I mean,as we are different human beings, we are adopters of ideologies different each to another, thus conflicts will always emerge. So saying, they emerge because of our differences, our thoughts, our dreams, our beliefs, our evolution, our nature, our choices, our past, our feelings and our fears. By this analysis, I figure out the concept “conflict” has not totally a negative aspect. Hence, the cause of the conflict may be seen with a pessimist view but the outcomes certainly pave the way for negotiations and resolutions in order to prevent bigger disorder and promote the reorganization of the societies. As a matter of fact, from any kind or how widespread the conflict could be, it results in a head-to-head between the entities in order to usher in an agreement.
Each conflict has to be managed differently since the causes or origins may be different. Dealing with a conflict requires skills in dialectics and drastic approach in order to avoid ushering into another one worse than the one upon the table. Conflicts must be managed in regard with time, territory, causality. Therefore, the same causes produce same effects. For instance, the cause that has led to the First World War is seemingly the same for the second one. Thus, we manage the conflict in function of what we have within the archives.
Most of the conflicts have allowed fastening social relationships. Most of the agreements that have impacted the nations, the international and world days are outcomes from an original conflict. UN, EU, NATO and several other multi-national and peace organizations have seen the day just after a conflict. I think conflicts in themselves may have much more positive outcomes than the causes that have set them. All depends on the factors of management. It is true that the regretful conflicts of the two World Wars were disastrous and produced hecatomb but we are now furthermore regularized by certain laws through UN. Perhaps if this UN were nonexistent, we would be the theater of a World War every decade.
127 our experts are availableright now
I think conflicts in the past helped many countries to change their regime. The monarchy that has been totalitarian, a centrally controlled system of government that does not allow any political opposition, has been replaced by the presidency. Hence, the motto is “The power by and for the people”. Most of the case, I figure out that conflicts are triggers to changing, bridges to transition, revolutionaries results in the way to transform. Specifically in conflict issue, there is a movement led by a remarkable leader that has impacted my view. Indeed, this is the conflict between India and the British army/kingdom. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (known as Mahatma Gandhi) is the figurehead that I am pointing to. He was an Indian nationalist leader.
A seminal moment in Gandhi’s life occurred days later on June 7, 1893, during a train trip to Pretoria when a white man objected to his presence in the first-class railway compartment, although he had a ticket. Refusing to move to the back of the train, Gandhi was forcibly removed and thrown off the train at a station in Pietermaritzburg. His act of civil disobedience awoke in him a determination to devote himself to fighting the “deep disease of color prejudice.” He vowed that night to “try, if possible, to root out the disease even if I have to suffer hardships in the process”
In 1906, Gandhi organized his first mass civil-disobedience campaign, which he called “Satyagraha” (“truth and firmness”), in reaction to the Transvaal government’s new restrictions on the rights of Indians, including the refusal to recognize Hindu marriages. After years of protests, the government imprisoned hundreds of Indians in 1913, including Gandhi. Under pressure, the South African government accepted a compromise negotiated by Gandhi and General Jan Christian Smuts that included recognition of Hindu marriages and the abolition of a poll tax for Indians. Wearing a simple loincloth and shawl, Gandhi lived an austere life devoted to prayer, fasting and meditation. He became known as “Mahatma,” which means “great soul.”“
My ambition is no less than to convert the British people through non-violence and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India,” he wrote days before the march to the British viceroy, Lord Irwin. Violence between Hindus and Muslims flared even before independence took effect on August 15, 1947. Afterwards, the killings multiplied. Gandhi toured riot-torn areas in an appeal for peace and fasted in an attempt to end the bloodshed. Some Hindus, however, increasingly viewed Gandhi as a traitor for expressing sympathy toward Muslims.Gandhi played an active role in the negotiations, even though he could not prevail in his hope for a unified India.
Even after his death, Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence added to his belief in simple living has been a beacon of hope for oppressed and marginalized people throughout the world. Satyagraha remains one of the most potent philosophies in freedom struggles throughout the world today, and Gandhi’s actions inspired future human rights movements around the globe, including those of the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States and Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
