Beneath the surface-level diversity lies a profound truth: the core principles that govern human relationships are remarkably consistent. These shared values — truth, respect and fairness — form the bedrock of civil society

The fundamentals of all personal dealings and individual relationships, all over the world, are remarkably similar. Anywhere in the world, truth is upheld as a cardinal principle, and everywhere in the world, a line is considered drawn between proper and improper. It has nothing to do with which religion one follows, what is the colour of one’s skin, or what are one’s social norms. Similarly, killing is considered wrong, and so is taking something that does not belong to you. The list can be multiplied, and in all cases, there is a universal value system that brooks no distinction on account of language, creed, or anything else.

Put simply, the unifying principles of humanity are many and have withstood the test of time through millennia, and no one has found it worth his time to negate or contradict these principles.

It, therefore, does not follow that there are no differences between one part of the globe or another, or for that matter, all humanity agrees on everything.

There are differences of belief in matters of religion, creed, and values of behaviour. In certain communities, polyandry is accepted. In others, monogamy is considered desirable.

The enforcement of these values is sometimes through written laws enforceable by courts and, in certain cases, by social practices and beliefs, none of which go to a court.

The varieties are many, and the practices often differ sharply. It is this that makes the processes of legislation important, and the norms must be known to hold credence.

This is the birth of a civil society that has taken the form of nation-states and various national and international legislations that make up the world order.

 In reasonable reality towards this end, some important steps have been taken, and certain important steps are yet to be undertaken to complete the cycle of total cohesiveness of the civil variety. This may take time to emerge.

For the present, it is important to register that one must agree to accept differences as a natural and essential part of global existence. The nation-states present one type of governance, and within the nation-states, there can be differences in ethnicity, practices, and norms.

The seeming diversity within an otherwise unifying framework is the experience of many nation-states.

It is therefore essential to recognise that tolerance, communication, and respect for each other’s practices are essential to cohesive collective living.

There are, even among nation-states, variations from monarchy and more, across relatively vast territories to small existences of island states.

There are many variations, and one must learn to agree to disagree and yet remain tolerant.

This takes one back to the fundamental beliefs of accepting mutual dignity as a human being and recognising that one must not inflict one’s values on others.

What can be stated so simply can become comparatively complicated to practise, and these are the roots of much conflict which takes place even in civil states.

 Understanding the anatomy of conflict, therefore, requires a need for a concurrent understanding of the practice of the principles of ‘live and let live’.

Perhaps this should be made a part of each child’s learning before the child grows into adulthood. The present stage of learning through different stages of school and colleges emphasises knowledge acquisition. There is nothing wrong with that. What is needed, however, is the recognition that one has to let others live to be able to live oneself peacefully and happily.

These are lifestyle learnings and not knowledge learnings. It is, therefore, necessary to keep re-examining the fundamentals of educational systems and values which make coexistence not only desirable but feasible.

Put simply, a recognition of individual identities is useful, but a recognition of the other person’s right to that living is also a must. For the physically powerful, adopting a stance of dominance, assertion, and compulsion is easy.

There has to be self-restraint in recognising how this is a must if the other person also needs to have the same spaces for life as one wants for oneself.

The long and short of it is not just the development of the mind, not just the development of one’s might, but also the development of one’s patience, one’s understanding, and how necessary it is to respect each other’s identity.

A marriage, and a family, are the basic unit of the constitution of a civil society, and it is important to inculcate these values at the core of these institutions.

This can be best done by example and by reflection that the other person has the same right as one wants for oneself.

It is a happy truth that civilisational values have progressively advanced in that direction. That there are notable exceptions is understandable.

Perhaps dealing with it with patience and purpose is the way forward. It takes time but can be done with positive practices in the family and positive values in collective places like schools and elsewhere. The direction is non-negotiable, and the attempt is worth its effort.

(The writer is a well-known management consultant of international repute. The views are personal)