The concept of positive peace has transformed Peace and Conflict Studies by shifting analytical attention from the absence of war towards the social, political and cultural conditions necessary for human flourishing. Johan Galtung's distinction between negative and positive peace, together with his conceptualisation of direct, structural and cultural violence, remains foundational to this transformation. Yet contemporary scholarship increasingly identifies the need to deepen positive peace through attention to identity, agency, relationality, ecological sustainability, cultural meaning and the lived experience of Peace. This article argues that selected concepts from Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), particularly classical Sanskrit thought, can contribute to this theoretical development when subjected to critical rather than celebratory interpretation. Through comparative conceptual analysis and critical hermeneutics, the article examines Ahiṃsā, Śānti, Dharma, Loka-Saṃgraha, Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam, Sarvabhūta-Hita and Epistemic Openness in relation to Galtung's theory. The article explicitly examines claims of historical equivalence between Indian Knowledge Systems and modern Peace Studies. Instead, it proposes a methodology of critical conceptual translation, through which historically situated Indic concepts are brought into contemporary theoretical dialogue. The study further examines contemporary Indian peace-oriented scholarship and practice associated with UNESCO chair Dr. Vishwanath D. Karad, UNESCO chair Dr. Priyankar Upadhyaya, Mata Amritanandamayi, the Chinmaya tradition and Pandurangshastri Athavale. On this basis, the article proposes an original framework termed Integrative Positive Peace (IPP), conceptualised through six mutually reinforcing dimensions: direct, structural, cultural, relational, inner and ecological peace. The article argues that IKS can enrich global Peace Studies not by replacing Galtung or asserting civilizational superiority, but by contributing alternative ethical vocabularies, theories of relationality and models of human flourishing. The paper concludes by proposing an empirical research agenda, including the development of an IKS Positive Peace Index, through which the theoretical propositions advanced here may be operationalised and tested.

References

Primary Sanskrit Sources

 Bhagavad-Gītā. Critical/standard Sanskrit editions.

 Mahopaniṣad, 6.71–72.  Patañjali. Yogasūtra, 2.30–2.35.

 Ṛgveda, 1.89.1.  Vaiśeṣika Sūtra, 1.1.2. Other Texts

 Ambedkar, B. R. (1936). Annihilation of caste. Government of Maharashtra.

 Athavale, P. S. (1987). Swadhyaya: A new approach to social transformation. Swadhyaya Parivar.

 Dhikale, S. N., & Vadje, S. (2024). Comparative study of the concept of cultural violence in Peace Studies and social practices in India. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 15(3), 249 254. https://doi.org/10.52711/2321-5828.2024.00037

 Dellios, R. (2025). From dukkha to sukha: Mandalic thinking in constructing a positive peace. Religions, 16(3), 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16030369 The

 English, M. D., & Rubenstein, R. E. (2025). Positive peace. In S. A. Samoilenko & S. Simmons (Eds.), handbook of social and political conflict. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119895534.ch32

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

 Galtung, J. (1981). Social cosmology and the concept of peace. Journal of Peace Research, 18(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234338101800207

 Galtung, J. (1985). Twenty-five years of peace research: Ten challenges and some responses. Journal of Peace Research, 22(2), 141–158.  Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005

 Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. SAGE.

 Institute for Economics & Peace. (2024). Positive Peace Report 2024. Institute for Economics & Peace.

 Jain, P. (2009). Dharmic ecology: Perspectives from the Swadhyaya practitioners. Worldviews: GlobalReligions,Culture,andEcology,13(3),305–320. Galtung https://doi.org/10.1163/136352409X12535203555795

 McInerney, W. W., & Archer, D. T. (2023). Men's violence prevention and peace education: Drawing on to explore the plurality of violence(s), peace(s), and masculinities.MenandMasculinities,26(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X221149989

 Moise, I. (2019). The interplay between ‘Abhyudaya’ and ‘Niḥśreyasa’ in Vaiśeṣika system. The Journal of Hindu Studies, 12(1), 49–72.

 Tschudin, A. (2025). Ending war, but beginning peace? New England Journal of Public Policy, 37(1).

 Turan, T. (2026). Rethinking Galtung's key concepts: A deliberative agential approach to deep positive peace. Journal of Global Security Studies, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogag009

 Upadhyaya, P. (2018). Human rights for sustaining peace: Emerging UN perspectives. Journal of the National Human Rights Commission, India.

 Upadhyaya, P. (2018). Interreligious and intercultural dialogue as a vector of sustaining peace. In Promoting peace, human rights and dialogue among civilizations.

 Upadhyaya, P. (2020a). Building peace through education and culture: Evolving UN perspectives. Strategic Analysis.

 Upadhyaya, P. (2020b). Towards sustaining peace: A transformative UN approach. In Peace and Conflict Studies: Perspectives from South Asia.

 Upadhyaya, P. (2020c). Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: A transformative vision of intercultural peace. In A. Gupta & A. Mitra (Eds.), Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Relevance of India's ancient thinking to contemporary strategic reality. Aryan Books International.