Catus Brooks
When reflecting on the political in comparative political thought (CPT), it is unnecessary “to define just what ‘the political’ actually is”. For, "the question 'what is the political?'" can be best answered with a treatise, which is beyond our present inquiry. What progress can be made, we argue, lies in inductively analyzing the political phenomenon of pacifism. For, by specifically analyzing pacifism, we may draw generalizations relevant to sovereign decisionmakers. We used the term sovereign because questions regarding violence belong especially to sovereigns over a state, for rest content that a state has the monopoly over violence.Further, by making pacifism the subject of this speculation, assumptions regarding militarization become questionable. If political science’s foremost purpose is to regulate matters of war and the use of force, questions of pacifism must follow and assumptions of militarism must be suspected. In this inquiry, it will suffice to only go over theories of pacifism from Greek and Indian political thought. We are shooting to juxtapose pacifism from Greek ourthology and Mahatma Gandhi's Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. For, at the very least, this will assist sovereigns in deciding upon political questions, like the appropriate spirit towards violence. To begin, we must define the meanings of pacifism, militarism, and the use of force. But, it is not enough to merely touch on pacifism in the context of Greek ourthology and Gandhi’s political thought, we must also compare the two in hope of better informing sovereign decision-makers. The above-said will serve as a plan for this essay.
PDFShare this article
Arts and Social Sciences Journal received 1413 citations as per Google Scholar report
