Despite peaceful society being the ultimate aim of the people across the globe, the world today continues to be engulfed in hatred and violence with even the so called civilized and cultured nations on this planet busy in efforts to establish their supremacy to play the shots as per their whims and fancies. This clearly indicates that there has been a serious drift in the cultural aims and aspirations of communities across the globe during the past so many decades so much so that umpteen times the world seems to be at the brink of World War-III. It is an acknowledged fact that individuals, families, communities and societies have multiple options to adopt any of the ways or measures for being peaceful and that too through peaceful means, but it is quite unfortunate that some nations have been nurturing violence making it an inseparable component to deter the peaceful societies within and outside. The height of the things is that such nations justify violence saying that it acts as a deterrent to keep under control those vitiating peace.
This ultimately leads to a situation whereby even peaceful nations have to adopt violent means for deterrence though under compulsion. It would not be wrong to state that there has been deviation from the established approach to peace that tilts the cultural balance in favour of peace, thereby peace cultures becoming the dominant cultures. In this con- text in 1995 UNESCO initiated ‘Culture of Peace Programme’ to assist war torn societies in the work of rec- onciliation and rebuilding. Despite having formulated the programme with six components aimed to help elucidate the goals and methods for international development of peace culture, the current global scenario reflects that the pro- gramme has failed in achieving the set goals. It is pertinent to mention here that under the aforesaid programme Power was redefined not in terms of violence or force, but that of active nonviolence thus building upon the experience of active nonviolence as a means of social change and its proven success during the twentieth century. It also empha- sized on mobilizing people not in order to defeat an enemy but in order to build understanding, tolerance, and solidarity.
Thus these principles were in consonance with the central tenets of nonviolence developed by Mohandas K Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and aimed at liber- ating the oppressor as well as the oppressed through strate- gies for developing unity at the center of deliberation and action. According to these principles the culture of violence and war had to be replaced by a culture of peace, support- ed by a democratic process with people participating in making decisions that affect their lives. Unfortunately, today exploitation characterizes the culture of violence and war and last but not the least economic exploitation being on the forefront. The ground situation being quite contrary shows that this programme launched by the UNO failed to achieve the set goals. As of today there is a need for conducting seri- ous introspection by the global leaders and use the world body UNO that has the capacity to solve the problem amid the clouds of World War-III hovering across the globe. It needs to be realized that the campaign in the direction of peace has to be a joint venture of all the nations. Moreover, the United Nations Organization will have to intensify its cul- tural programmes not only to bring the member nations clos- er, but also to reverse the existing tilt. Undoubtedly, the thought of war, hatred, fear and competition can be thwart- ed by diverting the attention of the nations towards the uni- versal world culture that vouches only for peace.