21 September – International Day Of Peace: Rethinking Peace In A Fractured World - IMPRI Impact And Policy Research Institute

Policy Update
Ninchen Tamang

Every year on 21 September, the world observes the International Day of Peace. At United Nations Headquarters in New York, the Japanese Peace Bell stands as a powerful symbol of peace and international unity. Cast in 1952 from coins donated by delegates from 60 nations and presented to the United Nations in 1954 by the United Nations Association of Japan, the bell bears the inscription, “Long live absolute world peace.” Its presence reminds the world to pause, reflect and renew its commitment to the enduring ideal of peace.

In 2026, the United Nations observes the day under the theme “Invest in Peace – For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day,” honouring what it calls the “everyday architects of peace”, people who drive local action, lay the foundations for stability and build peace from the ground up (United Nations, 2026).

The question worth asking on this day is not simply “why do we need a day for peace,” but a harder one: what do we actually mean by peace, and why does it continue to elude us despite decades of institution-building? The answer requires looking beyond the absence of war and examining the political, social and economic conditions that make peace durable. Peace and conflict studies provide useful analytical tools for understanding this distinction.

Background

The International Day of Peace was established by a unanimous United Nations General Assembly resolution on 30 November 1981 (Resolution 36/67), as a day devoted to “commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace” (United Nations General Assembly [UNGA], 1981). Its early observance was linked to the opening session of the UN General Assembly each September. In 2001, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 55/282, fixing the date permanently as 21 September and declaring it a day of global ceasefire and non-violence. It called on all nations and peoples to observe a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the day (UNGA, 2001).

That second decision matters more than it may initially appear. It moved the observance beyond a symbolic diplomatic gesture towards a direct, if largely aspirational, appeal to states, communities and parties to conflict. The broader UN peace architecture, including peacekeeping, peacebuilding and the Sustainable Development Goals, reflects a growing recognition that peace cannot simply be negotiated in conference rooms. It has to be built, maintained and supported on the ground, including in conflict-affected communities, refugee-hosting areas and local neighbourhoods. The 2026 theme reinforces this approach by placing greater attention on the people and communities who sustain peace in everyday life (United Nations, 2026).

The Significance of the Day – Beyond Symbolism

It is tempting to treat the International Day of Peace as ceremonial: a hashtag, a school assembly or a dove motif. Its deeper significance, however, lies in what it asks us to examine our definition of peace itself.

Here, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung’s (1969) distinction between negative peace and positive peace is particularly useful. Negative peace refers broadly to the absence of direct violence, no war or active fighting. Positive peace, by contrast, concerns the presence of social justice, equality and institutions capable of addressing the conditions that generate or reproduce violence. These conditions can include poverty, discrimination and the denial of rights, even when no bullets are being fired (Galtung, 1969). Galtung’s concept of structural violence therefore highlights how a society can be formally free from war while its economic, legal or political structures continue to produce systematic harm for particular groups.

Seen in this way, the International Day of Peace is not only about ceasefires in places such as Ukraine, Sudan or Gaza, although these remain urgently important. It is also a reminder that peace must be built within societies that are formally at peace but continue to experience inequality, hate speech, exclusion and institutional erosion. This is closely aligned with the UN’s 2026 framing, which shifts attention from diplomatic conference rooms towards “neighbourhoods, classrooms and communities” (United Nations, 2026).

A second useful frame is liberal peace theory, associated with Michael Doyle’s (1983) work on Kant and the broader democratic peace tradition. This approach argues that democratic institutions, economic interdependence and international institutions can reduce the likelihood of war between states (Doyle, 1983). These ideas have influenced important strands of international peacebuilding, where diplomacy, international law, economic cooperation and institution-building are treated as tools for maintaining peace.

At the same time, liberal peacebuilding has faced serious criticism over externally driven state-building projects that can weaken local ownership and legitimacy. Paris (2004), for instance, examined the difficulties of pursuing rapid liberalisation in post-conflict societies without first establishing effective political and economic institutions. The “local turn” in peacebuilding, associated with scholars such as Mac Ginty and Richmond (2013), places greater emphasis on local agency, everyday practices and the local dimensions of peace. Durable peace, from this perspective, cannot simply be delivered by international institutions; it has to be shaped with the people who live with its consequences. This also resonates with the UN’s “everyday architects” framing for 2026.

Current Scenario: A World Under Strain

The 2026 observance arrives amid what the UN describes as a period of “staggering volatility” (United Nations, 2026). Several developments illustrate the scale of the challenge:

Armed conflict and children: The United Nations verified 38,558 grave violations against children in conflict situations in 2025, the highest number recorded since the monitoring mechanism began (United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, 2026). In the first five months of 2026, more than 4,000 children were reportedly killed or injured across six countries amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, including more than 2,500 in Iran (UNICEF, 2026).
Protracted crises: Gaza remains a site of severe civilian suffering. UNICEF reports that more than 64,000 children have reportedly been killed or injured since the beginning of the conflict in October 2023. Continued reports of child casualties despite ceasefire arrangements underline the gap that can exist between the announcement of a ceasefire and the restoration of safety on the ground (UNICEF, 2026).
Displacement: Forced displacement also remains at historically high levels. According to UNHCR, 117.8 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide at the end of 2025. Although this represented a decline from 123.2 million at the end of 2024, the first global decrease in a decade, the figure remains an indication of the enormous scale of conflict, persecution, violence and other crises generating forced displacement (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2026).

These figures are not presented as a catalogue of despair but as an argument: the absence of active fighting does not automatically produce a secure or dignified peace. Formal ceasefires may reduce violence while civilians, especially children, continue to face insecurity, displacement and deprivation. This is where Galtung’s concept of structural violence remains relevant, particularly when conflict interacts with economic insecurity, social exclusion and institutional weakness. At the same time, initiatives such as the UN’s Pact for the Future and the UN80 reform process reflect wider efforts to strengthen multilateral cooperation and improve the capacity of the international system to respond to contemporary challenges (United Nations, 2026).

India’s Role in All This

India’s engagement with the idea of peace predates the UN observance itself, drawing on traditions such as Gandhian ahimsa and the diplomatic commitment to Panchsheel, the five principles of peaceful coexistence articulated by India and China in 1954 (Ministry of External Affairs, n.d.). These principles subsequently became part of India’s wider diplomatic approach and informed the political thinking associated with the Non-Aligned Movement.

This normative inheritance has also translated into concrete contributions in several areas:

1. UN Peacekeeping

India has been one of the largest troop- and police-contributing countries in the history of UN peacekeeping. India has contributed more than 200,000 personnel to UN peacekeeping since 1948, serving in 49 UN peacekeeping missions, according to UN Peacekeeping (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2022). As of 31 January 2026, India ranked second among contributors of uniformed personnel, with 4,268 personnel deployed, behind Nepal (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2026).

India was also the first country to contribute an all-women Formed Police Unit to a UN mission, in Liberia, marking an important contribution to gender-inclusive peacekeeping (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2022). India has also paid a significant human cost: the UN in India reported that 179 Indian peacekeepers had died in the line of duty as of 2024 (United Nations in India, 2024).

2. Institutional diplomacy and capacity-building

India has supplied military and police personnel, including senior officers, to multiple UN missions and has also invested in peacekeeping training, thus contributing to peacekeeping capacity-building. In 2015, the Government of India reported that nearly 800 peacekeeping officers from 82 countries had been trained through Indian programmes (Prime Minister’s Office, 2015). This extends India’s contribution beyond the deployment of personnel towards strengthening peacekeeping capacity among other countries.

3. Development diplomacy as peacebuilding

Beyond uniformed contributions, India’s South-South cooperation model including infrastructure, capacity-building and development assistance to countries across Africa, South Asia and the Pacific also be examined through a peacebuilding lens. Addressing economic insecurity and institutional capacity can help address some of the conditions associated with instability. In this sense, development cooperation can complement, rather than replace, the more immediate role of peacekeeping after conflict has already erupted (Ministry of External Affairs, n.d.).

At the same time, an honest appraisal must recognise the tension between India’s global peace diplomacy and challenges within its own neighbourhood, including unresolved boundary questions and populations affected by displacement or conflict across South Asia. A country’s credibility as a peace contributor abroad is strengthened when contested questions are addressed through transparent institutions, dialogue and peaceful processes. This is not a challenge unique to India; it is one faced by many large and diverse states seeking to balance domestic complexities with wider international responsibilities.

The Way Forward

In an age of wars, climate crises and eroding faith in multilateralism, peace cannot remain merely the absence of conflict. The way forward lies in reimagining international relations beyond narrow national interests, towards a framework where collective security and shared humanity become the basis of global cooperation. And if positive peace is the goal, four shifts appear necessary, drawing on both the UN’s 2026 framing and the theoretical literature above:

1. Invest locally, not only diplomatically

The 2026 theme’s emphasis on “everyday architects of peace” highlights the importance of local actors in sustaining peace (United Nations, 2026). Funding and political attention should therefore reach local mediators, women’s peace networks, youth-led dialogue initiatives and community organisations alongside formal negotiations between states and political actors. International peacebuilding is more likely to endure when local actors have meaningful ownership of the process.

2. Treat structural drivers as central to peace

Poverty, displacement, discrimination and denial of rights should not be treated as issues entirely separate from security. Galtung’s (1969) framework draws attention to forms of harm that can persist beneath the surface of formal peace. The Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions, can therefore be understood not simply as a development agenda but also as part of the foundations of peaceful societies (United Nations, 2026).

3. Reform multilateralism without abandoning it

The effectiveness and legitimacy of multilateral institutions face continuing pressure, particularly when political divisions prevent collective action on major crises. Reform, including more representative participation in global decision-making, an issue India has consistently advocated, should therefore be treated as part of the broader effort to make international peace institutions more effective. The challenge is not simply to preserve existing institutions, but to ensure that they remain capable of responding to changing power relations and contemporary forms of conflict.

4. Protect the peacebuilders themselves

The scale of child casualties, civilian suffering and peacekeeper fatalities shows that those who work to build or maintain peace are themselves exposed to considerable risks. Protecting civilians, peacekeepers, humanitarian workers, local mediators and community volunteers should therefore be treated as a core component of peacebuilding rather than an assumed by-product of a mission or programme.

Ultimately, lasting peace demands a shift from seeing the world as a collection of competing states to recognising it as an interconnected community. As the Indian ethos of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” reminds us, humanity’s enduring security rests not in the triumph of one over another, but in recognising that our destinies are shared.

Conclusion

Peace, understood properly, is not a single ceasefire or a single day. It is closer to Galtung’s (1969) idea of positive peace: the sustained work of building just institutions, reducing structural inequalities and empowering the everyday architects, teachers, local mediators, peacekeepers, community leaders and ordinary citizens, who build peace away from the cameras.

The 21st of September is useful precisely because it creates a moment to pause and ask whether the peace we have is merely the absence of war or something more durable. The answer depends not only on whether guns fall silent, but also on whether people experience safety, dignity, rights and meaningful opportunities in their everyday lives. In a year marked by what the United Nations describes as “staggering volatility,” that distinction has rarely mattered more.

References

Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), 205–235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265298

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301

Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2013). The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace. Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 763–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.800750

Ministry of External Affairs. (n.d.). India’s foreign policy. Government of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/indian-foreign-policy.htm

Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil war. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/at-wars-end/C1F5C2343469A41D5B612811484F2D9B?utm

Prime Minister’s Office. (2015). PM’s statement at the Summit on Peace Operations. Government of India. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/statement-by-pm-at-the-summit-on-peace-operations/

UN Peacekeeping. (2022, August 15). MINURSO’s peacekeepers: National Day of India. United Nations. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/news/minursos-peacekeepers-national-day-of-india

UN Peacekeeping. (2026, January 31). Uniformed personnel contributing countries by ranking. United Nations. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/troop-and-police-contributors

UNICEF. (2026, July 31). Statement by UNICEF Acting Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa, Abdul Fofana, as child casualties in Iran reportedly exceed 2,500 amid ongoing war. United Nations Children’s Fund. https://www.unicef.org/mena/press-releases/casualties-Iran-exceed-2500-war

UNICEF. (2026, August 5). Children in Gaza need life-saving support. United Nations Children’s Fund. https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/children-gaza-need-lifesaving-support

United Nations. (2026). International Day of Peace. https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-day-peace

United Nations. (2026). UN80 Initiative. https://www.un.org/un80-initiative/en

United Nations General Assembly. (1981, November 30). International Year of Peace and International Day of Peace (A/RES/36/67). United Nations Digital Library. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/28728

United Nations General Assembly. (2001, September 7). International Day of Peace (A/RES/55/282). United Nations Digital Library. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/447991

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2026, June 11). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2025. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2025

United Nations in India. (2024, June 4). UN peacekeepers honoured in New Delhi. https://india.un.org/en/270534-un-peacekeepers-honoured-new-delhi

United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. (2026, June 17). A year of unthinkable suffering: Record number of children in conflict victims of grave violations in 2025, with government forces as the leading perpetrator for the first time. https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/en/news/year-unthinkable-suffering-record-number-children-conflict-victims-grave-violations-2025

About the Contributor

Ninchen Tamang is a Research & Editorial intern at Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI). She holds a Master’s degree in Political Science, with primary research interests spanning geopolitics, international relations, foreign policy, and South Asian studies.

Acknowledgement

The author expresses sincere gratitude to the Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI) team for their expert guidance, constructive feedback, and continued support throughout the process. The author also extends sincere thanks to the reviewers, Nivedya and Kaustav for their valuable feedback and thoughtful insights.