eace is a deeply cherished value, one that transcends the bounds of time, culture and belief. It is the beacon towards which humanity collectively strives, the foundation upon which societies, religions and great thinkers have sought to build harmonious futures. The assertion that peace is ensured through aggressive military build-up, or by expending vast resources on defence forces, presents an inherent contradiction — a paradox that challenges the core of what peace is meant to represent. In many ways, this paradox reflects the struggle that humanity has long faced: the tension between the ideal of peace and the brutal realities of war.

Throughout history, religious orders and great philosophical movements have espoused peace as their central tenet. Christianity, for example, through the teachings of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), promotes peace, forgiveness and love. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” says the Gospel of Matthew (5:9). Yet, history is replete with examples of religious institutions and rulers who have waged wars, fought battles and caused untold suffering in the name of faith. This contradiction between belief and practice, between the ideal of peace and the harsh reality of war, underscores a fundamental truth: the path to peace cannot be paved with bloodshed.

The Islamic tradition similarly speaks profoundly about peace. The word Islam itself is derived from the root s-l-m, meaning peace and submission. The Quran frequently emphasises peace and reconciliation as in Surah Al-Furqan (25:63), it says: “And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace.” Despite these teachings, there are instances throughout history where wars have been fought in the name of religion, leading to a dissonance between the ideals of peace espoused by these religious orders and the actions carried out by their adherents.

This paradox is not restricted to religion alone. The modern political and social order, too, has been marred by the contradiction of pursuing peace through war. “War is peace,” the dystopian slogan from George Orwell’s 1984, echoes the absurdity of this logic. While Orwell’s work is fictional, the phrase captures the paradox that is too often a reality in international relations.

Governments/ state apparatuses justify military interventions, arms build-ups and defence spending as a means to secure peace, security and stability. Yet these very actions often escalate tensions and fuel conflict. The arms race during the Cold War serves as a prime example: both sides, convinced that they could secure peace by building up their nuclear arsenals, came closer to global destruction than to any lasting peace.

Political systems and modern states, including Pakistan, often justify military build-up as a means to secure peace. However, these very actions escalate tensions, as evidenced by arms races and interventions.

Sufi philosophy, rooted in the belief of oneness and unity, teaches that peace comes from recognising the interconnectedness of all humanity.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his seminal work Perpetual Peace, argued that peace could only be achieved by the establishment of republican constitutions, a federation of free states and the spread of cosmopolitan law. Kant’s vision, grounded in the idea that peace is the natural state of reasoned humans, starkly contrasts with the idea that peace can be constructed through war or by increasing military power. For Kant, peace is not the result of conquest but of cooperation, understanding and the rule of law. In this regard, peace must be seen as a goal to be pursued through diplomacy, dialogue and mutual respect, rather than through the imposition of force.

Sufi philosophy, rooted in the belief of oneness and unity, teaches that peace comes from recognising the interconnectedness of all humanity. This ethos of harmony contrasts sharply with nationalist rhetoric that often elevates aggression toward perceived enemies. 

The famed American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr, also championed the cause of peace through nonviolence, famously declaring, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” King understood that true peace is not simply the absence of war but the presence of justice, equality and mutual respect. His vision of peace was not one that could be won through aggression or the suppression of others but one that emerged through solidarity and love.

As MK Gandhi, a stalwart advocate for nonviolence, stated: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” His words remind us that the pursuit of peace cannot be achieved through violence, for every act of aggression only perpetuates a cycle of retaliation, making lasting peace even more elusive. War, conflict and aggression may bring short-term victories, but they leave in their wake destruction, loss and division. It is ironical that those who claim to seek peace often resort to the very means — violence and warfare — that stand in direct opposition to it.

The contemporary world often chooses to view peace as a product of military dominance. This view presupposes that the threat of violence, or actual warfare, can deter aggression and lead to peace. The irony is stark: the notion of achieving peace through preparation for war or through actual conflict contradicts the very essence of peace itself. As Lao Tzu once said, “The best fighter is never angry.” True strength lies not in the power to destroy, but in the wisdom to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

Bertrand Russell was keenly aware of the contradiction between peace and war when he said, “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.” This statement highlights the futility of war, the destruction it brings and the inevitable loss that both sides experience. Even in victory, there is no true gain when human lives are lost, when societies are torn apart and when the cycle of violence continues.

In the end, peace cannot be achieved through aggression, no matter how well-intentioned. The tragic irony of human history is that those who seek peace through war often fail to recognise that war, in all its forms, is inherently destructive and counterproductive to the very goal of peace. The notion that one can build a peaceful future by preparing for conflict is an oxymoron that has been proven time and again to be false. As the Dalai Lama puts it: “We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves.” True peace, then, begins within — the cultivation of understanding, empathy and nonviolent approaches to conflict.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. The paradox of achieving peace through aggression will remain as long as we fail to recognise that the path to lasting peace lies not in the accumulation of military might, but in the cultivation of diplomacy, compassion and cooperation. Only when humanity discards the illusion that peace can be imposed through violence will we come closer to the realisation of the true meaning of peace. One hopes that Pakistani decision makers will learn from the intellectual bequest of these luminaries.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore