War signals a reversal of civilisational progress. India must be a peacemaker
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
This opinion article analyzes a hypothetical major war, arguing it signifies a failure of the post-1945 international legal order. It critiques the unilateral use of force, citing a lack of UN authorization and violations of humanitarian law. The piece then pivots to advocate for India's role as a peacemaker, drawing on its traditional foreign policy principles to champion multilateralism and a rules-based global order.
UPSC Perspectives
International Law & Governance
The article critiques the erosion of the Westphalian system of state sovereignty, where nations engage in war without authorization from the . This directly challenges the core tenet of the , specifically Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The author points to the violation of key principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), such as distinction (targeting only combatants), proportionality (ensuring collateral damage is not excessive to military advantage), and military necessity. These principles are codified in the and their Additional Protocols. The argument against 'regime change' as a justification for war is strengthened by the 's jurisprudence, such as the 1975 Western Sahara case, which upheld the principle of self-determination. For a UPSC aspirant, this highlights the ongoing tension between powerful states' unilateral actions and the established framework of global governance, a recurring theme in GS Paper 2.
India's Foreign Policy
The article advocates for India to assume the role of a 'peacemaker' by leveraging its traditional foreign policy principles. This is rooted in the philosophy of _Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam_ (the world is one family), which posits a global community and encourages peaceful coexistence. This ideal is blended with Nehruvian internationalism, which emphasized non-alignment, anti-colonialism, and faith in multilateral institutions like the United Nations. In the modern context, this translates to India championing strategic autonomy and multilateralism—engaging with multiple power blocs without being formally allied to any, thereby creating space for mediation and dialogue. India's history of contributing to UN peacekeeping missions and its role as a 'Voice of the Global South' are practical manifestations of this policy. The challenge for India, as the article implies, is to align these principles with geopolitical realities, ensuring its voice is not just principled but also influential. This involves balancing its national interests while promoting a rules-based international order.
Constitutional & Legal Frameworks
The article references the US , a law intended to check the president's power to commit forces to armed conflict without congressional consent. This is an example of a domestic legal check on executive power in foreign policy and military action. While India's constitutional framework differs, this provides a useful comparative point. In India, the President is the supreme commander of the armed forces, but the power to declare war or deploy troops is exercised by the executive (the Council of Ministers) on behalf of Parliament. There isn't a direct equivalent to the , making the executive's power in this domain substantial, though subject to parliamentary oversight through budgetary approvals and no-confidence motions. The article's call for 'tempered dissent' acknowledges that in a parliamentary democracy, the government, being accountable to the legislature, is considered best placed to make decisions on national security and foreign policy. This perspective is relevant for understanding the separation of powers and executive accountability in the Indian context.