy between war and peace has been considered a serious issue throughout the the

past two millennia. After the Reformation and the wars between protestants and Catholics as well as

12 Williams, 39

territorial disputes between the multitude of city states that occupied central Europe in the late middle

ages, the alleviation of this continual conflicts became a major issue for the intellectuals of the time.

Perhaps the most influential philosopher of his time, Immanuel Kant, wrote a treatise for establishing

the conditions of a lasting peace between nations.

If we look back to section four we saw how though not universal, part of possible human

aptitude leads to conflict ant struggle for power. Kant was quick in realizing this: “This ease in making

war, coupled with the warlike inclination of those in power (which seems to be an integral feature of

human nature), is thus a great obstacle in the way of perpetual peace.”13

However, Kant also realized that this tendency only manifested in the people in positions of

power, who had the authority to command the fighting of battles for prestige and conquest. If those

who would suffer the most due to conflict and war had any say about such battles they would almost

universally choose peace. This, he felt no rational individual would do, for they would realize the cost

to themselves and their loved ones of such extraneous violence. In such circumstances, a truly

democratic society, or a well run republic would only choose war in the circumstances that it was vital

for the continuation of the state, or for the cultures and traditions of the people to be preserved.

Given that most wars do not fit into this category, but were fought over territory, tributes, and the

pillaging of other goods, they would be considered wars of luxury, and exploitative of the lower

classes. Conversely, revolutionary wars, civil wars, and wars of independence are for the most part,

wars declared by the people to improve their own way of life, and therefore considered more

justifiable.

As long as war is simply fought for war's sake, Kant contends, the burdens of debt a country

incurs to fund its military machine will never be satisfied – and the costs will be transmitted to the

citizens. “If […] the consent of the citizens is required to decide whether or not war is to be declared, it

is very natural that they will have great hesitation in embarking on so dangerous an enterprise. For this

would mean calling down on themselves all the miseries of war, such as doing the fighting themselves,

supplying the costs of war from their own resources, painfully making good the ensuing devastation,

and, as the crowning evil, having to take upon themselves a burden of debt which will embitter peace

itself and which can never be paid off on account of the constant threat of new wars.”14

Given the relation we have seen between those with warlike tendencies and positions of power

we can see how those with an interest in maintaining their privilege, and continuing to fight for

13 Kant, Perpetual Peace, § I.414 Ibid. § II.1

conquest over others, would seek to limit the power and freedom of the masses. Thus, a peaceful state

becomes difficult, for it is not in the interests of those who have the power, and the competitive

mentality to get it, to hand those reins over to the people.

Kant did admit the Hobbesian view of human nature, and held that the nations of his day were

acting in a similar fashion to individuals without a state to provide a framework to interact. Thus,

nations related to each other in a 'state-of-nature', having no way to negotiate an exchange of needs and

wants without going to war. In terms of a solution to these consistent waves of violence, and the

continuation of conflict as the primary method of inter-national communication, Kant proposed that

nations be held to the same moral and legal standards that held authority over individuals. In order to

do this, an overarching entity would have to be established; yet given the pride and attachment to

sovereignty that nations have; this body of nations could not infringe on a country's ability to rule itself.

“Peoples who have grouped themselves into nation states may be judged in the same way as

individual men living in a state of nature, independent of external laws; for they are a standing offense

to one another by the very fact that they are neighbours. Each nation, for the sake of its own security,

can and ought to demand of the others that they should enter along with it into a constitution... within

which the rights of each could be secured. This would mean establishing a federation of peoples.”15

The question then becomes how to establish such an organization, without infringing on the

sovereignty of the member nations. What authority could be formulated over nations, without taking

away any degree of self-determination? This is a tricky and vexed question. Most nations would not

join an organization which they feels lessens their individual power. However, in order to reach some

degrees of accord with other states, the ability to have a forum, and a body to which to appeal

differences becomes necessary, if violent conflict is to be avoided.

VII.i Application

The ideas that Kant proposes in his Perpetual Peace were seen as idealistic, and far removed

from reality at the time of his writing. However, after the progress of centuries, and the two most

destructive wars in human history to date, these views started to gain more traction. Certainly we can

see how organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union have manifested such ideas.

Formed at the end of WWII, the United nations provided an organization and forum for countries to

give audience to their grievances with each other without the need to resort to war. Further, part of the

charter of the UN states that wars shall no longer be conducted for territorial gain; effectively making

15 Ibid. § II.2

permanent the borders around the globe as they stood at the end of World War II. This can be seen as

unfair, for it was the victors of that war who drew up the charter of the UN, and the post-war borders.

Further, the establishment of a security council (members of which were chosen by the same victors),

whose votes on matters of import trump that of all other nations seem a far cry from a truly egalitarian

and fair system. Yet, even with these difficulties, and others we can grant that the organization of the

United Nations has prevented more wars than it has caused, and that alone would justify its existence.

In addition, it provides an open dialogue, in which the positions of various countries on any issue can

be stated, for the public record, so that other governments may be able to deal with them at face value,

and decide together how to tackle problematic issues that arise.

Another institution that seems to have developed out of Kant's notion of Perpetual Peace is that

of the European Union. The EU seems to have taken the concept further, though, on a more limited

scale; this allows the members to form a more tightly knit federation, and gives more weight to to its

authority. Certainly, the EU has been successful in preventing war among its member states. However,

it has also led to losses of sovereignty among individual nations in terms of regulation, treatment of its

citizens and prisoners, and economic policy. For the first of the considerations, most have come to

their defense, claiming that human rights and health-based initiatives are universal, and as such we

should want every government to adhere to them. Due to the strength of these arguments there has

been very little protest against them. Though it is notable that certain issues – such as ban of tobacco in

public places – have caused tension between particular cultures and the EU as a whole.

The main force the EU utilizes to ensure compliance is that of economic might. Truly, the

European Union can be seen as a primarily economic entity. It represents the banding together of

countries not for humanitarian or idealistic reasons, but for mutual economic advantage, and to become

a larger player on the global economic stage. Is it actually mutually advantageous? Certainly it allows

the more developed countries to find cheaper labor as the move further east – it also provides less

economically developed countries with the opportunity to sell their products to a much larger market.

But are these actual benefits? Most of the 'less' developed economies (particularly members of former

soviet bloc) find themselves facing a brain and talent drain of massive proportions, as those with

marketable abilities emigrate to more developed markets to find better pay.

Furthermore, membership in the EU requires following their recommended procedures.

Unfortunately this follows the western model of basing the payment of needs on credit, presuming that

the means will be there when the bills arrive. This allows the governing body of the EU to set internal

policies of countries as they relate to spending and economic priorities. This can bee seen on our news

pages, most recently exemplified by Greece, Spain, and Ireland. In each of these cases, the country in

question was either encouraged or pressured into taking large loans to help deal with already untenable

amounts of debt. In order to abide by the terms the EU set, each of the aforementioned countries had to

reduce their spending specifically by reducing social services and guarantees to the least advantaged of

the society, often reducing services to pre-WWII levels. This seems to directly contradict any notions

that the EU wants to establish for bettering the welfare of all of its citizens.

VIII. Varieties of War

A question must be asked at this point as to what we are discussing when we talk about war.

The Oxford English dictionary primarily defines war as “quarrel usually between nations conducted by

force”. Traditionally war has implied the pitting of armed forces against each other or the use of martial

forces in order for one state to coherence another into paying tribute or relinquishing their sovereignty.

More recently the conception of war has been expanded to incorporate force applied in conflicts of

interest be it economic,political or ideological in nature. Especially if said force has been designed to

eliminate or incapacitate its opposition. In modern times we have particularly seen increases in

economic warfare, a state or coalition punishing another through embargoes, sanctions and currency

wars. (For now though) we will simply define war as any dispute or conflict to which force is applied

and the intended result is the elimination, domination, or surrender of the opposing side.

Part of the general globalization of our culture and infrastructure, is the movement from violent

uses of war towards economic conflict in order to make another party or nation submit to one's aims.

Even in his time, William James was quick to realize this: “Modern war is so expensive that we feel

trade to be a better venue to plunder, but modern man inherits all the innate pugnacity and all the lover

of glory of his ancestors.”16 With this shift, it is no longer governments competing amongst

themselves, but multinational corporations, banks, monetary agencies enter the fray. This changes the

landscape of conflict as well; for it cannot be defined as one region against another, but as one entity

against another, with the repercussions taking place simultaneously in many arenas across the globe.

Such struggles over resources, public perception, and who gets to use the materials of the planet in

what way, often are most damaging to those who happen to live in the areas where the raw materials

are produced, whether we are discussing physical goods, energy, or labor. Attaining such things at ever

cheaper rates disadvantages both those who are providing at far less than their troubles are worth, as

well as sacrificing their own ability to provide for themselves, in order to be part of the larger global

exchange. Further, such entities tend to work solely towards their own benefit, for unlike governments,

16 James, The Moral Equivalent of War

they have no people or citizens that they are beholden to. During his campaign to free India, Gandhi

saw this method of achieving domination over people – not by physical force, but by economic

pressure. He felt that this was as bad as anything previously referred to as war: “An armed conflict

between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict. This is like a

surgical operation. An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those

depicted in the literature on war properly so called. We think nothing of the other because we are used

to its deadly effects. […] The movement against war is sound. I pray for its success. But I cannot help

the gnawing fear that the movement will fail if it does not touch the root of all evil — man's greed.”17

In order to fully address war and conflict, it must be addressed in all of its forms. Even if we are

willing to say at this point that wars of military force are not inevitable, can the same possibly be said

of war-like economic conflict?

IX. William James and the Moral Equivalent of War

In 1906, William James saw the ramifications of continued war, and the inclinations of the

populace when enticed to war by national pride, and a government bent on conquest. (This was only a

year after T. Roosevelt amended the Monroe Doctrine, allowing the US to use its military in any

western hemisphere nation, the continuation of American expansionism, and during the military build

up of tensions that would eventually lead to WWI). James noted that through history, wars had been

fought on motives of national pride, plundering of riches from another nation, and conquest of their

women. However, as nations progressed into the the 'modern' age, robbing other countries for short

term gain no longer seemed a viable excuse to conduct war. As he astutely remarked: “Pure loot and

mastery seem no longer morally allowable motives, and pretexts must be found for attributing them

solely to the enemy.... our army and navy authorities repeat without ceasing, are solely for 'peace.'”18

Thus, governments could only convince their citizens that war was necessary and required them

to risk their own safety, and perhaps sacrifice some of their security under the condition that there was

a real threat to the nation that required defense against. James also recognized the effect that the

narrative of war held on the public mind, and the sense of duty and camaraderie that it instills – “The

popular imagination fairly fattens on the thought of wars,”19 for it provides drama, a confrontation

between perceived good and evil, and a sense of belonging and connection with one's fellow citizens.

In contrast to these trends that he found disturbing, and detrimental to the progression of human

17 Gandhi, "Non-Violence — The Greatest Force" in The World Tomorrow (5 October 1926)18 James, The Moral Equivalent of War19 Ibid

society, James held that there must be a rational way to deal with inter-state conflicts as they arise

without the need to resort to war – “It would seem that common sense and reason ought to find a way

to reach agreement in every conflict of honest interests. I myself think it is our bounden duty to believe

in such international rationality as possible.”20

However, because war was seen as innate to the human condition, it was commonly assumed to

be an obligation of states to prepare for war, and to be proficient at it when, not if, it should arise. The

reasoning being that if a state was going to engage en war anyway, that it had a responsibility to its

citizens to fare as well in that war as possible as to best serve the interests of the people and the

government.

The flaw that James saw in this argument was the assumption that war is present in human

drives, and as such the idea that war is inevitable. Instead, it is only the contexts and situations that we

find ourselves in, and the promotion of certain states of mind through statements by the government

and media that lead us to acceptance and endorsement of war. This leads to a disregard for what James

holds to be our true selves. Those whose power is maintained by conflict, and keeping the populace in

fear in order to support said conflict, have a vested interest in directing people's mentalities in this way.

If individuals were true to themselves, James holds, they would not support this unending violence. He

then states that both such individuals in power, and the people themselves are in 'fear of emancipation

from the fear regime', for different reasons. Those in control are afraid of this situation for the very

reason mentioned above. The general populace, on the other hand, are hesitant to leave this fear

behind, for it is the pattern they have known, and change itself faces resistance in the human psyche.

At this point, James admits that war has provided many beneficial things to humanity and

culture. He examines them in detail, with the boons that they provide to a society. As a general term,

he utilizes martial discipline as a catch-all for these features, but also teases them out, describing the

goods that they provide.

The first of these is that the machinations of war help the individuals involved to become goal

focused, or single minded; not only because their lives may depend on it, but because they start to

identify their own goals, and satisfaction of them, with those of the army or nation. Another beneficial

aspect of martial training is the intense physical activity, insuring that the soldiers in the army are sound

of body. Thirdly, the preparations for war instill a sense of honor and duty in an individual, and these

become deeply held, often becoming part of one's self conception. Together these, along with general

discipline create a series of goods which James feels are vital for the good of a society. Yet, the end for

which they are considered to be means is untenable on a permanent basis, especially for a forward

20 Ibid

thinking society dedicated to the well being of mankind.

This raises the main dilemma for James – for he cannot find an existent alternative to war,

which is effective in instilling such virtues. For him, these must come from a sense of patriotism, and

competitive passion. He proposes a solution; relying on fanning the ember of civic passion. If a

society were to genuinely acknowledge the hardships of life, they could begin to work systematically

against them. James himself refers to these hardships as Nature, but we could just as easily see it as the

recognition of the first truth of Buddhism: Life is suffering. With this realization, a society could enlist

all who are willing to engage the foe of hardship itself – dedicating the resources and discipline of a

culture not to fighting a particular other, but to fending off the indignities of human existence. The

martial character could be employed for training individuals not to fight, but to provide food, shelter,

education, and health care. To build infrastructure where it is needed most, as well as helping the most

destitute of communities receive the aide they need. The mission of such a force would include

disturbing food and medical supplies; and providing support wherever it is most needed, and reacting to

tragedies in a rapid manner.

In the century that has passed since James wrote this work, the closest institution to the one he

proposes can be seen in the Peace Corp. started by John F. Kennedy. However, instead of replacing the

need for an army as James was suggesting, the Peace Corp. has been naught more than an insignificant

after thought. Though it has helped populations in many countries, it has never been given the

resources nor the prominence to make a difference on the same level of magnitude as any military

force. Furthermore, the Peace Corps seem to operate on the assumption that movement towards a

'developed' way of life is more beneficial, and work to introduce electricity, manufactured goods, and

western style education into many of the cultures in which they work. Though it may be admitted that

advancements in medicine and nutrition are universally beneficial; the same does not necessarily hold

true for the movement away from sustenance agriculture, and the incorporation of a society into a

market system which it may not have the resources to function in properly.

X. A Possibility

At this point in our discussion, we have examined many intelligent and insightful ideas on the

causes of war, and seen the transformation of a warrior into a proponent of universal peace. The

question remains: 'Is war inevitable?' It has been shown that such tendencies are not inherent in

human nature – and a number of alternatives to such conflict based modalities have been suggested.

Yet, it seems that unless any of these proposals are accepted universally, than they shall not work to

prevent further clashes of power and uses of force unless they are adopted by all parties. If we take the

Dewey´s perspective, the question seems more achievable: How do we satisfy the impulses of a state

(prosperity, health, prestige, influence) and its authorities, while adopting a different set of habits than

the ones which state that differences and resources must be fought for?

The trick then is to elaborate some of these impulses clearly, in a way that can be easily

communicated and acted upon, without necessity of causing harm to others. Food, Health, Culture,

beauty, sovereignty, seem to be key features, but the exact descriptions are a subject for another article.

However, we can suppose that the possibility of Nations and other organizations agreeing that certain

basics are desirable for each population, for they are beneficial to human flourishing in general, and we

have the hope that each government has the desire for their people to flourish. If it becomes obvious

that these impulses, these inherent desires are easier to obtain through cooperation rather than

competition, then it seems that many institutions would adopt these habits as a means of accomplishing

their own ends. Part of the difficulty of war, be it military or economic, is that a good deal of resources

are dedicated to the destruction of other resources. Supposing that all the resources aimed at causing

destruction, as well as those destroyed were instead dedicated to the easing and increased comfort of

the human condition, it would not be amiss to presume that most of humanity´s drives and impulses

would be met. Though it is granted that there will still be individuals, and political entities behind

them, who seek to gain power over others and are willing to use force to do so. Yet, if a vast majority

of nations reach a consensus that allowing such actions are detrimental to everybody´s interests, and

hence damaging to their own, agreements can be made as to what might be allowed in the realm of

international relations.

Furthermore, the state must respect each of its constituent members, for it is the groups that feel

slighted or wronged by the government which would seek to overthrow it through violence, rather the

state, in order to reach a stable level of harmony, must incorporate all of his members in the

distribution of freedom, resources and power. Its obligations to its members can be no less than its

obligations to the international community.

An issue that arises is that each nation is strongly tied in with a sense of individual identity and

feeling of dessert that comes with it. How to help nation states fulfill their role as part of a larger

global harmony without sacrificing their rights individuality or values must be considered. In order for

a peace to flourish, nations, and large non-governmental agencies would need to stop conceiving of

themselves as individual entities and rather as part of a global entity or continuum of mankind. Gandhi

both expressed, and worked in accordance with this view:“...through the realization of freedom of India

I hope to realize and carry on the mission of the brotherhood f man […] The conception of my

patriotism is nothing if it is not always, in every case without exception, consistent with the broadest

good of humanity at large.”21 This would entail expanding the self-conception of nations as 'one among

many' rather than 'for itself', with the realization that what benefits all of humanity will benefit each

nation.

Though we may hope that a change will occur in the habits of both leaders, and society as a

whole, we cannot rely on our leaders to be Buddhist saints. Though it can be expected that they will

act as rational individuals at least in obtaining the good for their own people. “... the most promising

approach to peace may lie in expanding upon those international ties that are established for reasons of

mutual self-interest, and thereby achieving an integrated world community through a gradual and

indirect process.”22

There are a lot of assumptions here, including ones that challenge perhaps the most ingrained

habit of all – that of self-identity for nations and organizations. Still, it must be given that this picture

is a definite possibility, no matter how remote. As such, we have seen that viable alternatives to war do

exist, and thus allow us to understand war as merely highly probable, rather than inevitable. Though it

may not sound significant, the difference is immense.

21 Gandhi, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, pg 13522 Lovell The Search for Peace, pg 19

Bibliography

Dhammika, S. trans. An English Rendering of the Edicts of Asoka. published in A ś oka 2300 . Hemendu Bikash Chowdhury, ed. Calcutta: Bauddha Dharmankur Sabha, 1997

Das, M. N. Aśoka: Kalinga War to Universal Peace published in A ś oka 2300 . Hemendu Bikash Chowdhury, ed. Calcutta: Bauddha Dharmankur Sabha, 1997

Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1922

Gandhi, Mahatma All Men are Brothers. Krishna Kripalani, ed. Switzerland: UNESCO, 1958

Gandhi, Rajmohan Revenge & Reconciliation: Understanding South Asian History. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 1999

Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind. Asoka Maurya. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1966

James, William The Moral Equivalent of War, 1906

Kant, Immanuel Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch published in Kant: Political Writings Hans Rice, ed. H.B. Nisbet, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003

Kemp, Graham and Douglas Fry, ed. Keeping the Peace: Conflict Resolution and Peaceful Societies Around the World. New York: Routledge, 2004

Melko, Matthew. 52 Peaceful Societies. Oakville, Ontario: Canadian Peace Research Institute Press, 1973

Lovell, John P. The Search for Peace: An appraisal of Alternative Approaches Aspen: International Studies Association, 1974.

Williams, David Rhys. World Religions and the Hope for Peace. Boston: The Beacon Press, 1951