Everyday Musings > 1000 words on Peace

Last week, V and I watched ‘Thirteen Days’ - a film about the Cuban missile crisis and how it was diffused. JFK was the president, in a run up to the polls, and his armed forces chiefs advised him that war was the only option available. JFK pursued a new course of diplomacy and pushed for peace and eventually in a barter deal with Russia prevented a nuclear showdown.

Today, the Kid sent me a link – to an article on peace journalism by Aditi Bhaduri. She wrote of the role of a journalist reporting the Israel-Palestine conflict and what peace journalism is all about. How by understanding the many reasons and many influences that create conflict, one could really give a credible hearing to all. At the end of the article was a list of 17 do's and don’ts of Peace Journalism compiled by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick.

In both, the film and the do's and don’t s, what struck me was the intent. Both parties were thinking peace, were thinking of how to restore balance, and it changed what they did. But thinking peace also has another side. In the film, JFK was being thought of as ‘weak’ by his Armed Forces chiefs for not taking a firm decision on war, and the journalist for peace possibly faced the risk of trying to balance both sides so heavily that he/she lost objectivity. Aditi quotes Christiane Amanpour – "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing."

I read through the do s and don’t s and found that it was an essential learning. The language of news reporting in India has changed - in paper and on TV. From the DD days of unemotional reading of the news to Prannoy Roy’s analytical and investigative news to the Aaj Tak, IBN, Zee News, Barkha, Arnab and Rajdeep face-offs. The form of reporting that we are exposed possibly also changes our language. Are we always alert to seeing through the words and judging for ourselves and finding out more before we do so. I wonder.

All do's and don'ts I felt, had parallels to our life, as much as it did to peace journalism. I feature some here.

“Avoid portraying a conflict as consisting of only two parties contesting one goal. The logical outcome is for one to win and the other to lose. Instead, a peace journalist would disaggregate the two parties into many smaller groups, pursuing many goals, opening up more creative potential for a range of outcomes.”

This extends to our everyday life as well as politics. The moment we see that there is web of intent rather than just two full stops that say black and white, we are able to form more solutions. A fight between a husband and wife, a boss and an employee. Understanding the greys, the situations from both sides, studying them gives us more options.

“Avoid demonising labels like "terrorist," "extremist", "fanatic" and "fundamentalist". These are always given by "us" to "them". No one ever uses them to describe himself or herself, and so, for a journalist to use them is always to take sides. Instead, try calling people by the names they give themselves. Or be more precise in your descriptions.”

We associate words to people in our life and judge them by how they fare by it, not realising that it was our definition of them, not theirs. Labeling someone a 'calm' person and being disturbed if that person loses their temper than if a person who is labeled 'angry' lost their temper. Many misunderstandings could be resolved or new understandings formed once we dwell on where our judgement of things arises from.

“Avoid concentrating always on what divides the parties, the differences between what they say they want. Instead, try asking questions that may reveal areas of common ground and leading your report with answers which suggest some goals may be shared or at least compatible, after all.”

We could count ten reasons why we absolutely cannot get along with someone, or be on their team or be their friend. Sometimes, looking at the other side, gives you another option of compatibility, if not friendship.

“Avoid imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has happened to people. "Genocide" means the wiping out of an entire people. "Decimated" (said of a population) means reducing it to a tenth of its former size. "Tragedy" is a form of drama, originally Greek, in which someone's fault or weakness proves his or her undoing. "Assassination" is the murder of a head of state. "Massacre" is the deliberate killing of people known to be unarmed and defenseless. Are we sure? Or might these people have died in battle? * "Systematic" eg raping or forcing people from their homes. Has it really been organised in a deliberate pattern or have there been a number of unrelated, albeit extremely nasty incidents? Instead, always be precise about what we know. Do not minimise suffering but reserve the strongest language for the gravest situations or you will beggar the language and help to justify disproportionate responses that escalate the violence.”

When we catch ourselves in mid speech, trying to convince someone of something we want to convince them on, our words are different, more exaggerated, more forceful perhaps. We see this on News channels now, as they turn more competitive and need to get into our minds before some other news channel does – they brand incidents – create large pictures, use forceful words. We do the same in our lives, but don’t always see how that is affecting us.

Thinking peace is about building objectivity in life, the middle path. There are many among us who do it as a way of life, only perhaps are so successful at it that it goes unnoticed in the maddening rush of winning and losing. JFK said after the Cuban missile crisis was diffused – “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”