CONFLICT RESOLUTION

A GANDHIAN PARADIGM

A THESIS

Submitted for the award of the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In POLITICAL SCIENCE

Submitted by BIRAJA SHANKAR RATH

Supervised by PROF. ADITYA PRASAD PADHI

FAKIR MOHAN UNIVERSITY

VYASA VIHAR (NORTH CAMPUS) NUAPADHI, BALASORE-756020 ORISSA, INDIA

2010

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis entitled CONFLICT RESOLUTION: A GANDHIAN PARADIGM submitted to F. M. University, Balasore, is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by any other person nor material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of any university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Balasore Date: ( Biraja Shankar Rath) Ph. D. Regd. No. A-Pol.Sc.4/2006 (P)

Prof. Aditya Prasad Padhi

Professor of Political Science Former Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University, Berhampur, Odisha

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis, CONFLICT

RESOLUTION: A GANDHIAN PARADIGM submitted by Biraja Shankar Rath in fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is a bona fide work and therefore be placed before the examiners for evaluation. To the best of my knowledge this work has not been submitted earlier for any degree or diploma.

(Aditya Prasad Padhi)

Prof. Aditya Prasad Padhi

Professor of Political Science Former Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University, Berhampur, Odisha

AREA CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis, CONFLICT RESOLUTION: A GANDHIAN PARADIGM, submitted by Biraja Shankar Rath, under my guidance is within the area of registration.

(Aditya

Prasad

Padhi)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is with immense gratitude that I record my indebtedness to persons but for whose help and encouragement this work could not have been completed.

My guide Prof. Aditya Prasad Padhi is a renowned authority in Political Science in India and after having retired as a Vice Chancellor he is actively associated with a number of academic and philanthropic institutions in various capacities. I feel privileged by the fact that despite his vast array of commitments, he has taken personal interest in this work since its inception. I have been benefited by his insightful comments and careful supervision. His kindness and generosity has deeply touched me. I owe my profound sense of gratitude to him.

My wife Smt. Sanjukta Senapati, Reader in Education, College of Teacher Education, Balasore and my daughter Miss Kashyapi Rath have stood by me through thick and thin and have also performed a substantial tidying up operation on this thesis. It is a pleasure to express my thanks to both.

I would be failing in my duty if I do not acknowledge my indebtedness to Miss Minati Mishra, Lecturer, Department of Information & Communication Technology, Fakir Mohan University, Balasore. She, more than anybody else, has encouraged me to complete this work and has provided me with all required help and support at every stage of this work.

This thesis has been typed with great diligence and devotion by Sri Sudhir Kumar Das, F.M. Autonomous College, Balasore and so my thanks to him.

Lastly, I am very much thankful to all my friends and well-wishers who were much worried about the delay in this work. I hope they will be happy that this work has been completed.

Needless to say, none of the persons whose help and encouragement I have received and recorded are at all responsible for the errors and omissions that may still remain in this work. That responsibility is entirely mine.

(Biraja Shankar Rath) Reader in Political Science, F. M. Autonomous College, Balasore-756001 Email: rath.bs@rediffmail.com

List of Figures
Figure No. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 4.1

Description The Wave Model Horizontal Model Asymmetric Conflict Transformation Model Types of Action System in Conflict Sources of Contemporary Conflict: a Framework Approaches in Liberal paradigm

Page 29 31 34 37 40 103

CONTENTS
Page
Declaration Certificate Area Certificate Acknowledgement List of Figures CHAPTER: 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Problem Profile 1.1 Objectives of Study 1.2 Methodology of Study 1.3 Overview of Literature 1.3.1 The Origin and Development of Peace and Conflict Studies 1.3.2 Literature Review on Conflict Concepts 1.3.3 Gandhian Paradigm of Conflict Resolution 1.4 Layout of the Thesis CHAPTER: 2 DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Conflict as Hostility and Conflict as Incompatibility 2.1.1 Conflict as hostility 2.1.2 Conflict as incompatibility 2.2 Conflict as Productive or Destructive i ii iii iv vi 1-20 1 4 4 5 5 9 13 18 21-56 21 22 22 25 27 28 37 40 45 46 56

2.3 Conflict Dynamic: Life Cycle of Conflict

2.4 Levels of Conflict Formation 2.5 Sources of Contemporary Conflicts 2.6 Causes of Conflict 2.6.1 Greed versus Grievance Debate 2.7 Concluding Observations

CHAPTER: 3 CHANGING NATURE OF CONFLICT 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Pre Cold War Conflicts 3.2 Conflicts During Cold War Period 3.3 Post Cold War Conflicts 3.3.1 Globalization and Conflict 3.3.2 Ethnic Conflicts and Identity Wars 3.4 Concluding Observations CHAPTER: 4 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PARADIGMS: LIBERAL AND MARXIAN 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Conflict Studies: a Historical Perspective 4.2 The Liberal Paradigm of Conflict Resolution: Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation 4.2.1 Conflict Management: The Realist Approach 4.2.2 Conflict Resolution: The Idealist Approach 4.2.3 Conflict Transformation: The Structuralist Approach 4.3 The Marxist Paradigm 4.3.1 The Neo-Marxian Approach 4.4 Concluding Observations CHAPTER: 5 THE GANDHIAN PARADIGM 5.0 Introduction 5.1 A Gandhian Approach to the Contemporary Social Crisis 5.2 Gandhian Theory of Conflict 5.2.1 Truth and Non-Violence

57-76 57 57 59 63 66 72 76 77-110 77 78

80 81 84 91 104 106 108 111-168 111 112 115 124

5.3 Satyagraha: the Gandhian Mechanism of Conflict Resolution 5.3.1 Persuasion through Reason or Negotiation 5.3.2 Persuasion through Self-Suffering 5.3.3 Non-Violent Direct Action 5.4 Practical Applications of Gandhian Technique 5.5 Requirements of Satyagraha 5.6 Limitations of Satyagraha 5.7 Economic Conflict: a Gandian Resolution 5.8 Gandhian Technique in the Present Age 5.8.1 Tackling Global Terrorism: The Gandhian Way 5.9 Concluding Observations CHAPTER: 6 CONCLUSION

130 132 135 136 142 148 150 152 155 162 168 169-184

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185-197

CHAPTER: 1

Introduction

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.0 PROBLEM PROFILE Conflict on all levels of organic existence is pervasive, persistent and ubiquitous. Conflict is the universal experience of all life forms. Organisms are bound in multiple conflict configurations and coalitions with their own dynamic and their own logic. This does not mean however, that the more perverted forms of conflict behaviour - naked violence and destruction - are also universal. Though conflicts and cooperation are intertwined, conflicts do, however, have a propensity to gravitate towards violence.

It is for this reason that there is a general tendency across cultures to have a negative view of conflict. This is found in all religious systems. Salvation is usually identified with a state of rest - there are no insatiate or insatiable needs - salvation is a state of bliss. This state is identified with a condition where conflicts at all levels have been resolved.

The same tendency is to be found in the visions of utopias on earth. Here men are seen as basically or essentially similar in their need disposition. With such a model of man, relatively simple social structure can be theoretically constructed with need satisfaction built into them. Even though in social reality men tend to be different and highly inconsistent, the utopia builders seem to assume that this dissimilarity or inconsistency is basically accidental elements. If only the correct social order can be found, these disturbances will be eliminated and all conflict resolved.

This basic view of conflict is also reflected in our social sciences: from the micro level dealing with intrapersonal conflict to the macro level dealing with

international conflict. The basic tenet is man tries to avoid or to escape from conflict.

Since conflicts are bad and have to be done away with, the methods of conflict resolution are also legion. One way, the most primitive one, but believed and practised by many even today, is to eliminate the antagonist. There may be various methods to do that. The most vulgar and outrageous is to physically eliminate him by condemning him as inferior, sub-human, a threat to the social order, pariah, anti religious class enemy etc. Thus he can be isolated or even exterminated. This is blatantly practised even today by terrorist groups, authoritarian regimes and even self-appointed custodians of social morals like Khap Panchayats. But, there is a more refined democratic way. The dissenting opinions may be permitted to organize themselves for instance, in the shape of a party; but at the same time relegating them to constant minority position so that they are eliminated culturally, being outvoted. The parliamentary practice of majority is right is an example of this method. Though, it looks more humane than might is right, the consequences that follow in both cases are similar.

But there are techniques that do not presuppose any kind of elimination of the antagonist. The antagonist here is co-opted into system of conflict resolution. There are various compromise mechanisms to do that. All the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms like negotiation, mediation, arbitration facilitation etc. fall in this category. The underlying idea is that truth is located somewhere in between and the conflicting parties, by deciding to adopt pacific methods of conflict resolution, can slowly converge on it. This basic idea has been succinctly summarized by Galtung,

Human society, therefore, is a big experiment with leaps and lapses, but by and large showing a trend of convergence towards the good society. By finding optimal solution to existing conflicts in our social order, by gradually

eliminating them, we shall finally stumble upon the best of all worlds, which will have built into it a state of basic conflictlessness. (1978: 485)

Thus conflict has been generally understood as violent clashes of actors-parties, or as an incompatibility of the goals of those actors - parties. The former perspective leads to control of one or more party, even to incapacitation, expulsion or extermination. The latter may lead to problem-solving techniques. The modern thought widely assumes that the peaceful alternatives to violence and war consist of negotiation, dialogue, diplomacy, compromise, conciliation and other tools of conflict resolution.

These are all good and useful tools in many situations and they need to be explored and developed further. However, this list does not exhaust full range of alternatives to violence. It does not give recognition to Gandhis views and experience in the development of Satyagraha and the important wider historical practice of nonviolent struggle in social, economic, political and international conflicts. Gandhis important contribution about how to deal with conflicts do not fit smoothly into established modern thought and practice. The assumption usually is that in serious conflicts one ultimately must choose between surrender, using violence and refusal to participate on pacifist grounds.

Gandhi is no advocate of surrender to oppression. Neither is he a supporter of violence and war nor a simple conscientious objector. For him, conflict is a challenge to know each other, having something in common, not being irrelevant to each other. Though he prefers violence to cowardice and conflict and disharmony to no relation at all, the best thing according to him is the non-violence of the brave and relations of harmony. He is a crucial contributor to the continued development of what Sridharani (1939) calls war without violence.

Gandhis views differ significantly from the answers to conflict espoused by those who rely on violent methods in extreme conflicts. His views also differ significantly from the answers offered by most practitioners of western conflict resolution, peace research and pacifism. The contributions of conflict resolution and peace research are important for some conflicts especially those with issues of secondary significance. Those contributions are inadequate when dealing with acute conflicts. The Gandhian approach to conflict and its resolution holds out positive promise to effectively deal with such conflicts because it attempts to address fundamental issues relating to conflict and devise permanent solutions to them.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The major objectives of this study are: to make a comparative analysis of various paradigms of conflict resolution; to analyze the Gandhian technique of conflict resolution in the light of contemporary situations; to present a case for the adoption of the Gandhian technique not because of any sentimental or nationalistic reason, but because of its promise and efficacy; to suggest means to take Gandhian technique beyond Gandhi and make it more comprehensive by including non-violent traditions existing in various cultures, and above all to create an awareness about the Gandhian technique so as to induce further studies to make the technique more refined and relevant.

1.2 METHODOLOGY OF STUDY Being a theoretical problem, the methodology of study adopted in this thesis is analytical and comparative. Attempts have been made to present as many viewpoints as possible. On every issue the strength and weaknesses of each such viewpoint has been analyzed and compared with dispassionate rigour.

The major source of literature of this thesis is from secondary source i.e., writings by experts and scholars on issues discussed in this study. Apart from that, primary source i.e., Gandhis own writings have also been used.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE Almost every academic discipline has its theoretical approach of understanding conflicts. Therefore to review the conflict literature as a whole is almost an impossible task. With the omnipresence of conflicts at all level of human behaviour, it is not surprising that debate about various concepts associated with it is also very intense. Conflict is one of the most enigmatic and controversial terms which itself triggers conflicts very often.

This review section is divided into two parts. In the first part an attempt has been made to trace the trajectory of the evolution of peace and conflict studies which produced the whole bunch of literature on conflict. In the second part, literature on different conflict concepts used in this thesis has been reviewed.

1.3.1 The Origin and Development of Peace and Conflict Studies Though man has been learning about conflicts since its origin as a species, as an organized area of study, peace and conflict research is of very recent origin. At the end of the First World War, the International Relation scholars became engaged in what is now dubbed as utopian or idealistic research. They focused on issues such as strengthening international law and international organization, promoting disarmament, building a collective security system in order to replace the discredited balance of power system.

The Second World War exposed the hollowness of this utopian thinking. The so called Realist school, spearheaded by Hans Morganthou debunked the Idealist school and defined international politics in terms of power. A peaceful world was castigated as

a dangerous illusion and peace initiatives were attacked and military force glorified. There is a lesson to be learnt from this set back to peace research during the first decade in the aftermath of the Second World War. A credible peace research movement cannot be sustained simply on the basis of threat of war or violence. Cold war ensured this threat during that period. But it should provide viable alternatives in order to mobilize people to positively respond to it.

By the middle of 1950s, however, peace research was resurrected in a new form by the Behaviouralists who offered the hope that quantitative analysis to the causes of war and violence could guide peace building efforts to substantially reduce incidences of violence. Kenneth Boulding, a renowned conflict theorist holds, If ideological struggles can be transformed even partially into conflicts of scientific theory, we have a much better chance for their resolution." (1982: 238). Thus we find, a plethora of scientific theories emerging during that period - system analysis, sample theory, decision making theory, communication model - all aimed at preservation of equilibrium by incremental adjustment through system maintenance mechanism whenever the system faced any challenge from within or without. All these theories had cold war agenda - the preservation of the western system against challenge posed by communism. As cold war entered into detente, these theories also started losing their relevance. Behaviouralism had a short run as normative theory was revived in the form of Post-Behaviouralism.

But it is wrong to say that scientific approach in peace and conflict studies has completely disappeared. Even today quantitative analysts like Singer and Small, Guir and Vasquez are engaged in scientific peace research. A glance at the Journal of Conflict Analysis and Journal of Peace Research, the two leading journals in this field suggest that quantitative analysis is alive and kicking.

The Second World War ushered in a period of political awakening and action among subject people and nations which gave new directions to conflict research and activism. In the United States, the African Americans created new forms of resistance to racial segregation and discrimination. The civil rights movement was followed by movements on other themes like gender, natural environment, ethnicity, physical disability, public policy etc. Each of these produced need and pressure for new mechanisms for resolving conflict. Thus one finds important contributions from feminists, peace and conflict research, green thinking etc. Also the Marxist analysis provided input in the debates on underdevelopment and the nature of global capitalist economy.

In Asia and Africa, liberation struggle from colonial subjugation dominated the 1950s and 60s. Earlier, the western educated scholars in these countries, having been exposed to liberal thinking on democracy, liberty, equality etc. had started to critically analyze the exploitative nature of colonialism and helped create mass movements against colonial subjugation. One of the most interesting and widely applied theoretical and practical challenges to colonialism was Gandhis Satyagraha approach, the disciplined and principled non-violent resistance to domination. Gandhian conflict knowledge was unique in that it provided a means to engage in inevitable struggle without the spiraling violence and mutual harm that violent revolution produced. Gandhi had himself learnt from the conflict practice of the Labour movement and from the writings of Marx, Thoreau, Tolstoy and others that withholding ones cooperation through strikes, civil disobedience and the like was a powerful method of struggle. He applied Satyagraha not only to free India from Great Britain, but to eliminate violent caste and communal structure within India itself.

The post colonial societies of Asia and Africa were witnessing civil conflicts among ethnic and tribal groups as a direct result of policies and practices followed by colonial masters during colonial subjugation. Also, while departing they sought to retain

as much of their economic investments in these countries as possible and manipulated group against group to do so. The phenomenon, known as neo-colonialism produced host of critical studies on the nature and form of neo-colonialism and the ways to fight it. Civil conflicts within these nations were intensified by cold war politics of ideological allegiance and strategic and military influence. This stimulated proxy civil wars in counties like Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Somalia, Congo etc. The United Nations has intervened to moderate many of these civil wars developing successively peace-keeping, peace-making and peace-building as major additions to the body of human conflict knowledge.

The end of cold war was a watermark in the evolution of peace and conflict research. It presented both a threat and an opportunity. The threat was the perception of declining relevance of this research. The world no longer faced the prospect of total annihilation by nuclear weapons and hence the threat perception was much less. Therefore, there was a diminished utility of such research. On the other hand, the end of cold war allowed diversification of attention to other conflict areas, which already existed, but had been clouded by the monolithic obsession with cold war conflict. These included non-traditional conflicts and need wars especially ethnic conflicts, broader definition of security including human security, issues related to democratization, marginalization of groups like woman, children, tribals, refugees etc.

In the early 1990s there was growing optimism about conflict resolution in actual action. The success of non-violent resolution in Central and Eastern Europe, the spread of democracy, the end of apartheid in South Africa, hope of negotiated settlements in Israel/ Palestine, Cambodia, former Yugoslavia, several states in Central America etc. stimulated interest in third party involvement in internal conflict. This resulted in prolific writings on post conflict peace building, conflict transformation, conflict prevention etc. Stephen Ryan sums up the development during this period:

The early 1990s therefore witnessed a flourishing of Peace and Conflict Studies as it moved into previously unresearched areas. This built on the consolidation of the area of study over the previous thirty years, which had seen the growth of professional bodies (IPRA, COPRED etc.), the creation of over three hundred research institutes (e.g., US Institute of Peace, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, Tampera Peace Research Institute, Berghof Institute, the Institute on Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity), the launch of respectable number of professional journals and the development of courses in a wide range of universities. (2003: 77)

The multi-disciplinarity and the willingness to study peace and conflict at all levels allowed the scholars to avoid the state-centric focus and respond more effectively to the complex problems of the contemporary world. Two of the leading peace researchers, Johan Galtung and John Burton have worked with human needs analysis frame which is hostile to the state centric model. This has entailed a paradigm shift in conflict analysis approach. Both these scholars have developed their ideas through action research through intervention in on going conflicts.

A study of the trajectory of the evolution of conflict studies reveals two broad principles: (a) Each major conflict crisis in human affairs has generated commensurate intellectual and practical effort to understand and resolve it. The knowledge thus produced both draws from and contributes to the existing knowledge pool (b) Formal conflict knowledge seems to have descended from macro (state) to middle (group) to micro (individual) levels. This expansion of conflict knowledge to individual level is particularly important. Each new human should increase not only the potential for creating conflict by presenting new demands on scarce resources, but for resolving it as well.

1.3.2 Literature Review on Conflict Concepts This section deals with review of some literature on different conflict concepts used in this thesis. However, it should be mentioned that views of different scholars on these concepts have also been critically dealt with in various chapters of this work. In this section some additional reviews have been presented. Secondly, literature relating to

various aspects of conflict is so prolific that no single work, however inclusive, can hope to be exhaustive. The focus of this thesis is on Gandhian paradigm of conflict resolution. Hence other conflict paradigms have been dealt with to the extent necessary to comprehend, compare and contrast them with the Gandhian theory and practice of conflict resolution. Appreciation of this limitation and delimitation of this study is necessary in order to put this work in proper perspective. The Singer and Smalls initiated Correlates-of-War-

A. Meaning of Conflict:

Project (Cow) defines conflicts as violent disputes in which at least one of the combatant parties is a state and there are at least hundred battle deaths. This definition covers exclusively soldiers and other military staff. Civilian victims are not considered (Singer/ Small, 1972:8). Other conflict definitions have broader scope. For example, the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research defines conflict as: the clashing of interests (positional differences) on national values of some duration and magnitude between at least two parties (organized groups, states, groups of states organizations) that are determined to pursue their interests and win their cases.(HIIK,2005:2)

Wasmuth summarized four points which are necessary for an 'unprepossessed approximation` of the conflict as a term:

a. The conflict should be considered as a social fact, which should not be confused with its form. b. No limiting evaluation is allowed by definition in order not to predetermine the analysis of conflicts. c. It is warned of unnecessary reduction of conflicts' contextual characteristics, since this would not suit the complexity of its notion. d. Cause and effect should not be compounded or interchanged by defining conflicts. (Cited in Axt, 2006:3)

Conflict Issues: Human being can fight over an array of unlimited number of issues. It may range from as mundane as football to as deep-rooted as ideological beliefs. Understanding conflict cannot be accomplished without knowing what is the object and

issue of the conflict. Achieving conflict resolution is also not possible without understanding the issue or the cause of conflict. Weber (1947) reduces this perplexing variety of conflict issues into three main sociological categories: wealth, power and prestige. Deutsch (1973) makes distinction between five basic issues over which a conflict could arise: control over resources, preferences and nuisances, beliefs, values or the nature of relations. Analyzing conflict causes and issues in post-colonial states Singer (1996) points out that the usual suspects are to be found in: territory, ideology, dynastic legitimacy, religion, language, ethnicity, self-determination, resources, markets, dominance, equality and of course revenge. Pfetsch and Rohloff (2000) have identified nine issues that have historically proven to be the most contentious among states: territory (border), secession, decolonization, autonomy, system (ideology), national power, regional predominance, international power, resources. He admits that this list is not exhaustive.

In the subsequent chapter of this thesis, causes of conflict have been discussed on the basis of two broad hypotheses: the greed hypothesis and the need hypothesis. Many of the particular causes of conflict as mentioned above in this review literature come under these two broad categories.

Conflict Resolution Paradigms: The term conflict resolution has been used in this thesis in a broad and inclusive sense except when it has been contrasted with other perspectives of dealing with conflict, namely, conflict management and conflict transformation. In this broad sense conflict resolution techniques have been categorized as belonging to either the Liberal school or the Marxian School. The Gandhian perspective has been dealt with separately because it does not neatly fit into either of the above schools. Some literature review on the above perspectives may be discussed as under:

A. Conflict Management: The concept of conflict management covers all conflict strategies that aim at definite end of direct violence without necessarily coping with the basic causes of conflict. (Reimann: 2005) Bercovitch (1984), Zartman (1985), Fisher and Ury (1981) etc. have produced important works on this approach. Even though conflict is understood as zero-sum game, neo-realistic works of Bercovitch and Zartman show, this zero-sum game can be broken depending on the involved parties interests and the stage of the conflict escalation. Fisher and Ury apply rational choice approach and game theory to show that conflict actors are rational actors who for their own profit are interested in cooperation that can finish with mutual benefits and settling the conflicts. Generally large part of conflict management research focuses on the third party activities in conflict situations finding out the strategies that facilitate the transformation of zero-sum games and consequently the end of the conflict and achievement of political agreement.

B. Conflict Resolution: Conflict resolution approaches also point out strategies that could be employed to find an exit from conflicts' destroying dynamic. Burton (1968, 1990) is regarded as the main representative of this research direction. He considers on going conflicts as the result of unsatisfied human needs (1990). Although he does not give detailed specifications as to how all the fundamental human needs could be realized, he offers a wide spectrum of methods like workshops, discussion groups or round tables and procedures like mediation, arbitration or negotiation, in order to convert the respective conflict into a situation acceptable for both sides. Apart from him, scholars like Kelman and Fisher (2003), Kriesberg (1998) have also made important contributions to the conflict resolution approach.

C. Conflict Transformation: The scholars advocating conflict transformation approach are loosely termed as the structuralists because they broadly agree that the roots of conflict can be traced to iniquitous/unjust societal structures. Gohan Galtung is considered as the leading scholar practitioner of this approach. His works have been

frequently referred and analyzed in this thesis. Lederach (1995), a prominent protagonist of this approach has pointed out three conceptual gaps of the traditional conflict dealing: the interdependence gap, the justice gap and the process structure gap. The interdependence gap refers to the distinction between the upper middle and lower society levels - so called pyramid model. Since these levels are mostly isolated from each other, different peace building instruments need to be applied on the respective levels. Lederach develops on Galtungs concept of structural/ cultural violence to explain the justice gap. He concludes that any peace process that aims to stop forms of direct violence without dealing with unjust social, economic and cultural structures will be short sighted. About process-structure gap Lederach believes that peace only as a process reached its limit by the achievement of agreement among conflict parties. For durable peace what is necessary is peace alliance. This involves the promotion of a close network structure consisting of social and political actors who give their constructive support for a sustainable outcome. Such network leads to a comprehensive transformation of the conflict context, its structure, the parties involved the general conflict issues and finally to a transformation of the individual actors (Vayrynen, 1991). Only the interrelation of the respective transformation process indicates the particular sustainability of the transformation approaches (Miall, 2005).

1.3.3 Gandhian Paradigm of Conflict Resolution To attempt a literature review on the Gandhian theory of conflict and its resolution is almost an impossible task given a huge volume of writings on the subject. There are scholars-authors like K. Sridharani , J. Bondurant , K. Boulding , G. Sharp , J. Galtung etc. who have analyzed the theory and technique from different aspects. Then there are Gandhian authors like Pyerelal, J. B. Kripalini, Vinoba Bhave etc. who have mostly provided personal experiences with Gandhi as a person or with his technique of Satyagraha. This researcher feels that there is a dearth of writing on the limitations or weaknesses of the Gandhian method. One reason for this may be the wish not to offend a cult figure that arouses among many, world over almost religious obeisance.

Though knowing Gandhi, as one does, nobody would have been happier than Gandhi, if he was alive, to welcome criticisms and in fact to act on those, if found constructive. Another reason for this lack of critical writing on Gandhi (not to mention those which have attempted personal insinuations) may be that all most all the writers on Gandhi are already convinced supporters of non-violent methods of conflict resolution and hence find in the Gandhian technique a systematic method which has been put to practice on more than one occasion and has been successful.

Since it is not possible to present a comprehensive review literature on the subject, attempt has been made to review the contribution of two scholars who represent two schools of thought so far as non-violent technique is concerned. Broadly there are two views on non-violence: principled non-violence and pragmatic non-violence. The former believes that certain core principles of non-violence are not negotiable, even if it results in failure of non-violence and consequent resort to violence. The latter considers non-violence as a strategy, the ultimate purpose of which is to win and not let violence substitute it as a more practical option. Johan Galtung is a representative scholar of the first school, where as Gene Sharp, belongs to the latter. A review of the dominant trend of writings of these two scholars may encompass a part of literature review on the Gandhian paradigm of conflict resolution. A Review of Galtungs Work: Johan Gultung is often referred to as the father of modern peace research. His writings, especially his work on structural violence are very reminiscent of some of Gandhis key doctrines. Galtung makes several references to Gandhis influence on his thought (Galtung, 1975). In describing important sources of his inspiration, Galtung has noted that Gandhi is the major one. And increasingly Buddhism in general (Ibid: 23).

Galtung advances his theory of conflict by talking about Gandhian theory of conflict. He notes that for Gandhi a sharp distinction had to be made between conflict

and its manifestations, and that Gandhis injunctions to fight the sin and not the sinner had to be seen in this context. He adds that Gandhis views about combating evil rather than combating actors presupposes the norm that conflicts are to be solved (Galtung, 1985: 97). This in turn meant that Gandhi seems to prefer a disharmonious relationship to no relationship at all, while of course preferring a harmonious one to disharmony (Ibid: 97).

Galtung makes Gandhi the spokesperson of his structuralist theory. Because Gandhi was a structuralist, it was easier for him to exonerate the actors in a conflict and focus on patterns of conflict behaviour which are both person preserving and structure demolishing (Galtung, 1992: 98). However, it was never Gandhis aim merely to create a new structure, he also wanted his opponent to be part of this structure, and that he should take part in creating it. (Galtung, 1972: 212) Galtung was very much influenced by Gandhis views on violence and nonviolence. Gandhi was as much concerned with exploitation and oppression as he was with war and communal violence. In fact he construed non-violence in such a way that its meaning was very wide. His definition included not treating another with less dignity than was warranted by a shared humanity. Not only does dehumanization paves the way for violence, but dehumanization is violence. This is closely echoed in Galtungs notion of structural violence. Structural violence is an indirect form of violence built into social, political and economic structures which gives rise to unequal power and unequal life opportunities. It includes exploitation, alienation, marginalization, poverty, deprivation, misery etc. and exists when basic needs for security, freedom, welfare and identity are not met (Galtung, 1969).

Galtung explains that development for the poor is frequently championed in order to prevent violence (consider the Indian governments strategy at present to combat Maoist violence) whereas for him inequalities were in and by themselves

violence.unnecessary evils in their own rightnot because they might lead to some other type of violence. (Galtung, 1975: 24) He notes that Gandhi was the only author or politician who clearly fought against both the sudden, deliberate, direct violence engaged in by actors and the continuous, not necessary intended violence built into the social structures. (Ibid, 24)

About two decades after his formulation of the concept of structural violence, Galtung introduced a new term to peace research - cultural violence. By this he means any aspect of culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form. Its antithesis cultural peace is closely linked to Gandhian doctrine of unity of life and the unity of means and ends (Galtung, 1990).

Galtung in his latest phase has moved only from straight jacket peace research mode, and has become more interested in the individual than the group or the state. He now believes that peace research is not enough and that activism is essential. Following Gandhi he believes in embracing of conflict as a basic social reality that demands optimism, innovation and imagination in finding new forms of non-coercive struggle because love is invincible, (Galtung, 1982: 234). The goal becomes not just the resolution of conflict but also a higher level of self purification in all actors (Galtung, 1996: 116). This is something very akin to the Gandhian idea of realizing the Truth.

Apart from Johan Galtung, others who held similar views of interpretation of Gandhian non-violence as a principle rather than a policy are some of the well known scholars of Gandhian thought like Joan Bondurant (1959), Arne Naess (1958), Richard Greg (1966) etc. A Review of Gene Sharps Work: For a meticulous and comprehensive study of nonviolent politics, Gene Sharp is without peer. His monumental work The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) forms the starting point of any serious examination of the theory,

methods and dynamic of non-violence. Sharp views non-violence as a weapon to resolve conflict in any manner whether it leads to variable sum or to zero-sum outcome. His long term objective is to perfect the techniques on non-violence to the point where they replace violent action as the method to deal with conflict. Non-violent weapons will be selected when it is deemed necessary to impose an ultimate sanction, because they provide better chance of gaining success. Thus Sharp adopts an approach which places him in the camp of the negative mode of non-violence as against the positive mode adopted by Galtung et al. Negative mode is a form of conflict-waging that is marked by a relationship of confrontation and hostility towards the opponent. Conflict is viewed as a struggle for power. In such a situation it is not necessary to make assumptions about human nature, postulate any ethical or moral system or proclaim any grand vision of harmonious and just society. Sharp argue that the solution to elimination of violence from politics lies not in attempting to gain massive numbers of converts to moral doctrines prohibiting all violence, nor in seeking a sudden sweeping transformation of the whole society (Sharp,1980: 374). He expects the non-violent actionist to carefully study the specific behavioural patterns of the opponent, the social political context of the current struggle as well as the potentialities and implications of the various methods at the disposal of the activist. The emphasis is on raising the material and psychological costs to the opponent.

Thus Sharp views non-violence to be a strategy and considers Gandhi to be a master strategist (Sharp, 1979). He believes that on non-violence as a technique of conflict resolution, Gandhis position was far move flexible than many of his more devout disciples have recognized. Sharp quotes a typical comment of Gandhi to buttress his position, If I had started with men who accepted non-violence as a creed, I might have ended with myself. (Ibid: 281).

Sharp views Gandhi completely from a different angle. Pleading for the use of Gandhian technique as a national defence strategy Sharp writes:

Viewing Gandhi as a national defence strategist implies a view of Gandhi as a politician, rather than simply as a saint or mahatma. This is a view which Gandhi himself emphasized. However, many people approach Gandhi from a religious or philosophical viewpoint. It is therefore relevant to note several of his underlying assumptions which led to his policy recommendations, strategic decisions and campaign leadership in the field of Indian national defence. (1970: 255)

Though Gene Sharp, in his earlier writings saw a more complete Gandhi, he secularizes him later on and makes non-violent activism merely a political technique of struggle for victory. That may be because he sees the spiritual dimensions as confusing - especially for an American audience - and thereby detracting from its credibility. Galtung refuses to do this. While his is a thorough reading of Gandhi, it is also one that is bound to lose academic adherents because it moves too far outside the usual interpretations. Most of those who are interested in Gandhi, first tend to discover the political Gandhi. Galtungs portrayal of a more complex Gandhi may fall outside the comprehension of many Gandhian scholars.

The two perspectives on Gandhian paradigm of conflict resolution, discussed above, need to be summarized. The Gandhian technique as understood by Galtung et al, entails self-suffering, active conciliation, fraternization, creative resolution, etc. Yet the same techniques with the same features can be found in the repertoire of a pragmatist like Sharp. The question is how and why they are used. When used by a pragmatist the techniques aims not so much as converting as at reducing the level of hostility and violence against oneself. Thus the advocates of two modes of nonviolence, while sometimes incorporating the same techniques, do so for quite different reasons. Galtungs school views Gandhis concern as freeing the opponent from the imprisonment of his/her own system. This is not a major component in Sharps thinking, which is weighted more in favour of achieving instrumental success.

1.4 LAYOUT OF THE THESIS This thesis comprises of five chapters besides Conclusion. Though the primary focus of the thesis is on Gandhian paradigm of conflict resolution various dimensions of conflict and conflict resolution as well as theories of conflict resolution have also been dealt with in order to present a comparative and comprehensive analysis of the nonviolent conflict resolution techniques in general. The second chapter, Dynamics of Conflict: A Conceptual Framework attempts to analyze the meaning of various dimensions of the term conflict. Like all other important concepts in social science, meaning and approaches to conflict adopted by various schools of thought is also mired in conflict. A very well known controversy as regards the meaning of conflict is the debate between conflict as hostility and conflict as incompatibility. The views of prominent peace researchers like Coser, Galtung, Boulding etc. have been cited to explain the two viewpoints. The chapter also deals with both the destructive and productive functions of conflict. The various phases of conflict formation in case of both symmetric and asymmetric conflict have been presented in this chapter. A conflict may start at a latent state, then pass through various exacerbating phases to reach a peak and then scale down through the mitigating phases to reach the final stage of resolution. Four levels of conflict formation - personal, interpersonal, intranational and international - have been identified with their corresponding sub levels. The chapter ends with a discussion on causes of conflict. As there may be as many causes as there are conflicts, two main causes which subsume most other causes in one form other - greed and grievance have been dealt with in some details. In this section Azars concept of Protracted Social Conflict which is considered an authoritative articulation of ethnic conflict has been analyzed. The Third chapter is entitled Changing Nature of Conflict. Four major factors have determined the changing nature of conflict in our times - emergence of sovereign states, assertion of popular sovereignty and national self-determination, the bloc politics

or cold war and globalization. How the nature and course of conflict has been affected under the impact of these four have been discussed. A separate section deals with ethnic conflict which is a very prominent form of conflict in the contemporary world. The Fourth chapter deals with Conflict Resolution Paradigms. Any study of conflict resolution techniques will find innumerable number of techniques to resolve conflict. Hence it has been attempted to classify them under two broad categories - the Liberal paradigm and the Marxian paradigm. Within the Liberal school, three major strands of thought with their corresponding conflict resolution techniques have been discussed: the Realist approach with conflict management technique, the Idealist approach with conflict resolution technique and the Structuralist approach with conflict transformation technique. The fundamental features of Marxian Paradigm have also been discussed in this chapter. The chapter ends with a critical and comparative analysis of all the theories discussed in this chapter. The Fifth chapter, The Gandhian Paradigm is the core chapter of the thesis. This chapter starts with an analysis of the present day crisis from a Gandhian viewpoint. One section deals with the Gandhis notion of conflict. Though Gandhi thinks that cooperation, not conflict, is the fundamental law of nature, he considers conflict to be a challenge which offers an opportunity for positive changes in society. Non-violence and Truth, two key words in the Gandhian technique of conflict resolution have been analyzed from various angles. The actual Gandhian techniques with its successive steps have been described along with its limitations and criticisms. The chapter ends with a discussion on the possible efficaciousness of Gandhian technique to tackle global terrorism.

In Conclusion, a comparative analysis of the three schools of thought - the Liberal, the Marxian and the Gandhian - on conflict resolution technique has been made. Both the Liberal and Marxian Paradigms are found to believe in violence, the

former as a last resort and the latter as the only practicable resort and hence do not offer any real alternative to violence. It is only the Gandhian technique which accepts nonviolence not as a policy but as a creed. The thesis concludes that though promising, the Gandhian technique has to look beyond Gandhi and needs to be modified in the light of contemporary situation.

CHAPTER: 2

Dynamics of Conflict: A Conceptual Framework

CHAPTER 2
DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.0 INTRODUCTION Conflict has never been long absent in the history of human race. 'War (or conflict) is the father of all things', declared Heraclitus in his famous aphorism by which he meant that evolution in the universe is due solely to its conflicting elements, procreating new things in turn. Conflicts occur between people in all kinds of human relationship. Because of the wide range of potential differences among people, absence of conflict usually signals absence of meaningful interaction.

Though the term conflict is used very frequently in social science, a commonly accepted definition of it has so far proved elusive. So difficult has been its interpretation that Bernerd, in sheer exasperation pleads for eliminating the concept from the lexicon of social science altogether. He writes, "The concept of 'conflict' may have outlived its usefulness. It has no clear cut referent, being emotion-fraught, value-laden, fuzzy and equivocal. It confuses analysis. We might sharpen our thinking in the behavioral sciences if we discarded it entirely and replaced it with more precise, meaningful and neutral concept." (Bernerd, 1957: 111)

But conflict can never be discarded, neither from the realm of social action nor from social science as an analytical concept. Moreover precision does not automatically guarantee neutrality. To make a concept more precise is to rule out certain possible interpretations. Therefore what will be attempted here is to provide a working definition of 'conflict' and then move on to various interpretations of it by different schools of thought. The aim of theoretical analysis of conflict is to develop an understanding of

the variables, processes, strategies and techniques that interact to form the basis of conflict resolution. This is necessary to analyze, explain, understand and predict the nature of conflict and the mechanisms that contribute to its resolution.

2.1 CONFLICT AS HOSTILITY AND CONFLICT AS INCOMPATIBILITY 2.1.1 Conflict as Hostility Some writers have defined conflict as competition by groups or individuals over incompatible goals, resources or the sources of power needed to acquire them. Lewis Coser takes this position when he says, "Social conflict may be defined as a struggle over values or claims to status, power and scarce resources in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values but also to neutralized, injure or eliminate their rivals". (1968: 232) It is a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Within this simple definition there are several important aspects which need ones attention. Firstly, conflict involves some disagreement. It generates from the time and space gap between two or more differing social processes, interests, systems, trends etc. Each of the participating actors in conflict tries to prove and attain its superiority and rightfulness over the other or others in logic and fact, theory and empirical analysis, ideology and action. But, this disagreement may be more perceived than genuine. Secondly, there are parties involved. Galtung calls it action system (1965:348). On this basis there may be action system consisting of either individuals or collectivities and inter-system or intrasystem. By combining both the dimensions we get four types of action system in conflict. At the individual level it may be either intra personal or interpersonal and at the collective level it may be either intra-national or international. Freud in his psychoanalysis holds that all conflicts, in essence, are a projection of intra personal dilemmas taking place within a person. However, for the purpose of analysis, this thesis deals conflict formation at the collectivity or group level only. Conflict at individual

level has been discussed only to the extent necessary to explain intra-national or international conflict.

An important dimension in conflict formation is the role of perception. Perception simply refers to the way in which an individual interprets the world. As social actors we constantly decode messages from the world around us. The codes we break however are not written in stone; we decode messages according to our internal standards (Tidwell, 1998: 91). Parties to the conflict perceive that they posses mutually incompatible objectives. The more valuable the objectives the more intense are the conflict. The more numerous the objectives the greater are its scopes. The more parties there are in conflict the larger are its domain. People respond to the perceived threat rather than to the true threat facing them. Thus while perception does not become reality per se, peoples behaviours, feelings and ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat of they confront. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied with significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably. Some of these perceptual filters that influence ones response to a situation are the following:

Culture: Our varying cultural backgrounds influence us to hold certain beliefs about the social structure of our world as well as the role of conflict in that experience. In addition to framing the contents in which conflict is understood and pursued by individuals, culture also links individual identities to collective ones. Culture contextualizes the conflict by indicating, among other things what sorts of resources are subjects for competition or objects of dispute often by postulating their high values or relative scarcity. Culture provides individuals with cognitive, symbolic and affective frameworks for interpreting the behavior and motives of others and themselves.

Gender and sexuality: Men and women have different ways of perceiving the same situation. This is so because of the differences in their real life experiences which relates to power, privileges, opportunities and deprivations and also because of their socialization process which very often takes place on gender lines. As a result, men and women approach a conflictive situation with differing mindsets about its nature, the desired outcome as well as the set of possible solutions which may exists.

Knowledge: Knowledge, both general and situational, of the parties also provides a prism through which a conflict situation is viewed. Individuals, during information processing, frequently act as cognitive misers. Individual acting as cognitive misers tend to reject new information if it contradicts preexisting beliefs in order to avoid dissonance. (Larson, 1985) Cognitive beliefs are understood as beliefs based on history and personal experiences. These types of beliefs are often constructed by lesson-drawing from the past. History is more than a mere description of the past; it provides insight into the deeper layers of meaning." (Tidwell, 1998: 119) Past knowledge influences a persons willingness to engage in efforts to manage the conflict either reinforcing confidence to deal with it or understanding ones willingness to consider alternatives with open mind.

Ideological Beliefs: According to Larson, ideology is defined as a belief system held by group that explains and justifies a preferred political order for society either existing or proposed and offers strategy (processes, institutions, programmes) for its attainment. (1985: 21) Ideological beliefs constitute a comprehensive framework for purposive and intentional behaviour with prescription and legitimation for a particular course of action. Founded on value systems ideological beliefs provide an intellectual framework for interpreting and evaluating conflict. Ideology provides long range goals and these beliefs are

frequently used to diagnose problems, evaluate alternative strategy and justify and rationalize various actions taken in conflict.

However it is important to make an analytical distinction between ideological and sociological beliefs.

Ideological beliefs represent an interpretation from within a particular thought which remains trapped within that thought while sociological beliefs represent an interpretation from without which seeks to refer knowledge claims and beliefs to the social context which can offer the meaning necessary to understanding and assessing. (Mac Lean, 1998: 65)

2.1.2 Conflict as Incompatibility In contrast to the position that conflict is a state of mutual antagonism or hostility between two or more parties another view tends to identify conflict with the vary incompatibility of interests. Two prominent peace researchers Johan Galtung and Kenneth Boulding are leading exponents of this view. Galtung proposes an influential model of conflict suggesting that it be viewed as a triangle with contradiction (C), attitude (A), and behaviour (B) as its vertices. Here the contradiction refers to the underlying conflict situation which includes the actual or perceived incompatibility of goals between the conflict parties generated by what may be called a mismatch between social values and social structure. These factors are held to be logically independent. Each may logically obtain without the others. A conflict structure without conflictual attitude or behaviour are constantly changing and influencing one another. As a conflict emerges, it becomes a conflict formation as parties' interest come into conflict or the relationship they are in becomes oppressive. Conflict parties then organize around this structure to pursue their interests. They develop hostile attitudes and the conflictual behavior. Thus, according to Galtung, structural or latent conflict may obtain even without overt hostile behaviour or attitude. (Galtung, 1965)

A similar view is adopted by Kenneth Boulding. According to him All cases of conflict involve competition which, in turn, exists when any potential positions of two behaviour units are mutually incompatible. (1963: 4) He defines conflict as a situation of competition in which the parties are aware of the incompatibility of potential future positions and in which each party wishes to occupy a position that is incompatible with the wishes of the other. Thus, like Galtung, Boulding also believes that conflict may exist even though there is no antagonism or hostility between the parties. Schmid offers an appropriate example to explain this situation.
Imagine a system consisting of a master and a slave. The master has defined the role of the slave and the slave has internalized it there is no conflict behaviour. The relationship between the two is cooperative. There are no hostile feelings either. The master is benevolent towards his slave as long as the slave plays his role in accordance with the rules. The slave feels devotion to his master one would have to define the system as free from conflict yet most observers would agree that there is a conflict between the master and his slave. (1968: 225)

In a symmetric conflict*, the contradiction is defined by the parties, their interests1 and the clash of interests between them. In an asymmetric conflict, it is defined by the parties, their relationship and the conflict of interests inherent in the relationship. Attitude includes the parties' perceptions and misperceptions of each other and of themselves. These can be positive or negative. But in violent conflicts parties tend to develop demeaning stereotypes of the other, and attitudes are often influenced by emotions such as fear, anger, bitterness and hatred. Attitude includes emotive (feeling), cognitive (belief) and conative (will) elements. Behaviour is the third
* Symmetric conflicts are conflicts of interest between relatively similar parties. Here the root of conflict lies between particular issues or interests that may divide the parties. Asymmetric conflict on the other hand are conflict between dissimilar parties e.g., majority vs. minority, established government vs. group of rebels, employer vs. employee etc. Here the root of conflict is in the very structure of who they are and the relationship between them. In this structure, the top dog always wins and the underdog always loses. The only way to resolve the conflict is to change the structure which the top dog is sure to resist. This structural change can be brought about either by violent or non-violent conflict resolution method.

component. It can include cooperation or coercion, conciliation or hostility. Violent conflict behaviour is characterized by threats, coercion and destructive attacks.

This distinction between conflict as hostility and conflict as incompatibility is more of academic nature. In practice, conflict in these two senses often goes together. But, the distinction is nevertheless of some importance especially from the point of view of conflict resolution. To eliminate hostility is one thing, to eliminate incompatibility is quite another. It should also be noted that the distinction is not exhaustive. A middle position between the two may also be taken.

2.2 CONFLICT AS PRODUCTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE Far from being always a negative factor or social pathology, social conflict may contribute in many ways to the maintenance and cohesion of groups and collectivities as well as the cementing of interpersonal relations; conflict stimulates innovations in all fields of human endeavour and is therefore a major factor in development. If a society is stagnate for a time through suppression, conflict will eventually destroy the old forms and clear the ways for new ones. Contradictions in society are always expressed as conflicts, the resolutions of which may come about through the creation of new institutions and new norms. Ultimately the resolution of such basic cleavages in a society will reduce hostility and strengthen the bonds between men.

Thus conflict has many positive functions. It prevent stagnation, it stimulates interest and curiosity. It is a medium through which problems can be aired and solutions arrived at. It is the root of personal and social change. Also conflict is often part of the process of testing and assessing oneself. As such, it may be highly enjoyable as one experiences the pleasure of the full and active use of one's capacity.

However, not all scholars consider conflict to be exclusively beneficial force in social life. Some, like the structural-functionalists adhere to many of the above ideas in

principle, but note that conflicts may at times be dysfunctional. Advocates of communications theory contend that failure to reach agreement is the result of a lack of proper communication flows. Conflict as opposed to consensus is thus attributed to some malfunction or shortcomings of interrelations.

Equilibrium theory in systems analysis goes farther in conceiving of conflict as a disruptive force. It believes that society is normally in a state of equilibrium that is to say without conflicts. When conflicts arise, the system moves into a state of disequilibrium. In doing so, however, they may in certain conditions aggravate the conflict and move the system farther from the equilibrium point. To compound a conflict in this way would be dysfunctional for the system since it would ultimately lead to its break- down.

Galtung (1965) distinguishes conflict from frustration. Frustration arises when needs are not satisfied or goals are not achieved for lack of adequate source of such gratification. But conflict obtains where efforts by oneself or others to obtain some value. This can be seen as the source of frustration. Frustration may lead to aggression and may result in destructive behaviour and conflict behaviour. Conflict behaviour is not necessarily destructive. On the other hand destructive behaviour may result even when not in a state of conflict, for instance, out of frustration in a more general sense. Conflict behaviour may be both destructive and non-destructive although this destruction is a continuum and not a dichotomy." (Galtung, 1965: 349) Conflict behaviour very often tends to be destructive because of frustration aggression cycle. This destructive behaviour in others may engender further destructive behaviour in oneself. As conflict escalates it is broadened in scope and it requires more and more energy to sustain it. This affects the system negatively. But in case of a low intensity conflict, the behaviour may be non-destructive because it creates new energy. Conflict gives sense and purpose to the lives of many individuals, they create a feeling of identity, give them new sources of experience (Galtung, 1965: 350) Conflict can spark innovation

and out of the box thinking. As a positive force conflict can stimulate change, motivate problem solving activity and compel the parties to focus, think through and articulate a problem clearly and logically. Thus a system where there is no conflict will probably be highly vulnerable much like a person never exposed to contagious diseases. But, since conflicts have a tendency to expand in both space and time, this initial nondestructive behaviour snowballs into destructive behaviour. This is why Galtung believes that all conflicts are necessarily destructive and may lead to a Hobbesian state of affairs where everybody uses all possible means of destruction against everybody else. (Galtung, 1965: 349)

2.3 CONFLICT DYNAMIC: LIFE CYCLE OF CONFLICT

In the last few decades conflict analysis has developed a number of models which describe the transition of conflict process through various stages. These models do recognize that conflict being of very complex nature it is almost impossible to break it into precise pieces. But these models, their limitations well acknowledged, do simplify reality for analytical purposes and hence merit some discussion.

The wave model

The most common portrayal of the progression regression of conflict from their emergence to the successful resolution/ transformation is represented by a wavelike timeline or a smoothly curving bell. I n t e n s i t y Conflict Hurting stalemate De-escalation/ escalation Negotiation Conflict convergence Dispute settlement Post conflict peace building Latent Conflict Time-> Figure 2.1 The Wave Model (Lederach, 2005:43) An important assumption underlying this model is that intensity of a given conflict is measurable along the continuum harmony warfare (violence) - peace. The common unit that is most frequently used to measure the levels of conflict intensity is the number of deaths per time unit (e.g., per year).

Many scholars in the 1960s applied this model to conflict analysis. Even the most recent conflict resolution studies rely heavily on the wave model while simultaneously acknowledging the impossibility of applying such simplistic diagrams mechanically to the history of social conflicts. Fisher and Keashly (1991) believe that social conflict is a dynamic process in which objective and subjective elements interact constantly over time. They identified four stages of escalation through which any violent conflict is supposed to evolve according to the level of overt violence (objective criteria). These stages are: discussion, polarization, segregation and destruction. These

stages are distinguished by significant changes in the nature of interaction between the parties and in various aspects of their perception and images of each other and their relationship. But the de-escalation stages have not been discussed by them in such detail implying that the reverse order provided the occurrence of de-escalation. Ramsbotham et al (2005) identify four stages of escalation - difference, contradiction, polarization and violence the highest peak of the curve, war. Similarly there are four corresponding stages of de-escalation ceasefire, agreement, normalization and reconciliation.

There are two distinct merits of the wave model. First, on the level of conflict analysis, they provide simplistic but operational tools for mapping the dynamics of conflict transformation process. Though actual conflicts may not allow a unidirectional linear path, most of them pass through similar stages at least once in their history. Secondly on the level of conflict resolution action, it helps participants and interveners to design and apply appropriate strategies and tactics for each stage of such conflict.

However, this linear presentation of conflict dynamics also presents some weaknesses. As Bloomsfield (1997) points out, conflict situations, particularly protracted conflict, is often characterized by chaos and confusion which do not yield to simplistic escalation.-de-escalation model. There is high probability that conflicts might move backwards or jump stages along the wave like time line. Also, civil wars and interethnic disputes are made up of a multiplicity of embedded conflicts which might exhibit properties of several escalation- de-escalation stages simultaneously. This makes it hard to determine, even retroactively, when a peak was reached in a given conflict, because there were in fact different dynamics and time lines for various conflict components. For example, negotiation process may start even when conflict is still escalating. Likewise signing of a peace accord does not automatically signal the end of conflict. Lederch reminds us agreements that end a conflict are hard to find. Most peace accords are not solutions in content, but proposed negotiated processes which, if

followed, will change the expression of the conflict and provide avenues for redefining relationships. (Lederch, 2005:46) As indicated by Kofi Annan, half of the countries that emerge from war lapses back into violence within five years. (Quoted in Fischer, 2006:442)

The Horizontal Model Mitchell (2005) in an article titled Conflict, Change and Conflict Resolution analyses the dynamics of conflict exacerbation and mitigation. He identifies six major types of change which occur frequently in protracted conflicts, making them more intense (exacerbation) and six corresponding dynamics which should reverse the process in opposite direction (mitigation). This is presented in a tabular form:

Conflict exacerbating dynamics Escalation Mobilization Polarization Enlargement Dissociation Entrapment

Conflict mitigating dynamics De-escalation Demobilization / Demilitarization De-isolation Disengagement Re-communication De-commitment

Figure 2.2 Horizontal Model Exacerbating dynamics Escalation: Intensification of coercive and violent behavior directed at others Mobilization: Changes in internal resources and balance of forces towards the growing influence of those wielding instruments of coercion over those in charge of alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. Polarization: Widening of divisive issues involving both behavioural and psychological changes.

Enlargement: More parties are pulled in increasing the complexities of various issues involved. Dissociation: Caused by decrease in contact between the adversaries and the deliberate closing of communication channels. Entrapment: Parties are getting trapped into a course of action that involves conflicting or intensifying conflict with the feeling that there is no alternative.

Mitigating dynamics De-escalation: Bringing down violent or coercion by substituting benefit

conferring actions for harmful and damaging ones. De-mobilization / Demilitarization: Rebalancing of intra-party decision making to allow for the input of ideas from those who favour alternative resolution methods. De-isolation: Reviewing of underlying needs and interests to isolate crucial goal incompatibilities and abandoning the practice of opposing for opposing sake. Disengagement: Dissociating other parties and interests which have become subsequently entangled. Re-communication: Reopening of communication channel with more structured dialogues rather than just accusations and justifications. Decommitment: Reversing the entrapment process and enabling policy

decisions to be made with an eye on realistic future opportunities and limitations.

One advantage of this model over the simplistic unidimensional wave model is that it does not assume a universal linear progression applicable to all conflicts. It allows for the juxtaposition of different time frames and ripe moments for various dynamics according to the nature of the particular conflict. The weakness it shares with the wave model is the implicit assumption of a negative connotation being associated

with all conflict escalation process. Through in most cases exacerbating dynamics are in fact destructive and render a conflict more complex and protracted, still it may be found that in certain cases these dynamics in a constructive way may in fact be a necessary step for transition from unpeaceful to peaceful society. The asymmetric conflict transformation model takes this aspect into account.

Asymmetric Conflict Transformation Model This model of conflict progression has two distinct characteristics which are contained in the name itself. First, it deals with asymmetric conflict. Most conflicts today are asymmetric conflicts which do not follow the same sequential patterns as the symmetrical ones. When conflicts are referred to as asymmetric or as Galtung calls vertical it usually means that the balance of power between the parties is highly imbalanced e.g., state with huge political military and economic capacities vs insurgent groups representing community with much lower power levels. The government has legitimacy, sovereignty, allies, armies and access to resources. The insurgents have to fight for all these. (Zartman, 1996:8)

A second characteristics of this model is that where as the previous two models discussed involve conflict resolution process, this model leads to conflict transformation process. A simple difference between the two is that while the former believes that there is an end to a conflict, the latter argues that conflict never ends, it just transforms and is taken to another level. There is no beginning and no end; the conflict is transformed, preferably to a higher, less violent level, but not extinguished. A detailed discussion on conflict management, conflict resolution and conflict transformation has been done in a subsequent section of this study.

In order to address the unidirectional linear model Francis has designed a more complex asymmetric conflict transformation diagram which is produced below:
LATENT CONFLICT (Structural violence)

CONFRONTATION Nonviolent

violent

STAGNATION (Institutionalization)

SETTLEMENT Conjointly agreed by parties SETTLEMENT Imposed by 3rd party Just unjust

SETTLEMENT (Imposed by victors)

CONFLICT/ VIOLENCE
RESOLUTION Reconciliation Process establishing peace

PREVENTION

Figure 2.3 Asymmetric Conflict Transformation Model Francis (2002: 55) The model of Francis uses some important terms. These terms may be further elaborated as follows:

Latent conflict: This can be defined as a situation of structural violence which has not yet been expressed on the behavioural level. Galtung (1996) draws the distinction between direct violence (children are murdered) and structural violence (children die through poverty). In this initial stage the relation between parties are unbalanced and thus unpeaceful. They are also static due to a lack

of awareness of the situation of injustice or inequality by the actors. According to Curle, If in a particular system one group gains what another loses, there is even if the loser does not understand what is happening - a structural conflict. (!971: 4)

Confrontation/ Overt Conflict: There is now high level of awareness of conflicting interests and needs by the parties. The tension which was previously covered up (by the powerful) or ignored (by the powerless) has been brought to the surface. The conflict has become manifest. This is also the stage of empowerment when the underdogs raise their level of power to challenge the top dogs, certain degrees of polarization and enlargement takes place at this stage. Conflict behaviour may be either violent or non-violent. Fisher et al establish a distinction between conflict intensification which they define making a hidden conflict more visible and open for purposive non-violent ends and conflict escalation, a situation in which levels of tension and violence are increasing. (2005: 5)

Stagnation:

From the confrontation stage the conflict may move either

towards stagnation or settlement. Stagnation is characterized as endemic instability meaning a self perpetuating situation where people on each side have developed vested interests in continuing the struggle. This is comparable to Mitchells entrapment' process mentioned earlier. The conflicting parties here feel that there is no alternative to maintaining entrenched positions and continuing a struggle with no likely victory foreseeable in near future. Kriesberg (2005) calls this stage as institutionalization and believes that it is particularly crucial in understanding intractable conflict which is "waged in ways that the adversaries or interested observers regard as destructive, and marked by a history of failed peacemaking efforts resulting in hardened antagonistic positions.(Dudouet, 2006:18)

Settlement:

Once a conflict has reached a certain level of intensification,

resulting in a shift in power relations (towards greater balance) the parties can reassess the cost of continuing hurting stalemate. The conflict becomes ripe for the stage of settlement where behavioural and structural changes can be negotiated and for the stage of resolution, where their adversarial relationship can be transformed.

Non-violent conflicts are much easier to resolve than violent ones. Nonviolent conflict resolution is conjointly agreed by the parties. This may lead to sustainable peace by structural readjustment. Violent method of conflict resolution may result in a variety of possible outcomes including:

victory to one side and terms imposed by them (which although in theory could include and address the needs of the vanquished are, in practice, likely to exclude or deny them); the forceful intervention of powerful third party leading to an imposed settlement (which could be wise and inclusive and pave the way for reconciliation or could be unacceptable to one or more parties and lead to renewed violence or oppression); or exhaustion, or mutually 'hurting stalemate or some other change in the course of violent confrontation-such as the emergence of a movement for peace-leading to a search for dialogue. (Francis, 2002:57)

Resolution/ Sustainable Peace: In this phase relations between the parties are both peaceful and dynamic as they establish and maintain healthy power relations. This final phase is preconditioned by the fact that the conflict resolution/ transformation method was a non-violent one or the settlement imposed by the third party was just and voluntarily acceptable to the disputant parties. On the other hand if the settlement was imposed by the victor or a third party by forceful method what is achieved in fact is a premature pseudoresolution by suppressing the just aspiration of party/parties. According to Francis (2002) this is pacification rather than peace making. As shown in the diagram the conflict is not resolved/ transformed but is temporarily suspended and it goes back to the latent mode to resurface at a ripe time.

A merit of this model is that it is much more inclusive than the previous ones discussed. Firstly, it integrates the dynamics of peace enforcement and forcefully agreed settlements which have taken an increased importance in the last decades particularly in the international arena (e.g., Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq). Secondly, it includes both violent and non-violent modes of conflicts resolution with distinct consequences. This model stands in contrast to a section of opinion (especially Marxist) that negative peace (structural violence) is a precondition for positive peace (social justice).

The staged violence to peace conflict transformation models discussed above have their obvious limitations. They are idealized and unidirectional. The modern day ethno-political conflicts, more often than not, are made up of multiple and intermeshed layers of structures with dissimilar timelines and ripe moments which make it very difficult to draw graphic representation of their dynamics. Despite this limitation these models remain useful analysis and intervention tools. They highlight the fact that there is a specific and appropriate timing for all conflict transformation activities. The peace support agencies need to examine carefully the stage of escalation or de-escalation of the conflict zone in which they intervene so that they do not enter a setting with wrong mechanisms and at wrong time.

2.4 LEVELS OF CONFLICT FORMATION Conflict can occur at a number of levels of human functioning. Following Galtungs typology one may put them in the following table:

Intra-system Conflict Individual level Collective level intra-personal intra-national

Inter system Conflict interpersonal international

Figure 2.4 Types of Action System in Conflict (Galtung, 1965: 349) Conflict inside a persons brain between opposing motives or ideas is manifested by what is known as internal dialogue and thus may be termed as intrapersonal conflict. Here the action system consists of one person who has two or more incompatible goal states. But the primary concern of this thesis is social conflict i.e., conflict between people whether they are acting as individuals, or as representatives of organizations or nations.

A. Interpersonal Conflict: This occurs when two persons have incompatible needs/goals and approaches in their relationships. According to Galtung,
In the interpersonal conflict, there are several possibilities. Two or more persons may have the same goal states and the incompatibility consists in the scarcity of the goal, there is just not enough for everyday, if one arrives at the goal state then the other cannot. Or the goal states may be different but coupled to each other in such a way that they cannot all be realized. (Galtung, 1965: 349)

Communication gap is often an important cause of interpersonal conflict and learning or restoring communication is valuable in preventing and resolving such difficulties. But there are certain fundamental differences between two

persons which cannot be resolved by any amount of improved communication. Following are two important variants of interpersonal conflicts:

(i) Personality Conflict: It refers to very strong differences in motives, values or styles in dealing with people that are not resolvable. For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in that relationship, there is no way for both to be satisfied and a power struggle ensues. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the point of relationship breakdown or termination. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include exaggerated use of rewards and punishment, deception and evasion, threats and emotional blackmail and flattering or integration.

(ii) Role Conflict: It involves very real difference in role definition, expectations, responsibilities between individuals who are

interdependent in a social system. If there are ambiguities in role definitions in system or unclear boundaries of responsibilities, then the stage is set for interpersonal friction between the persons involved. The emotional intensity is often quite high in role conflict, since people are directly involved as individuals and there is a strong tendency to personalize the conflict.

Personal idiosyncrasies may sometimes lead to inter-group and even international conflict particularly when powerful individuals get their respective organizations or nations involved in order legitimize their ego or aggrandizement.

B. Intra-national Conflict: This type of conflict occurs between collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups, departments or levels of

decision making in the same organization etc. Competitions for scarce resources is a common source of inter-group conflict and societies have developed numerous regulatory mechanisms such as collective bargaining and mediation for dealing with inter-group conflict in less disruptive ways.

According to Fisher (1999) social-psychological processes are very important in inter-group conflict. Group members tend to develop stereotypes (oversimplified negative beliefs) of the opposing group, tend to blame them for their own problem (scapegoating) and practise discrimination against them. These classic symptoms of inter-group conflict can be just as evident in organizations as in race relations in community settings. Inter-group conflict is especially tense and prone to escalation and intractability when group identities are threatened. The costs of destructive inter-group conflict can be extremely high for a society in both economic and social terms.

C. International Conflict: It occurs between states at global levels. Competition for resources certainly plays a part, but value and power conflict are often intertwined and sometimes predominate. The differences are articulated through the channels of diplomacy in a constant game of give and take or threat and counter threat and sometimes for the highest of stakes in the form of armed confrontation.

2.5 SOURCES OF CONTEMPORARY CONFLICTS Besides this simplistic explanation of levels of conflict formation, more substantial works have been done in this field by various scholars. In the field of international relations, Waltz (1959) introduced three levels of explanation for international phenomena: the individual, the state and the international system, still used by most contemporary accounts. However, the three units of analysis originally identified by Waltz must be further refined in order to account for the specificities of contemporary

conflict formation which operates primarily at the intra-state level. Ramsbotham et al (2005) identify five relevant units of analysis from which to locate the sources of international and national conflicts. This is presented in the following figure:

Level 1. Global
Geo-political transition,

Example
North-South economic divide,

environmental constraints, weapons proliferations, ideological contestation.

2. 3.

Regional State Social Economic Political

Clientage patterns, spill over, intervention, cross border social demography, Diaspora

weak society:

cultural division, ethnic imbalance

Weak economy: poor resource base relative deprivation Weak polity: partisan government regime illegitimacy

4. 5.

Conflict party Elite/ individual

Group mobilization, inter-group dynamics. Exclusional policies, factional interest, rapacious leadership.

Figure 2.5 Sources of Contemporary Conflict: a Framework

The figure above depicts two international levels (global and regional), one state level divided into functional sectors (social, economic and political) and two social levels (conflict party and elite/individual). The relative emphasis accorded to these levels will shift according to the interpretation being considered or the conflict being analyzed.

Separate discussion on each of these levels is necessary to comprehend conflict dynamics better.

Global Level: The nature of contemporary conflict particularly in post-cold war global arrangement has undergone tectonic changes. Geo-political readjustment at the end of the cold war ended some conflicts caused by East-West divide. But it generated some new types of conflict both in the states of the former Soviet Union, East Europe and also in other parts of the world. Most of these conflicts centered on ethnic aspirations. Some new types of conflicts have emerged too. The factors responsible for these conflicts are North-South divide, environmental constraints, the proliferation of the new technologies of war etc. In addition, global ideological struggle between resurgent religious fundamentalism and forces of secular modernity and also the threat of rogue states, terror groups, world wide criminal networks gaining access to sophisticated weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction; all these are adding new dimensions to global conflict. Regional Level: The end of cold war in a way regionalized world politics. It has highlighted the importance of regional source of conflict formation. Studies in the field emphasize the importance of overspill from one area to another where a common precipitating factor has generated violent conflicts in a vulnerable region. For example, identity/ secession conflicts, factional conflicts, refugee movements etc. are some of the precipitating factors which have generated regional conflicts in many parts of Africa, Central Asia and erstwhile Soviet Union. Internal wars have external effects on the region through the spread of weaponry, economic dislocation, links with terrorism and steady floods of refugees. They spill over into regional politics when neighboring states are dragged in or same people straddle several states. Regional instability also affects the internal politics of states through patterns of clientage, the actions of outside governments, cross-border movements of people and ideas, black market activities, criminal networks and spread of small arms.

State Level: Despite the prediction of the 'end of the state' theory that nation state has eroded if not ended under the twin pressure of globalization (increasingly potent international pressure) and fragmentation (the heightened level of domestic discontent); the fact remains that it is at the level of the state that the critical struggle is, in the end, played out. Galtung observes that national identification to some extent has been diluted by four basic types of substitute identification- sub-national, cross national, transnational and supranational. In the same breath he admits,

On the one hand some layers of population become identified with neo-modern societies and grow out of the nation state, while at the same time formerly traditional, peripheral segments become more modern and hence arrive at a level of social identification compatible with the nation state.nations are going to remain dominant actors still for some time to come. (Galtung, 1967: 312)

Since the state still has juridical monopoly on sovereignty, all conflict parties are on the end driven to compete for state control either to institute revolutionary programme or to safeguard communal needs or to secure factional interest. The state is still the chief actor on the international stage and the chief satisfier of domestic needs. Therefore, major conflict formation takes place at the state level. Though it is difficult to make water tight separation of various sectors within the state (social, economic, political etc.) in which conflicts manifest because most conflicts cut across this sectoral divisions; it is useful to separate them for academic discussion.

The Social Sector:

In the social sector conflict fault lines develop along

social divisions. This division may be horizontal (e.g., ethnic conflict) or vertical (class conflict). In recent times religious fundamentalism has created a new type of conflict. Chazan and others believe that the western preoccupation to locate social roots of conflict with class or ethnicity is too simplistic. In fact according to them, social life, particularly in developing countries revolves in the first

instance, around a medley of more compact organizations, networks, groupings, associations and movements that have evolved over the centuries in response to changing circumstances. (Chazan et al, Quoted in Ramsobotham et al ,2005: 101)

In the economic sector conflicts develop along patterns of development and under development. Most authors agree that there is definite correlation between levels of economic underdevelopment and violent conflict formation. Industrialization and urbanization are other two sources of conflict formation. These two processes disrupt the traditional patterns without substituting it with a stable alternative. Expected rewards are not delivered leading to disenchantment and alienation. They also create social classes with uneven levels of economic status thus creating class conflict. Even where there are reasonable levels of development in absolute terms conflicts may still be generated where there is actual or perceived inequality in the distribution of benefits.

Conflict Party Level: This is a relational source of conflict unlike the levels discussed earlier which are mainly contextual or structural. Tedd Gurr and Harff (1994) show how national peoples, militant sects, ethno-classes and other groups tend to move from non-violent protest through violent protest to outright rebellion. Goals variously include demands for political access, autonomy, secession or control. This is escalated by historical grievances and contemporary resentment against socio-cultural, political and economic arrangements. New threats and new opportunities in an altered situation may induce groups to engage in protracted conflict. Elite and Individual Level: The dilemma of agent-structure has been widely contested within the philosophy of social science. The agent approach focuses primarily on individual intentions and motivations as the source of conflict. This gives agent ontological primacy over structures. Actor-orientated theoretical

perspectives such as rational choice, social and political psychology emphasize cognitive frames, preferences, intentions, beliefs and the reasoning of actors. The structure approach emphasizes on the vast impersonal forces in history which condition structural parameters and social systems. Without going into this debate between agency and structure, it may be concluded that idiosyncratic behaviour of leaders, their ego and ambition have played substantial role in conflict formation in many cases. Academic literature places great emphasis on mass level factors but is weak in understanding the role played by elites and leaders in instigating violence. Most major conflicts are triggered by internal elite level activity, to put it simply due to bad leadership. In a study of communal violence, Human Rights Watch, the world body working in the field succinctly puts the major blame for communal violence on ambitions of elites out to reap personal or sectarian advantage from surcharged situation. The study says, While communal tensions are obviously a necessary ingredient of an explosive mix, they alone are not sufficient to unleash wide spread violence. Rather, time after time the proximate cause of communal violence is governmental exploitation of communal differences. (Quoted in Ramsbotham et al, 2005: 103)

The above discussion on sources of contemporary conflict should not lead us to a conclusion that conflicts may be classified as global, regional, local etc. Most conflicts today are hybrid struggles that spill across the international, state and societal levels. The conflict in Kashmir, for example is variously interpreted as a conflict having potential to flare up into a major global confrontation and hence states other than the two major protagonists (India and Pakistan) and also international organizations like the United Nations have legitimate stake (global level). It may also be seen as a conflict between two important nations of South Asia (regional level) or as an ethnic/religious identity struggle (social level) or as power struggle among various groups like terrorist groups, the Pakistani armed forces and intelligence agencies (conflict party level) or

merely as resulting out of political ambitions of some individual leaders on both sides of the border (individual level). As such it is simultaneously affected by changes at international level (e.g. transition from a bi-polar to unipolar world) and regional level down to bi-lateral state-state relations and by changes of social level ranging from top level elites through middle level leadership and down to local and grassroots interests.

2.6 CAUSES OF CONFLICT Conflict analysis since earliest times has been engaged in finding out the cause of conflict. In fact so dominant has been the obsession with locating the root of human conflict that most analysts have claimed to find the golden formula applicable to all and prescribed resolution mechanisms on the basis of that finding. This was already evident in the thinking of the European theorists of the early modern period. For Machiavelli, conflict was the result of the human desire for self-preservation and power. For Hobbes, the three principal causes of quarrel in the state of nature was competition for gain, fear of insecurity and defence of honour. For Hume, the underlying conditions of human conflict were relative scarcity of resources and limited altruism. For Rousseau the state of war was born from the social state itself.

But the dynamics of conflict is so complex that we have to guard against what Holsti calls the tyranny of the single cause in the explanation of conflict. He says:
.there is no single cause of a conflict. Nor is there often a single precondition for sustainable peace. Different factors vary in importance and reinforce and neutralize each other. The analysis of the situation must therefore include assessing the relative importance of the different indicators and their interrelationship. (Holsti, 1989:7)

Conflict causes have in fact become the most frequently invoked typology and within these as Singer points out, "all usual suspects are found, territory, ideology, dynastic legitimacy, religion, language, ethnicity, self determination, resources, markets, dominance, equality and of course revenge. (Singer, 1996:38)

Without going into every single cause of conflict, this thesis will analyse in some detail, greed and grievance as two major causes of conflict. In fact, many other factors are subsumed within the scope of these two generic factors.

2.6.1 Greed versus Grievance Debate: Though grievance, real or perceived, of various types has since long, been considered the dominant cause of conflict this was challenged by some researchers particularly Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler who in the 1990s advanced the so called greed hypothesis to counter the grievance argument. The purpose of this discussion is to see whether this debate between greed and grievance is a substantive tautological debate or in fact the two sides of the same coin.

The Grievance Hypothesis: The grievance hypothesis is a more accepted notion of conflict cause since conflict analysis began in sincere earnest in the 1950s and 1960s. Johan Galtung (1996) in an authoritative analysis of his concept structural violence shows how institutional violence created by the system translates into political oppression, economic exploitation or cultural discrimination and becomes a sure breeding ground for conflict both overt and latent. In an empirical study on ethnopolitical conflicts Gurr and Harff (1994: 6) found that between 1945 and 1980, 80% of 233 ethnic groups were suffering from a systematic and selective limitation of peoples access to economic opportunities or political positions based on ascriptive characteristics. Edward Azar (1990) in his theory of Protracted Social Conflict (PSC) provides an elaborate insight into nature and causes of the prolonged and often violent struggle by communal groups for such basic needs as security, recognition and acceptance, fair access to political institutions and economic participation in many parts of the world. A discussion of Azars theory in some detail will provide the key elements of grievance as the cause of social conflict.

Azars Theory of Protracted Social Conflict: In espousing his concept of Protracted Social Conflict, Azar has drawn upon datasets compiled from the 1970s concerning his studies of prolonged, often violent, conflict as persisted in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Ethiopia, Israel, Sudan, Cyprus, Iran, Nigeria and South Africa. The term Protracted Social Conflict (PSC) although was first coined before the end of the cold war illustrates, accurately the main characteristics of post-cold war violent conflicts. In his most authoritative work, The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Case (1990), Azar identifies more than sixty examples of this new type of conflict which distinct from traditional disputes over territory, economic resources or East-West rivalry.revolves around questions of communal identity. (Azar, 1990: 93) He points out the following four distinct characteristics of Protracted Social Conflict:

First, most wars are now fought in the intra-state arena, escaping the earlier boundaries of army to army wars and broadening out to encompass civilian communities and whole societies within the vortex of violence.

Second, they generally include a mixture of ideological, political or resources issues with elements of communal and ethnic identity; for this reason they are often referred to as ethnopolitical conflicts.

Third, they are characterized by high levels of protractedness often lasting several generations with frequent fluctuations in nature and intensity.

Finally, it is in the nature of such conflicts that there is significant degree of power asymmetry between the warring sides.

According to Azar the sources of PSC lay predominantly within (and across) rather than between states. He identifies four clusters of variables which cause the transformation of latent conflicts into high intensity protracted conflicts.

First, there is the communal content. PSC analysis focuses on identity group- racial, religion ethnic, cultural and others. Azar notes that it is the relationship between identity groups and the states which is at the core of the problem. The societal needs of the individual- security, identity, recognition and others are mediated through membership of these identity groups. Azar believes that there is a disarticulation between the state and society as a whole. He links this disjunction to a colonial legacy which artificially imposed borders on regions where different ethnicities are intertwined, resulting in non-integrated nation states incapable of inspiring loyalty and civic culture. As a result, in many post-colonial multi communal societies the state machinery comes to be dominated by single communal group or a coalition of few communal groups that are unresponsive to the needs of other groups in the society. This strains the social fabric and eventually breeds fragmentation and conflict. Tedd Gurr agrees:
while cultural identity may be stronger and more enduring than most other collective identities (i.e. ideological or class) it is most likely to provide the basis for political mobilization and conflict when it provides the basis for invidious distinctions among peoples (inequalities among cultural groups in status, economic well being, access to political power) that are deliberately maintained through public policy and social practice. (1996 : 63)

Secondly, following Burton (1990) Azar identifies deprivation of human needs as the underlying source of PSC. Like Burton, he distinguishes between dispute and conflict. Disputes involve negotiable interests while conflicts are concerned with issues that are not negotiable, issues that relate to ontological human needs that cannot be compromised. Three such needs have been identified by Azar- access needs (participation in the significant institutions of

society), acceptance needs (recognition of identity as defined by shared cultural values and heritage) and security needs (physical welfare). Grievances resulting from needs deprivation are usually expressed collectively. Failure to redress these grievances by the authority cultivates a niche for a protracted social conflict.(Azar,1990:9) Groups try to change the structure of an unequal society by indulging in overt conflict and hence conflict resolution can truly occur and last if a structural change leads to amelioration of underdevelopment.

Thirdly, as mentioned earlier, despite the erosion of state to an extent, role of the state still remains critical in the satisfaction or frustration of individual or identity group needs. In this connection Azar makes some important points:

Except in some western states in which the tradition of democratic governance has taken strong roots, in most of the post colonial states political authority tends to be monopolized by dominant identity group or a coalition of hegemonic groups denying access to other groups. This creates a crisis of legitimacy which is sought to be counteracted by the deprived groups through violent conflict. Here reference may be made to Holstis (1983) concept of vertical legitimacy (political consensus between governors and governed about institutional rules of the game) and horizontal legitimacy (including political community in which individuals and groups have equal access to discussion and allocations). Gurr and Harff (1994) point out that this phenomenon is endemic even in some liberal democratic states like Canada, Belgium, Spain and Northern Ireland when party politics become ascriptively based and one community perceives that state power has been permanently captured by another.

Conflict is likely in states where authoritarian regimes successfully manipulate the state apparatus in order to cling to power and block political access to all those not part of their own narrow patronage network. Azar writes, Most states which experience protracted social conflict tend to be characterized by incompetent, parochial, fragile and authoritarian

governments that fail to satisfy basic human needs". (1990: 10) This has happened in some post Soviet Central Asian and post colonial African states. There seems to be the growing phenomenon of failed or collapsed states characterized by rapid population growth and limited resource base and also restricted political capacity. In the absence of adequate means for raising revenue or keeping order these states succumb to endemic and chaotic violence. According to Azar, In most protracted social conflict-laden countries political capacity is limited by a rigid or fragile authority structure which prevents the state from responding to and meeting the needs of various constituents. (1990: 11) In a report on Africa presented to UN Security Council in April 1998 Secretary General Kofi Annan agrees:
Where there is insufficient accountability of leaders, lack of transparency in regimes, inadequate checks and balance, non-adherence to the rule of law, absence of peaceful means to change or replace leadership or lack of respect for human rights, political control becomes excessively important and the stakes become dangerously high. (Quoted in Miall et al, 1999: 102)

Fourthly, International linkages are cited by Azar as a source of Protracted Social Conflict (PSC). Neo-colonial practices in developing countries, such as the informal organization of political military clientage with strong states also lead to a sacrifice of autonomy and the formulation of policies disjointed from the needs of the states own people. Neighbouring countries also have a vested interest in either encouraging or resolving internal conflicts, because they are often proxies for larger disputes. Kriesberg (2005) cites the examples of Irish vs. the British, Arab vs. Israel, India vs.

Sri Lanka as examples where either country in the configuration has directly or indirectly played role in fomenting/ resolving internal conflict in the other.

Thus irrational boundaries and innumerable mutual disputes between the states facilitated the external links and support to the sub national groups, and/or to the parent state, thus internationalizing the otherwise internal conflict. Deprived of the often used instruments of foreign policy, the states have resorted to warfare through other means, i.e. support to ethnic groups against the state or to the state against the sub national group. The presence of a strong diaspora community from one (or both) of the partisan groups is another factor which induce outside powers to get involved in civil conflicts outside their borders. This can be illustrated by citing the impact of Jewish domestic community on Washingtons pro-Israel stance in the conflict over Palestine. Many armed struggle depend heavily on financial and other support from transnational solidarity groups or diaspora population. Azars depiction of PSC is a forceful argument to show grievance as a major cause of conflict. The first three causes discussed above are directly related to unfulfilled demands of groups or communities as the germinator of violent conflict. Even in case of international linkage; grievance plays a role albeit indirectly. Foreign countries particularly neighbours role in internal conflict of another country is facilitated by the grievance of the local people against government policies or rival group behaviour/ attitude.

Thus, the theory of protracted social conflict supports the grievance perspective on conflict. Apart from Azars, another important contribution to the grievance hypothesis is the relative deprivation approach as developed by James Davies (1962) and Ted Robert Gurr (1970). The approach places the relative sense of deprivation as the most important factor in creating grievance and mobilizing people for conflict

behaviour. Relative deprivation implies people become dissatisfied if they feel they have lees than they should or could have. There are many different ways this can happen; having decreasing amount than previous possession, improving conditions leading to heightened expectation and then sudden deterioration etc. Political violence results from on intolerable gap between what people want and what they get: the difference between expectation and gratifications. It should be pointed out that relative deprivation theories do not only refer to economic deprivation. Several political scientists locate it at the political level. Velfredo Pareto (1935 ) believes that deprivation occurs when there is insufficient cooption of competing members of the non-elite into the elite group (circulation of elite) ultimately causing the decline of states quo elite. Samuel Huntington(1968 ) locates violent political action and revolution at the level of the political sphere: within a context of rapid socio-economic modernization people are mobilized and induced to enter the political arena and if their demands are not properly channeled aggressive modes of behaviour may take place. The deprivation either relative or absolute may not trigger violence in all situations. The contribution of the approach is its focus on distributional aspects which provides a plausible explanation as regards generating mechanisms of violence.

The Greed Hypothesis:

As opposed to the grievance hypothesis, a number of

recent studies have sought to portray contemporary conflicts as driven essentially by economic agendas, particularly conflicts in the developing world. This approach has been collated into what is termed as resource wars. While the role of resources in triggering and continuing violent conflicts has been the object of study for many decades, they were for the most part centered on the role played by scarcity or relative scarcity of resources as prime causes of conflict, both at the individual and collective level. Recent studies, however, have focused on resource appropriation in situations of abundance as the fundamental underlying cause of conflict. According to the resource war proposition groups engaged in violent conflict are not primarily motivated by grievance (i.e. ethnic discrimination, inequality, historical animosity etc.) but essentially

by economic agendas and therefore greed. Issues of identity and self-determination are dismissed in favour of the role of resource as the prime motivator of conflict. One strand of this resource war theory is the greed hypothesis espoused mainly by Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler (1998) Collier defines greed hypothesis in the following terms:
the discourse on conflict tends to be dominated by group grievance beneath which inter group hatreds lurk, often traced back through history. I have investigated statistically the global pattern of large scale civil conflict since 1965, expecting to find a close relationship between measures of these hatreds and grievances and the incidence of conflict. Instead, I found that economic agendas appear to be central to understanding why civil wars get going. Conflicts are far more likely to be caused by economic opportunities than by grievance. (1999:1)

Collier and Hoeffler have used a model based on expected utility theory under the assumption that war lords conduct a civil war, if the perceived benefits outweigh the costs of such a war. They tested four independent variables - per capita income, national resource endowment, population size and ethno-linguistic fractionalization - and came to the conclusion that between them these four variables make a substantial difference to the chances of civil war. (1998: 564)

Later in a paper titled, Doing Well Out of War Collier (1999) tested grievance as the cause of conflict through the following independent variables-rapid economic decline, inequality, political repression, political transition and finally ethnic and religious fractionalization. He, thereby, reaches the conclusion that:
...the grievance theory of conflict thus finds surprisingly little empirical support. Inequality does not seem to matter, while political repression and ethnic and religious divisions have precisely the opposite of their predicted effects .., rebellions based purely on grievance face such severe collective action problems that the basic theories of social science would predict that they are unlikely to occur. (1999: 1)

In order to test the greed factor Collier does not rely on the public statements of the belligerents because he believes that even where the rationale at the top of the organization is essentially greed, the actual discourse may be entirely dominated by grievance. This is because, narratives of grievance play much better with this (the international) community than narratives of greed. (1999: 2) He therefore relies on the reference of motivations from patterns of observed behaviour distinguishing between those causal factors which are broadly consistent with an economic motivation and those which are more consistent with grievance. All this leads him to conclude that even though conflicts may have primarily ethno-political objectives, the mobilization of rebellious populations on such claims is often instrumentalised by local leaders on all sides, who see in war, an opportunity to enrich themselves in a predator economy. This may happen in several ways: - war enhances the opportunistic character in business affecting business practices; it increases criminality, affecting asset holding and forcing people to send their assets abroad. Finally, in civil wars markets are disrupted and information is unreliable and costly. As a result competition breaks down, leaving only a small number of economic agents to monopolies entire sectors of the economy in predatory fashion. There is also the problem of increased rent seeking predation on trade both from rebels and government officials. Colliers instrumentalist explanation of conflict has its supporters too. According to research carried out by Berdal and Malone (2000) on war economics, violence spawns a host of groups who benefit directly from its continuation. Soldiers become dependent on warfare as a way of life and war lords on the spoils of war. Most ethnic conflicts in Africa are often essentially conflicts between ethnically defined patron-client networks over economic goods distributed by the state. Similar views ore expressed by Reno (2000) when he says that heads of states often participate in war perpetuation when they place their personal benefits above the general interest, especially in patrimonial regimes or shadow states characterized by a private use of public state assets and prerogatives. The literature on nationalism offers a similar account of the origins of ethnic nations. According to this view ethnic nations were

formed beginning after the French Revolution when a national language was chosen from among a variety of different dialects, written down and made the basis of mass literacy in specific states. This was done because industrial society requires a standard means of communication; thus a single standard is set for an entire territory. The expected utility theory on which the greed hypothesis is based has come under searching scrutiny from various schools of thought. The 'cognitive rationality approach' finds the utilitarian model of conflict in which violence is treated just as input cost in order to gain desired output in terms of economic benefit, as seriously flawed. It takes into accounts the complexity of conflict situation and concludes, Peoples attitude to the use of violence is often ambiguous, ambivalent and complex and one cannot treat violence simply as an unambiguous cost. (Nicholson, 1992: 105)

The collective action theory as represented in the works of Charles Tilly (1978) considers political elements as central to the onset of conflict. He believes that the continuous power struggle between those who have decision making power and these who have not, is at the base of political action. Tilly holds that 'the passage from individual interests to collective decisions' involves a confluence of shared interests that must be organized and mobilized in possession and use of adequate resources. Collective political action, including collective violence will occur if there is sufficient opportunity for it, yet not solely economic opportunity.

Nicholson criticizes the methodology of all social science research which applies very well to greed theory also. He says that social science data suffers from oversimplification and the forcing of events into common classification, when it is the differences which are most conspicuous". (1992: 228) This oversimplification of data has resulted in non-inclusion of facts relating to distributional aspects by Collier and Hoeffler. They have used per capita income as an independent variable and have concluded that the incidence and duration of civil war in low income countries are more

frequent and prolonged than in high income countries. But as pointed out by the relative deprivation approach discussed before, distribution of resources within countries and between individuals and groups play fundamental role in generating grievance and hence acts as a source of conflict.

Both Greed and Grievance In stead of posing the issue as greed versus grievance as the causal factor of conflict, a more appropriate conclusion will be both greed and grievance as major sources of conflict. They represent two sides of the same coin and even taken together do not exhaust all possible explanation of conflict generation. In many conflict situations both greed and grievance play fundamental roles. In a study of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa (Singer :1996) it has been found that there is a complex relationship between ecology and conflict involving multiple actors, divergent and often conflicting interests located at several levels of analysis. The use and control of ecological resources as causes of conflict has been motivated by both grievance and greed. Moreover grievance related to the unjust and inequitable distribution of land and national resources.and greed for valuable ecological resources have, in many instances, been the underlying causes of armed conflict. Even Collier and Hoeffler (2000) in a later article incorporate both greed and grievance in a combined model. In stead of greed and grievance they have introduced the less controversial notion of preference and constraints and take both into account while explaining armed conflicts. Thus, as regards the cause of social conflict one cannot afford to take a deterministic or reductionist stand. For a comprehensive understanding of conflict one should keep in mind that conflict is a multi-causal phenomenon where different causal sequences may apply to different conflict situation.

2.7 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The above discussion relates to multidimensional aspects of conflict. It shows that despite its omnipresence, a generally accepted definition eludes it. Hostility and

incompatibility as defining dimensions of conflict are not mutually exclusive. There is no standard trajectory along which a conflict evolves. The stages in its life cycle discussed above are at best tentative. It is not necessary that all conflict should pass through the same phases. Though conflict may be broadly categorised as violent and non-violent, there are definitional disputes regarding what should be considered violent or non-violent. A seemingly non-violent situation without any sign of overt violence may actually be violent from the structuralist point of view. Regarding sources of contemporary conflicts, there cannot be water tight demarcation. One particular conflict may have overlapping references to sources depending on how one looks at it, as has been pointed out in case of conflict in Kashmir. Also, greed and grievance as two major causes of conflict are not mutually exclusive, nor do they subsume all the causes. Hence it may be concluded that conflict is a complex phenomenon about which judgment with any degree of finality is fraught with serious hazards relating to conceptualization and research.

CHAPTER: 3

Changing Nature Of Conflict

CHAPTER 3
CHANGING NATURE OF CONFLICT

3.0 INTRODUCTION In a world of individual and social diversity and of unlimited demand and limited resources and knowledge, the rational egoism and limited altruism of individuals makes conflicts of interests inevitable. Every human being is confronted, through out ones life with this need to prevent or settle internal conflicts (e.g. among passions and rationality inside the minds of individuals) as well as external conflicts (e.g. among self interested individuals in various social groups). Just as individual rationality requires examining and impartially judging contested facts and contrary arguments in ones own mind; so also social responsibility requires fair procedures and just rules which justify peaceful prevention or settlement of disputes in a manner respecting equal basic rights of the parties to a dispute.

Though conflict is all pervasive and universal, the nature of conflict that faces mankind in general, has undergone change from time to time. Within the same time span also various societies and within these societies various groups experience conflicts of unique nature. But then an academic analysis of the uniqueness of each such conflict would be too unwieldy to be meaningful. Hence this chapter will contain a discussion on evolution of changing pattern of conflict that we as mankind face. Since the thrust of this thesis is on the Gandhian paradigm of conflict resolution, the history of conflict pattern has not been traced too far. In fact the changing nature of conflict has been analyzed by keeping the cold war as the reference point.

3.1 PRE COLD WAR CONFLICTS The pattern of major conflict in our time has been influenced by three important factors. Firstly, the emergence of the so called sovereign dynastic state in Europe heralded by Machiavelli, Bodin and Hobbes from the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Secondly, the coming of the principle of popular sovereignty and national self-determination from the time of the American and French revolutions and thirdly, the bi-polar conflict between the Eastern and the Western Bloc countries after 1945, popularly known as the Cold War. Before the emergence of the sovereign dynastic states, the major patterns of conflict were sporadic, localized and ill organized. The sovereign states did not put an end to these types of conflict. Conflicts between tribal and communal enclaves continued. But human beings while still retaining their primary identities also became active members of large commonwealths. The right to exercise organized violence came to be monopolized by these states which through reorganization of military force, projected this organized violence outwards to create relatively formal patterns of warfare among states.

The second development namely, assertion of popular sovereignty coupled with individual revolution in Europe brought about major changes in the nature of human conflict. Modern mans mastery over the rest of nature thanks to industrial revolution and the conquest of territory (colonialism) through which modern state was consolidated, have enabled men to gradually overcome the local strife and constant violence to which he was once prone. Through conquest and consolidation and the gradual building of assets and institutions man could overcome parochial conflicts and local wars to a large extent. It heralded the transition to mass national armies and total war accompanying the first industrial revolution and the romantic movement of nationalism and reaching its climax in the First and Second World Wars.

In achieving this, nation state has played enormous role. It is because of the nation state the man could overcome so many types of micro conflict, the feeling of insecurity and aggressive behaviour.
Equally important has been the economic use to which both the appropriation of nature and the conquest of territory have been put. It was through the creation of economic surplus and its continuous multiplication and embodiment in capital and industry that it became possible to overcome the condition of scarcity and contain the conflict based on that condition. (Kothari 1975:131)

Of course, one may argue that conflicts based on scarcity are by no means over. The contribution of nation state lies in the fact that it broadly overcame such conflicts in the European states at that time due to economic expansion with imperialism which provided cheap raw materials and the vast spaces of the colonized lands as well as ready markets which were all essential for pushing the slow moving Industrial Revolution into the age of affluence. (Kothari 1975: 131)

The impact of imperialism and Industrial Revolution not only affected the pattern of conflict in the European nations, but also in the non-European regions where new forms of conflict arose and were projected on to a much wider canvas. During the 19th century till after the Second World War conflicts based on primordial identity like caste, tribe, language, religion, etc. lost their importance though not completely wiped out and major conflicts became global in scope. In fact the local level conflicts became manifestation of what Azar(1990) calls `international linkage` in his theory of Protracted Social Conflict. The national liberation conflicts which occurred in large number between the colonies and the colonial masters during the mid 20th century subsumed stark rivalries among different sub-national groups within both the client and metropolitan states in order to pose a united front in this war for liberation/domination.

3.2 CONFLICTS DURING COLD WAR PERIOD The third factor referred to above relates to the bi-polar conflict between two power blocs in general and the two super powers in particular popularly known as the cold war

which provided, for about first forty five years beginning 1945, the parameters by which all conflicts whether national or international were judged. But during the forty five years of cold war the pattern of conflict did not remain uniform. The advent of nuclear weapon and its subsequent proliferation rendered interstate war unviable. Unlike in the classical balance of power era, war as an instrument of foreign policy started getting obsolete. In stead, the prevailing patterns of armed conflict in the 1950s became wars of national independence associated with decolonization. Those of late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the so-called North South conflict and those of 1980s were post colonial civil wars in which great powers intervened as a part of continuing geo political struggle for power and influence. These are wars in which communities seek to create their own stakes in wars of national liberation or which involve resistance by various peoples against domination, exclusion, persecution or dispossession of lands and resources by the post colonial state.

Towards the mid sixties pattern of conflict, both inter-state and intrastate was taking a different shape. The cold war was perceived in terms of an ideological struggle for power between rival blocs of countries or to be more specific between communism and capitalism. Though by no means over yet, by mid sixties its intensity was on the wane.
it appeared that mankind might be able to avoid such a catastrophe, thanks both to a complicated balance of military power between the super powers and a multiple web of bilateral and multilateral relationships and also to a general process of immunization that takes place when a predicted disaster somehow does not come along. (Kothari, 1975; 133)

By that time attention got focused on something more immediate and more pressing, namely the great economic divide that was separating the world into extremes of affluence and deprivation, over production and over consumption on the one hand and scarcity and starvation on the other. This new dimension of conflict on the international level is known as the North-South conflict.

The North-South divergence or confrontation was quite different from the EastWest conflict. Here the contradiction and conflict was between the sources and resources, i.e., between the power of capital and technology and helplessness of raw materials and underrated labour. The North consisting, primarily of a few EuroAmerican states had acquired a vast amount of military and economic power as a result of the accumulation of the past and present labour both inside the countries concerned and their former colonies or dependencies in the poor South. The South consisting of a great majority of states in Asia, Africa and Latin America were the victims of historical imperialism. Though nominally free, these countries were too weak-militarily and economically- to resist the relentless neo-colonial exploitation by the North. This awareness of continued exploitation became particularly pronounced in the South in the late sixties when the dependency theory was expounded by the Latin America scholars, and these countries started clamouring for what was called a New International Economic Order (NIEO), though without much success. This gave rise to the so called North- South conflict which was not only a fundamental structural characteristic of the contemporary international system, but also from the long-term point of view, the most important cause of its instability.

Apart from the East-West conflict and the North-South conflict which manifested at the world level, there were also regional level conflicts during the cold war period. Though for the purpose of cold war, countries belonging to each bloc posited a united front, but the inherent contradiction among them remained and started surfacing in the 1960s and 1970s with the blunting of the cold war intensity. The conflict in the western bloc took the following patterns (i) among industrial super nations like between the USA and Japan, (ii) among industrially developed countries like between USA vs. the EEC (European Economic Communities) or Japan vs. the EEC and (iii) among countries of the EEC like West Germany vs. France, or England vs. rest of EEC. The cause of intra-capitalist rivalries included, among others, the quest

for market and raw materials and the desire to greater power or influence within the group. An uncanny apparent peace obtained among them described as 'structural peace'.

The conflict within the Eastern bloc or intra-socialism level could be found at two levels (i) Super nations e.g., the Soviet Union vs. China and intra-CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) e.g., Rumania vs. the rest. Here also the cause varied from rivalry for leadership over international communist movement in the first case to collective and integrated development vs. national identity and self-reliant and selfsufficient development in the second case. The peace which obtained in the first place was a status quo peace and in the second case it was an apparent peace with latent or underlying conflict.

Despite having a collective label called 'South' in order to present a united front in their bargaining with the North the underdeveloped countries of Asia-Africa and Latin America were in fact too diverse in their fundamentals to have a total harmonious relationship among themselves. The causes of conflict among them were many and of different nature. They included territorial disputes, tribal and religious disputes, disputes owing to class and structural exploitation, ambition of the elite, threshold nationalism, dictatorship etc. In many cases these conflict situations escalated into shooting wars like between India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, Kenya and Uganda, Somalia and Ethiopia, Kampuchea and Vietnam etc. Though many of these wars were fuelled and abetted by bloc politics, essentially they were local wars rooted in history, perception, elite ambition, resource distribution and the like.

This period also witnessed intra-state conflicts within both the developed and the developing countries - conflicts of a novel type not experienced earlier. The major patterns of conflict were essentially rooted in resource but of diametrically opposite types. If it was resource abundance in the developed countries, it was resource scarcity in the poorer countries which fomented most of the intra-state conflicts. After centuries

of colonial and neo-colonial exploitation the developed countries in the west had cornered more than eighty percent of worlds resources for a population which accounted for less than twenty percent of the population of the world. But this materialistic success had a price to be paid, in terms of social disharmony. The individualistic self-oriented pursuit of wealth and aggrandizement that western capitalism vouched for had created deep social rifts. Protest movements of various hues- by the blacks, the women, the youth etc. - started challenging the dominant social and economic norms of society. Most of them were protesting against the social exclusion and individual anomie which had been the byproduct of blind pursuit of materialistic goals. So the western societies at that time were witnessing the side by side coexistence of huge economic prosperity along with massive social upheavals, thus falsifying the dominant notion that economic growth would bridge the social rifts and bring peace to the society.

Inside the poorer countries, it was conflict of a different kind. By 1970s most of the post colonial countries in Asia and Africa had become failed states. Most of them had started with political democracy and an ambitious plan to rebuild the nation and the society. Soon many of them degenerated into the labyrinth of totalitarian regimes with rampant administrative and political corruption, total subjugation of individual rights, and a distributive system which plundered many to pamper a few. The genuine aspiration of the individual community were suppressed by a ruling elite which was extremely exclusivist in nature with a social base confined to a tribe or a religion or an ethnicity, thus effectively alienating the political, economic and cultural demands of other sections of the society. In fact, in the nineteen seventies, it was the economic alienation which was most emphasized upon and which sowed the seeds of civil wars in many such countries. These conflicts which were rooted in economic exploitation and mal-distribution of national resources in favour of particular group(s), were later on to embrace issues of political and cultural alienation as well and were, in the nineteen nineties, fashionably renamed as identity wars.

3.3 POST COLD WAR CONFLICTS When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, it was widely anticipated that threats to peace and security both interstate and intrastate would be substantially reduced and that the world at large would benefit from what came to be known as peace dividend. The final triumph of the Neo-Liberal democratic model was seen by some as the evidence of the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992). However initial evidence that this would not be the case came in the form of the instability that followed the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. The collapse of the Soviet Union saw hitherto concealed conflicts erupt around issues of governance and self-determination, ethnic divisions and territorial disputes. In fact, the peaceful example set by Czechoslovakias Velvet Revolution was the exception rather than the rule in a cold war transition characterized by turbulence and instability. The former Yugoslavia erupted in vicious civil war, continued long after in Kosovo and Macedonia; conflict erupted between Moscow and former Soviet republics of Armenia and Azerbizan and within the Russian republic over Chechnya. In addition, the end of super power patronage to client movement world wide was considered to have created a power vacuum whose inevitable results would include the spread of violence and the emergence of disparate groups ostensibly fighting in the name of religion or ethnicity, but seeking to finance their operations through local taxation, plunder and pillage. (Rupasinghe & Anderlini,1998 : 8)

These conflicts came to be known by various names. Ramsbotham et al. raise the following question:
What are we to call these conflicts? Current terminology includes internal conflicts (Brown (ed) 1996), new wars (Kaldor and Vashee (eds) 1997) Small wars (Harding 1994), Civil wars (King 1997), ethnic conflicts (Stavenhagen 1996), Conflict in post-colonial states (Van de Goor et all (eds.) 1996) and so on as well as various expressions used by humanitarian and development NGOS and international agencies such as complex human emergencies and complex political emergencies. (2005:66).

But it is not quite right to say that these new types of conflict began only after the end of the cold war. In fact during the cold war too these conflicts had manifested themselves. Kaldor(1999 ) holds that the key turning point in all these was not so much 1989 or 1990, as 1945 and since 1945 there have been very few interstates wars. This view is supported by Holsti: "The problem is that the Clausewitzean image of war, as well as its theoretical accoutrements, has become increasingly divorced from the characteristics and sources of most armed conflicts since 1945. (1989: 14)

During the cold war the scholarly attention on conflict was largely systemic in orientation and other conflicts were seen as proxy wars or small wars or low intensity conflicts, to a large extent a product and creation of bipolarity. The analysts probably were so mesmerized by the bi-polar stand off at the great power level that they failed to take notice of the qualitative change that had taken place in the pattern of conflict that had evolved since 1945. Singer corroborates this perception by saying that these tendencies have been with us for nearly half a century and that they went unnoticed because most of us living in the First and Second worlds were too preoccupied with the senselessness of our own confrontation to notice the death and destruction going on else where.(1996: 35) Or may be because of the traumatic experiences of the two world wars which produced far greater and graver consequences than the other wars; the academics focused mainly on the wars that mattered (interstate wars). And it was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union that analysts belatedly realized that the new patterns of post cold war conflict were in fact not so new, but had been prevalent, albeit under different geo-political conditions for nearly half a century.

Studies of the post war period by T.R. Gurr et al. (2000) show that there was a sharp increase in the total magnitude of violent conflict within societies from the 1950s to the 1980s. What the authors refer to as societal conflicts represented roughly three times the magnitude of interstate war during most of the last half century, increasing six fold between the 1950s and the early 1990s. It is believed that contrary to popular myths

it was the cold war period that was characterized by increasing incidence and magnitudes of political violence, mostly civil wars. It led many newly independent states and some already established states to the brink of structural failure.

Thus one may conclude that the nature of conflict was tending to change even during the cold war. But they could not be noticed because of the powerful perceptional prism which had been decided by the cold war politics to view all events whether interstate or intra-state as direct or indirect results of cold war. These new conflicts in fact, tended to be more pronounced in extent, scope and impact after the end of the cold war and may be because of it. Conflict monitoring projects such as one carried out by Wallensteen and Sollenberg (SIPRI 1999) have found a disturbing escalatory trend in the occurrence of violent conflict during 1989-98. They found that while a total of 22 high intensity conflicts were being fought world wide in mid 1995, this number rose to 25 by November 1999. Equally perturbing was the increase in low intensity conflicts which rose from a low of 31 in 1996 to a high of 77 by mid-1999. On a lower violence threshold, violent political conflicts also increased dramatically, from a low of 40 in 1995 to a staggering 151 in mid 1999. The nature of this new wars or low intensity conflicts needs some elaboration. Unlike conventional wars these conflicts have no precise beginning since in the majority of cases there are no formal declarations of war. They lack definitive battles, decisive campaigns and formal endings. They tend to become wars of attrition lasting for decades. They rarely involve regular armies on both sides though often it is fought between regular army on one side and guerrillas, terrorists and even civilians including women and children on the other. The participants are loosely knit groups of regulars, irregulars, cells and occasionally locally based warlords under little or no central authority. An important dimension of these new conflicts is its complexity because in vast majority of cases there are several and varied faction involved as well as multitude of external parties which may provide consultation, funding, technical support and in

many cases direct military involvement and assistance. There are large scale violations of human rights which go broadly unnoticed. Kaldor characterizes these new wars in the following words:

Political goals (no longer the foreign policy interests of states, but the consolidation of new forms of power based on political homogeneity); ideologies (no longer universal principles such as democracy, fascism or socialism but tribalism and communalist identity politics); forms of mobilization (no longer conscription or appeals to patriotism, but fear, corruption, religion, magic and the media); external support (no longer super powers or ex-colonial powers, but diasporas, foreign mercenaries, criminal mafia, regional powers); mode of warfare ( no longer formal and organized campaigns with demarcated frontlines, bases and heavy weapons, but fragmented and dispersed, involving paramilitary and criminal groups, child soldiers, light weapons and the use of atrocity, famine, rape and siege); and the war economy (no longer founded by taxation and generated by state mobilization, but sustained by outside emergency assistance and the parallel economy including unofficial export of timber and other precious metals, drugtrafficking, criminal rackets, plunder. (Quoted in Miall 2007:82)

3.3.1 Globalization and Conflict: The conflict situation needs to be analyzed in the backdrop of contemporary seminal events. Post 1945 till about 1990 it was the cold war which provided the frame of reference. Since then the dominant phenomenon of the post cold war world is the so called globalization which has had far reaching influence on all aspects of human life including peace and conflict. The scholars of peace and conflict resolution now have begun to ask what globalization meant to them. Globalization, understood broadly as an accelerator of social change, may act as a catalyst for conflict, aggravating the tensions in any given society and even creating new ones. It may influence the expression of conflict in a number of ways including disturbing local events, providing new resources over which to compete and threatening deeply held values or symbols.

Opinion is sharply divided among scholars of peace and conflict studies as regard the impact of globalization on conflict. Scholars like Attali (1991), Barber (1995), Scholte (1997) etc. have cited case studies to prove the destabilizing impact of

economic and cultural forces, radiating from the west, on local politics and culture in such places as Iran, Sierra Leone or Indonesia among others. Some others believe that this is a one sided view of globalization and conflict and the true relationship is more complex and subtle. For instance, Lerche while conceding that Globalization is often disruptive and inequitable in its effects and that it has posed new challenges for existing public institution suggests that it has also paradoxically, opened avenues for the excluded and the marginalized to organize and protest against " its subordinate and homogenizing force. (1998:47) In order to explore the intensifying interconnectedness which characterized globalization with unintended consequences for both conflict and peace processes, various aspects of globalization having relevance for conflict and peace, need to be discussed in some detail.

Globalization is a complex process. It has several dimensions. Each of its important dimensions political, economic and socio-cultural has important bearing on peace and conflict. They need to be discussed separately in order to analyze this complex process. In its political dimension globalization means that governance which used to be the exclusive prerogative of the government is now a crowded place. The state has eroded giving way to other stake holders like the market, the civil society and international agencies, in the process of governance. Globalization is a reflection of the Neo-liberal political philosophy which became dominant after the crash of communism in the 1990s. The policy prescriptions namely democratization, good governance and civil society constitute the key elements in the neo liberal philosophy. This philosophy seeks to undermine the importance of the state as a protector of the lives of its citizens. Good governance aims to politically manage those affairs of the state which the neoliberal philosophy believes the state cannot handle efficiently. This good governance constitutes those criteria which have been prescribed by the developed donor countries. The formal expression governance has actually come from the World Bank (1992) whose articles of agreement debar it from entertaining political considerations for aid giving. But this digression into the political field appears to have been taken under the

compulsions of neo-liberal ideology which is fundamentally opposed to the institution of welfare state. The more the state can be discredited in this way, the more justified is the devolution of its powers downwards into the private sectors and outwardly into the transactional sectors of the capital. These phenomena are increasingly becoming evident in the Third World societies and are known as localization/decentralization and globalization respectively.

This weakening of the state along with the unleashing of the twin process of localization and globalization has important consequences so far as conflict formation is concerned. The erosion of the state power implies withdrawal of two protective umbrellas- to the individual citizens and to the communities. The first is the protection available to the citizen through the regulations of the state. No doubt these regulations have not disappeared. But in terms of their extent and effectiveness, they have declined, thus leaving the citizen to the mercy of localized power groups. This has resulted in renewed identity with ones primordial groups which having been empowered by peoples support and emboldened by the weakness of the state have started engaging in protracted social conflicts. Thus the proliferation of ethnic conflicts in the 1990s may be attributed to this localizing impact of globalization. The second is the protection built into the traditional environmental rights and rights to knowledge and culture, rights which are often customary, indigenous and not written in law, but which are central to secure livelihood and survival options, especially of marginal groups such as women, tribal, landless etc. The so called resource war being witnessed in increasing number now a days particularly in the less developed countries may be due to this loss of traditional rights of the community. The Maoist violence in India may also be looked at from this angle.

Another offshoot of political globalization which has implication for conflict process is the so called humanitarian intervention. With the collapse and break up of the Soviet Union and emergence of a new world order in which values like democracy,

the rule of law and respect for human rights are supposed to be top priority, the idea of the right or duty of intervention to deal with the so called humanitarian and human rights problems has gained currency. The right or duty of intervention came to public attention for the first time when several western nations took military action against Iraq in April 1991. The operation was presented as a measure to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq who were being harshly oppressed by the Iraqi authorities. In 1992 Operation Hope was carried out in Somalia to put an end to anarchy there. In 1994 France carried out Operation Turquoise in Rwanda, ostensibly to protect the inhabitants from a genocidal war. There have also been interventions of similar nature in Bosnia (1994-95), Albania (1997), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001) etc. The US invasion of Iraq in 2004 was also justified on this ground after the original justification of existence of weapons of mass destruction was proved to be bogus.

Apart from other legal and moral issues, such interventions often aggravate the internal conflict situation in a country by introducing foreign elements into the long established pattern of group relationship. The situation gets destabilized due to which many latent conflicts come out into open and new conflicts are created. American intervention in Iraq is a case in point where group conflicts particularly between the Shias and the Sunnis have worsened resulting in increased violence and more damage to life and property.

Economic globalization It is in fact the economicor market driven dimension of globalization which is its most pronounced aspect. The 'globalization as economics thesis has two versions, one, a relatively benign and the other malevolent. The benign one posits that with the growing complexity and interdependence of world economy there are emerging centers of consumption and production that are no longer bounded by nation states. Financial, human and intellectual capital flows freely from one location to the other. Nation states have little or no control over this movement of capital. This view to a large degree

assumes globalization to be natural and inevitable process having unintended but generally positive consequences. The malevolent version of globalization as economics sees technological changes and capital mobility as producing a number of undesirable effects. Instead of globalization with a human face, grotesque inequalities have over shadowed world trade. The world economy is, in some respects, polarizing more than it is converging.

The development of a global economy has not been matched by the development of a global society. The basic unit for social and political life remains the nation-state. International law and international institutions are not strong enough to prevent war or large scale abuse of human rights in individual countries where Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are operating and they can exploit the situation for their profit motives. They can also exploit the bio-diversity and environment, ruining both in the long run. Global financial markets being largely beyond the control of national or international authorities, the TNCs and financial markets have grown so very powerful that they can impinge upon human rights of individuals in the society and sovereignty of the state in actual practice.

No doubt the States remain sovereign. They wield legal powers that no individual or corporation can possess. They can interfere in the economy but they are increasingly being subjected to the forces of global competition. If a government imposes conditions that are unfavourable to the capital, capital will seek to escape. Conversely, if a government keeps down wages, permits child labour, bonded labour, cheap prison labour etc., it can foster the accumulation of capital both for TNCs as well as for the rulers of the country.

Globalization has, thus, led to the weakening of state and rendered the relationship between the community, the state and the corporation totally fluid. It has

entrenched the powers and widened the freedom of corporations eroding the powers and freedoms of people in their diverse community settings. Social scientists have begun to talk of reinventing government because the State is turning more one-sided in representing corporate interests and failing to represent citizen and community interest.

Seen from this perspective, globalization is the latest stage in the development of capitalism, a stage in which freely moving capital working through multi-national corporations has succeeded in imposing its priorities on nation states and local populations. In reality, some peoples, localities or institutions are more affected by globalizing forces than others some areas are benefited economically, others are not; certain groups feel invaded by alien socio-cultural norms and forms, others may be untouched. The great divide between those benefiting from globalization and those hurting from it accentuates the possibilities for conflict. The case of conflict diamonds is an excellent illustration of how markets can have a negative impact on local conflicts. Louis Goreux (2001) shows how diamonds are used to found military operation. The global market in diamond, interacting with global arms trade has impacted local conditions in Angola and Sierra Leone. In both nations the local conflicts have been fed and new dynamics introduced.

According to Held and others (2000), globalization creates new spatial organisations and social relations defined in terms of four key factors:

Extensity: It is the stretching of social, political and economic activities across frontiers and boarders. An event in one region has impacts elsewhere. Intensity: It is more than occasional interconnectedness, as it refers to growing number of interconnections. Velocity: It is the speed of interactions. Thus not only the rate at which interconnectedness is increasing, but time taken to establish connection is constantly shrinking.

Impact: It is the deepening of extensity, intensity and velocity. Distant events have greater local consequences.

As globalization accelerates change along all four vectors, new regional and global networks of activity, interaction and the use of power come into being in each instance creating new sets of 'winners' and 'losers'.

To conclude, global discourse and ideologies of democratization, decentralization and marketization can act to catalyze conflict in variety of settings. Global markets provide underfunded and poor groups the financial means to purchase weapons. These global markets actually help destabilize local conditions as factions seek to exploit natural resources. Marketization and democratization tend to redistribute wealth and political influence in ways that widens the gulf and increases the polarization among communities. Globalization has also introduced ideological themes into local politics. When acted upon and implemented through policy, these themes such as marketization and democratization have triggerred ethnic or religious conflict as groups vie for power and influence in a changing environment.

Thus the much talked about global compression of time and space occurs as much in conflict settings as in other. They make predicting the course of conflict more complex. One cannot simply state that globalization will either escalate or deescalate conflict. Rather, the manner in which global and local interact must be considered on a case by case basis. Thus the issue remains of whether globalization is simply a double edged weapon impacting conflict escalation and de-escalation more or less evenly or whether it tends to foster more conflict than it resolves. This is an important question with far reaching implications for global discourse.

3.3.2 Ethnic Conflicts and Identity Wars The most remarkable manifestation of post cold war conflict, both intra-state and interstate is ethnic conflict or identity wars. Ethnicity is a sense of common identity consisting of the subjective, symbolic or emblematic use by a group of people in order to differentiate themselves from other groups. This has always been a powerful tool for both co-operation and conflict. The powerful influence of territorial nationalism consolidated for various reasons to expand imperialism, to fight imperialism, to build a modern nation state or to effectively participate in various international conglomerates of nation states- could, till recently, effectively suppress the ethnic identity and aspiration of ethnic groups. But the end of the cold war created a sort of vacuity wherein ethnicity reasserted itself heralded first in the ex-Soviet nationalities and the East European states producing conflict and violence within the states and across the border.

Crawford Young (1993) has divided accounts of ethnic identity into three categories, primordial accounts, instrumentalist ones and the constructivist ones. According to the primordial account group identity is frequently marked on the body either naturally as racial characteristics or carved on by circumcision or other artificial processes. Common language and common religion shapes values and identity and offers a source of individual pride. Ethnic loyalty, by this logic taps some fundamental biological drives such as defence of kin and territoriality. It is these mutually reinforcing bonds which gives ethnicity its power. The instrumentalist accounts emphasize the role and motivation of ethnic leaders as political actors. As Robert Bates and Donald Rothchild point out ethnic conflicts in Africa are often essentially conflicts between ethnically defined patron client networks over economic goods distributed by the state. (Quoted in Kaufman, 2000: 4) Elites who thus define ethnic groups and group interests may be using ethnicity instrumentally in pursuit of their own personal interests. The constructivist approach believes that an ethnic groups shared history and felt kinship ties are usually fictitious. It is the intellectuals or the cultural

entrepreneurs who construct ethnic identity. As Ernst Renan famously put it Getting its history wrong is a part of being a nation. (Quoted in Kaufman 2000: 4) An integrative view of all the three accounts is that which identifies the powerful forces that drive an ethnic group.

In the post imperial and post colonial phase, ideology of nationalism was articulated to legitimize the preeminence of the state as against competing loyalties. Most of the modern wars had been the result of the evolution of one kind of political organization, the empire, into another form, the nation-state. This process had gone on for well over 300 years and it has not run its full course. But during this phase of the evolution of the nation-state, the emphasis was on territorial nation-state in preference to ethno-nationalism. The ideology of 'territorial nationalism' was articulated to integrate ethnically diverse people. In this process, the post-imperialist and postcolonial territorial boundaries were the focus of legitimization. However, the ideology of nationalism failed to integrate ethnically diverse people and legitimacy of the territorial nation-state came to be increasingly questioned. Instead, the concept of ethnically homogeneous nation-state gained wider acceptance and lies at the root of intra-national and international conflicts today.

The upsurge in ethno-nationalism in recent decades in world over producing conflict and violence within the states and across the borders is a fact too serious to be ignored. In fact, of the on going major conflicts in the world over majority of these are on ethnic lines. Ted Gurr in his study in 1993 singled out 233 minority ethnic groups who are at 'risk' which means that they are actually or potentially engaged in interethnic conflict. Gurr points out that out of 127 countries that he examined 75 percent had at least one and many had more, highly politicized minorities. Significantly no particular classification of state has proven immune to this phenomenon. Affiliated countries are old (the UK) as well as new (Bangladesh), large (the Soviet Union) as well as small (Fiji), rich (Canada) as well poor (Pakistan), authoritarian (Sudan) as well as democratic

(Belgium), Marxist Leninist (China) as well as militantly anti-Marxist (Turkey), predominantly Buddhist (Burma), Christian (Spain), Muslim (Iraq), Hindu (India) and Judaic (Israel). Ethnic consciousness and conflict are pervasive around the world. The old paradigm that predicted that factors inherent in modernization including economic development, urbanization, growing rates of literary and education as well as advancement in science and technology would inevitably lead to the demise of the role of ethnicity, religion or culture in politics; stands changed. There was a kind of consensus amongst the sociological theorists of modernization and the Marxists that ethnic competition belongs to the pre-modern era, in so far as it persists, it is an irrational form of behaviour or a form of false consciousness. The political theorists of nation-building also view ethnic ties as transitory in nature and argued that forces of modernization and social mobilization would lead to assimilation of distinct identities in the process of nation-building. Even liberal thinking in political science hinges upon the argument that as mankind moved from a primitive, tribal stage of social organization to a complex industrial and post-industrial structure, the primordial ties of religion, language, ethnicity and race would gradually but inexorably lose their hold and disappear. To begin with there was such developments and modernization that brought in uniformity. But on the course of time it threw up its own contradictions and divergent elements of which national minorities were a principal expression, both in the developed as well as in developing societies.

In fact, the process of modernization has contributed to the growth of ethnic identity in a number of ways. This crucial connect between modernization/ industrialization and conflict both intra-state and interstate has been brought out very succinctly by Rajni Kothari when he writes:

Industrialization was supposed to bring about an end to the condition of scarcity as a whole; in fact it has made even basic existence of life more scarce and inaccessible for an increasing number of human beings. Modern education was supposed to lead to continuous progress and enlightenment for all and with that

a greater equality among men and women; in fact it has produced a world dominated by experts and bureaucrats and technocrats and one in which the ordinary human being feels increasingly powerless and manipulated by forces beyond his control. Similarly modern communication and transportation were supposed to have produced a small world in which the fruits of knowledge and development in any part of the world could became available to all the others; in fact modern communication and fast moving transportation have produced a world in which a few metropolitan centers are soaking up much of the worlds resources and depriving the other regions of whatever comforts, skills and local resources they had, at one time, enjoyed. (Kothari, 1975:134)

3.4 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS The above discussion on the changing nature of conflict shows that there can be no overarching theory of conflict. Study of conflict has to be contextualized in the sense that changing situation and circumstance may completely change the nature of conflict. Hence, conflict resolution strategies have to take into account this dynamics of conflict formation in order to be viable and effective.

There is another lesson to be learnt from this dynamic nature of conflict particularly for the theory and practice of conflict resolution. The momentum with which the nature of conflict has changed, it would be very difficult to devise ways and means to deal with them. A particular technique of conflict resolution will soon get outdated with the change in the nature of conflict. Hence it is necessary to study deep into the fundamental causes of human conflict which remain more or less unchanged even when the overt conflict manifestation undergoes change. What is required therefore is a theory of conflict which is rooted in human nature and a corresponding conflict resolution technique which is holistic and addresses the root cause(s). In this context, the Gandhian theory of conflict and its resolution assumes significance.

CHAPTER: 4

Conflict Resolution Paradigms: Liberal And Marxian

CHAPTER 4
CONFLICT RESOLUTION PARADIGMS: LIBERAL AND MARXIAN
4.0 INTRODUCTION In the study of conflict a whole range of theoretical perspectives can be identified although many of the perspectives share similar ontological and epistemological assumptions about conflict that originate from dominant paradigms in conflict theory. Each paradigm presents a particular world view and understanding of conflict, actor, strategy, change and how to resolve conflict. The objective of this chapter is to survey a wide range of theoretical perspectives on how to deal with conflict. Scholars differ on whether conflict should be managed, resolved or transformed. There are the so called Liberal and Marxian paradigms of conflict and its resolution. The objective of this discussion is to prove that the Gandhian paradigm which has been dealt with in the next chapter does not neatly fit into any of the established one and that while sharing some points of similarity with the established theories, its uniqueness is obvious enough to warrant a critical evaluation as a separate theoretical model.

Human beings have been learning about conflict since its origin as a species. This knowledge is spread across humanity. It resides wherever humans live, work and play. It is used continuously in everyday life, in every society. It is passed down from generation to generation. It is also created within generations as humans learn better how to regulate their interaction with minimal cost. Since Platos Republic and Aristotles Politics, the dependence of just conflict resolution on adversary reasoning and self imposed rules has remained the central theme of legal philosophy. Plato and Aristotle defined social justice as harmony under

the governance of reason and perceived psychological and social conflicts as evils. But modern legal, political and economic theories acknowledge the inevitability and normality of conflict and the impossibility of substantive harmony in antagonistic societies. Respect for individual freedom entails that internal and social conflicts are not necessarily signs of vice. Respect for the moral norm of protecting equal freedoms further implies that prevention and settlement of disputes should focus not only on the rights and interest of the parties to the dispute, but should remain consistent with the progressive extension of democratic peace based on universalized rules of justice.

4.1 CONFLICT STUDIES: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE As a defined field of study, conflict resolution started in the 1950s and 1960s. This was at the height of cold war. A very large part of human energy and world resources were devoted to this conflict. The arms race particularly the nuclear race that accompanied it seemed to threaten human survival. Some of the most sensible critics (Einstein, Russell, Huxley, Toynbee etc.) during the fifties and the sixties seemed to be possessed by this one single dimension of threat to humanity. During those years a group of pioneers from different disciplines saw the value of studying conflict as a general phenomenon with similar properties whether it occurs in international relations, domestic politics, industrial relations, community, families or between individuals. They saw the potential of applying approaches that was evolving in industrial relations and community mediation settings to conflict in general including civil and international conflicts.

In North America and Europe research centers were established to develop these new ideas. Since they confronted the traditional theories of conflict resolution, they were not taken very seriously in the initial years. By the by the new ideas attracted interest and the field began to grow and spread. Scholarly journals in conflict resolution were created. Institutions to study the field were established and their number rapidly increased. The field developed its own subdivisions with different groups studying international wars, internal conflicts, social or group conflicts, inter and intra personal

conflicts etc. The approaches ranged from negotiation and mediation to experimental games.

By the 1980s these new ideas on conflict resolution were being applied to real time conflict and were making impacts. In South Africa, for example, the Center for Inter Group Studies was applying the approaches that had emerged in the filed to the racial confrontation between the blacks and the whites. It showed impressive results. In the Middle East, peace process was getting underway in which negotiators from both sides had gained experience of each other and of conflict resolution through problem solving workshops. In Northern Ireland, groups inspired by the new approach had setup community relation initiatives that were not only reaching across community divides but also becoming an accepted responsibility of local government. In war torn regions of Africa and South East Asia, development workers and humanitarian agencies were seeing the need to take account of conflict and conflict resolution as an integral part of their activities.

The end of the Cold War heralded a change in the nature of conflict as discussed in the previous chapter. With it also changed the climate of conflict resolution. The obliteration of one super power ended the super power rivalry. The military and ideological conflict between them which had generated a number of regional conflicts across the globe also lost their steam and started fading away. Some long standing conflicts in Southern Africa, East Asia and Central America were nearing solutions. The United Nations which had been rendered almost defunct by cold war politics was getting revitalized and had started playing its designated role of peace making and peace enforcing in these part of the world.

The centrifugal forces unleashed as a result of the end of a regimented cold war, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the localizing tendencies of globalization- all these contributed to the rise of a new kind of conflict which was always there but had

remained suppressed by the force of centralized state apparatus. These are the internal conflicts, the ethnic conflicts, the conflicts of secession etc. The inter-state conflicts which had dominated the international system since the treaty of Westphalia started to come down both in number and impact. The new wars, at their extreme witnessed the return of mercenary armies and underpaid militias which prayed on civilian population in a manner reminiscent of medieval times.

The conflict resolution scholars and practitioners started adapting them selves to this new climate. A kind of cross fertilization of ideas and efforts took place with thinkers from various disciplines as well as practitioners from a host of fields started to combine their efforts. International organizations setup conflict resolution mechanisms and conflict prevention centers. Overseas development ministries in several countries setup conflict units and began funding conflict prevention and resolution initiatives on a significant scale. Regional organizations such as the Organization of African Unity (named now as the African Union) did the same. A former President of the United states Jimmy Carter became one of the most active leaders associating him self with conflict resolution at non governmental level. Also the Nyerere Foundation was established with comparable aim for Africa.

4.2 THE LIBERAL PARADIGM OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION There are three broad approaches to the study of conflict- namely, conflict management, conflict resolution and conflict transformation. These three may be broadly grouped

under the Liberal paradigm. These approaches have divergent and contrasting analytical frameworks. They highlight distinct understandings of the origin and processes of conflict. But it should be made clear that these three categories are purely theoretical and simplified. Also they do not cover the whole field of conflict research. There are also semantic confusion within conflict research itself regarding the interchangeable use

of some of these concepts, such as between resolution and settlement. There are certain theoretical perspectives which may overlap all three approaches.

Each of these approaches- conflict management, conflict resolution and conflict transformation- suggests a progressively larger and more ambitious scope of action. Conflict management aims to regulate and contain conflict, but not necessarily to end it. Conflict resolution aims to resolve the issue of incompatibility that divides the parties. Conflict transformation goes further inasmuch as it aims for a change in the fundamental relationships, social structure and contextual conditions that gave rise to conflict in the first place.

All the three approaches to conflict are also identified with three broad schools of thought in social science research- conflict management with the Realism, conflict resolution with the Idealism and conflict transformation with Radicalism/Structuralism. In order to appreciate the nuances in these approaches and also to make a comparative assessment of these paradigms with the Gandhian paradigm, a detailed discussion of these three approaches is necessary.

4.2.1 Conflict Management: The Realist Approach Conflict Management is the positive and constructive handling of difference and divergence. Rather than advocating methods for removing conflict, it addresses the more realistic question of managing conflict; how to deal with it in a constructive way, how to bring opposing sides together in a cooperative process how to design a practical, achievable cooperative system for the constructive management of differences.

Conflict management is also referred to as a situation where conflict is a deliberate personal social and organizational tool used by capable politicians and other social engineers. It is directed towards the conflict behaviour and can be referred to as behaviour control. One may try to limit behaviour so that only somebody will use some means of destruction against somebody, but not total annihilation or elimination of a

party to conflict. Another way of behaviour control is by means of explicit codes e.g., general conventions on warfare.

The perspective of conflict management is mostly based on the world view of Realism owing to its Hobbesian world view. Politics, according to the Realists, is characterized by power struggle which originate in objective laws with roots in the continual aggressive nature of human beings. "The drives to live, to propagate and to dominate in particular are common to all men.The tendency to dominate, in particular is an element of all human associations."(Morgenthau, quoted in Groom, 1988:98) Conflict management is based on the ontological assumption that power politics are inherent in man and that conflict cannot therefore be ended. Thus it attempts to stop direct violence by agreements that provide the basis for some kind or order and stability.

According to the Realist conceptions when resources are objectively scarce the course of conflict is limited to a few possible outcomes. An important variable in Realist thinking is power. If there are significant imbalances of power between the parties then one party yields to the other-the weaker to the stronger. This can occur following some overt test of strength (e.g. a war) or as a result of preemptive actionexit or surrender- by the weaker party. If the power of the two parties is more evenly balanced, the Realist thinking expects some sort of a negotiation to occur. The negotiation according to Bloomfield (1997) may be either competitive or distributive or integrative in nature. In case of competitive bargaining, the conflicting parties attempt to influence each other by using issue based leverage and manipulative strategic such as coercion, threats, sticks and carrots etc. Through negotiations and bargaining,

settlement can be achieved, and if it involves coercion, manipulation, power bargaining and compromise, then it is an accepted fact of reality on the path to success. (Bloomfield, 1997:75) In case of distributive bargaining, resources are shared at some minimal level of mutual satisfaction. A more advanced form of negotiation is

integrative. Alternatively in place of bargaining both parties may seek to gain power advantage through forming alliances with other parties. It entails integrative problem solving, where the parties maximize their joint gain rather than settle for minimizing the respective losses. The integrative outcome in its purest from is best modelled in some forms of game theory.

In the 1950s Realism was the predominant paradigm in the international relations theory, partly as a reaction to inter-war political idealism and to the horrors of the Second World War. From the Realist perspective international politics should be analyzed as they were rather than as they might be. So theorizing on interstate relations should be based on objective laws of international politics (Morgenthau 1983:4). In a post war context and with an emerging cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, the field of strategic and conflict studies was firmly established. With the looming risk of nuclear war many of these studies focused, often with game theory approaches, on how to cope with international crisis, coercion, threat perception, arms race etc. The conflict management approach of the Realists has some glaring limitations. A first one is its failure to terminate the conflict. As Galtung points out, On the contrary it may protract the conflict indefinitely and turn attention away from the efforts to solve it, quite apart from the fact that the long term losses may by far outweigh those incurred by a more drastic but brief confrontation. (1965: 350)

Another weakness of this approach is that it does not address the underlying causes of conflict. As a consequence, conflict settlement such as agreement to end violence can be imposed on adversaries by an outside actor, frequently a great power or super power. This approach is therefore not based on subjective attitude per se but on objective issues and the behaviour of the adversaries.

A major weakness of the conflict management approach is that mostly the perspective concentrates on inter-state conflicts and therefore is totally inadequate to address the intra-state conflicts which have become the dominant level of conflict formation since at least 1970s and 1980s. These new forms of conflicts are mostly asymmetrical conflicts and are characterized by strongly held subjective images about each other. This very often precludes negotiation, a dominant method of conflict settlement prescribed by the Realists. Even where negotiations are held and agreements reached, the implementation of agreements remains problematic.

A cost benefit calculation, assuming interests as given and states as unitary actors, is based on a rational discourse that considers states as the major players in world politics. Other significant aspects, such as culture, identity and nonstate actors tend to be ignored in this approach. (Aggestam, 1999:20)

4.2.2. Conflict Resolution: The Idealist Approach Just as Realism was a reaction to political idealism, the approach of conflict resolution emerged during the 1970s as a response to the power-political framework in the ontological understanding of human beings and conflict. This model assumes that functional harmony is the natural state and conflict is an aberrant and irrational condition which is dysfunctional. It also assumes that the origins of conflict lie in localized misunderstanding, ignorance and disagreements. Ending conflict is indeed possible, according to this school, if one is only directing attention to the basic needs of the conflicting parties such as security, identity, autonomy, dignity etc. (Human Need Theory, Burton, 1990). These fundamental needs cannot be compromised or bargained over in a competitive process. Rather they should be addressed within an analytical supportive framework using problem solving approaches. conflict resolution: As Mitchell points out

involves a contention that an acceptable and durable resolution to the issues in a particular conflict between adversaries has been discovered- or mutually created- by the parties themselves, possibly with some assistance from the third parties or possibly through their own efforts and some times with come local assistance from insiders partials. (2002:2)

Galtung explains conflict resolution as:

.a process that leads to the action system to a statewhich must no longer have two or more incompatible goal states. There are many ways in which this can be brought about, ranging from complete agreement on one of the conflicting goal states or some compromise, to total annihilation of one of the parties to the conflict (in the inter-system case) and suppression of one of the parties (in the intra-system case). Thus the 'solution' may involve the elimination of one of the parties to the conflict. What is characteristic of the 'solution' is that there is no more incompatibility. Thus the solution is a state of the action-system and resolution is the process that, by intent or accident, leads to a solution. ( 1965: 351)

The conflict resolution model developed by these western scholars and practitioners assumes that the origin of conflict lie in localized misunderstanding, ignorance and this disagreement that may then lead to war. Conflict resolving interventions are intended to remove misunderstandings and restore functional harmony through a number of strategies. Tom Woodhouse (1999) describes them as follows:

Firstly, the use of multi-track diplomacy to energize a peace process through the efforts of international, regional, national and local actors. The end goal of the peace process is a strong plural civil society.

Secondly, plural institutions are encouraged by small scale resource distribution to encourage cooperation on joint projects, by the promotion of multicultural projects and so on.

Thirdly, the use of psychological interventions directed towards reestablishing confidence and trust between groups. These interventions occur through conferences, workshops and programmes of training in conflict resolution skills designed to provide psychological and interpersonal tools for defusing potentially tense situation.

By these strategies the conflicting parties may, through a joint analysis and a non-confrontational process, come to redefine their perceptions and relationship by a mutual recognition of each sides basic needs. Mutual recognition and change of perceptions promote mutual trust and enhance the changes of locating integrative solutions to conflict. (Fisher,1999) By promoting condition for cooperative relationships, the approach acts as conflict prevention since satisfaction of human needs that are universal must be the ultimate goal of survivable societies. (Burton, 1993:60)

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victors of the cold war that is, the western countries led by the United States and the international agencies supported by them set about a programme of international conflict resolution. These programmes followed processes and rules made in the image of these victorious institutions.

The processes and rules of the post cold war conflict resolution approach were quite different from those that guided cold war policy which gave privileged place in conflict resolution to sovereign states and to the territorial integrity and nonintervention norms which were associated with them. Post cold war the inviolability of state sovereignty was challenged. Democratic values and respect for human rights modelled after the values of western liberal democracy took the center stage. Opposition groups claiming to be victims of state repression could be admitted to the peace making process on terms broadly equal to state authorities. Following this change in the standing of conflict parties a new model of conflict resolution was developed. This new model had broadly two variants. In one, the parties negotiated on agreed constitution (based on multiparty democracy and respect for human rights) followed by election under international supervision. This strategy was applied in Angola and Mozambique in the early 1990s. In the second variant a provisional coalition government is formed to introduce a series of confidence building measures (e.g., disarmament under international supervision) which would make it possible to agree to

a new constitution and then to have multiparty election again under international supervision. This model was attempted in Somalia and Liberia. In Rwanda, as Christopher Clapham points out, it was applied with disastrous consequences. Extremist parties who were committed to an ideology of Hutu exclusivity used the Angola peace process which was being managed by the international community, as a cover and during this phase they effectively organized the genocide that occurred in April 1994. (Clapham,1998)

When the conflict resolution approach with operational strategies such as problem solving workshops, third party interventions, mediation, peace-keeping and peace-enforcement operations, humanitarian interventions etc. were yielding results and gradually gaining acceptance, some developments took place which exposed the weak links in these mechanisms. First, there were the difficulties that international interventions encountered in chaotic war zones such as Bosnia (1991-95) and Somalia (1992-93). It was pointed out that the weakening of the state under the impact of globalization and the availability of cheap weaponry and the generation of shadow economies by war lord insurgences (David Shearer, 1997) made these conflicts self perpetuating and profitable. Secondly, the Oslo peace process to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which had been hailed as the example of classic conflict resolution approaches; failed with the intifada (uprising) in 2000 and that dealt a body blow to the practice of conflict resolution. Thirdly, the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11th September 2001 and the events that followed resulted in a paradigm shift. It was increasingly becoming clear that conflict resolution strategies had little answer to the lethal combination of rogue states, globalized crime, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the fanatical ideologies of international terrorism.

Behind these political challenges lay more precisely focused international challenges. If originally resolution used to be equated with search for positive peace, critics have denounced the failure of most third party interventions associated with

conflict resolution traditions to carry through their aim of integrative or transformational outcomes. (Rupesinghe 1995: 74) Because such conflict resolution approaches do not use the language of justice (Francis 2002:25) they are ultimately dubbed as settlement oriented. One may classify the critics of conflict resolution approach broadly corresponding to three streams of thought: the Realists, the Marxists and the cultural pluralists.

The Realist criticism of conflict resolution may be seen in the position taken by two prominent peace researchers- David Shearer (1997) and Christopher Clapham (1998). Shearer, reflecting on conflicts in Sierra Leone questions whether the consensus promoting strategy based on impartial mediation and negotiation by the international community is appropriate at all particularly in situations of warlord insurgencies or clan based criminal mafias driven by greed rather than grievance. He believes that the conventional western policy of military intervention targeted at promoting victory by one side or another in a civil war may need to be better understood. Indeed, he holds pursuit of mediated settlements and the bringing in of humanitarian aid can have the unintended effect of prolonging the conflict. He believes that conventional western policy of military action targeted at victory by one side or another may be more effective as demonstrated in Bosnia in 1995.

Clapham bases his argument on the civil war in Rwanda in the early 1990s. He raises a profound question about the western assumption built into the model. This assumption believes that conflict parties share a common value framework within which differences can be negotiated. The viability of negotiated solutions to civil wars rests on this assumption. In his study of Rwanda, he shows how this idea was fundamentally misconceived. According to him, even in western culture, historically most major conflicts from the 16th century onwards were fought to a conclusion, either with the comprehensive victory of one party or with a compromise solution because of mutual exhaustion resulting from long drawn out continuation of conflict.

Clapham challenges another assumption of the conflict resolution perspective that mediation is inherently a good thing because it is supposed to be neutral with humanitarian concerns. From the Rwandan example he shows that mediators are not always neutral bystanders. In Rwanda they may have created conditions which allowed extremist groups to organize genocide, while they (the mediators) were pursuing a negotiated settlement to which the Hutu extremists would not have subscribed. Eventually the war in Rwanda was ended not by the three and half years of international mediation, but by the military victory of the RPF. (Clapham 1998:203) The above positions are a variant of the traditional realist criticism of conflict resolution in which politics is seen as a struggle for power between antagonistic and irreconcilable groups with power and coercion as the ultimate currency and soft power approaches of conflict resolution dismissed as ineffective and dangerous.

The Marxist position is exemplified by critics like Mark Duefield. Duefield in his paper Evaluating Social Conflict (1997) argues that rather than being an aberrant, irrational and non-productive phenomenon contemporary international wars may represent the emergence of entirely new types of social formation adapted for survival on the margins of global economy. (Duefield 1997:100) Instead of recognizing this, the conflict resolution approach treats these wars as local symptoms of local failures and therefore expects behavioural and attitudinal change in those countries.

This is a variant of the traditional Marxist criticism which sees liberal conflict resolution as nave and theoretically uncritical since it attempts to reconcile interests that should not be reconciled, fails to take sides in unequal and unjust struggles and lacks an analysis within a properly global perspective of the forces of exploitation and oppression. It holds that the conflict resolution approach stresses human development paradigm to the neglect of more fundamental issues like inequality, economic growth and resource distribution. It considers the western intervention together with aid and

human development programme as a new form of imperialism where "western humanitarian and liberal democratic discourses have the effect of disqualifying local political projects as inadequate or lacking. In Africa, NGOs have undermined local capabilities and have made matters worse. (Duffield, 1997: 98) Fischer (2006) exposes in detail the wide spread dependency syndrome which deprived Bosnian society from the ownership of its peace building process. The massive international aid and recovery programmes put in place in the immediate post war phase have led the locals to take for granted that support from abroad will be provided indefinitely and people expect the international community to assume responsibility for improving conditions in Bosnia. (Fischer, 2006:446) A third set of critics who may be called cultural pluralists is exemplified in critique of Western conflict resolution from a non western perspective. They question some of the hidden assumptions in the western approach to conflict resolution from a non-Western perspective and suggest that they are not applicable universally. Abdul Aziz Said and Nathan C. Funk (2002) point out the fundamental difference in approach between the western and the Islamic tradition.

Where the western approach celebrated human self-determination, the Islamic perspectives underscores divine purpose and human exertion. While the western approach points to political pluralism, individual rights and consumerism as the substance of peace; the Islamic perspective affirms cultural pluralism, communal solidarity, social justice and faith. (Aziz and Funk, 2002: 43)

According to these critics western conflict resolution perspective traditionally reflected the cultural outlook of pragmatic individualism and a style of instrumental problem- solving. They criticize it as an engineering approach that neglects relationships while focusing on isolated issues or on variables that can be manipulated mechanistically. In contrast, the non-western approach particularly prevalent in traditional societies, frame conflicts as matters of communal and not just of individual concern and underscores the importance of repairing and maintaining social

relationships. Strong emphasis is placed on personal and group identity and on individual and collective responsibility for wrong doing. Conflict resolution mechanisms are legitimized and guaranteed by communal leaders and elders who facilitate a process of reconciliation. The importance of cultural relevance and sensitivity within conflict resolution theory has emerged partly as a result of field experience and partly as a theoretical critique to earlier conflict resolution theory where local culture was given marginal importance.

Paul Lederach (1995), a scholar practitioner has observed substantial difference between contemporary western conflict resolution approaches and traditional Latin American approaches that are derived from indigenous culture and embedded in communal realities. On the basis of his work in Central Asia (Nicaragua) Lederach concludes that insider partial mediators who are by definition well versed in local cultural meanings and expectations and often have vested interests in conflict

outcomes, have better chances of making important contributions than mediators who are disinterested, impartial outsiders.

In the western model the interveners are only connected to the disputants when their mediator role is being played and the intervener works hard to establish neutrality. To illustrate this Wehr and Lederach (1991) explain the 'Confianza Model' in Central America where neutrality is not the primary determinant, but the legitimacy to act is invested through a personal, trusting relationship, which is often someone known to both parties, rather than in a functionary role as in the western model. The difference between the role of insider partial intervener as in the Confianza Model and the role of outsider-neutral as in the western model is important. Unlike the outsider neutral chosen for the absence of connection with the disputants, the insider partial is selected precisely for positive connection and attributes. (Wehr and Lederach, 1991:93)

The list of criticisms against conflict resolution approach has been summarized by Bush and Folger (1994) when they argue that conflict resolution has become a term associated with meaningful search for an agreement that is satisfactory not merely to the adversaries but also to the third party and the latent interests they represent. They neatly term this as a win-win solution. Commitment to social change and reform-mediation as a social movement- has been abandoned in favour of the search for atomized processes seeking agreements that provide superficial solutions to individual problems confronted in isolation.

At its start in the 1960s, the mediation movement was indeed considered capable of helping to change the conditions that fuelled the disorder of that decade.Today it seems that few think of the mediation movement as even relevant to the problems of disempowerment, division and alienation that lie at the heart of social tragedies (Bush and Folger 1994:51)

In the course of a theoretical critique, Avruch and Black (1991) drawing on perspectives from Anthropology have criticized John Burtons universal theory. They have argued for better recognition of the issue of culture in the theory and practice of conflict resolution. They suggest that the ethno-conflict theories derived from locally constructed common-sense views of conflict and ethno-praxis i.e., techniques and customs for dealing with conflict derived from these understanding, need to be developed and incorporated into the construction of general theory.

4.2.3 Conflict Transformation: The Structuralist Approach The latest approach to deal with conflict is called conflict transformation which shares some epistemological assumptions with the conflict resolution approach but diverges ontologically because of its emphasis on structures as causes of conflict. This is why the group of thinkers advocating this approach is broadly classified into the structuralist school. Johan Galtung is a prominent proponent of this school and recently Lederach, Rupsinghe, Varynen etc. have also adopted this approach with less abstract and more pragmatic understanding.

The conflict transformation terminology has emerged in reaction to a dissatisfaction with the
growing use of the term (conflict) resolution to stand for almost anything short of out right victory, defeat and revenge as an outcome, as well as for many processes involving overt violence (bombing for peace) or covert coercion (economic sanction to obtain parties acquiescence to a dictated settlement) as resolution methods. (Mitchell, 2002:1)

In short, the concept of transformation has emerged because of the corruption of the conception of resolution in the sense that the latter is employed indiscriminately to stand for what previously would have been termed managed outcomes and strategies and would fall clearly in the category of what David Bloomfield characterizes as settlement approaches. (Bloomfield 1997)

Because of these short-comings in the conflict resolution approach it came under scrutiny from ideas generated by the literature of critical social theory and from field workers in both the UN system and in humanitarian agencies of various kinds. In particular, exponents working within the tradition of conflict resolution wished, as practitioner-scholars, to strengthen its concepts and practices and learned from experiences and perspectives coming from diverse fields such as participatory community development, non-violent peace advocacy groups and grassroots peace action campaigns. There has also been enriching contributions from academic fields such as anthropology and development analysis.

The conflict transformation approach has some fundamental disagreements with the conflict resolution approach. Firstly, unlike the conflict resolution belief, the conflict transformation holds that conflict can never actually be ended. Kumar Rupesinghe argues that the notion of being able to resolve them once and for all has been superseded by an understanding that such dynamic and deep rooted processes call for dynamic and sustained responses (Rupesinghe, 1995). A similar view has been shared

by Johan Galtung who states categorically that conflicts are generally notsolvedwhat survives after a conflict has disappeared from the agenda is conflict energy reproduced and produced by the conflict. Then energy does not die It attaches itself to one or more conflict, possibly also the old one. (Galtung 1995:53). Thus the idea of transformation does not suggest that conflict can either be eliminated or controlled. It rather points descriptively towards its inherent dialectical nature. Social conflict is a phenomenon of human creation, lodged naturally in relationships. (Ledcrach 1995:17) Holism is stressed and attention is directed towards how conflicts may transform into, rather than end in, something non-destructive. Such an approach therefore, focuses on post agreement phases, for example peace and institution building and long-term processes of reconciliation and forgiveness.

Secondly while the conflict resolution perspective insists on conflict deescalation as the first priority, the conflict transformation theory envisions conflict as an ecology that is relationally dynamic with ebb (conflict de-escalation to pursue constructive change) and flow (conflict escalation to pursue constructive change). (Lederach, 2003: 33)

Thirdly resolution tends to deal with conflicts by operating at the level of official efforts (track-I) dealing with decision making elites or at the most influential opinion makers. Transformation approach believes that the process have to take place at all levels including the very grassroots.

Fourthly, while resolution has a tendency to concentrate upon immediate or short term issues, transformation focuses more on the aftermath i.e. the residues of conflict like traumas, fears, hurts and hatreds which if not properly addressed will ensure that even after the conflict in question has been resolved subsequent conflicts will be prosecuted in spirit of intransigence if not revenge.

A basic difference between resolution and transformation revolve around a conservation /change axis. The resolution approach-mediation conciliation, negotiationstarts from an acceptance of a given political and socio-economic status quo, which may need some minor changes but are broadly acceptable and within this system the solution to the conflict could and should be found. But the transformation approach starts from the premise that there is nothing sacred about the status quo. In fact it believes that the existing system is probably the source of the conflict and hence need fundamental changes to bring about a satisfactory solution the conflict. So while resolution is statusquoist, transformation is radical in its approach to the existing system.

This shifting of focus from resolution to transformation has led to clear understanding in three areas. Firstly, effective intervention in conflict areas particularly in embedded cultures and economics of violence faces more obstacles than originally assumed by the resolution scholars and practitioners. In these cases simple one dimensional interventions whether by traditional mediators or peace keepers are unlikely to produce comprehensive solutions. Secondly, the significance of post-conflict peace building through understanding, structural changes and long-term development frameworks in order to erode cultures of violence and make the peace process sustainable, needs to be understood. Thirdly, what is known as peace building from below, the significance of local actors and of the importance of local knowledge and wisdom has to be given greater recognition.

The transformation school or the structuralists as they are called believe that conflicts and contradictions arise because of structural violence affected by the social elite or social top dogs on the rest of social strata or the social underdogs. The dynamics of changes in conflict are primarily understood from a holistic perspective that emphasizes deep rooted structures such as patriarchy, racism and capitalism as causes of human behaviour. It implies the need for major changes in the socio-political and

economic systems from which the conflict originated. This has been put very clearly by Juha Auvinen and Timo Kirimaki when they argue:

The philosophy of conflict transformation approach is that in conflicts there are causes or reasons more fundamental than are expressed on the level of disputes. Often conflicts are structurally caused by economic, political, identitive, discursive and other structures which then give rise to concrete disputes.(Quoted in Mitchell, 2002: 8-9)

In conflict transformation work, violence, not conflict is the problem and the goal is to pursue non-violent social change, to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones. The transformation school thinks that in conflicts characterized by dual problems of polarization and inequality, the complementary goals of peace and justice can only be achieved by the complementary tools of facilitation (peace-making, reconciliation etc.) and non-violent advocacy (promotion of community empowerment).

Since this structuralist school is concerned with normative research, an important distinction is made between positive and negative peace (Galtung, 1996:3). According to Galtung, peace is the absence/ reduction of violence of all kinds. Peace is non-violent and creative conflict transformation. (1996:9). This requires not only an end to violence and conflict behaviour, that is, negative peace but also the complete elimination of structural violence and transformation of the system, that is, positive peace.

A very important contribution of the structuralist school lies in its espousal that violence can be caused even when there are no overt or physical symptoms of it like killing, destruction, incapacitation etc. An unjust structure or system can cause as much hit or hurt as any overt physical or psychological violence. Thus, when resources are unevenly distributed, when income distributions are heavily malbalanced, when access to education, health services and cultural goods of the society are unevenly arranged and above all the power to decide over the distribution of resources is monopolized by a few the structure itself is violent. This is what Galtung calls negative peace. Only a

complete transformation of this exploitative structure into a system characterized by equality and justice through non-violent means or change of heart can result in lasting peace or positive peace. In the words of Vayrynen,
Violence and conflict may be managed by instrumental action but they can be eliminated only by identifying their root causes. Those causes and their functions are however ever changing with the economic and social transformation of societies. That is why any argument that a conflict has been solved for good, that history has ended, is based on an ahistorical illusion. The only historically viable approach is to eliminate the violence in present conflicts and to trace the new socio economic transformations which create new source of violence. (1991:23)

A pertinent question relating to conflict transformation is what gets transformed. Obviously it should involve a major change, a qualitative shift not just quantitative alteration in degrees. The problem here is conflict by nature is dynamic. It is transforming all the time, from the moment in- compatible interests are perceived by the parties, through mobilization of support for the achievement of goal, the escalation of intensity into violent behaviour and eventually the resolution efforts by negotiation, mediation, third party involvement, behavioural or structural changes or any such method. But transformation should not mean this familiar or standard dynamics of conflict. Transformation should actually involve the reversal of the all negative forms of change that occur within the conflicts system itself and within the social system in which the conflict is embedded. Thus transformation involves, for example, changes such as an increase in empathy on the part of adversaries with stereotyping, dehumanization and demonization of the other side becoming less common. It may also involve a decrease in the level of social and geographical separation of the parties and major changes in the nature of communications aimed at others.

Raimo Vayrynen argues that conflict transformation can take place in at least four different ways (1991: 4-7)

Actor transformation, which involves either major internal changes within the original parties to the conflict or the addition and presumably subtraction of new parties to the conflict.

Issue transformation, which involves an alteration of the political agenda of the conflict through a transformation of what the conflict is about. Rule Transformation, which involves a change in the norms involved in the conflict and the limits within which the parties conduct their relations. Structural Transformation, which involves changes in the whole structure of inter-party relation.

Among all these transformation that Vayrynen talks about the transformation of structure is perhaps the core component of the transformation process. However, since structural transformation cannot occur isolatedly without the other factors being transformed, a discussion on each of these factors is required to comprehend the conflict transformation process.

Actor Transformation: An actor is an organization of material interests and mental formations shaped by the environment in which it operates; but also shaping that environment consciously through it own purposes. In most situations actors combine sub-groups and constituencies with range of interests. They are held together by a sense of shared interests, or shared purpose or shared fate which is usually constructed by leaders and may represent common interests or shared attributes. As Gilbert puts it, what makes a collectivity out of a sum of living human beings is a plural subject. Each must make clear his willingness to accept a certain goal jointly with others. Each must manifest willingness to constitute with the other a plural subject of the relevant goal. (Quoted in Miall, 2007: 6-7) A crucial attribute of an actor is its sense of identity which creates the we feeling which enables the group to act. The formation of actors in conflict may be a direct response to condition of conflict.

Leaderach (1995) considers the entire affected population as actors to a conflict. He describes the affected population as a triangle, with the key military and political leaders at the apex, at level one. In the middle, at level two are the national leaders who have significances as leaders in sectors such as health, education and within the military hierarchies. Finally at the grassroots level, level three, there is vast-majority of the affected population, the common people, displaced and refugee populations, local leaders etc. At this level the armed combinations are represented as guerrillas and soldiers in militias.

According to Bush and Folger transformation involves a marked increase in the parties' sense of empowerment or self determination and in their capacities for recognition or responsiveness to others. In simplest terms empowerment means the restoration to individuals a sense of their own value and strength and their own capacity to handle lifes problems. Recognition means the evocation in individuals of acknowledgement and empathy for the situation and problems of others.(Bush and Folger, Quoted in Mitchell, 2002:11) Thus the transformation process and outcomes have a central moral dimension which is aimed chiefly at the people involved in the conflict as parties.

Reduced to specifics, actor transformation would include among others, major changes in the attitudes of the people in the following:

Acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the other party, its claims, concerns and hopes. Consciousness of the other partys perspectives and objectives and reasons for their being held. Recognition for the need for short term mutual reassurance and the building up of longer term trust between the parties.

Sense of competence and capability in confronting the search for solution to the conflict and undertaking actions to prevent repetition. Willingness to include the interest of those not normally represented in the search for solutions including future generations. Acceptance of the need for a durable inclusive and acceptable solution to mutual problems which may involve major structural change.

Issue Transformation: Issue transformation involves changes of goals, which affect the incompatibilities at stake in the conflict issues. Though, it is for the actors to construe their own goals in the light of the circumstances, but there are clearly constructive and destructive ways in which they can do so. The ways actors frame their situation is crucial to the definition of a conflict and reframing is often crucial part of negotiation. Substitution, modification or replacement of existing goals together with the adoption of shared or subordinate goals are common elements in conflict transformation. Instead of mutual elimination, the goal of conflict may be transformed to something positive or constructive. Conflicts and disputes can be viewed not as problems at all, but as opportunities for moral growth and transformation.

The role of a mediator in the goal transformation process is to allow parties to define problems and goals in their own terms thus validating the importance of the goals in the parties lives. Mediation can support the parties exercise in self-determination in deciding how or even whether to settle a dispute and it can help the parties mobilize their own resources to address problem and achieve their own goals.

A cardinal element of issue transformation is that those involved should recognize that the activity concerns the search for social justice. Since the concept of social justice is again an illusive and controversial concept, the transformation process should involve an exercise to define the idea of a just solution. The parties to the conflict need to become willing to change their usually monocular view of justice and a

just solution to one which admits the possibility of more than one conception of what might seem as just. This change in goal orientation on the part of all the parties involved in the conflict is necessary for conflict transformation.

Rule Transformation: Rule transformation involves changing the norm or the pattern within which the parties function. Essentially it means changing the relationship. Adam Curle (1971) believes that there is a need for the parties to move from unpeaceful to peaceful relationship. He defines unpeaceful relationships as those which negate allround human development and which are characterized by unbalanced power relationships and inequality in the level of awareness about the actual degree of incompatibility in the interests and objectives. Peaceful relationships on the other hand are these which involve active association, planned cooperation and intelligent efforts to forestall or resolve potential conflicts and in these relationships there is neither domination, nor imposition. Instead there is mutual assistance, mutual understanding, mutual concern and collaboration found on this mutuality (Curle 1971:15-16) Thus according to Curle the defining characteristics of peaceful relationship is equality, mutuality and reciprocity. Curle prescribes various types of relationship transformation strategies depending on the type of conflict. In situation where parties are aware of their incompatibilities and are balanced in their capability to harm each other, negotiation, mediation or conciliation is the suitable process. In circumstances where the parties are aware of their conflict, but capability is one-sided (asymmetrical), then process aimed at equalization are important. In a third situation where capability is imbalanced, awareness low, at least on one side, and the conflict latent rather than overt, Curle advocates processes aimed at increasing awareness to the point of confrontation over newly recognized key issues.

Christopher Mitchall (2002: 18) suggests four key dimension or aspects of existing relationship that need to be changed.

From imbalanced to balanced exchanges at least to the point where all parties are more or less disposed to agree that they get roughly the same value from the exchange as others.

From dependent to independent-exchanges so that all parties fortunes and futures are more or less equivalently tied to the continuation of the exchange.

From dissonant to consonant-evaluations of the exchange, in that all parties share similar views about its utility and each others acceptance of the exchange. (No more happy slave interpretations on the part of the masters).

From non-legitimized to legitimized evaluations of the exchange so that all parties more or less accept its essential rightness and even justice and are content with its continuation, in roughly its present form.

Structure Transformation: Structural transformation is the core component of conflict transformation and subsumes all other transformation that has been discussed so far. By structure is meant the pattern of relationships between the actors in conflict and the surrounding social and political forms and institutions which determine this relationship. It may be difficult to resolve conflicts between parties when the issues in conflict concern fundamental asymmetries such as dominance over minorities by majorities or similar power relations between groups stratified by class, ethnicity or beliefs. In these cases transformation of the social structure may be a precondition for successful conflict resolution. For example, in case of Northern Ireland the asymmetric relationship between the dominant Protestants and excluded Catholics was balanced gradually by the political and economic weakening of the Protestants and the corresponding strengthening of the Republic of Ireland together with the development of the Pan-Nationalist coalition. While conflict resolution approaches also allow for necessary structural changes, the emphasis on structural transformation is much more in case of transformation theories which assume that only through such change might the

conflict, the people involved and the future be altered permanently so that this conflict is wholly changed and other conflicts do not occur from the same source.

For the transformationists, the central objective of the process is structural change. Everything else flows from that. Unlike the conflict management or settlement approach transformation approach does not accept a given political or socio-economic status quo. Transformation approach starts with the assumption that status quo has to be changed because the existing system may be cause of the conflict. Moreover new and improved relationships between erstwhile adversaries do not simply and naturally arise from the fact that they are no longer in contention over a limited number of fundamental issues. Relationships have to be replaced and rebuilt through deliberate and directed efforts and reconciliation can only take place as a result of these efforts. Without this aspect of change even major structural alternation may prove fruitless in averting future conflicts. Hence while structural change is axiomatic, relationship change is also a fundamental part of transformation. Some basic components of structural

transformation are the following:

a)

Sustainable structural and attitudinal changes within society and new institutions to address outstanding issues. (Rupesinghe, 1995)

b)

The building and/ or revival of indigenous political social and economic mechanisms and attitudes which militate against the use of violence to resolve conflicts. (Rupesinghe, 1995)

c)

Since conflict structures are frequently nested in larger structures, not only within the country concerned but also in what Azar Calls international linkages a holistic structural change is necessary.

d)

Conflict may not be transformed without changing the relationship between the conflict and its environment.

A major weakness of the transformation approach is its inclination to overemphasize structures. Structures are considered to determine human behaviour. Thus, the transformation analysts give less attention to the consciousness and reasoning of individuals and their strategic interaction. For instance, structural violence is a much appreciated concept for understanding indirect violence, but it is an abstract notion. It tends to reduce individuals to the role of victims without revealing or attempting to analyze the more complex understanding of the interplay between individuals and structures. Moreover it is difficult to interpret the notion of justice while avoiding an objective and essential definition. Several of transformation perspectives have been criticized as illusory and pretentious focusing on social engineering than on social science.(Nicholson, 1992:22)

The essential dimensions of the three approaches - Conflict Management (CM), Conflict Resolution (CR) and Conflict Transformation (CT) - have been represented in the following figure:

CM FRAMEWORK UNDERSTANDING OF CONFLICT ACTOR AND STRUCTURE Realism Power politics inherent in man Emphasis on actor from an objective prospective

CR Idealism Unsatisfied human needs Emphasis on actor from an inter subjective perspective

CT Structuralism Structural inequalities

Emphasis on structure from a holistic perspective

CHANGE

Static

Linear

Dialectical

PROCESS AND STRATEGY

Competitive

Problem solving

Empowering

(UN) ENDING CONFLICT

Conflict settlement, unending conflict, balance of power, stability

Conflict resolution, ending conflict, satisfying human needs

Conflict transformation, open ended institutional/ systemic change

LACUNAE

Lacks theoretical understanding of intra-state conflict, institutions, peace building culture

Lacks theoretical understanding of power asymmetry, institutions, peace building culture

Lacks theoretical understanding of actor, intentionality, strategic interactions.

Figure- 4.1 Approaches in Liberal paradigm (Karin Aggestam, 1999: 24)

4.3 THE MARXIST PARADIGM Marxism is a holistic, integrated and scientific theory. Its conception of peace and conflict is to be found in its theory of development that is, the theory of dialectics. An elaborate discussion of the dialectical progression of Marxism does not come within the scope of this thesis. Hence the basic Marxian ideas relevant to nature and causes of conflict and ways to deal with them shall be discussed in brief in this section so that a comparative analysis with the Gandhian Paradigm may be attempted later.

Marxism follows a simple methodological scheme to describe and explain social phenomenon which of course includes conflict. According to it, in social phenomenon, just as in physical ones, there is always interplay of contradictory forces and tendencies that are the source of dynamic of the system and cause the changes which the system undergoes during its existence. It is usually possible to differentiate these tendencies and to show that some of them are directed towards preserving the existing equilibrium while some tend to induce more or less radical changes in the system under enquiry. It is the outcome of this interaction that shapes the main course of the history of the given system which however is additionally affected by forces coming from outside. Conflict according to Marxism has to be seen as a part of the real laws of development of all physical, social and mental phenomena.

The Marxist paradigm claims to be scientific and materialist. Being scientific it distinguishes itself from the utopian which Marxists consider as romantic as against their own revolutionary views. Being materialistic it distinguishes itself from the idealistic tradition initiated by Plato and brought to its bloom by Hegel. The idealist looks at the world of objective reality as the product of the mind, spirit or idea. To him, mind is more important than matter. To Marx, on the contrary, matter is primary and it exists outside or independent of our mind. In fact mind, spirit or idea is merely a derivative of matter. In Marxian perspective there are two dichotomies: Romantics versus Revolutionary and Idealist Vs Materialist. Superimposed on this notion is that

the Romantic-Idealist view is reactionary in its social philosophy and practice. The Scientific Materialist is progressive and revolutionary. The main tenets of Marxist Paradigm of conflict may be summarized as follows: All social system experience tension. This tension is due to contradictions of the system. Conflict and contradiction come out of the differences in class and social interests and they get consolidated through ideology and action. Class societies are violent social orders. Capitalism is the highest state of class society and hence it represents highest stage of violence. Like violence, alienation also heightens as commodification advances. State is the organized instrument of violence. It was both physical force and ideological means (education, church, media etc.) to subjugate its class enemies and to create false consciousness.

The haves and the have-nots - the exploiter and the exploited - stand in conflictual relations with one another, because they represent contradictory social forces. According to dialectical analysis, there cannot be peaceful coexistence between two opposites. The process of struggle between two conflicting processes continues till it gives birth to new force which is a synthesis of the earlier opposites. The synthesis then becomes a thesis, producing its antithesis and thus the dialectical process of conflict continues. If the revolutionary mass forces win over the reactionary forces, it may be termed as the stage of positive or attained peace. If, on the other hand, the reactionary forces win over the progressive forces and the status quo situation is maintained, it is negative peace or imposed peace.

The common place understanding of Marxism is that it is a votary of revolutionary violence because the class conflict cannot be solved in a negotiated nonviolent way. But this is not a correct understanding of Marxism. As Karel Kara (1968) points out Marxism does not view violence as something that is apriori negative or

positive. Violence can play a dual role- a reactionary and progressive role. Marxism recognizes the justification of violence provided such use is relevant to historical progress. Marxism rejects both the theories which either repudiate all forms of violence or overestimate the role of violence. Marxism does not view violence as a selfexpedient tool but as a means for achieving an aim. That is why Marxism makes it a rule if we can reach the same goal in different ways we must give preference to nonviolent means to violent ones and to less violent means to those more violent. (Kara, 1968:5) On one or two occasions Marx had alluded to the possibility of revolution through nonviolent means. Most notably when he allowed in a speech in Amsterdam in 1872 that England and America and possibly in Holland as well the workers might considerably attain their revolutionary aim by peaceful means. (Kautsky, 1964:10)

4.3.1 The Neo-Marxian Approach Various contemporary and neo-Marxist positions have tried to reconcile the basics of Marxism with the Post-Marx real world situation. They do not share the classical Marxist distrust of the state. They in fact prescribe for revolution of the oppressed classes so as to achieve justice within states and of the oppressed nations so as to achieve justice among them. Demand for the abolition of state itself does not figure in these prescriptions except as speculation about the remote future. The neo-communist revisionism is evident from Khrushchevs words in his speech to the Third Congress of the Rumanian Workers Party, June 22, 1960:

One cannot mechanically repeat now what Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said many decades ago regarding imperialism or continue asserting that imperialist wars are inevitable until socialism triumphs through out the world. We live in a time when we have neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin with us. If we act like children who study the alphabet by compiling words from letters, we shall not go very far. (Quoted in Tucker, 1970:177)

The neo-Marxist position on conflict may be summarized as follows: 1. Conflicts of interests are endemic in social life.

2.

Power is differentially distributed among groups and individuals in any society.

3.

Social order is achieved in any society through rules and commands issued by more powerful persons to less powerful persons and enforced through sanctions.

4.

Both social structure and the normative system of a society are more extensively influenced by more powerful persons than by weaker persons (true by definition) and come to represent the interests of these more powerful persons.

5.

Social changes are often more disruptive to powerful persons than to less powerful persons. Powerful persons therefore generally favour the status quo and oppose change that would reduce their power.

6.

However changes in society occur as the result of actions by persons who stand to benefit from these changes and who accumulate power to bring them to pass.

Much Marxist scholarship has shown that capitalism is much more than blind economic materialism. Capitalist relationships subsume struggles between owners and employees, gender and ethnic divisions within the working class, economic intervention by the state to stabilize and protect markets, social intervention by the state to provide service like education, health, welfare etc. for reproducing the labour power needed by capital and police and military intervention by the state to suppress working class revolt. This resulting complex of economic and political relationships comes under the broad implications of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is treated as a system with its own dynamic. Thus the Marxists treat capitalism with its multifaceted manifestations as symbolizing conflict situation and therefore nothing short of the end of this system will ever lead to conflict resolution.

Theoretically at least, the Marxian paradigm is very attractive. A peaceful social order presupposes a strong consensus within and among the states. This consensus can only be achieved with a radical redistribution of resources and power in favour of the weak and the poor classes in the society and the weak and the poor states in the society of states. The Marxist model provides a possible route towards such redistribution.

Despite being based on a powerful theory the Marxist model is outmoded since it fails to take into account many new factors. First, the very assumption of the identity of interests among all sections of the proletariat of the world has been proved false. In fact there is no such thing as world proletariat. Indeed among the divisions that beset the present world one of the most intransigent is the division between the proletariats of some countries and the proletariats of the others with the fruits of industrialization and colonialism going to some of them at the expense of others. Secondly, proletariat revolution, however desirable it may be, does not remove the system of states in which independent political communities dispose off power and pursue objectives that come into conflict, resulting in intra national and international tension. Thirdly, the model of world revolution shares with the model of world capitalism the latters basic techno economic framework of industrialization and economic expansion. Unchecked industrialization with capital intensive technology is a root cause of tribal conflict in Africa. That is essentially a resource conflict caused by environmental degradation. Finally the left oriented intellectual movements which are supposed to inspire proletariat revolution have become sterile and ridden with serious internecine ideological conflicts.

4.4 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Sharp distinction between the three approaches (the Realist, the Idealist and the structuralist) are difficult to draw. Despite divergent theoretical frameworks there are still some points of convergence in their epistemological assumptions. Both the Realists and the Idealists assume that perceptions and images can be changed either by

manipulation or by analytical problem solving. Thus conflict behaviour has alterable components. Secondly, the Realists and Idealists lack a greater understanding of the implementation and post agreement/ resolution phase assuming either that sustainable peace is not feasible (Realism) or the resolution simply ends conflict (Idealism). Thirdly, both the Realists and the Idealists tend to avoid or minimize the use of leverage either to get the parties to interact with one another or to accept agreements about which the parties have serious doubts. And both emphasize the importance of participants being in control of the over all process. Fourthly both the Realists and the structuralists assume that conflicts may be defined objectively, albeit with divergent understanding of conflict. Thus one may conclude that all the three approaches use concepts which are inherently imprecise, but converge at some points and differ at other. All draw on a common set of concepts in conflict theory and conflict analysis. All three of them have employed frames of reference which can be used in a normative and a descriptive sense. When used descriptively all can have valid meanings which are far from normative aspirations. All of them have positive connotations in conflict analysis and the normative aspirations associated with them are appropriate in different conditions.

A comparative analysis of the Realist, the Idealist, the structuralist and the Marxist schools on the concept of conflict shows that the first two schools do not go deep into the causes of conflict and hence do not provide for a durable solution. They generally run away from fundamental human problems like inequality, exploitation, negation of self-determination, dominance, over-centralization, denial of access to decision-making etc. They, instead, concentrate on non-fundamental needs like free flow of ideas, right to impression and expression, superficial political and economic rights and some other aspects of psychological and cultural problems. What they at best can hope to achieve by this understanding of conflict is a temporary settlement of the overt confrontation. Since fundamental issues are not addressed, conflict may be suppressed for the time being only to emerge either in the same form or in another at a

later date. One suppressed or settled conflict reinforces another only to create a more vicious cycle of conflict and make the society prone to more turmoil and violence.

The structuralists and the Marxists on the other hand, despite differences in their perspectives of the nature, causes and solution to conflict, do address the deep-rooted problems of the society and attribute conflicts to fundamental structural maladjustment. Unlike the previous two approaches, they include within the scope not only the manifest, but also latent conflict. Both of them aim to strike at the root of conflict through fundamental social changes. Both prescribe for revolutionary and radical transformation albeit in different ways; the Marxist in violent way and the structuralist in non-violent way. The Gandhian paradigm that this thesis will deal with in the next chapter shares the basic concerns of the Marxist and the structuralist in treating conflict as a manifestation of deeper malaise in human psyche and social arrangement. The Gandhian approach may lack the scholarly depth of the Marxists and the structuralists, but it more than compensates for it by its simple, intuitive and human approach which is the hallmark of Gandhian thought.

CHAPTER: 5

The Gandhian Paradigm

CHAPTER 5
THE GANDHIAN PARADIGM

5.0 INTRODUCTION Larger part of Gandhis life was spent in leading Indias struggle for freedom and in attending to diverse socio-economic problems. This preoccupation of Gandhi was not a matter of choice or preference but was logical and inevitable. At the first instance, therefore, one wonders whether Gandhi was able to spare enough time and attention to the larger problems of conflict and peace. But, though confined to the locale of his own land Gandhi spoke, wrote and functioned in a way that transcended the limitations of space and time. He has left behind him a rich legacy of innumerable writings containing ideas that are surprisingly striking in their freshness, permanent relevance and world wide appeal. There was an element of eternity in whatever he said and his constituency embraced the whole mankind. A Japanese scholar aptly pays his tribute. Gandhi stands at the converging points of culture in the contemporary world and is therefore universally significant as a symbol over and beyond cultures in the contemporary world. This symbol indicates the only meaningful destination of man or mankind. (Kasai, 1981: 89)

Gandhi did not set out to elaborate on the theory of conflict and peace. But one can infer his ideas on this topic from the rich collection of his writings. This inference is easier than otherwise implied because his approach towards all problems-individual, national or international- was integral and interrelated. His entire philosophy forms a coherent whole and is based on a simple value system comprising of truth and nonviolence.

Gandhi defies any classification so far as any exclusive school of thought is concerned. Any search for an internally consistent and systematized body of Gandhian thought would prove elusive. He had no time and little patience with theoretical formulations.

He was in one sense a conservative, in another, a philosophical anarchist; he was on the one hand a socialist, and on the other a capitalist, and yet again he was a primitive communist. For each of these assertions some evidence can be culled from his writings and speeches. He belongs at once to all these camps and to none of them. For whatever else may be said of him, Gandhi was not a political theorist. He entered the practical realm suggested by one political creed only to make his own constructions and move on to the next. (Bondurant, 1959: 146)

Nevertheless Gandhian contribution centers upon the role which satyagraha as a technique of action, together with the philosophy of conflict which lies behind it may play in social and political system based upon them. Gandhis Satyagraha as a type of struggle may be viewed as a contribution to the uniting of religion and politics, as a contribution to the forms of revolutionary struggle, or as a kind of social behaviour intended to help the individual achieve greater fulfillment.

5.1 A GANDHIAN APPROACH TO THE CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL CRISIS There are certain outstanding features of the world system which point towards disaster of one kind or another overtaking humanity: the threat to the survival and well being of humankind, the threat of war with weapons of increasing lethality, the unspeakable impoverishment of vast masses of people, the massive violations of human dignity deriving from discrimination on the basis of religion, colour, gender, class, caste, nationality etc., the threat to life sustaining capacity of the earth and so on. These have taken mankind to such a formidable predicament that it seems well nigh impossible to return to normal or rationally ordered life within the framework of modernity.

From one perspective, these threats are being perceived as global problems requiring global solutions. From another, they are problems that we confront in our

daily lives individually, in our families, in our villages, towns and cities, in our nations and in our regions. That is, we are faced with violence, economic needs, violations of dignity, deteriorating environments and divisiveness in circle of our lives from the individual to the global.

Gandhi had clearly foreseen this predicament, the oncoming disaster as early as 1909 in his Hind Swaraj. And through out his life he continued to warn against it and showed the way to avert or steer clear of it through his ideas and experiments with truth and non-violence. In Hind Swaraj Gandhi had characterized modern civilization as a disease and a nine days wonder. Even thirty years later in 1938 he said, After the thirty years which I have since passed, have since nothing to make me alter the views expounded in it. (Quoted in Gangal, 1987: 20). Earlier in 1927 he had forewarned the civilized west that a time is coming when those who are in the mad rush today of multiplying their wants...will retrace their steps and say what have we done? (Ibid: 20-21). Barely two weeks before his death in January 1948, Gandhi had made the rather prophetic statement, this (modern) civilization is such that one has only to be patient, and it will be self-destroyed. (Ibid: 21)

Though not the only cause, nevertheless, a major cause for this increasing threat to human survival and well-being, is our continued acceptance of violence, i.e. our willingness to kill. Our historic readiness to kill for security and revolutionary changes has brought us to a mental and technological state in which each one of us has become vulnerable. As ancient wisdom warned us and as Gandhi taught, 'violence begets violence'. We are faced with prospects of infinite ingenuity in discovering new ways to destroy each other.

All the major problems in the world today are due to the violence-accepting culture that pervades across the spectrum of nationality, religion, race, caste and gender. If fact, all the above cleavages among mankind are more or less united on the issue of

acceptance of violence, if not as the best method, but at least as a fait accompli. A serious analysis of the major problems that confront us will lead to violence in both thought and action as a major initiator and exacerbetor. Our willingness to kill contributes to our economic deprivation in many ways. It directly diverts morality, intellect, science, labour, capital, resources and technology from service to human needs to serve human greed for a section of self seeking people. The gigantic global military establishments that we have created contribute to deprivation by preventing the need responsive structural changes within and among nations.

Secondly, our commitment to violence to pursue and realize freedom and justice for the deprived put these cherished values in permanent jeopardy. The violent fighter for freedom and justice today becomes tomorrows deadly threat. All the terrorist groups operating now have their origin in the adoption of an ill-conceived method to realize the desirable goal of freedom, equality or justice. The cause of their struggle becomes so overwhelming that the violent method that they adopt is generally overlooked by those who patronize and sympathize with them. One righteous atrocity generates another till it reaches a Frankensteinian proportion to engulf a substantial section including the supporters and sympathizers into a hate filled environment of death and destruction.

Thirdly, this continued commitment to violence threatens to kill the life sustaining capabilities of the earth. The vast military consumption of fossil fuels and the wastes produced by nuclear power contributes to present and long range environmental contamination. The resource depletion and toxic wastes produced by industries that are deemed necessary to produce weapons and services for modern warfare further contribute to environmental devastation. So great is the environmental destructiveness of global militarization and associated disrespect for ecological vitality that according to the warning given by Barry Commoner "We are in a suicidal war with planet and that

planet inevitably will win". He warns that survival depends equally on ending the war with nature and on ending wars among ourselves..To make peace with the planet we must make peace with the people who live in it. (Commoner, 1990:243)

All these problems while seeded in acceptance of violence also reinforce each other and lead to more violence. Militarization, for example, increases insecurity, accentuates poverty, violates human rights, degrades the environment and divides mankind. Like wise an aggressive pursuance of rights and justice, increases militarization, deviates from the path of economic development and leads to depletion of environment. Our inability to protect environment leads to what is called ecological war, retards sustainable development and also often leads to suppression of rights of those like tribal and other natives who have traditionally drawn their sustenance from forest.

5.2 GANDHIAN THEORY OF CONFLICT After this brief presentation of problems which generate conflicts, a discussion on Gandhis ideas on conflict will facilitate a more comprehensive discussion on his technique of conflict resolution. The theory of conflict underwent significant modulation in the nineteenth century, first under the influence of Charles Darwin and later, of Herbert Spencer. The biological formula of Darwin sought to impart a halo of scientific finality to the conditioning character of the struggle for existence in the evolution of the species. He perceived that the struggle for existence among species operated as a mode of Natural Selection by which the undesirable was eliminated and the more fit sustained. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. (Darwin,1968:31) The underlying principle here, as in the case of the later sociological interpretations of Darwins theory, is the basic notion that as there are contending elements in nature so there are conflicting ideas and interests among men. To Darwin, therefore, struggle is the

fundamental law of the universe, the implication being that conflict is a constant phenomenon and the cause of evolution. Darwin uses the term struggle for existence in a large and metaphorical sense. I should premise that I use the term struggle for existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in living progeny. (Ibid: 116). The whole stress of his thesis is on the process of struggle and he has completely ignored the unifying element of co-operation as a factor in the evolution of the species.

The Darwinian system led to, what is its natural, though not entirely legitimate result, i.e., the militarist interpretation of the history. Some of the followers of Darwin see selection as something which renders the inexorable law of heredity a source of progress which produces the good through suffering, an infinitely greater good which far out balances the obvious pain and evil. The evident suggestion in this line of thinking is that we should regard all scientific and humanitarian efforts to mitigate social conflict as not only uncalled for, but even harmful. It is an exhortation to us that if we once realize that this law of inheritance is as inevitable as the law of gravitation, we shall cease to struggle against it. The ideal attitude therefore is to let nature take its course. Gandhi, while admitting that there are repulsions enough in Nature, differs radically from the Darwinian sociologists when it comes to his explanation of conflict in the physical as well as in the human world. He stands in sharp contrast with those who regard struggle as the fundamental law of creation. To him, struggle is neither a ceaseless process of evolution, nor a universal phenomenon. Conflicts which cause struggle are but unfortunate moments in the history of the human race. As such they are relatively unimportant in the course of the life of human society.

Though there are repulsions enough in Nature she lives by attraction. Mutual love enables Nature to persist. Man does not live by destruction. Self-love compels regards for others. Nations cohere because there is mutual regard among individuals composing them. Some day we must extend the national law to the universe, even as we have extended family laws to form nations- a larger family. (Gandhi, quoted in Shridharni, 1939:219)

Gandhi, here, clearly perceives a fundamental unity in the universe and society which sustains order and life. Prince Kroptokin, the Russian biologist, was led to similar conclusions from his observations of insects and animal life in the jungles of central Asia. His doctrine of mutual aid which is based on compilation of evidence from the same field of investigation as that of Darwin, is in harmony with Gandhis perception of the fundamental unity of all existence. Thus, conflicts are neither inevitable nor irreparable. They are only temporary irregularities in the order of things or brief squalls in the even flow of life.

The Gandhian position that there is nothing natural about violent instincts in man has solid roots not only in ethics but also in science. Twenty distinguished scientists drawn from diverse disciplines such as anthropology, ethnology, psychology etc. brought out on 16th May 1986 a declaration titled Seville Statement on Violence. They declared that:
First, it is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.. Second, It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature Third, It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.. Fourth, It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a violent brain Fifth, It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by instinct or any single motivation.. We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come. Although these tasks are mainly institutional and collective, they also rest upon the consciousness of

individual participants for whom optimism and pessimism are crucial factors. Just as 'wars begin in the minds of men' peace also begins in our mind. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us. (Manifesto of Nobel Prize Winners Quoted in G.D. Paige, 1991: 433-34)

Thus departing from the Darwinian interpretation of conflict Gandhi seems to have come quite close to the Hegelian position that:

Every relation be viewed from two opposite aspects i.e., from the point of view of two terms it relates. Each term regards the relation as internal to itself and the other term as external to itself. An antinomy results which can be solved only by reinterpreting the situation and by looking at both terms and their relation from the point of view of a wider relation..But one antinomy is solved in order to make way for another. Opposition breaks out between the terms on a higher level.(Sidney Hook,1936:67)

Hegel, however, made his interpretation and left the rest, as it were, to the inexorable march of history and the last analysis, to the formulation of historicists. The Gandhian philosophy, accepting the dynamics of dialectical situation and taking man as the measure of reason, centers upon a technique whereby one or both sides of a conflict can resolve the antinomy into a reinterpretation.

The dialectics of both Hegel and Marx miss the heart of the problem of social and political conflict. Hegel discovered reason in things themselves, equated real with rational and understood the progress of history in terms of the dialectics as a method of logic.(Bondurant, 1959:198-199) Marx, while striving for an empirical approach

allowed the dogma of the class struggle and the absolutism of his philosophy of history to strangle the development of dialectics at a level where it could enter into a technique of action. In contrast, the dialectical approach of Gandhian philosophy of conflict provides dynamic control in the field of action through the fashioning of a technique for the creative resolution of conflict. The term creative resolution of conflict, implies that in Gandhian terms peace is a positive concept and not the standard Western negative concept construed in resolution of conflict as absence of conflict. Conflict

resolution to Gandhi means not the elimination of maladjustment, rather the progress towards more meaningful adjustment. This is achieved only when violent relationship is transformed into nonviolent relationship where the energies of the opponents are utilized in a higher integration or sublimation.

Victory in the conventional sense of attaining the goals declared from the beginning becomes less important than improving the parties and their relation through the conflict. The conflict becomes a medium for mutual education; together they may learn how to transform conflicts upward so that they can be handled non-violently and creatively. They come out of the conflict not only unscathed, but with higher capacity for conflict transformation capacity and it all works out even with something better than their original goals. It is important to see how this creative resolution of conflict comes about. Here the Gandhian attitude towards a conflict situation provides the answer. The conflict is not regarded by Gandhi as an antagonistic relation between two human beings of two classes in which the important thing is to weaken the opponent but rather it is regarded as a situation in which the system binds the parties together. Gandhi views conflict as actually an invitation to social and constructive intercourse rather than an invitation to mutual elimination. Naturally his invitation to intercourse is, at the same time, an invitation to change the system. Gandhi, thus, is of the opinion that a conflict should not be a signal for rage and anger, for aggressive words and aggressive action. To him a conflict was a challenge, a challenge that here was something to be done. While at the same time it offered possibilities of contact with a human being with whom you stand in an interesting and significant relation(Galtung, quoted in Pran Chopra,1972:203). This calls, more than ever, for an increase in the personal contact with the opposite party.

The fundamental Gandhian idea is that one should be aggressive not against the opponent but against the condition. The opposition should be directed against the antagonism, not against the antagonist. Gandhi expressed his fundamental attitude to an

opponent in an open letter to the British written during his campaign for civil disobedience in July 1921. He wrote,

Some of my Indian friends charge me with camouflage when I say that I do not hate Englishmen, while we may hate the system they have established. I am trying to show that one may detest the wickedness of a brother without hating himI claim to be a fairly accurate student of human nature and a vivisector of my own failing. I have discovered that man is superior to the system he propounds. And so I feel that you, as an individual, are infinitely better than the system you have evolved as a corporation.Here, in India, you belong to a system that is vile beyond description. It is possible, therefore, for me to condemn the system in the strongest terms without considering you to be bad and without imputing bad motives to every Englishman. You are as much slaves of the system, as we are. (Quoted in Theodor Ebert, 1967:103)

Thus, Gandhi has a distinctive approach to the enemy. He distinguishes between the people on the one hand and their policies and system on the other. Sometimes he describes this as the difference between the evildoer and the evil itself. The enemy is also seen as a victim of his own system, a view which is usually interpreted from a moral perspective. Whatever the origins of the distinction may be, it is clear that from a strategic point of view, it was very effective. This approach deliberately encouraged the British to oppose policies of the British Government in India and to work for Indian independence. The nonviolent character of the Indian national struggle made it much easier and very much more likely that Indians would in fact receive assistance from within the heart of the Empire itself. In other words support for the Indians within Great Britain was not simply a result of special qualities of the British, or even the Labour Party, but at least as much or more so the result of the Indian reliance upon the non-violent technique to fight the British Raj. (Sharp, 1970: 262)

Anatol Rapoport (1989) shares this Gandian perception of conflict. He identifies three types of struggles and differentiates among them. He calls them fights, games and debates. In the fights, the opponents presence is an unwanted one, a nuisance and so has to be eliminated. But in the games an opponent is essential and his strength

is also valued. Rules of the games are followed with cooperation and everyone tries to do his best. The opponent speaks the same language whose interest may be opposed but who exists as a rational being. His inner thought process is important. In the debates the opponents direct their arguments at each other. The objective is to convince the opponent and to make him see things as one sees them himself. Debate is that category of conflict in which the problem of convincing another, that is, the problem of changing anothers outlook is the central aspect. Rapaports debates lead the opponents towards more rationality and humanity and the first stage of Gandhis satyagraha, the Gandhian technique of conflict resolution is characterized by persuasion through reason.

According to Gandhi the problem of peace and conflict should be considered within an entire philosophy of life. War and peace are not isolated problems that can be resolved incrementally or through some piecemeal strategy. Gandhian starting point with regard to peace and war, as to all other problems is the individual. Gandhi believes that any philosophy of life, in order to have any meaning at all, must commence with man as the being to which all truth is related. A study of conflict should also commence with individual on the focus for, unless the individual wields the weapon of destruction there can be no war. (Gangal, 1960:12)

Conflict, according to Gandhi, has its root in the human lives which are often divided into watertight compartments- religious, moral, social, economic, political, individual and collective. From these different levels we have devised different sets of moral values. Often these values conflict with one another. However, life refuses to be compartmentalized. Gandhi writes, The whole gamut of mans activities today constitutes an indivisible whole. You cannot divide life social, economic, political and purely religious into watertight compartments. (Quoted in Ramachadran & Mahadevan, 1970: 240) The evil, man does in one field of human activity, has its affect on the entire gamut of his activity.

The contradicting values that we have prescribed for ourselves to be followed at different levels of activity, are very evident. In social life we honour the man who is truthful, non-interfering, modest and affectionate. We honour greatly the man who, at his personal inconvenience, serves his neighbour. In the political and especially in the international field we expect the nations and its agents to be selfish, proud, overbearing, cruel and aggressive. As a matter of fact a nation sacrificing its real and fancied interests will not only be considered foolish but also morally deprived. In this field, truth, justice, fair play and fellow-feeling are at a discount. While in social life we denounce hate and violence, the successful use of it in the political field is not only not condemned but also upheld. While an individual murderer pays with his life for the crime, a politician or an army general responsible for arson, loot and mass murder, gets the honour of the patriot and of the hero. Violence unleashes the lowest and the basest of the human passions; but it does this under the guise of bravery, self-sacrifice, patriotism and even altruism. Gandhi admits though that there are situations in which violent resistance, when offered on behalf of a just cause, would seem to be instrumental to the development of certain highly moral qualities, such as courage, selfsacrifice, endurance, discipline, etc. Nevertheless as violence has been steadily growing in destructive power so it has also been steadily growing in intensity. If we continue to use it, its end is bound to be the moral ruin and reduction of the human beings to robots. (Gandhi NVPW II, 1949: 410) The individual citizen is, thus, unsuspectingly betrayed into antisocial and murderous conduct of which he would be ashamed in his individual and social life. For Gandhi, the lag between mans moral development and social capabilities on the one hand and his technical skills and potentialities on the other is mainly responsible for the growth of overt violence, overkill capacity and dehumanization. Moreover, the institutional means which have been evolved to realize great human ends, being out of tune with the true nature of man, solve one type of problem and create much more complex problems of other types.

Because of these contradictions of moral values in human life, according to Gandhi, violence permeates all levels of human life - the individual, the family, the village, the society and the state and the national and international. Conflict is, thus, a direct result of this violence and it follows, therefore, that a state of non-violence is a state of peace.

Gandhi was also quite awake to another aspect of conflict, i.e., the economic aspect. Though not a Marxist, he shares some of the basic postulates of Marxism. Without using the Marxian terminologies or those of the later Marxian scholars like the dependency theorists Gandhi spells out in clear terms how the dominant power penetrates the industrial, economic and cultural life of the dependent society thereby imposing its economic and cultural imperialism. Gandhi writes, The British have exploited India through its cities, the latter had exploited the villages. The blood of the villages is the cement with which the edifice of the cities is built. (Quoted in D.N. Pathak, 1983: 924) The mechanism of this exploitation, Gandhi foresaw quite rightly, would be the transfer of high cost western technology ill-suited to the local conditions of the developing countries. Technology, according to Gandhi, is not neutral by nature and carries within itself a whole cosmology, a message, a code and a structure. To use Johan Galtungs phrase, Transfer of Western technology is a structural, cultural invasion.(Ibid:923) Introduction of western technology is a Trojan horse bringing along with itself the concomitants of centrality, verticality, exploitative matrix of manover-man and man-over-nature relationships. This realization about western technology as an instrument of dependency relationship came much after Gandhi had warned us precisely on the same lines decades before. Gandhis entire approach to development is in tune with his integrated world view of man, his own self, man-nature and man-society relationships. Development, to him, means constructive programme i.e., the way by which society has to be reformed and made fit for swaraj or self-rule. The two key concepts in the Gandhian approach to

development are swaraj and swdeshi. Swaraj stands for the moral autonomy of the individual as also the political, economic and moral autonomy of nations. Swadeshi stands for the self-reliance of the basic units of society where, up to a point, production is for use and not for exchange. It means non-exploitative relationships between and among nations, avoidance of dependence and elimination of disparities between the rich and the poor. For Gandhi, swaraj is the end and swadeshi, its only legitimate means. In his quest for swaraj through swadeshi Gandhi not only shows his deep understanding of the subtle ways of exploitation at every level of society including the exploitation of the colonial and non-colonial societies; but also displays a keen interest into the farreaching effects of industrialization based on western technology, especially upon the developing world and in a developing country, upon the marginalized sections.

Thus, it may be seen that Gandhian view sharply departs from the modernist view over the chain causation between science and technology on the one hand and development on the other. To Gandhi, it is development, its pattern and structure that should and must engender technological development. The modernist view which lies behind the whole scheme of technology transfer is that backwardness of the developing countries can be removed by planting western developed technologies in the developing world. Till recently the modernist view reigned without any substantial opposition. This has resulted in the end of the very process of development in the developing countries because of the fact that the import of technologies has set a pattern of development which has created more problems than it has solved.

Gandhi believes that it is the pattern and structure of development which should determine and produce appropriate technologies. That is why he is opposed to the indiscriminate use of machines and is afraid of the distortion of the very process of development. Gandhis fears have proved to be only too real. It is significant that The Economics, a biannual journal of German contribution to economic science, has openly

recognized that the Western model of growth as implemented in many countries in the Third World: with their doctrine of forced industrialization and neglect of domestic agriculture and small scale industry have led to grave consequences. The developing nations are realizing through practical experience that a much better method would be to build up a system of social market economy patiently from below through decentralized decision making. (Quoted in Shriman Narayan, 1978: 29-30) Gandhi may have appeared to be a little too insistent that the right causation must be accepted- the causation from development to technology and not the other way round. But he has been vindicated. 5.2.1 Truth and Non-violence The two key concepts in the Gandhian theory of conflict are truth and non-violence. These two concepts cannot be explained separately because they are intertwined and one can be understood only with reference to the other. Gandhis truth is not only an object of the intellect, nor only an object of knowledge; it is something which, in addition, activates the will and relates the individual to other individuals in a meaningful relationship of duty, obligation and well-being. Gandhis truth is known in action. (Anthony Parel, in Power P.F., 1971:192)

Non violence, as a concept, is an old as hills. But in traditional ethics the use of non-violence had been largely confined to interpersonal relations or behaviour. Gandhis contribution consists in his extension of this traditional ethics of non-violence to cover, also, the relations among groups and nations and in showing the practical efficacy in the field of political action.

Perhaps the most persistent element in Gandhi is the recurring theme that nonviolence is truth-creating. But this does not relate to absolutes and substance, but relatives and process. By non violence Gandhi means a technique to conduct social

relations characterized by constructive, peaceful attitudes. It denotes a determination to widen areas of agreement and to achieve resolution of conflict by mutual understanding.

So far as non-violence as a method to resolve conflict is concerned one may construct at least 3 conception of non-violence as follows: The absence of physical force in resolving conflict A combination of (1) and the view that non violence reflects a desired or ideal state of resolving conflict and A combination (1), (2), and the view that non violence contains a normative component in resolving conflict. The first conception may be viewed as compatible with waging conflict in habitual way- except for the fact that the use of physical force is avoided. Here non violence is taken as a method of resolving conflict which is the functional equivalent of war in the absence of physical force. This may be described as negative non-violence. (Michaei, 1989: 335) The distinguishing features of negative non-violence are the following: a polarization occurs whereby a group of individuals, abandoning the use of physical force, views another group as the enemy. The source of the conflict is viewed as deriving from the actions of the enemy and non-violence is seen as a tactical weapon for the eventual defeat of the enemy but not necessarily as playing a part in ones strategic objectives. Negative non-violence is in fact a form of violence which Gandhi would consider as more insidious than overt violence. The second conception of non violence differs from the first in that non-violence is not seen as a means for achieving a desirable end, but is viewed as reflecting the desirable relationships aimed for between and within communities. For example, the view that a community would find the exercise of physical force inferior to non-violent

methods in all cases of conflict resolution is an instance of the ends aimed for by a community. But this conception does not totally conform to the Gandhian idea of nonviolence. The reason is that though non-violence is viewed as a strategic rather than tactical method for resolving conflict - non violent action is viewed as a non-expedient political tool- a polarization of groups and identification of an opponent as the enemy and source of conflict is not necessarily ruled out by achieving a desired consistency between the ends and means of non violent action.

The third conception of non-violence incorporates the first two. But, since the normative component introduced here precludes viewing an opponent as enemy and source of conflict, ones conduct becomes dispassionate. Gandhis non-violent method falls in this conception. A conception of non-violence which contains a normative component is a catalyst to producing support from groups, both within and outside a conflict situation, which otherwise may not have interceded. This provides a strategic dimension to non-violent action which is often missed out by Gandhian scholars who consider the normative component as a sufficient end in itself. Gandhis rejections of violence in solving group conflicts are based on sound principles and on his perception of truth. Gandhi thinks that absolute truth is unrealizable; what man can hope to realize is relative truth. He believes that man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and therefore not competent to punish. Gandhi has never claimed to know truth in any absolute sense, and he repeatedly reminds others that mans inability to know the truth requires that he maintains an increasingly open approach to those who would differ with him. He discovered through his application of satyagraha that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on ones opponent, but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For, he added, "what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other (Gandhi quoted in Bondurant, 1959: 17) The Polish author Milosz while introducing his book

The Captive Mind with a quotation from an old Jew of Galicia, corroborates this Gandhian view:
When some one is honestly fifty five percent right that is very good and there is no use wrangling and if some one is sixty percent right, it is wonderful, it is great luck and let him thank God. But what is to be said about seventy five percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about hundred percent right? Whoever says he is hundred percent right is a fanatic, a thug and the worst kind of rascal. (Quoted in Horace Alexander, 1966: 174)

A conflict, in Gandhis view, is regarded as the confrontation not simply of two parties, but between two sets of relative truths. And, therefore, no party has a right to employ violence to achieve its goal which is, at most, a relative truth, certainly not absolute truth. Conflict resolution to Gandhi means realization of higher truth which can only be achieved by the synthesis of the two relative truths which, again, must necessarily be achieved through non-violent means.

To such a view it may be objected that it is totally unrealistic since many parties do not represent any fraction of truth and are as such given to avarice, that they deserve nothing less than total destruction. Nazi Germany is pointed to as an example. But Gandhi has several answers to such an objection. First, there are very few who are really indifferent to consideration of justice or human need. This view is in keeping with Gandhis belief in the essential goodness of human nature. According to Gandhi, man is potentially perfect, basically good and inherently capable of truthful and nonviolent conduct and behaviour in all situations. In his own words, I have found that life persists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a higher law than that of destruction and that higher law is the law of non-violence. (Quoted in T.V. Rayalu, 1987: 469) Secondly, even when an opponents aims do not represent a fraction of truth, considered in themselves they still point towards a suppressed portion of the truth, namely, the human needs with which they are usually connected. Excessive group demands may point to genuine communal or individual needs which cannot be and should not be totally destroyed if a meaningful resolution of conflict is sought to be achieved.

Non-violence assures a gradual increase in the hold of truth by the contending parties through a cooperative enquiry into the human needs. It also attaches more importance to a cooperative pursuit of truth.

Gandhi rejects violence on a second ground that it is not conducive to the definite solution of conflict, that instead of securing peace it increases conflicts and violence in an endless circle. Kenneth Boulding agrees with this view; Violence in itself, because it cannot perform the reconciling and compromising function, leads to the suppression rather than the resolution of the conflict; it drives conflict underground, but does little to eliminate it.(1962:304) Violence begets violence and it results in deeper hatred, counter hatred and vengeance.. (Gandhi, NVPW II, 1949: 29) Gandhi believes that history gives evidence for this assertion. Gandhi views history as witness to the progressive growth of violence, from the age of bow when violence had its ethical code and caused comparatively little injury to persons and things to the age of atom bomb in which every ethical principle is obliterated and the whole mankind is threatened by annihilation.

So far as the rejection of violence is concerned Gandhi has been charged with double standard because of his participation in Boer War, the First World War and the Zulu Rebellion of Natal in 1906. Even though his participation was indirect in the form of Red Cross service, Gandhi admits that weighed only in the scales of ahimsa his was an act of violence and he was guilty of the crime of war. But his defence is that in the circumstance in which I found myself, I was bound to adopt the course I did. (Gandhi NVPW II, 1949: 101)

Life, according to Gandhi, is governed by a multitude of forces. The course of mans action, therefore, is difficult to be determined by one general principle. He defends himself by saying that,

But so long as I lived under a system of government based on force and voluntarily partook of the many facilities and privileges it created for me I was bound to help that government to the extent of my ability when it was engaged in a war, unless I non-cooperated with that government and renounced, to the utmost of my capacity, the privileges it offered me. (Gandhi NVPW I, 1948: 101-02)

Gandhi was true to his words when he refused to help Britains war cause in the Second World War, because he felt that his position regarding the British Government in India was totally different from the one vis--vis the Government of South Africa during the period when he was there and, therefore, he should not voluntarily participate in its war and he should risk imprisonment and even gallows, if he was forced to take up arms or otherwise take part in the Governments military operations. This shows that Gandhis non-violence is not only ethical but also practical. In fact it is practical because it is ethical. Gandhi bases his view on the practical superiority of non-violent struggle for dealing with oppression and invasion upon the assumption that, ultimately there is no inconsistency between that course of action which is most ethical and that which is the most practical. He identifies his type of nonviolent behaviour with the ethical, moral and religious; simultaneously the same nonviolent beahviour is recommended on practical ground as the most effective response to serious conflict situations. Here, Gandhi does not resemble a doctrinaire non-violent believer to witness from a distance the evil of the world by withdrawing from conflicts. On the contrary, Gandhi feels that it is impossible to be non-violent without entering directly into the centre of conflict. Then can only a non-violent course be charted which ordinary people could follow and by which they could maximize their power to control events. While Gandhi often discusses the spiritual, religious and ethical aspects of Satyagraha, he makes it clear that action based on those principles is simultaneously also practical. To quote him, Satyagraha is, as a matter of fact and in the long run, the most expeditious course. (Gandhi NVPW-I, 1948:216)

The individualist in Gandhi also led him to a controversy on this score when he said in 1928:
If there was a national Government, whilst I should not take any direct part in any war, I can conceive occasions when it would be my duty to vote for the military training of those who wish to take it. For, I know that all its members do not believe in non-violence to the extent I do. It is not possible to make a person or a society non-violent by compulsion. (Gandhi NVPW-I, 1948:102103)

The critics read in this statement as Gandhi condoning violence. An individualist of sort as he is, Gandhi has high respect for individual convictions. Accordingly he believes that individuals who do not believe in violence must not forcefully deprive those who do believe in violence and in the means of exercising it. The latter must be given the opportunity to train themselves for violence, but should continuously be the object of persuasion by those who want never to use it.

5.3. SATYAGRAHA: THE GANDHIAN MECHANISM OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION Gandhi had addressed himself to the conventional mechanisms of conflict resolution. But this does not prevent him from working out a comprehensive mechanism based on his world view. He partially supports the conventional methods because he believes that his own method is not fully evolved and that it would need a great deal of preparatory work to put it into practice. Nevertheless it follows that for him the conventional methods/techniques have merely temporary value and could serve only in the short run of a transitional period. The term satyagraha has been discussed at length by many scholars and so there is hardly any need to elaborate upon what it means. Suffice to say that in Gandhian thinking, conflict resolution means grasping satya or truth.

Gandhi while tracing the evolution of the term Satyagraha enlightens us on its fundamental principles.

Truth (Satya) implies love and firmness. (Agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call this Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the force that is born of Truth and Love or non-violence and gave up the use of the phrase passive resistance. (Quoted in Bondurant, 1959: 8) In the course of his innumerable experiments with Satyagraha, Gandhi not only wrote elucidations of the term, but strove to understand and to explain its implications as the technique evolved. In order to comprehend Gandhis formulation of satyagraha, it is necessary to first understand Indian philosophy in relation to western philosophy. Indian philosophy has been primarily focused upon consciousness and perception and has historically attempted to explain the cycle of worldly existence and the path to liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Western philosophy on the other hand, was born out of a tradition that sought to evaluate society and ethics and developed a lineage of socio-political thought, critiquing the role of governance and establishing a framework from which to evaluate collective social welfare. Thus it can be stated that broadly Indian philosophy has been more focused on individuals relationship with enlightenment while western philosophy has been more focused on the individuals relationship with society.

Gandhi attempts to establish a concrete social philosophy like that of the western philosophical tradition. For Gandhi, liberation is not only the individuals spiritual liberation from the cycle of suffering, as Indian philosophy would assert, but also Indias political liberation from the cycle of British imperialism. In order to make this argument Gandhi relies upon Indias most well known Hindu epic text, the Bhagvat Gita. Gandhi recognizes the efficacy in using scriptural tradition as a catalyst for a freedom movement, and hails the Gita as his preferential text, he asserts the profundity of Gita in the following words, If all other scriptures were reduced to ashes, the seven hundred verses of this imperishable booklet are quite enough to tell me what Hinduism is and how can one live up to it. (Quoted in Jordens, 1986:93)

In Bhagvat Gita Arjun is instructed by Lord Krishna to fight with a dispassionate frame of mind, so that even though he may inflict mortal injuries, he is not committing any act of violence. This raises the question of what constitutes a dispassionate frame of mind. The answer suggested in the Gita is that perception of conflict situation, where emotions play little or no role in resolving conflict is to act dispassionately. Also, the Gita emphasizes an individuals perception of a conflict situation as crucial both in determining conduct and for resolving inflict. Thus Gita introduces the idea of strategic understanding and emphasizes the role that strategic/ teleological component plays in the perception of a conflict situation and its resolution. Using an epic text to transmit social teachings is nothing new in India. Social morality and ethical perceptions had long been delineated through an oral tradition of story telling. But formulating an actual social philosophy like Gandhis Satyagraha with the specific aim of mobilizing the masses to act in a certain manner based upon the interpretation of an epic text is an entirely new endeavour.

The modus operandi of satyagraha as a technique of conflict resolution allows for several stages of winning over an opponent. The first stage is characterized by persuasion through reason or negotiation. The subsequent stages enter the realm of persuasion through self-suffering wherein the satyagrahi attempts to dramatize the issues at stake and to get through the opponents unprejudiced judgment so that he may willingly come again on to a level where he may be persuaded through rational argument. Finally, if persuasion by reason or self-suffering does not succeed, the satyagrahi may resort to non-violent direct action. These three stages are in that order and may be discussed one after another.

5.3.1 Persuasion through Reason or Negotiation Before a satyagrahi enters into negotiation with his opponent he must analyze and reflect upon the character of the total conflict situation which would involve accumulation and analysis of factual information concerning the conflict. He must

clarify his understanding of his own position and his own immediate objective and consider these carefully in the light of the total situation. What Karl Mannham suggested for the sociologist of knowledge on the intellectual level is parallel to the approach of the satyagrahi in a situation of conflict. Mannham writes:
..the divergent participants may also be approached with the intention of using each theoretical point of contact as an occasion for removing misunderstandings by ascertaining the source of the differences. This will bring out the varying presuppositions which are implied in the two respective perspectives as consequences of the two different social situations. In such cases the sociologist of knowledge does not face his antagonist in the usual manner, according to which the others arguments are dealt with directly. He seeks rather to understand him by defining the total perspective and seeing it as a function of a certain social position. (Quoted in Bandurant, 1959:244)

Whatever the subject of a specific conflict, understanding of the nature of conflict in general and of the objectives to be attained in the given conflict situation in particular, is essential. After the accumulation of facts and information about the conflict, a second step for satyagrahi is to choose his immediate objectives which should be chosen with an eye on fruitful negotiation. For this it is essential that these objectives must be determinate. There are two main reasons for insisting on this characteristic. The first is that the satyagrahi is committed to open dealing and demands are seldom couched in vague terms. The second is that clear objectives tend to reassure ones opponent and hence to reduce his resistance. The importance of the latter consideration is underlined by the German reaction to the Allied insistence on unconditional surrender in the Second World War. To insist on unconditional surrender is to stiffen ones opponents resistance partly because it humiliates him and partly because it adds to the anxiety that must accompany defeat.

Even though the immediate objectives are to be stated in clear terms, the satyagrahi should not start from the assumption that these must be accepted by his opponent in toto. He, therefore, while doing all he can to persuade the opponent of the correctness of his own position, allows the opponent every opportunity and indeed

allows him to demonstrate the correctness of his position. He is at all times prepared to depart from his own position and to embrace the opponents position, should he be persuaded by the opponent of his error. This may be achieved totally or partially surrendering the whole or a part of his original position, if he is convinced that the resulting synthesis would increase his hold upon truth. It follows that the satyagrahi does not aim at the imposition of a settlement upon his opponent, because the power to impose a settlement does not justify his objectives. As Gandhi said to the Japanese in 1942, .even if you win, it will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. (Gandhi NVPW-I, 1948:409)

Recognizing the necessity of a synthesis in a conflict situation Joan Bondurant writes, The satyagrahi must recognize that elementary to his technique is the first step of a full realization that his immediate goal is not the triumph of his substantial side in the struggle but rather the synthesis of the two opposing claims.(Bandurant, 1959:196) But, this point seems to weaken the authors analysis of satyagraha. The use of claim here is not in consonance with the earlier analysis of the value of satyagraha in conflict situation in which there is no ethical middle ground between the goals of the respective groups. It is difficult to suppose that the use of satyagraha by the South African opponents of colour oppression would have produced a synthesis between apartheid and equality. The author states the satyagrahis aim more correctly when she writes, .he (the satyagrahi) seeks a victory not over the opponent but over the situation in the best (in the sense of total human needs of the situation) synthesis possible.(Bandurant, 1959:196) Thus, the satyagrahis openness, his readiness to consider his opponents case and the emphasis upon the facts which is implicit in his attachment to the Gandhian conception of truth, all serve to make it difficult for his opponent to view the conflict as a naked confrontation of wills and objectives. Although the satyagrahi is unyielding in his determination to resist injustice he can be said to be reality oriented; and such an

orientation tends to discourage the stubbornness, caprice and prejudice which often stand in the way of an enduring settlement of differences.

The agreement that results from the Gandhian type of negotiation can be called synthesis, but not compromise. A satyagrahi may surrender his position so far as nonessentials are concerned. But in the sector of essentials or basic values there can be no adjustment. The satyagrahi may yield to persuasion when he is convinced that the opponents position is true or more nearly true. When the persuasion has been affected what was once the opponents position is now the position of both antagonist and protagonist. There is no sacrificing of position, no concession to the opponent with the idea of buying him over. There is no victory in the sense of triumph of one party over the other. Yet, there is no compromise in the sense in which each side would concede part of his previous position solely to effect a settlement. There is no lowering of demands but an aiming at higher level of adjustment which creates a new, mutually satisfactory resolution.

5.3.2 Persuasion through Self-Suffering Despite all sincere efforts by the satyagrahi, if the negotiation ends in deadlock, the satyagrahi undergoes self-suffering to persuade the opponent resume negotiations where it is possible to come to a settlement through reasonable understanding. Gandhi writes, I have found that mere appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long and based on supposed religious authority. Reason has to be strengthened by suffering and suffering opens the eyes of understanding. (Gandhi, Sarvodaya, 1954:84) Bondurant calls this mechanism of self-suffering as shock therapy upon the opponent:
When appeal to reason through the persistent efforts of rational argument have failed to persuade the opponent, where the conflict challenges the basic truth concepts of the satyagraha position, the further course of satyagraha including suffering, acts as a shock treatment- a dramatization of the satyagrahi position.. Suffering operates in the satyagraha strategy as a tactic for cutting through the rational defences which the opponents may have built in opposing the initial efforts of rational persuasion through clear statement and arguments of the

satyagrahi position. The process may be referred to as catharsis.(Bondurant, 1959: 228-29)

Jacques Maritain writes, Gandhis real genius lies in the systematic organization of patience and voluntary suffering as a special method or technique of political activity. (J Maritain, 1951:70)

The idea behind self-suffering is that to sacrifice in ones own being is to cooperate with truth and to cooperate is to endure sacrifice including loss of life, if necessary, to uphold truth. The suffering of the satyagrahi appeals to the understanding of the opponent through the heart. Such reasons also explain why Gandhi wants those who break the law to submit to punishment. It is not because they have a political obligation to obey the unjust law or to submit to punishment. Rather it is because the suffering involved in punishment will impress the opponent as well as society at large and help to promote the truth by involving all the parties in a dialectical search for the truth. This view of suffering is essentially a religious view. It is religion which sees a positive value in suffering in terms of atonement, purification and effective communication. Suffering is not valued for its own sake, but it is held to promote nonattachment from the insistent claims of the body, to emphasize that the spirit is superior to the material and to the physical. Gandhi transfers this religious means of spiritual effectiveness to the arena of politics.

One should observe here that in the usual mode of violent conflict preparation, sacrifice is also implied. That the immediate objective of violent action is to inflict rather than to endure suffering does not detract from the preparation and indeed the realistic expectation of suffering. Moreover, the loss of life and injuries sustained by satyagrahis in conducting non-violent action campaigns is likely to be less than those sustained in violent combat.

5.3.3 Non-Violent Direct Action If persuasion by reason or suffering does not succeed, the satyagrahi may resort to non-violent direct action characterized by such tools as

non-cooperation or civil disobedience. Instead of non-violent direct action, Clarence Case would call it non-violent coercion. He denies a contradiction in term of nonviolent coercion and he comments that the combination of non-violence and coercion is not the outcome of a pre-conceived notion but represents a working arrangement. (Case, 1923:3) While agreeing with Case that there is no contradiction in terms involved, one may point out that Gandhi himself, given his predilections as they are, would not have liked the term 'coercion' very much. So, one feels that the term direct action is more in keeping with Gandhian lexicon. Non-violent action resembles military technique more than it resembles any peaceful conflict resolution technique. It is a technique of struggle. Though it involves the uses of power or force, it is in a different way than military violence:
Instead of confronting the opponents apparatus of violence with comparable forces, the non violent actionists counter with political weapons. The degree to which non cooperation itself will threaten the opponents power position will vary, but its potentiality is illustrated most obviously in the disruptive effects of massive strikes and in mutinies of the opponents own troops. (Sharp, 1970: 176)

There may also be a strong tendency for the opponents violence and repression to threaten his own power position. This is called political ju-jitsu. Against disciplined and persistent non violent actionists, his violence can never really come to grips with the kind of power they wield. Under certain conditions repression may make more people join the resistance. The opponents supporters may turn against him. It may lead to disobedience in his own camp. The numbers of resisters may become so large that control becomes impossible.

Here a discussion at some length is called for on whether there can be a right to civil disobedience in case a group or an individual finds itself/himself in a situation of conflict regarding certain law or action of the government. This is particularly important given the fact that in India and also in many parts of the world violations of law in a non

A Japanese system of unarmed combat and physical training. Also called 'Jiu-Jitsu' and 'jujutsu'.

violent manner are sought to be justified as a Gandhian method by a section of contemporary liberals as well as activists.

From time to time some segments of the population may get marginalized or their interests may get overwhelmed by the dominant section which by using the state apparatus legitimizes its action as legal or constitutional. Civil disobedience is one of the methods of marginalized groups to redress this imbalance. Some contemporary liberals think that this method plays an important role within a constitutional regime. Though legally it is contrary to law, it is a morally correct way of maintaining a liberal constitutional order. John Rawl (1971) contends that civil disobedience is the final device to maintain the stability of a just constitution. Since a civil disobedient voluntarily submits to the punishment prescribed for violation of law, Rawl maintains that civil disobedient expresses disobedience to law within the limits of fidelity of law. Johan Galtung takes a similar position. He believes that civil disobedience is different from traditional strike because there is a constructive element in it. The person or group offering civil disobedience is always seeking a contact with those on the other side for a dialogue. And there is a dramatic element: the party engaging in non-violence against the structural violence they suffer is willing to pay the price of direct violence applied against them; being beaten, being imprisoned and worse. (Galtung- n.d : 99)

While Rawl believes that the right to civil disobedience exists in both liberal and illiberal societies. Joseph Raz (1979) thinks that this right is confined only to illiberal societies. In such societies this right is derived from the fundamental right to participation. Though this right might not have been granted by the state, but people have a natural right to participate in the process of governance which determines their lives. In the absence of statutory admission of this right, Raz contends that right to civil disobedience, is but a natural course of action. But according to him, in liberal democracies people can exercise their right to participation without resort to civil

disobedience. In deed he defines a liberal society as one where there is right to participation.

However Raz does admit that even in liberal democracy there may be case for civil disobedience where it is the morally right thing to do. He grants that even liberal societies may contain any number of bad and iniquitous laws, but he is anxious to deny that there is any right to civil disobedience for such a right expends tolerance to people to indulge in civil disobedience even when it is wrong to do so. His view is that civil disobedience in liberal societies can be rationally supported by those who approve of it, but it has no claims to toleration by those such as the authorities who do not support its aims. Raz is against such tolerance of civil disobedience in liberal societies for there are avenues for participation in the making of decisions and legal ways of trying to persuade others to accept ones objectives. Gandhis views on civil disobedience are interesting and important, if not always consistent. To him civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen. He derives this right from the sacred duty not to participate in evil. In fact, Gandhi at times even denies that civil disobedience is contrary to law. There are two senses in which he believes this. Firstly, when the law of the land conflicts with the highest law as revealed by our conscience, we should obey the latter. Secondly, Gandhi writes: every law gives the subject an option to obey the primary sanction or the secondary and I venture to suggest that the satyagrahi by inviting secondary sanction obeys the law. (Quoted in Hingorani 1998: 59) Unlike the ordinary criminal the satyagrahi voluntarily submits to the punishment and so obeys the law in a sense. Gandhi goes so far as to say that civil disobedience is the purest type of constitutional agitation. Civil disobedience when conducted properly can play valuable role in the just working of the constitution. He believes that it can work as a safety valve, for in its absence there would be violent threats to the constitutional system. He would have agreed with Rawls views that it

works as a stabilizing device. The true civil disobedient according to Gandhi, is a philanthropist and a friend of the state. (Quoted in Haksar, 2003:410)

But Gandhi does not justify an unqualified right to civil disobedience. He confines civil disobedience to the barest necessity of the case. He argues that stringent conditions must be satisfied before people acquire the right to civil disobedience. To quote him,
A satyagrahi obeys the laws of the society intelligently and of his own free will, because he considers it to be his sacred duty to do so. It is only when a person has thus obeyed the laws of society scrupulously that he is in position to judge as to which particular rules are good and just and which unjust and iniquitous. Only then does the right accrue to him of the civil disobedience of certain laws in well defined circumstances. (Gandhi, 1940: 287)

Thus Gandhi uses the term right to civil disobedience to imply a moral authority among people to break the law. But that authority has to be acquired or earned by past conduct and the knowledge of relevant discriminations. Gandhi thus emphasizes on acquiring the relevant moral authority to offer civil disobedience. Gandhi is concerned primarily with distinguishing who should be encouraged to undertake civil disobedience in general form from those who are not yet fit to disobey even when there is an objective need for civil disobedience. He believed that the British Raj had become inherently evil and did not deserve obedience. There was no political obligation to cooperate with an evil regime. But this does not automatically give the people the right in the sense of a moral authority to disobey. As late as 1938, much after he had lost faith in British Raj Gandhi complained that congress has not yet become fit to substitute the British authority. We must face this naked truth, however unpleasant it may be. (Quoted in Duncan ed., 1971: 76)

Gandhi puts a second qualification on civil disobedience by precluding it against certain laws which reflect moral principles and hence must not be broken such as the law regarding murder or other criminal activity. He allows civil disobedience in case of such laws which may be called pragmatic laws such as revenue laws which may be

useful for the governance of the country but are not in themselves moral or immoral. The other set of laws that could be disobeyed are the immoral or unjust ones where obedience would involve directly compromising ones self respect. The laws that we could break in principle, are purely state made laws as opposed to those laws which reflect morality and justice. Our duty to obey the later remains irrespective of the wickedness of the state.

Thirdly, Gandhi believes that civil disobedience may not be justified even when there is no physical violence used, for the cause may not be just or the means employed may not be good. Gandhi distinguishes Satyagraha which he approves, from Duragraha which involves coercion. Duragraha means obstinately persisting in ones cause, without a commitment to search for the truth. Even when the cause is just, if it can be served without breaking the law then there should be no civil disobedience. Even, as a last resort, civil disobedience is not called for until then when the injustice is so great that our conscience and self respect do not permit us to tolerate it. There are many unjust laws which a good citizen obeys so long as they do not hurt his self respect or moral being. (Gandhi quoted in Duncan, ed 1971: 75) Bondurant rightly cautions:
To use the direct action techniques of satyagraha where the practical arts of compromise could settle the dispute without affecting a grave injustice is a tactical error which every satyagrahi need to be forewarned. To go beyond compromise into later stages of direct action may be to introduce an atmosphere of self-righteousness, stiff necked opposition hardly appropriate to the conditions of a minor dispute. There is a time and place for compromise and to know that time and place is one of the skills which every leader of satyagraha should master. (Bondurant, 1959: 219-220)

Galtung also strikes a similar note of caution. He believes that nonviolent direct action is called for only when the system is seen as so unjust that participation becomes complicity. That too the party engaging in non-violence against structural violence they suffer is willing to pay price of direct violence applied against them; being beaten, being imprisoned and worse. This will only be done if the suffering is already intolerable, like for people living under Stalinist dictatorships, and if less dramatic

methods like petitions have already been tried. Even so direct nonviolent action should be used sparingly and for very concrete goals. When done well non violence tends to work. But non violence should not be glorified to the point of becoming a permanent state of society. A society can also become nonviolent torn. (Galtung, n.d.: 99-100). Another necessary qualification of non-violent direct action is that it should be combined with constructive programme. Being organically related to each other, these techniques have to be used jointly. While direct action is intended for resisting evils, the progressive exploitation of the creative capacities of constructive work addresses social issues. Consequently the need for direct action in the long run is obviated. In India Gandhi combined non-violent direction action at a political level with constructive programme consisting of series of activities in rural areas which were non-political in nature.

Thus while Gandhi would concur with John Rawl that right to civil disobedience is a birth right that cannot be surrendered without surrendering of ones self-respect, he insists that its use must be guarded by all conceivable restrictions and that every possible provision should also be limited to the barest necessity of the case.(Quoted in Haksar, 2003:413) Viewed from this perspective much of what passes today in the name of civil disobedience do not qualify to be such in Gandhian terms and hence cannot be justified as Gandhian method. Narrow vested interests instead of conscientious objection motivate such actions and that too without exhausting other constitutional and legal means. The agenda is to score political or economic brawny points. But when we can rightly deride such methods by self-seeking groups and individuals; it should not negate the value and efficacy of Gandhis method of nonviolent direct action. 5.4 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE Gandhi is thoroughly convinced of the practical application of his technique not only within a nation but also in the international field. He is of the opinion that his nonviolent technique is applicable to every sphere of life and to a variety of situations. In

his own words, one cannot be non-violent is ones own circle and violent outside it..the law must apply to nations as to individuals.(Gandhi NVPW-I, 1948:187) Gandhi is quite right in his assertion. The three stages of satyagraha described above are well-equipped to deal with the stages which account for the bulk of international conflict today. These three stages of war are periods before the invasion, at the time of attack and during the period of occupation. Since they are of immense relevance to this thesis, a separate discussion on each one of them is necessary.

The plan of action before the invasion would involve carrying out negotiations with the opponent in a spirit of goodwill and friendliness so as to remove his genuine grievances, if any. Negotiations must be started only if one genuinely believes in nonviolence, but not from the feeling of fear or cowardice. Gandhi considers cowardice as the greatest of evil and given a choice, he would prefer violence to cowardice. Gandhi propounded this aspect of his technique during his extensive tour of the North-West Frontier Province of India in 1938 on the context of frequent tribal raids in that area. He said, If I had my way, I would go and mix with the tribes and argue it out with them and I am sure they wont be impervious to the argument of love and reason. (Quoted by Pyrelal in Gangal, 1960:59) After a study of the situation Gandhi came to the conclusion that the raiders motive was chiefly economic, i.e., the satisfaction of primary needs. But, the solution, according to him, did not lie in offering them money, but in teaching them lessons of self-help and industry. Gandhi writes, "To seek safety by offering blackmail or ransom to the raiders would be a direct invitation to them to repeat their depredation and would be demoralizing alike tribesmen." (Ibid., 59) to the giver and the

This technique may be objected to on the ground that it is impracticable or even romantic. But it is hardly so, Gandhi rightly believes that aggression takes place from some motive or other. Supposing the motive is economic (as was in the case of the Frontier raiders) the aggressors might be taught the lessons of self-help to improve their

economic position so that they might give up their design. This might appear to be a little nave. But it is probably a suggestion for the extension of the neighbourly principle of lives and let live to the field of international relations.This happens even today when one country helps another with food, money and ideas and knowledge and offers aids without strings. (Gangal, 1960: 61-62)

Gandhi did not have much occasion to test out his technique in the international field. But on numerous occasions he has demonstrated its efficacy at the national level. Hence it may be assumed that, properly applied, his technique would also work satisfactorily in the international arena also.

The second stage of satyagraha, namely, non-violent resistance through selfsuffering is applicable at the time of attack after the negotiations have failed. Gandhi drew a fairly detailed plan of resistance against aggression at the time of the Japanese attack on Burma and parts of India during World War II. His advise to the people of that area prone to Japanese attack:
One thing they should never do - to yield willing submission to the Japanese. That would be a cowardly act and unworthy of freedom loving people. They must not escape from one fire only to fall into another and probably more terrible. The attitude, therefore, must always be resistance to the Japanese. (Bapu's Letters to Mira, 1949: 360-61)

His intention behind this plan of action was clear:

The underlying belief in such non-violent resistance is that the aggressor will, in time, be mentally and even physically tired of killing non-violent resisters. He will begin to search what this new force is which refuses cooperation without seeking to hurt and will probably desist from further slaughter. (Gandhi, For Pacifists, 1949:41)

There are broadly two criticisms leveled against this technique. First, critics point out that the non-violence of the Jews in Germany could hardly save them from Hitlers persecution. To this Gandhis answer is that what the Jews offered was passive resistance rather than non-violent resistance. Theirs was a case of non-violence of the

helpless and of the weak. They were violent at heart and non-violent out of necessity and in appearance only. Gandhis non-violence is the non-violence of the brave and strong. The failure of the Jews was, therefore, not the failure of Gandhis technique. He, therefore, appealed to the Jews that if they instead of being helplessly and of necessity non-violent, adopt active non-violence i.e., fellow-felling for the gentle Germans deliberately.this supreme act of theirs will be their greatest contribution and war will be thing of the past. (Ibid, 79)

Gandhis assumption here is that even hardened dictators like Hitler are not beyond redemption and human nature, in its essence being one, does respond to the advances of love. Thus he does not want simple abstention from violence without regard for the reason or form of the alternative behaviour. He wants people to give up violence because they were strong enough not to need it and because they have found a better way to conduct serious conflicts. He recommends non-violent action because 'it is the weapon of the really brave'. (NVPW -II). There is no passive submission to tyranny, violence or aggression. The use of non-violent action does not mean meek submission to the evil door, but it means pitting of ones soul force against the will of the tyrant. In the code of the satyagrahi there is no such thing as surrender to brute force. (Gandhi, Satyagraha, 1951: 81) Such action requires great courage. But Gandhi believes that such action is not only moral but more affective. It differs both from the usual military response and even more, from cowardly submission.

The second criticism is that the success of the technique is conditioned by the fact that there should be personal contact with the aggressor so that self-suffering by the non-violent resister can move his natural feelings of love and altruism. It follows, therefore, the critics argue, that it can be hardly of any avail against aerial welfare since there are no personal contacts. But Gandhi does believe that pure ahimsa or suffering undergone without malice is self-propagating and that even the distant invisible invader is sure to be melted by it. He writes, .behind the death-dealing bomb there is the

human hand that releases it and behind that, still, is the human heart that gets the hand in motion.(Gandhi, For Pacifists, 1949:64) Gandhi is also of the opinion that his technique would work even against the atom bomb.

But Gandhi is not blind to human imperfections. He neither demands perfect non-violence nor thinks that it is possible. When asked in 1940 does any one know true non-violence? Gandhi replied no body knows it for no body can practise perfect non-violence. Perfect non-violence is impossible so long as we exist physicallybut we have to endeavour every moment of our lives. (Gandhi, NVPW-I, 1948: 292) Thus Gandhi insists that although imperfections and inconsistencies were inevitable, ones duty is to strive constantly toward the least imperfection and the least inconsistency. To quote him, let us be sure of our ideal. We shall ever fail to realize it, but shall never fail to strive for itbetween the ideal and practice there must always be an unbridgeable gulf. The ideal will cease to be one if it becomes possible to realize it. (Quoted in Dhawn, 1962: 107)

Gandhi knows it perfectly well that his technique calls for thorough training on the part of the resisters and, given the condition as it is, very few people are really equipped to put his technique into practice. Gandhi, therefore, would suggest to those who do not believe in non-violence, to fight violently out of a sense of duty rather than surrender in a cowardly manner. On this consideration he had a word of praise for the Czechsand the Poles resistance against German invaders. He characterizes the resistance of the Poles as almost non-violent and this was a new expression that he was using for the first time. He explains the expression thus:
for the Poles to stand valiantly against the German hordes vastly superior in numbers, military equipment and strength, was almost non-violence. I should not mind repeating that statement over and over again. You must give its full value to the word almost..The Poles were unprepared for the way the enemy swooped down upon them.(Gandhi, For Pacifists, 1949:41)

On this consideration, also, Gandhi had endorsed the use of force by the Government of India in Kashmir in 1947 against Pakistani invasion. His view on these two instances is quite clear. If the cause is just and the nation is not prepared for nonviolent resistance, it is right to use violence rather than meekly cow down before the enemy. But even in violent warfare Gandhi is against the policy of scorched earth, sabotage, secrecy under certain circumstances. According to him, the policy of destroying property and crops and poisoning wells indicates lack of bravery. Sabotage and secrecy lead to demoralization. Thus, in 1942 he advised the Government of India, who were engaged in a violent war with Japan not to resort to a policy of scorched earth. He said, The Government of India will considerably ease the situation and allay anxiety by declaring in unequivocal terms that they will not apply, if the occasion ever arise, the scorched earth policy to India, especial regard being had to her peculiar position.(Gandhi, NVPW-I, 1948:389)

The third stage of satyagraha, namely, non-violent direct action is applicable to the period when resistance through self-suffering has failed and occupation has been affected by the invaders. This form of action will involve non-violent non-cooperation with the aggressor. In May 1942, at the time of anticipated Japanese attack Gandhi wrote to Mirabehn:
Remember that our attitude is that of complete non-cooperation with the Japanese army, therefore, we may not help them in any way, nor may we profit by any dealings with them. Therefore, we cannot sell anything to them.the question of having any dealings with Japanese does not and should not arise.They will handle nothing from Japanese hands.(Gandhi, Bapu's Letters to Mira:66-67)

His advice to Abyssinia (now Ethiopia), when it was invaded by Italy, was also in the same line.

Gandhi could speak with some authority on this point because he had ample experience of the efficacy of non-violent non-cooperation with the Britishers who were

almost like an army of occupation (Quoted in Gangal,1960: 68) in India. In 1940 he wrote:
Non-violent non-cooperation, however imperfect has redeemed India at least somewhat from the slavery under which she was groaning. It has raised India from the slough of despondency and has brought her prestige which nothing else could have, I make bold to say that if the non-violence offered had not been adulterated, its effect would have been still more visible.(Gandhi, NVPWI, 1948:358)

The fundamental belief that Gandhi has is that if the whole conquered nationmen, women and children- refuse to cooperate in any way whatever, with the invading forces, the latter are bound to withdraw, sooner or later, in sheer disgust. But this belief apparently seems to be a weak point. The question is, can a whole nation-men, women and children be made to non-cooperate with the aggressor? Since this presumes rational behaviour on the part of every individual in a country this may as well be dubbed as, as Gangal says, rationalist fallacy. But he goes on to point out that this is no fallacy at all since here the assumption is that the view of the leaders will be intelligent and wellthought out. And the masses will follow them as always, whether rationally or emotionally. This is what happens in other spheres, including science and philosophy. (Gangal, 1960:69)

But the problem is lot more complex we may take the example of capitalism which is a power structure in any given society and therefore contains the dominant dominated relationship in which a conflict situation inheres. In principle, the exploitative capitalist can be opposed by workers walking off the job; in practice there are many factors to be taken into account in mobilising them to do so. The workers are likely to be divided along the lines of status, skills, gender, wages, ethnicity and the like. The mass media may provide little support or active disinformation. Certain workers may have been tied to the regime by dispensation of special favours. Further more the system, whatever its oppressiveness may still serve to benefit large groups of people in certain ways. Many members of the working class, while exploited by capitalists at the same time receive wages sufficient to offer a life seen as better than

those of the parents. Thus, capitalism as a social system may simultaneously oppress and yet benefit these who live in it. Hence this is an area where the non-violent technique and non-cooperation has to be more refined in order to be effective particularly because we do not have the charismatic leadership of a Gandhi or Martin Luther to carry the entire mass of people behind them.

Gandhian technique may appear to some as a figment of wild imagination of a pacifist. And, therefore, some try to discard it as having no practical value at all. It is, therefore, significant to note what George F. Kennan, noted American diplomat and statesman (and by no means a pacifist), said in December 1957 in the course of his B.B.C. Reith Lectures. Without specifically referring to Gandhi, Kennan was, in fact, endorsing the Gandhian technique for resisting aggression in the face of an atomic attack and described it as the only possible defence against nuclear warfare. Kennan spoke of a core of civil resistance movement on the territory over-run by the invader, so as to create a situation in which the threatened country would be able to say:
You may be able to over-run us if you are unwise enough to attempt it, but you will have small profit from it; not a single personlikely to perform your political business will become available to you, you will find here no adequate nucleus of puppet regimeYour stay among us will not be a happy oneand it will be without favourable long-term political prospects. (Quoted in Gangal,1960:151-52)

5.5 REQUIREMENTS OF SATYAGRAHA Here it is necessary to point out two very relevant requirements a satyagrahi should fulfill while carrying on satyagraha at various stages discussed above. This is particularly relevant in case of international conflict. A first requirement is that a nonviolent nation while dealing with the opponent government should constantly keep in touch with the people of that country because a careful investigation into the cause of any war would reveal that it was first started by a very few ambitious, powerful and evil-minded individuals, on one or both the sides. Yet, by reasons of perverse propaganda the whole community is trained to bitterly hate another. Thus when two

governments declare hostilities they do so on the conviction that either their respective people would stand with them and would willingly support them or could be compelled to fight for them. In the Second World War the British Government declared war with Germany on the first conviction and the colonial government in India did so, on the second conviction.

Gandhi, therefore, suggests that the satyagrahi country should always remain in contact with the people of the opponent country, informing them of its goodwill and friendliness towards them. They must be informed of the real attitude of their own government and of the non-violent country to the war. The people should learn that the war would bring miseries for both the peoples and hence they should desist from supporting the governments war cause. From the strategic point of view this has proved very effective. During Indias freedom struggle support for the Indians within Great Britain was not the result of special qualities in the British, but because of the Indian reliance on non-violent technique. This made it easier for a wide cross-section of the people in Britain to support the Indian cause, for they did not then appear unpatriotic. This too, incidentally happened in case of Vietnam War when domestic protests built up against Americas participation.

A second necessary requirement for a satyagrahi is the need for constant self examination. Gandhis philosophy of non-violence begins and ends by selfexamination and self-criticism. This he applied both to himself and to others. For example instead of concentrating on condemnation of the brutality of the military in trying to stop the riots, he felt that people ought to examine their own behaviour in the riots. The golden rule of life, he says, was to exaggerate ones own faults and belittle those of others. That was the only way to self purification. (Gandhi, NVPW-II, 1949: 382)

Gandhi was certainly resisting the English Empire and fighting for swaraj. But that did not prevent him from attending to such ills of Indian society as untouchability, discrimination of women, poverty and the increasing gap between Hindus and Muslims. The last one ultimately led to the partition and subsequently to the protracted Kashmir conflict. That the colonizers also critiqued untouchability and women discrimination, outlawing its extreme expression in suttee did not prevent Gandhi from attacking these social evils. His was not the cheap logic denying any truth also held by the antagonist. Many at a lower level of maturity become victims of polarization. Nor did he attack the caste because the colonizers often used it as one of their levers in the divide and rule tactic to dominate India. He fought it an evil in its own right. Some may have to combat personal failings which are lessening their effectiveness as satyagrahi. Efforts may be needed to raise the public morale in some parts of the country. One may have to check the impatience of certain groups which, left to themselves, might be tempted into violence. Certain classes or conflicting elements within the nation may have to be reconciled especially if their differences might be exploited by ones opponents or are threatening to undermine public discipline.

It should be noted that such efforts to root out weaknesses and sources of danger are always necessary whether ones methods of action are violent or non-violent. But they are particularly vital in case of satyagraha because a community which is resisting injustice by non-violence cannot protect itself from the fragility of its weakest links as easily as one that is engaged in warfare. A nation at war can imprison the traitors and give employment in farms and factories to those who lack a sufficient taste for soldiering. The non-violent community cannot have recourse to such simple measures. (Horsburgh, 1968:77)

5.6 LIMITATIONS OF SATYAGRAHA Gandhi notes several conditions which must be present when non-violent action is undertaken. They are, broadly speaking, the environmental conditions, the preparation and attitude of the satyagrahi and the methods of the satyagrahi.

A first among the environmental conditions is that when the adversary is in a disadvantageous position due to factors irrelevant to the struggle, this weakness should not be exploited by the non-violent fighter. When World War II broke out pressure was brought upon Gandhi to intensify the fight against the British. He declined to take up mass civil disobedience during the war. Gandhi said:
There is neither warrant nor atmosphere for mass action. That would be naked embarrassment and a betrayal of non-violence.By causing embarrassment at this stage; the authorities must resent it bitterly and are likely to act madly. It is worse than suicide to resort to violence that is embarrassment under the cover of non-violence. (Quoted by Arne Naess, 1958-59:`49)

Secondly, non-violent resistance is also impracticable if the type of change that it might lead to is considered to be less beneficial than the existing one. Thirdly, nonviolent resistance is also precluded unless it is undertaken as a response to an instance of violence. Gandhi writes, It should also be remembered that non-violence comes into play only when it comes into contact with violence. One who refrains from violence when there is no occasion for its exercise is simple unviolent and has no credit for his inaction.( NVPW I,1948:99-100) The lack of true and substantial issue is another environmental condition which, Gandhi feels, precludes the use of non-violence.

As for the preparedness or attitude of the satyagrahi, non-violent action may not be undertaken under the following conditions: First, non-violent struggle cannot exist if the situation is one where only available alternatives are violence and cowardice. Gandhi writes, Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence.( Ibid:82). Secondly, the lack of self-respect, a tendency to act from expediency rather than from principle shall render non-violence impracticable. Gandhi holds:

I can only congratulate those who are spat upon or are assaulted or had nightsoil thrown upon them. No injury has happened to them if they had the courage to suffer the insult without even mental retaliation. But it was wholly wrong on their part to suffer it if they felt irritated, but refrained out of expedience from retaliating. A sense of self-respect disdains all expedience. (Ibid: 82)

Thirdly, a satyagrahi should be honest with himself and others and one who restrains his anger having retaliation in his breast (Quoted in Power, 1971:99) and adopts a policy of passivity which does not reflect his true feelings, is not to be described as non-violent. Finally, a non-violent resister must be capable to act violently. Gandhi writes, Man for man, the strength of non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will of the non-violent person to inflict violence. (NVPW-I: 82)

Last but not the least, there are conditions in the methods of the satyagrahi that will preclude non-violence. First, the method should not involve secrecy. Gandhi writes, I stand for unadulterated non-violent action and open means. I abhor secrecy. (NVPW-II,1949:57) Gandhi has laid down the condition possibly on the presumption that given the protection of secrecy, a method may easily become the object of dogmatism and be espoused in such a way as to disallow criticism and self-correction. Secondly, where the method chosen precludes the resisters learning to change his attitude, the aims of non-violent resistance cannot be achieved. Finally, where the method involves more violence or produces more injustice than is required or already exists; it is not, properly called, non-violent.

5.7 ECONOMIC CONFLICT: A GANDIAN RESOLUTION So far as economic conflict is concerned, Gandhi believed that these can, in the last resort, be best resolved by removing the cause of such conflicts. These conflicts arise from centralized production, mal-distribution of wealth and the greed and selfishness of the individual members of the society. (Quoted in Gangal, 1960:127) To remove all these maladies Gandhi wants the transformation of society with the centre of gravity shifting to the villages, at least until such times as everyone is employed, has enough to

meet his elementary needs and, to some extent, is self-reliant, both individually and collectively:
The Gandhian concept of village as the basic unit of society is not to be confused with cluster of mud houses, the drainless lanes, stinking streets and naked impoverished children. Indeed he insisted upon the village as a unit to remove all these disabilitiesA village is a collectivity based on certain individual and collective functions with norms and values cherished by the people in an environment which is congenial and run by Gandhian laws.(Sethi, 1978: 90)

Gandhi, in his quest for a local self-reliant economy has taken up the basic needs approach. He wants that the basic needs of all the people were fully met. He rejects all those economic systems that deprive masses of their basic needs. He does so along with the socialists and talks approvingly of the communist countries in so far as they attempt to provide the basic needs of the people. But, beyond this, his views totally conflicts with those of the communists on almost every other aspect.

The key concepts in the Gandhian economic ideas are non-possession, nonstealing, bread-labour, swaraj and swadeshi. These constitute the main outlines of the Gandhian economy.

First, an individual, or the consumer will reduce his wants to such a level where the utility function will depend upon the commodities that are or can be produced locally. In other words, the consumer will prefer the commodities produced in the immediate neighbourhood except when either the immediate neighbour does not produce these goods or refuses to improve the efficiency of production. Gandhi writes, I must not serve the distant neighbour at the expense of the nearest.(Socialism of My Conception, 1957: 71)

Secondly, the consumer will cooperate with the producer neighbour in improving the efficiency of the production. Gandhi writes, I should use things that are produced by my immediate neighbour and serve those industries by making them

efficient and complete where they might be found wanting. (Ibid: 67) In this way the consumer and the producer do not generate an antagonistic relationship: such as in the dictum that the consumer is sovereign and the producer, the willing salve. On the contrary, the consumer and the producer are jointly involved in a cooperative effort.

Thirdly, the production process would depend on indigenous technology, even though modest, rather than importing complex giant technology ill-suited to the local conditions. As he admonishes:
What did India do before these articles were introduced? Precisely, the same should be done today. As long as we cannot make pins without machinery so long will we do without them. The tinsel splendour of glassware we will have nothing to do with and we will make wicks as of old and with homegrown cotton and use handmade earthen saucers for lamps. (Quoted in Pathak, 1983: 920)

Fourthly, labour, in the Gandhian economy is, what he calls, bread-labour by performing which man can satisfy his basic needs. Gandhi does not accept labourpower as a commodity and hence its substitution by other non-human factors cannot be considered as a pure phenomenon of the market. Gandhian definition of labour, with his ethical and spiritual overtone, conflicts with both the capitalist and Marxist definitions. Gandhis insistence on the consumption of locally produced goods might lead to some misunderstanding of his position. First, he may be misrepresented as a votary of the buy Indian concept. In the buy Indian concept the idea is that the consumer should switch to the production within India which is different from the production by the immediate neighbour. The buy Indian idea pits the Indian manufacturer against the foreign producer. In other words, it involves the concept of narrow patriotism and generates a competitive struggle between the national and international producer, which is just the opposite of what Gandhi wants.

A second confusion might be between Gandhian self-reliant economy and the Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) pattern of development that was followed by

many newly-independent countries, including India during 1960s and 1970s. In the ISI strategy the country attempts to produce goods that it imports. It is based on the proposition that the utility function of the consumers is based on commodities produced in foreign countries for which imports are obtained. Gandhian economy aims at changing these utility functions whereas ISI works towards the satisfaction and further accentuation of such utility functions.

Gandhian economic ideas may also be misunderstood so as to support the concept of autarky. Autarky is a state where the country produces everything, it wants, within its borders and snaps all trade links with the outside world. It differs from the Gandhian ideas in that it posits no relationship between the consumer and the producer whereas the latter advocates a cooperative relationship between the two.

The village-based economy of Gandhi has strategic relevance also. As he himself writes:
Rurally organized India will run less risk of foreign invasion than urbanized India, well-equipped with military, naval and air forces. It would take quite a long time to blast out a whole sub-continent village by village and hamlet by hamlet. Even if Hitler were so minded he could not devastate even hundred thousand non-violent villages. He would himself become non-violent in the process. (Quoted in Pathak, 1983:921)

Thus, by providing for a well-knit self-reliant economy Gandhi seeks to remove the perennial cause of dependency relationship. The dependency theorists, also, have found out the cause of the so-called North-South conflict, but they have failed to provide a workable way out, which Gandhi so satisfactorily does. But, it should be noted that while advocating a self-reliant economy, Gandhi is not indifferent to the advantages and inevitability of interdependence in thought and ideas. He writes:
I do not want my house to be walled in all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But, I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other peoples houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave. (Quoted in Pathak, 1983:926)

5.8 GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE IN THE PRESENT AGE Gandhis method of resolving conflict through non-violent means is sometimes dismissed as un-realistic and impracticable. This criticism can take two different interpretations. First, non-violence cannot function as an effective substitute for armed force. Secondly, whether it can be effective or not, it is certain that it would not be tried, for, there is no prospect for inducing any party to rely upon non-violent methods against violent method. These and other levels of criticism need more elaboration.

A familiar argument is psychological. The assumption is that the impressions about violence occupy a more prominent place in the social psychology of human beings not because the tendency to violence in man is stronger in comparison to that for peace, but because violence has a stronger demonstration effect, as it were, than love for peace itself. Consequently, it is argued that it is the Hitlers and not the Gandhis who understand this social psychology and, therefore, can act effectively. To this prominent sociologists have found out that:
Looking deeply into the basic process of human society and the structure of the motivation of man, it would be evident that peace and harmony as tendencies have more pervasive, stable and universal foundation in the social psychology of man and operate as prerequisites of any process of institutionalization of the structure of society.(Unnithan and Singh, 1969:1)

In this light it can now be safely argued that it is the Gandhis and not the Hitlers who have better grasp of reality. Given the same energy and earnestness the devotee of nonviolence has certain advantages over the propagandist of violence. For, violence has to depend upon outside material resources and a complicated organization, while nonviolence little depends upon all these. It rests upon its spirit of love, service and selfsuffering.

A second skepticism about the universal applicability of non-violence is represented in the argument that non-violence is simply a characteristic of the Indians

who are presumed to be, for reasons of culture and religion, incapable of violence. But such an argument holds little ground. The fact that Gandhi lived to see thousands of Hindus and Muslims butcher one another in cold blood following the partition of India, the fact that Gandhi himself met violent death at the hands of an assassin and the fact that India, even today, is riven with conflict and violence prove, if anything, that nonviolence is not necessarily typical to Indian culture.

There is nothing typical in Indian religions, also, to induce non-violence. In a letter to C.F. Andrews, Gandhi denied that non-violence has been given great importance in Hinduism. On the contrary, he said that he saw:
no sign of it even in the Mahabharata or the Ramayanathe incarnations are described as certainly blood-thirsty, revengeful, and merciless to the enemy. The battles are described with no less zest than now and the warriors are equipped with the weapons of destruction such as could be conceived by human imagination. (Quoted in Nakhre, 1983:21)

The view that this technique can only be used in the peculiar Indian circumstances has no basis. In fact, it was argued long ago by Sridharani that the West was more suitable than India for the technique. He wrote:
My contact with the Western world has led me to think that, contrary to popular belief, satyagraha, once consciously and deliberately adopted, has more fertile fields in which to grow and flourish in the West than in the Orient. Like war, satyagraha demands public spirit, self-sacrifice, organization, endurance and discipline for its successful operation; and I have found these qualities displayed in Western communities more than my own. Perhaps the best craftsman in the art of violence may still be most effective wielders of non-violent direct action.(Shridharani, 1939:19)

A third objection to non-violent technique springs from the argument that it can be effective only in the struggle against a party which feels itself bound to observe certain ethical rules and norms of justice. Spoken in simpler terms, it means that this technique may be effective against democracies like Britain, but it is bound to fail when faced with dictatorial or totalitarian forces.

Gandhi himself has not set any such limit. He believes that satyagraha would, if properly applied, always meet with a high degree of success. He appears too, to have believed that it could have been used in such concrete cases as the opposition of the Jews in Germany to the Nazis. It can, of course, be agreed that had the Jews offered satyagraha against the Nazi regime their losses could scarcely have been greater. They could have, moreover, mobilized world opinion behind them much more rapidly than they did. (Bandurant, 1959:226)

That, non-violent technique may effectively be used against totalitarian forces is proved by historical evidences. An American sociologist, Gene Sharp investigated 84 campaigns in which one party remained wholly or partially non-violent 48 of them took place in the West (including Russia), 24 in the East, 9 in Africa and 3 were of an international character. About 40 percent concerned democratic governments and 60 percent dictatorships (including the totalitarian regimes). In only 9 out of 84 were the leaders and participants pacifists. (Sharp, 1967: 101)

Thus it is evident that non-violent resistance has occurred even against totalitarian systems on an improvised basis and despite the absence of training, preparations and know-how. It should be noted that totalitarians deliberately seek to promote the impression of their omnipotence to discourage any potential opposition. Such forces, in fact contain critical weaknesses in the form of inefficiencies internal conflicts and tendencies towards impermanence. It is precisely these features that offer themselves up for exploitation by non-violent resisters. However the basic reason why peaceful non-cooperation can be effective against totalitarian systems is that they cannot free themselves entirely from dependence on their subjects. As an articulated strategy, non-violent technique is designed to deny totalitarian rulers the compliance cooperation and submission they require. Fourthly, Horsburgh (1968) points to some seemingly insurmountable difficulties that a non-violent country is likely to face in the course of non-violent

resistance in case of international conflict. A first of these is what he calls the problem of latent violence. He believes that in any society, however well-knit, there is always a group which is a convinced believer in the superior merit of armed resistance. There is also a group, more numerous, whose belief in non-violence always rests on quick results in the absence of which it might turn to violence. The aggressor, in this situation shall try to rouse the latent violence in these two groups either by supplying them with arms or by engaging agent provocateurs to engineer outbreaks of violence. Horsburgh thinks that Gandhis method of calling temporary halt to struggle shall not work here because a halt would give the aggressor the opportunity to impose its new order and when the struggle is resumed it shall have to be started from the beginning.

But the latent violence can be checked by what he calls the cellular structure of the resistance movement by which he means a structure where the leaders of the local units have been chosen with sufficient care and skill. These leaders must be able to pinpoint the relatively violent and indisciplined members of the local units "making sure that they are kept busy but that they are discouraged from taking a prominent part in resistance. Horsburgh, 1968:179) In this way the latent violence in these people can be curbed. But this is easier said than done. We know that Gandhi had found this problem of latent violence a major obstacle in his struggle.

A second problem that Horsburgh points to is the problem of corruption which he considers as a stiffer hurdle than the problem of latent violence. As the assumption of a society being wholly incorruptible is highly idealistic, the problem of corruption is a realistic problem that any society going for non-violent resistance must face. Corruption in the society shall enable the enemy to recruit sufficient agents from within the society and thereby considerably weakening the struggle. But Horsburgh believes that:
the only community that can hope to master this danger is one which has a sizeable core of people who are attached to satyagraha on grounds of principle and which is pervaded with an athletic and perhaps even an ascetic spiritTo achieve this end the satyagrahi

leaders will require to display a very subtle skill: that which is needed to build up the strength of individuals and groups without over-stepping their powers of endurance. (Ibid:181-82)

A third problem that Horsburgh sees is the problem of new methods of breaking resistance. One of these methods may be the brain-washing of leaders who could be induced to disavow their satyagrahi principles and to call upon their followers not to offer further resistance to the aggressors forces. Another of these methods is the use of teargas or non-lethal nerve gases which is supposed to paralyze the will to fight and quench the valour of the fiercest attacker. So these gases could be used to break-up demonstrations and other public appeals. But Horsburgh believes that this method would not be very effective against non-violent resisters because (i) it has only a short term disablement effect, and (ii) it would affect only a small part of the population at a time.

This raises the question whether the use of atom bomb which can, at a stroke, destroy a vast bulk of property and population may lead to a collapse of the non-violent struggle. This problem was put to Gandhi by an American Journalist (Margaret Bourke White) on 30 January 1948- the last day of Gandhis earthly life. Gandhi replied:
I will not go underground. I will not go into shelter. I will come out in the open and let the pilot see I have not a piece of evil against him. The pilot will not see our faces from his great height, I know, but that longing in our hearts- that he will not come to harm- would reach up to him and his eyes would be opened.If those thousands who were done to death in Hiroshima, if they had died with that prayerful actiondied openly with that prayer in their heartstheir sacrifice would not have gone in vain and the war would not have ended so disgracefully as it had.(Quoted in Gangal, 1960:63-64)

Thus, the problems those have been pointed out are formidable but not, as have been shown, overwhelming. There is no reason, therefore, why one should be skeptical about the effectiveness of satyagraha when faced with such problems. A resolute and really disciplined non-violent community can hope to emerge successfully from even a protracted struggle against a ruthless and resourceful opponent.

A fourth objection and a very important one is that even if non-violent techniques would work, it shall not be tried by the governments because, for its effectiveness, the technique presupposes certain principles having stringent

implications, conformity with which is bound to be very difficult.

There appears to be at least three such conditions: a community must have made very substantial progress towards the realization of social justice; it must also have achieved an extremely high level of social discipline; and the social discipline to which it has attained must not depend, in any large measure, upon the use of traditional methods of law enforcement.(Horsburgh, 1968:124)

In a word it can be said that the technique of satyagrha presupposes the condition of sarvodaya or the non-violent society.

It may be true that there is a connection between social structure and techniques of resolving conflicts; an ideal decentralized society would be very conducive for a nonviolent conflict resolution technique. But this does not necessarily mean that such a society must be established before such techniques can be put to practice. There are mainly two reasons for holding this opinion. First, this exactly was Gandhis position. While he sought through the constructive programme to build up the non-violent social order, he forged the nonviolent means for freeing India from the British occupation without waiting for the social order of his dreams to materialize. Similarly, when he held that India must adopt non-violent defence policy after independence, he did not have any illusion about the just society being achieved immediately after swaraj.

Secondly, while one is waiting for the just society to come to be able to put the non-violent techniques into practice that society may never come at all. The requirements of a violent technique that the country is now pursuing shall work against the effort to achieve a non-violent society. On the other hand, the adoption of nonviolent techniques now will help improve the social order partly because of the absence

of negative military requirements and partly because of the importance of improving the society to make it more worthy of defence in the eyes of men and women who will have to carry out resistance.(Gene Sharp,1979:162) But there is no denying the fact that in the absence of non-violent social order, these techniques shall not be as effective as visualized. As Horsburgh writes, .it will not be free to prepare for non-violent defence with its weapons still in its hands any more than a reformed burglar is at liberty to support him self on the proceeds on crime while he is training to make an honest living.(1968:128) This is a serious dilemma and he admits that there is no complete answer.(Ibid:128) This, however, does not give the critics an excuse to reject the techniques in toto which, they hold, shall never be tried. An ideal solution to the problem may be that once a country has made a firm decision to rely upon Gandhian techniques of conflict resolution, this decision must give tremendous urgency to the changes which are needed to make the techniques effective, and hence, it would be possible to satisfy the minimum requirements of effective non-violent techniques in a comparatively short period of time. Another criticism of non-violence arises from free Indias failure. When the Indian Government and people responded to the Pakistani and Chinese invasions by military force and put their reliance upon arms to meet foreign threat, it evoked two types of response both from outside and inside India. The pacifists thought that India had, somehow, let them down, that she had failed to live up to the non-violent alternative presented by Gandhi. The critics of non-violence, on the other hand, saw in it a reinforcement of their belief that no government would ever try the Gandhian technique. But it seems that both the pacifists and the critics were wrong.

The adoption by the Indian National Congress of non-violent struggle under Gandhi to deal with British imperialism was not a doctrinal or moral act. It was a political act in response to political programme of action proposed to deal with a particular kind of situation and crisis. The Indian nationalists had adopted non-violent

course of action because they could be brought to see by Gandhi that non-violence was a practical way of acting which would enable them to achieve their goals. When that struggle was won, however, Indians did not, automatically, continue their adherence to non-violent means. This was a natural and predictable consequence. Faced with what they believed to be unjustified Pakistani and Chinese military invasions, the Indians, in the absence of a systematically developed non-violent programme of action, turned to the only means they believed to be effective in this situation- that is the military action. This was not surprising. This meant that in a crisis India would fight, to the maximum of her capacity, in the same way as she or other countries have fought before- just as without Gandhis earlier practical programme Indias freedom struggle would have been a bloody one. India's First War of Independence (1857) and occasional terrorist and revolutionary activities during the freedom struggle bear it out.

5.8.1 Tackling Global Terrorism: The Gandhian Way Any technique of conflict resolution which claims contemporary relevance must be tested against the touch stone of some important present day conflicts. This thesis proposes to test the Gandhian technique vis--vis a most despairing feature of global conflict i.e. global terrorism particularly of the type perpetrated by the misguided crusaders of Islamic faith. Even through the so called war on terror declared by coalition of the willing led by the USA has entered its tenth year, terrorist violence not only continues unabated, but has also grown in magnitude and sophistication leaving behind incidences of more deaths and destruction. This proves that the conventional military technology has proved ineffectual in dealing effectively with global terrorism. It is therefore necessary to think outside the paradigm of war discourse. Gandhian nonviolent action provides one such alternative which deserves serious consideration and an informed debate.

Without going into the contentious task of defining terrorism, one may accept the standard definition that it refers to calculated use of violence or threat of violence on both combatant (military) and non-combatant (civilian) population in order to attain goals that are political, religious or military in nature. Knowing fully well that such a definition will also include the so called state terrorism, for the purpose of discussion in this thesis; state terrorism has been excluded from its scope. This thesis therefore, will confine itself to the so called Islamist terrorism.

In order to apply Gandhian technique of Satyagraha with relevant modification to deal with the issue of Global terrorism it is necessary to begin with what Gandhi had done before launching any Satyagraha. As mentioned earlier in this thesis while discussing various stages of Satyagraha, the first stage comprises of negotiation with the adversary. In order to conduct negotiation in the Gandian sense it is necessary for the Satyagrahi to learn the reasons that compel an opponent to act violently. In fact knowledge of the opponents motives, strategies, weaknesses etc. is a core component of any negotiation technique, Gandhian or otherwise. In Gandian perspective this knowledge is obtained not to score bargaining points with the opponent, but to understand his genuine needs and co-opt them into the creative resolution of conflict. Most of the governments fighting terrorism have not undertaken any serious attempt to understand the core motives of the terrorists. The result is creation of a number of misnomers and stereotypes which have further aggravated the sense of alienation of the Muslim community.

The core motivations cited by western governments for Islamist terrorism is the hatred of democracy, capitalism and an apparent anti-Islamic postures of the western

The recent record of US military intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and the resultant civilian casualties thereof and the abuses conducted by the US intelligence agencies upon Iraqi prisoners at Abu Gharib are but some example of state terrorism which are no less heinous than those perpetrated by non-state actors.
*

governments. This reflects a narrow mindedness of conventional rationality in regard to terrorism because as Sundhaussen has pointed out envy whether religiously motivated or motivated by anti-Americanism is not emotionally strong enough to prompt such heinous form of violence. (2004: 21) This nave conventional rationality on terrorism has served only to widen the wedge and schism between us and 'them' the good and evil and has provided a justification to the revenge minded governments to aggressively pursue military option to eradicate the scourge of terrorism and the terrorists, to pursue more mindless forms of violence.

The hatred for capitalism, democracy, non-Islamic religions etc. are but symptoms of deeper motivations of terrorism. The causes include historical humiliation, political suppression, social inequality and most importantly economic marginalisation of the Muslim community in all most all the countries of the world where they are a minority. In India, the Sachar Committee Report (2006) has provided graphic details supported by data, of the relative backwardness of the Muslims vis--vis people belonging to other religions. Even in the Islamic countries, where Muslims are in overwhelming majority, the abjectness of mass poverty and deprivation caused by selfserving rich elite supported by western governments, have generated antipathy not only against the inland elites, but also against their overseas patrons. This explains the rise of acts of terrorism in countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.

Though religion as a significant motivator of terror violence may be discarded, it does provided moral justification for immunizing the perpetrator against any human feelings of repulsion or remorse towards violence committed on the innocents. Religion also functions as a binding mechanism to galvanize the jehadis to their cause. Religion based terrorism, according to Garsson are altruistic because it is ultimately practiced according to a belief in the right of the cause and for greater good of the community. (2004: 32) In case of Islamist terrorism the purpose is to undo the acts of injustice by the non-Islamic nations against Islam. Fundamentalist interpretations of Quranic

scriptures not only justify violent response to wider grievances, but also galvanize the Islamist terrorist at a value-orientated level. As anthropologist Antoun points out: The most important aspect of scripturalism is its emotional and inspirational quality for believers; its relation to the numinous (the mysterious, powerful and awe-inspiring); its serving as a grounding for militant nationalism. (2003:12) Thus a non-violent Gandhian technique will have to take all these typical nuances of Islamist terror motive into account in order to devise an effective technique.

It is not the unique complex of motive of Islamist terrorism alone which provides a challenge to Satyagraha technique. The methods adopted by these terrorists are also unconventional. Historically successful satyagraha movements have prevailed in circumstances whereby there is a direct face to face contact between the Satyagraha and the opponent as for example in the case of Indian independence movement or the US civil rights campaign. Satyagraha by precedent has proven to be fruitful against conventional forms of opponent. Modern terrorism has tended to utilize two forms of tactic to perpetrate violence- hit and fade away and altruistic suicide. The first tactics include bombs detonated by remote action, kidnap (hostage) situations and fire and disappear. The key differentiation between hit and fade away tactics and other conventional forms of violence is that in the words of Laquer, smoking guns are seldom left at the scene of the crime (2005:148). The terrorist is an invisible opponent at the point of attack. Some organization may claim the responsibility of attack later but its members are faceless people who cannot be tracked easily. The second method, altruistic suicide, a Durkheimian label, is popularly known as suicide bombing. In this case, suicide as a weapon is undertaken by the Jehadi with the motive of both religious and social martyrdom. It is altruistic because it is performed for the wider communitarian concern which in case of Islamist terrorism is for the benefit of the Islamic world. This clandestine nature of terror violence and its link with religious crusade are unconventional in relation to traditional perceptions of conflict with which Satyagraha as a method is familiar.

Global terrorism poses a formidable challenge to Satyagraha on a couple of counts. Firstly, an assumption of successful Satyagraha practice is the ability of the Satyagrahi to engage with the adversary in the process of conflict transformation till the truth is reached. In the conventional forms of conflict the transparency of the adversary makes the task easier for the Satyagrahi. But engaging with an invisible enemy as in case of terrorists does not yield to traditional Satyagraha technique. Secondly, Satyagraha is dependent upon the parties being amenable to an appeal to the heart and mind. Gene Sharp calls it moral jiu-jitsu. The moral stance of the adversary, its heart and mind is altered when the cruelty and brutality it inflicts upon non-violent activists is met without violent reaction. The opponent is faced with the ethical dilemma in regard to the validity of committing force against the innocent Satyagrahi who is prepared to undergo suffering without any malice with the sole purpose of transforming the opponent. But modern terrorism will not have these moral pangs because violence on civilians and non-combatants is an essential strategy of terror operation. Coupled with this is the altruistic nature of violence which makes terrorism apparently non susceptible to non-violent action.

Thus the nuances of terror violence support the argument that non-violence is ineffective against it and hence its suppression by military means is the only way available. But, as has been discussed, meeting violence with violence, breeds more violence. It is therefore worthwhile to try to suitably modify the traditional Gandhian method in order to deal with this unconventional form of conflict. The conventional aphorism that prevention is better than cure holds true here too. Non-violent strategies should primarily focus on alleviating the root causes that generate terrorism. The prevention tactic so far adopted is the use of global intelligence system. Prima facie peaceful intelligence system does not seem to neatly fit into the concept of pure non-

violence. It is because violent motive is built into it in the sense that it is aimed at nabbing potential terrorists and dealing with them with a draconian system of jurisprudence which many countries have devised. That the intelligence system has not yielded desired results is proved by the fact that despite synergizing intelligence network of various countries, terrorist attacks have shown no signs to subsiding.

A first step at tackling the root of terrorism would be to alter the policies of some countries which create humiliation and alienation in the Muslim world. Instead of chasing neo-liberal and neo-conservative economic ideals; Western states should pursue goals such as alleviation of world poverty and economic inequalities, active unbiased objective of a resolution to Israeli/Palestinian conflict and respect for Islamic lands and their political and religious differences. Such drastic shifts in Western realpolitik and Western attitudes towards the Islamic world would no doubt prove significant in eliminating the core motives underlying the Islamist terrorism. Only if the root causes of terrorism are altered will peaceful forms of conflict transformation become more appealing to organizations carrying out terrorist attacks.

A second step would be for the countries with substantial Muslim population including India to adopt proactive policy measures designed to uplift the economic condition of the poor, a substantial part of which is comprised of by the Muslims. Though the Muslim world particularly its intellectual and religious elites cannot abdicate a part of the blame for such abysmal condition of the Muslim population, the national policy makers cannot pass the buck to them and wait for the internal change in the community to take place first. It is worthwhile to promote global transformation in the Islamic world, which would involve emphasizing universal standards of education, development of interpersonal dialogue between people of different religious faiths and developing of interpersonal international partnerships between Western and other countries with the intention of resolving issues such as economic disparity.

Dealing with economic cause of terrorism alone is not a sufficient preventive measure. Another core motivation of world terrorism is religious. As asserted by Laqueur in referring to undoing core motivations of terrorism. "This sounds plausible enough, for happy and content people are unlikely to commit savage acts of violence. Although this may be true as an abstract general proposition, it seldom applies in the real world. (2005:141) The religious underpinning of terrorism must also be dealt with in order to transform the nature of the conflict. To do this the nave and stereotypic views about Qur'anic teachings held by most of the non-Islamic societies and even many in the Islamic society should be countered by emphasizing on the real essence of Qur'an. Islam, like all other religions is a religion emphasizing on basic human values like equality, peace, sacredness of life etc. The fundamentalist view point preached by terror organizations is a misinterpretation of Islam and in fact represents a fringe position. As pointed out by Patrrick Sookdheo(2005), a section of Muslim scholarship have used the rule of abrogation whereby if there is a juxtaposition between textual doctrines, the latter doctrine will prevail. This has afforded unwarranted legitimacy to Jihadi campaign in the psyche of Muslim followers. It is necessary to counter this misinterpretation by emphasizing and popularizing the interpretations of moderate Muslim scholarship which advocates peace and love for fellow beings as the real message of Quran. That would deprive the jihadi perpetrators the religious legitimacy without which they will be severely invalidated.

On the front of international relation, the problem of Palestine should be treated with more urgency and sincerity. The longstanding and genuine demands of the Palestinians should be fulfilled and they should be ensured a homeland which is the due of every nationality. This would also deprive the terrorists and their campaign machine another justification for violence by which they have been able to generate a support base among the Muslim populace.

The measures suggested above to tackle terrorism are but preliminary suggestions. A more sustained and detailed modus operandi may be worked out on these general propositions. Also, there is nothing path breaking in the above proposals. Similar suggestions have been made earlier also. But, what is lacking is the implementations of these steps in true Gandhian sincerity and conviction.

5.9 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Whether conflicts in human society should be settled by means of violence or nonviolence is not a sectarian question, but one that modern means of violence have made relevant to the very survival of the human race. It is reasonable to conclude that this situation is not different from the situation which Gandhi himself confronted. His response was that the dangers of militaristic policy must be constantly pointed out and the main task lies in the formulation and development of an alternative non-violent policy. The solution is, therefore, neither acceptance of militaristic technique nor simply conscientious objection. It is the formulation and development of a course of action, non-violent yet efficacious, which would make it possible for the people to choose between violent and non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms.

CHAPTER: 6

Conclusion

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
In the preceding chapters discussion has been made of the conflict dynamics as well as some of the well known theories of conflict including the Gandhian theory. Though there are fundamental differences among various theories relating to the perception of conflicts and their resolution, the three approaches namely, conflict management, conflict resolution and conflict transformation have a common philosophical base that is Liberalism and hence may be grouped under Liberal paradigm. The Marxian approach belongs to the Marxist Leninist school. Both these approaches focus on strategies and technical consideration, generally leaving aside psychological, philosophical and especially ethical ones. The Gandhian model looks at the phenomenon of conflict and its resolution from a moral consideration.

Some fundamental differences between the Liberal and the Marxian schools on the one hand and the Gandhian school on the other may be summarized as follows:

Both the Liberal and the Marxian schools of thought concentrate on materialism and technology to develop such materialism. They share the common legacy of a linear

progression of material view of life and society. Gandhian focus is on simplicity of life founded on basic human needs and moral and ethico-spiritual fulfillment of life. Both share a common view of man verses nature in which the former is the victor and the latter the vanquished and nature has to be managed and controlled for the material fulfillment of man. The Gandhian view is one of man-in-nature. This leads to sensitivity to an ecological balance and mans place in it.

Both these paradigms lead to a centralist and bureaucratic view of societys problems. The conflict resolution techniques prescribed by them heavily rely on institutionalized means and macro apparatus. The Gandhian paradigm on the other hand emphasizes on micro efforts. Gandhi realizes the enormous potential of a single actor to bring about important social transformation. Here the stress is on individual and social praxis. The Gandhian conception may be termed as the unity of existence.

One reason as to why both the Marxian and the Liberal paradigms have these common basic postulates is that they are culture bound. They represent the western perspective which gives them the Euro-centric character. Another reason is that they essentially deal with national transformation, the emergence of national economy, nation-state etc. These paradigms are therefore sectarian in outlook. The Gandhian focus, on the other hand, is on truth which is both a scientific and moral question and not on any falsification of or rationalization for sectarian class interests on which other two paradigms lay emphasis.

There is a profound theoretical reason as to why both Liberal and Marxian paradigms should be labeled as violent. The Liberal theory assumes a large area of agreement and of similarity among substantial population of a society. And hence tools are designed to operate within a set of generally agreed upon regulative principles. So

long as such a state meets no serious challenge from without and can maintain the large area of basic agreement within, it operates smoothly. But when threatened by aggression or subversion they respond with the only means they have been used to respond with i.e. violent force. Liberal Democracy relies ultimately on violent force for the maintenance of its very foundations. It does not challenge but depends upon violent force as the operative sanction provided in its basic law. (Bondurant, 1959:218)

The Marxian paradigm does not try to hide its preference for revolutionary violence to bring about a just society in which conflicts have less chance to occur and in stray cases of occurrence they can be resolved without much difficulty because the basic cause of conflict i.e. class contradiction would have been eliminated in a such a society. The conflicts which still might emerge in such a society would relate not to any malfunctioning structure, but rather due to personal ambition or individual orientation. A communist class less society, according to Marx, would be adequately equipped to deal with such conflict. Though Marx does hold that a non-violent method if found efficacious is preferable to violent method, the fact that such a reference to non violence is rather rare and casual in his entire body of writings, proves that he has his doubts as to whether non violence can at all be efficacious.

The Gandhian philosophy of Satyagraha does share certain basic postulates with the Marxian dialectics. To the extent that the Marxian dialectics is expressed in terms of social environment and human needs, Gandhi has no objection. The dialectics of Satyagraha shares with the Marxian dialectics its projection beyond the realm of logic into the field of social and political action. The Gandhian analysis would also accept the convenient structure of thesis and anti-thesis as expressing elements in the continuing process of growth through conflict and again the idea of synthesis as the welcomed result (Bondurant, 1959: 191). But, according to Gandhian philosophy, the development of Marxian dialectics in the direction of predetermined content of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis is a violent discourse. Thus, with Marx the conflict between

thesis and anti-thesis is inevitably class conflict and the direction in which such conflict can move is irrevocably determined to end in a predetermined state of classless society. This historicism of Marxian dialectics is nothing short of violence because it does not allow the process of dialectics to move in a dynamic, creative and unchartered direction.

Satyagraha as a technique of conflict resolution and as a means of political action can only lead to solutions yet unknown. The beauty of Satyagraha lies in its unpredictable course of movement. The only thing certain about its movement is that it should ensure a cooperative journey to higher stage of truth, a just structural arrangement in which conflicts can be creatively solved. The Gandhian position here is closer to the Liberal position.

But it would be wrong to assume that the Gandhian paradigm is in total agreement with the Liberal or Neo-Liberal theory. As has been discussed, like the Marxian technique, the Liberal technique is also a violent technique in the sense that recourse to violence is retained as a last resort of conflict resolution. It depends heavily on majority decision as its regulative action and its technique for adjusting conflicting interests in the unrefined method of compromise (a kind of barter system). Beyond these elements lies tacit acceptance of violence, should the representative majority system be subverted, the ultimate right lies with violent revolution.

Another weakness of the Liberal theory is that it has failed to deal adequately with the question of ends-means relationship. In the current clime when the so called democratic way of life and the democratic institutions are so seriously threatened, the theory has failed to evolve means whereby desirable ends may be secured. It has failed to develop an adequate technique of action as distinct from the structure of political machinery. It has concerned itself with mechanism, not with action, with form rather than performance, with instrument and not technique (Bondurant, 1959: 217).

The Gandhian technique of Satyagraha, as has been discussed in this thesis, employs widely the well tried methods of Liberal theory, like negotiation, consensus building etc. until they no longer serve to solve the problem. It is when conflict persists that Satyagraha supplies the processes whereby constructive solutions may yet be achieved. At this point when the Liberal solution is violent revolution, Satyagraha points directly to a new method of revolution. It also points the direction in which techniques of adjustment of persisting conflict could be developed within a Liberal Democratic State.

The Satyagraha technique of Gandhi does not suffer from any confusion so far as the problem of ends and means is concerned. The element of non-violence in Satyagraha is inseparable from a view of truth. In the quest for such truth and in its propagation it is not possible in proper Satyagraha to inflict harm on others. In so behaving truth itself would lose its meaning. As has been discussed in the preceding chapter the aim of Satyagraha is to win victory over the conflict situation, to discover further truths and to persuade the opponent; not to triumph over him.

The ends and means relationship operating in Satyagraha has been more succinctly put by Sridharani describing the means as the end in process and the ideal in the making (Sridharani, 1939: 316). In Satyagraha, the protagonist is prepared to revise his opinion and his goal if he is persuaded of their falsity. Therefore, there is no room for static ends. The most unique quality of Satyagraha is the flexibility in ends with an emphasis on means. Satyagraha is more than means. It is in fact, end creating. It introduces a dynamic element because as a creative technique it takes not its end to be preservation of a static way of life or triumph of a stable system. It proceeds as a means which assumes the proportion of an end in itself. It is constructive and creative and embraces changing ends.

The Liberal and the Marxian paradigms have been termed as violent for separate reasons of course and hence do not provide any alternative made of dealing with conflicts.Whether violence is accepted as a method either as the last resort (Liberal school) or as inbuilt into the dialectics of conflict formation and resolution as a fait accompli (The Marxian school), it does not make any qualitative difference between the two approaches.

But the conflict transformation approach or the structuralist school, though belongs to the Liberal paradigm in a general sense, does differ from it in important details. Its proximity to the Gandhian approach is evident. Both the approaches hold the structural imbalance as the root cause of conflict. Again both emphasize on cooperative endeavour of both parties to modify the structural maladies and in it find the way to a more meaningful readjustment of the relationship between the parties to the conflict. And most importantly both the structuralist and the Gandhian approach hold on to the non-violent method of conflict resolution till the last. This similarity is exemplified by the fact that the most renowned protagonist of the structuralist approach, Johan Galtung, makes repeated eulogistic reference to the Gandhian non-violent method.

But the structuralist suffers from confusion so far as a precise definition of nonviolence is concerned. In fact, one argument is that considered from a structuralist perspective non violence in fact is a form of violence. (Derriennic, 1972:63-64) Non violence can be broadly of two types, behaviour avoiding biological violence (killing, hurting, etc.) but including other physical means (strike, civil disobedience etc.) and behaviour using no physical means at all but only psychological means (like fasting, self-suffering, etc.). An extreme form of non-violence eschewing any influence altogether is what Galtung calls the vacuous concept of non-violence and hence is useless both as a theoretical problem and also as a course of action. Such a concept does not belong to a world when human interaction and interdependence are both inevitable

and desirable to most. Moreover, it is empirically empty because any interaction will contain elements of influence.

If we accept the structuralist definition of violence as being the 'cause of difference between actual and potential'(Galtung, 1969), non-violence both in its physical and psychological forms do restrict the possibilities of action of the opponent and hence may impede the potential to grow into actual and hence, violent, albeit, less violent. "On the scale of decreasing violence, civil disobedience is less violent than biological violence as deterrence is less violent than actual fighting". (Derriennic, 1972:63) Gandhis conception of non-violence is positive. Here non-violence is not seen as a means for achieving a desirable end, but is viewed as reflecting the desirable relationships aimed for between and within communities. His view that the community would find the exercise of physical force inferior to non-violent methods, in all cases of conflict resolution, is an instance of the ends aimed for by a community.

This moral force of Satyagraha which Gandhi calls 'soul force', the psychological intent of Satyagrahi of non pressurizing but partnering the opponent in transforming a repressive structure, is what distinguishes Gandhian non-violence from what Gandhi calls expedient non-violence. Thus, going back to Galtungs definition of violence as the cause of difference between the potential and actual, Gandhian nonviolence in fact bridges the gap between the two. In as much as, it is an exhilarating experience for both the protagonists, it by no means can be called a form of violence. Gandhi provides an answer to the theoretical dilemma faced by the structuralist perspective of violence.

Need for a Non-violent Technique of Conflict Resolution Theoretical formulations on Gandhian paradigm of conflict resolution are of no use if they are not followed with a technique of action in conflict situations- a technique which is both effective and non violent or at least predominantly non-violent. As Bondurant puts it, The Engineer must be flanked by scientist on the one hand and the construction worker on the other. (1959:230) In the absence of such a method of action, confidence continues to lie with violent course of action. In order to prove that methods of non-violent struggle are in fact credible alternatives to the traditional methods of violence, there must be good reasons to believe that they are effective means for the attainment of at least some desirable ends which violence in certain situation undoubtedly has been.

Condemnation of violence and repetition of moral precepts have done little to remove violence. People will not give up reliance on violence unless and until they see that there exists powerful alternative non violent means of struggle that can be effective. Gandhi understood this very well.

Past peace movement, non-violent resistance and programmes of action to achieve greater freedom and social justice have been impressive, yet have not been adequate to remove the problems of violence and war, oppression, exploitation, denial of human rights etc. This may be because many peace and reform advocates have offered hopes and dreams in stead of effective means to actually produce a better society. Also most past cases of non-violent struggle - before Gandhis involvement, independently during his life time and since his passing - did not have the benefit of Gandhis natural strategic acumens. Most of these were improvised impromptu and instinctive rather than carefully planned and prepared. While spontaneity has some positive qualities, it has had its share of disadvantages also. Lack of planning and preparations meant that the non violent resisters have not anticipated the mammoth force and brutalities they were going to encounter and therefore suffered gravely and

resistance collapsed. Also, they were not prepared to face the future situations and the new role they would have to play in the aftermath of a successful conclusion of the conflict. This has resulted in emergence of a new dictatorship or other forms of oppression.

It is being increasingly recognized that the technique of non-violence resistance cannot achieve greater effectiveness at lower cost simply on the strength of purity of beliefs. It requires understanding, courage, discipline and great strategic skill. All these qualities were emphasized by Gandhi. A strategy of non violent action requires increased understanding of its major characteristics, capacity, requirement and its strategic principles. It includes steps like identifying the characteristics of the present situation, what needs to be done, why, when and how to do it and how to counter opponents actions and repressions. Gandhi, according to Sharp (1979) is a master strategist. He is no nave romantic playing with politics. The times in which he lived were very much akin to ours. There were acute conflicts, large scale violence, mass killings, communal and racial hatreds etc. Gandhi has a very down to earth understanding of the nature of power politics. He fully recognizes the role of power in conflicts. His understanding of power is far more comprehensive than those who dogmatically believe that violence and military might are the only real source of power. Gandhi does not deny the reality of power of oppressors, but he does not ignore either the plight of the suffering powerless nor their potential for self liberation. He is convinced that non-violent method is potentially more powerful than violent method. He writes:

No Government much less the Indian Government- can subsist if the people cease to serve it. Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for the consent of the governed whose consent is often forcibly procured by the despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force, his power is gone. (Quoted in Sharp, 1979: 44)

A very important point has to be taken note of that while evolving a non violent technique of conflict resolution one has to look beyond Gandhi. Gandhi is clearly the most important protagonist and practitioner of non-violent conflict resolution technique. His technique is not only for the immediate situation but beyond his life time. He anticipates its further development and practice in other parts of the world. He recognizes that there are relevant insights and experiences elsewhere that could help in formulating wise and responsible ways to move forward in the current situation. In all world areas there are non-violent cultural resources and traditions that have their own contributions to make. Gandhis example can serve as a powerful stimulus to evoke them as illustrated by his influence upon the African American non violent civil rights movement in the United States led by Dr. Martin Luther King. But the movement also had its roots in Christianity and in the African-American experience. Similarly Tolstoy provided a source of inspiration and example in Russia that contributed to Gandhis work, which in turn was creatively rooted in Gandhis understanding of both Indian and British cultures. It is quite heartening to find that since Gandhis assassination, efforts to carry on his mantle of non-violent action have proliferated in various problem areas throughout the world. There have been movements at micro level like at the level of individual or small groups and at macro level at the level of political parties and civil society organizations. Some of them are localized while others have grown into campaigns at international level. Some are highly specialized dealing with particular problem areas where as others are amorphous general purpose movements concerned with broad humanistic areas like social justice, equality, human rights etc. But all of them have within their core, the broad Gandhian principles. All of them have the common motto to create a non-violent world order. It is pertinent to take note of them, appreciate their efforts and to strengthen them so as to turn the present predominantly violent

international system into an increasingly non-violent and peaceful system in which people can live happy productive and creative lives.

It is unfortunate and incredible that the most prominent apostle of peace in modern times, Mahatma Gandhi never received Nobel Peace Prize. Not that this, in any way diminishes Gandhis contribution to the creation of a non-violent world order. In fact it is a recognition of his seminal contribution that many of the subsequent recipients of this prize have, expressly or in the essence of their work, recognized Gandhis influence on them. They include Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mother Teresa, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Dalai Lama etc. All of them have clearly expressed their indebtedness to Gandhian inspiration and have worked for a non violent world order.

Apart from these outstanding individuals and countless others who remain unknown, many dedicated institutions are also working toward non violent solutions to global problems. Each, in its own way, resonates to and reflects the teaching and example of Gandhi. The contribution of some of these in various issue areas, need a brief mention.

In the area of peace and disarmament two organizations namely the War Resisters International and Peace Brigades International have incessantly carried on their campaign with help from distinguished Gandhians such as Narayan Desai. Since 1981 the Womens Peace camp at Greenham Common air base in England has been carrying on its courageous struggle to resist nuclear weapons. There is also a new international movement to abolish national armies initiated by the group called Gruppe Schweiz Ohne Armee (Switzerland without Army) which succeeded in gaining support of some one million voters in spring 1990 referendum to abolish the Swiss Army.

On the issue of economic justice, notable contribution have been made by Sarvodaya Movement in India and the Bhudan-Gramdan legacy of Binoba Bhave and J.P. Narayan and also the Buddhist based Sarvodaya Movement in the villages of Sri Lanka under the dedicated guidance of A.T. Aviyaratne. The imprint of Gandhian legacy can be seen in the Manifesto of Nobel Prize Recipients (1981) on the global holocaust of hunger and underdevelopment signed by 53 Nobel Prize winners in diverse areas. After identifying the cause of this abject poverty, deprivation and underdevelopment as political, they have appealed to Gandhian legacy of non-violent transformation action:

If the helpless take their fate into their own hands, if increasing numbers refuse to obey any law other than the fundamental human rights .. if the weak organize themselves and use the few but powerful weapons (means) available to them, non violent action, exemplified by Gandhi adopting and imposing objectives which are limited and suitable: if these things happen it is certain that an end could be put to this catastrophe in our time. [IFDA Dossier 25. September-October 1981. pp. 1 (61)-3 (63)]

For human rights, Amnesty International, a non profit organization working since 1961 is a name to reckon with. It has been tirelessly campaigning to abolish death penalty, to end torture and to gain freedom through out the world and to secure justice and fair play for the downtrodden. It has inspired a number of similar organizations at the national level for the protection of human rights. In Latin America, an organization called Servicio Paz Y Justicia guided by nobel laureate, Adolfa Perez Esquevel has made significant impact in the field of human rights. The organization grew out of the courageous protests of Argentinean women against the violent disappearance of their children under a military regime.

In the filed of environmental protection the non-violent direct action efforts of Green Peace International to remove threats to a life supporting environment on land, sea and in the air; has been noteworthy. The Chipko (Hug the tress) Movement in India is a great example of a successful non-violent struggle in Gandhian lines for the protection of trees in the UP hills. There have also been innumerable examples of

peaceful struggle lunched at various places for environmental protection against government, forest mafia, companies etc.

Another noteworthy development since 1980s has been the creation, electoral competition and electoral success of Green parties through out the world. They are well represented in the European Parliament. They have emerged also in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, the United States etc. According to Petra Kelly, a founder member of the German Green Party, the Green drew inspiration from both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. (Kelly, 1989). Although members of green parties differ in the degree of acceptance of the principles of non-violence as a way to cope with all instances of violence, it is customarily included with other Green values such as ecology, feminism, grassroots democracy as goals of Green Political Movement. This espousal of non-violence as a basic political value is of great significance. It shifts, albeit partly, the burden of non-violent change from the shoulders of the victimized who are outside the chambers of established power so that it can be voiced by representatives within them.

In the field of research and training in non-violent political action, some leading institutes have established special centers exclusively devoted to the purpose. Mention may be made of the Albert Einstein Institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA directed by Dr. Gene Sharp. The main emphasis of this institute is to promote research, policy studies and education concerning the nature and potential of non-violent sanctions, in comparison with violent ones for solving the problems of aggression, dictatorship, genocide and oppression. Also effective training for non-violent action has been given under the auspices of International Fellowship of Reconciliation. It made an important contribution to non-violent political change in the Philippines in 1986 and continues to train non-violent problem solvers for other areas plagued by violence, such as Cambodia.

Back at home, mention may be made of significant contribution to Gandhian legacy of non-violent action by Gandhi Gram Rural Institute (Deemed University), Tamilnadu, founded by the dedicated Gandhian educator Dr. G. Ramachandran. The whole university is based on the principle of non-violence. That includes the effort to have the entire University respond to the needs of all who live in its surrounding areas through cooperative planning and implementation of constructive service programmes. The Shanti Sena (Peace Brigade) of this university provides an alternative to violent military training. Some important features of this training are instruction in the spirit and principles of non-violent, tolerance, discipline, fearlessness, conflict resolution, artistic expression etc. This idea should be gradually adopted by every college and university in the world as an important source of leadership to assist transition to a nonviolent global community.

The instances mentioned above do not constitute even a small fraction of innumerable similar campaigns and movements taking place in various party of the world. The purpose of this brief survey of path breaking non-violent efforts in various areas of conflict resolution is to show that there is already in existence substantial nonviolent knowledge and experience which if acted upon by individuals and translated into policy by private and public institutions can assist significant non-violent change throughout the world. Just as there are maps of world military deployments or of world energy and food resources, we need a map of global violence overlaid with a map of non-violent resources for global problem solving. A Last Word Non-violent action in the resolution of conflict in both political and social arena has a long history. In spite of Gandhis development of satyagraha- the most systematic, developed mode of non-violent action- and its dramatic use in India; astonishingly little attention has been paid to the process involved in the working of satyagraha. Most of the writers on satyagraha have operated on two levels. They have either concerned themselves with a philosophical elaboration of the meaning of satyagraha or have

sought to analyze it purely in terms of its chief architect, Mahatma Gandhi. The result has been cynicism and pessimism about the efficacy of satyagraha. This, therefore, calls for a thorough self-criticism.

Gandhi himself never had any illusion that what he had worked out was a detailed and comprehensive technique which could be applicable to all situations of conflict. Gandhi wrote on 11 January, 1948, ".The technique of unconquerable non violence of the strong has not been fully discovered yet." (NVPW-II, 1949: 328) But he does believe that non-violence is the best way of resolving all conflicts. But this generalization devoid of any detailed course of action could not convince many and thus, one finds his political colleagues going their own way and rejecting his recommendations. Gandhis assumption that people, having once seen and experienced the practicality of the non-violent techniques in one situation, would easily accept the universality of the ethic and the political technique, has been demonstrated not to be correct. This does not mean, however, that his development of the technique is of no help in the wider efforts to eliminate political violence. This simply means that the carry over of the technique from one situation to another is not automatic and that specific policies and courses of action must be worked out which are not only practicable but also seen to be practicable for a whole variety of situations where reliance is now placed on violence as the ultimate action. This is, of course, a very difficult task. Gandhi can, by no means, be regarded as a failure just because he was able to take this development only to a certain point during his life-time.

The mantle, therefore, falls on the Gandhian scholars, activists and statesmen to evolve the technique in practical terms, for, it is because of the lack of confidence in the practicality of non-violence that confidence, in turn, shifted to or continues to lie with violent course of action either of military action in war or of strong military

preparations as a deterrent. In doing so the scholars are bound to draw inspiration from Gandhi and follow his guidelines. But, the assumption must always be that Gandhi was a human being prone to error and that it was quite natural that he could not have visualized a number of subsequent developments giving rise to situations to deal with which one cannot rely on Gandhi for concrete course of action.

This, however, is not to underrate the significance of Gandhi today, for, his contemporary significance does not stand or fall with reference to any special technique. Beneath his techniques we can find important principles governing conduct in group struggle and otherwise in social life. It is these principles, ultimately, that are of great importance to us, rather than any special technique to deal with a variety of situations. That the non-violent technique for solving conflict has not been evolved fully and that this technique has not been applied to the extent that it should have been; need not cause despair to its enthusiasts or encourage its critics. After all, non-violence is a developing science and art of life, based on an earnest effort to perceive the truth, speak it out and establish it. Similarly, non-violent resistance is also a technique of controlling and fighting evil and injustice. It must be understood that there is no finality about either of these two things. So the quest must continue with an open mind.

The present generation is fortunate that it is now in a position to learn from the experience of a man who had great faith in the principles of truth and non-violence and truth through non-violence, and who has positively added some dimensions to the teaching and practice of these principles. But before man can reach a stage where he can completely renounce the path of violence and war he may have to evolve these principles further and be able to organize non-violence in strength and depth equal to that of violence which seems to be uppermost today.

It has taken thousands of years for man to perfect the instruments, the techniques, the systems and the organization of violent military science. He has carried out many experiments in this regard. Resources, both in material and human terms, have been utilized in abundance and human energy, too, has been organized on a vast scale to develop this science of destruction. A few decades or even a century is surely not something too much to spend to organize non-violence and to develop techniques to match violent techniques. It is fortunate that very good minds have now realized that the survival of mankind and civilization depends on banishing violence itself and with it all its destructive paraphernalia. The day may not be distant when humanity will awaken to the necessity of sanity and decide upon resolving its conflicts at all levels on the basis of mutual adjustments without destruction of man or material.

It is within the human capability to devise a practicable non-violent technique to deal with conflicts at all levels of human existence. It may be far fetched to hope for the realization of a totally non-violent world community which will have no killing and no threats to kill, no weapons specifically designed to kill, no ideological justifications for killing and no conditions of society that depend for maintenance or change upon the use of killing force. Not at least in foreseeable future. But the already existing inventories of non-violent action should be brought together by peace researchers and practitioners to focus more precisely and to diffuse more widely to solve specific problems of violence. This can be gradually raised to a higher level of consciousness and effectiveness on a global scale so that a non-violent world community which seems impossible today can eventually be realized. In this context it is pertinent to cite Gandhis insight into possibilities for human change, We are daily witnessing the phenomenon of the impossible of yesterday becoming the possibility of today. (Collected Works, 196988:68)

Bibliography

BLIOGRAPHY

Aggestam, Karin (1999). Reframing and Resolving Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, 1988-1998. Lund: Lund University Press. Alexandar, Horace (1966). The Power Struggle and Human Community. Gandhi Marg, Vol. 10, No.3, pp. 169-175. Antoun, Richard (2003). In Bruce Murray, Making Sense of Fundamentalists. FACSNET, http.//www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/antoun.php3. Attali, Jacques (1991). Millennium. Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order. New York: Times Books. Avruch, K. Peter Black and J. Scimecca (1991). Conflict Resolution: Cross Cultural Perspectives. West Port CT: Greenwood Press. Axt, Heinz Jurgen (2006). Conflict A Literature Review. University of Duisburg Essen, Department of Social Sciences : Duiesburg. Azar, E. (1990).The Management of Protracted Social Conflicts: Theory and Case. Dartmouth: Aldershot. Barber, Benjamin R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld New York: Times Books. Bercovitch, Jacob (1984). Social Conflicts and Third Parties: Strategies of Conflict Resolution, Boulder Berdal, M. and D. Malone, Eds. (2000). Greed and Grievance. Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Boulder, Col: Lynne Rienner. Bernerd, J. (1957). Parties and Issues in Conflict, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol-1, pp. 111-121. Bloomsfield, David (1997). Peace Making Strategies in Northern Ireland Building Complementarity in Conflict Management Theory. Basingstoke: MacMillan Press Ltd. Bondurant, J.V. (1959). Conquest of Violence: Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict. Oxford University Press.

Boulding, K.E. (1963). Conflict and Defense. New York. Boulding, K.E. (1982). The War Trap. In Richard Falk et.al. Toward a Just World Order, Boulder: West View. Burton, John W. (1968). Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules, Cambridge. Burton, John W. (1990). Conflict: Human Needs Theory. New York: St. Martins Press. Burton, John W. (1993). Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy . In J. Dennis etal. (eds.) Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bush, R.A.B. and J.P. Floger (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through a Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Carter April, Howard Clark and Michael Randle (2006). People Power and Protest Since 1945: A Bibliography of Non-Violent Action. London: Housmans Book Shop. Case, Clarence Marsh (1923). Non-Violent Coercion: A Study in Methods of Social Pressure. London: George Allen and Union. Chopra, Pran (1972). (ed.), The Sage in Revolt, A Remembrance. Gandhi Peace Foundation: New Delhi. Clapham, Christopher. (1998). Rwanda: The Perils of Peace Making. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 25, No.2, pp 193-210. Collier, P. (1999) Doing Well out of War. The World Bank. The Economics of Crime and Violence Project, Washington D.C., www.World Bank.Org/research/ conflict/ papers/econagenda. Htm Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler (1998). On Economic Causes of Civil War. The World Bank. The Economics of Crime and Violence Project. Washington D.C. Also Published in Oxford Economic Papers, 50. pp 563-73. Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler (2000). Greed and Grievance in Civil War. www.worldbank.org/ research/conflict/papers/greedandgrievance.htm Commoner, Barry (1990). Making Peace with the Planet. New York: Pantheon Books.

Coser, L. (1968).Conflict: Social Aspects in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (ed. Sills), Vol-3, pp. 232-233. Curle, A. (1971). Making Peace. London: Tavistock Publication. Darwin, Charles (1968). The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Davies, James D. (1962). Toward a Theory of Revolution, American Sociological Review, No. 27. pp 5-19. Davies, James D. (1973). Aggression, Violence, Revolution, and War. In Jeanne N. Knutson (ed.), Handbook of Political Psychology, San Francisco, pp. 234-260. Derriennic, Jean Pierre ((1972). Theory and Ideologies of Violence. Journal of Peace Research (Oslo), Vol. 9, pp. 63-64. Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dhawan, Gopinath (1962). The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. Ahemedabad: Navjivan Publications. Dudouet, Veronique (2006). Transition from Violence to Peace. Berghof Report Nr.15.http://www.berghof-center.org/ Duffield, Mark (1997). Evaluating Conflict Resolution- Contexts, Models and Methodology. In Gunnar M. Sorbo et al (eds.) NGOs in Conflict- An Evaluation of International Alert. Chr. Michelsen Institute, CMI Reports Series. Bergen, Norway, pp 79-112. Duncan, R.(ed.) (1971). Selected Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. London: Fontana. Ebert, Theodor (1967).The Meaning of Non-Violent Resistance. Gandhi Marg. Vol. II. No.2. Fischer, M. (ed.) (2006). Ten Years After Dayto: Peace Building and Civil Society in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Berlin: Litverlog. Fisher, R.J. (1999). The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution. New York: Springer- Verlag.

Fisher, R. J.(ed.) (2005). Paving the Way-Contribution of Interactive Conflict Resolution to Peacemaking. Lanham, LD: Lexington Books. Fisher, R.J. and Keashley (1991). The Potential Complementarily of Mediation and Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1). pp. 29-42. Fisher, Roger/Ury, William (1981). Getting to Yes: How to Negotiate without Giving In, London. Fisher, S., A. D. Ibrahim Abdi, J. Ludin, R. Smith, S. Williams and S. Williams (2000). Working with Conflict. Skills and Strategies for Action. London: Zed Books. Francis, D. (2002). People, Peace and Power. Conflict Transformation in Action. London: Pluto Press. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamesh Hamilton. Galtung, Johan (1965). Institutionalized Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Vol-2, pp. 348-397. Galtung, Johan (1967). On the Future of the International System, Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 4. pp 305-333. Galtung, Johan (1969). Violence, Peace and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research, 6.5 pp. 167-191. Galtung, Johan (1972). Gandhi s Views on the Political and Ethical Precondition of a Non-Violent Fighter. In Pran Chopra (ed.). The Sage in Revolt: A Remembrance. New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation Galtung, Johan (1975). Essays in Peace Research, Vol-1. Peace Research EducationAction Copenhegen: Ejlers. Galtung, Johan (1978). Conflict as a way of Life: Peace and Social Structure: Essays in Peace Research, Vol-3, Copenhagen: Christan Ejlers, pp. 484-507. Galtung, Johan (1982). Gandhian Themes In Ingemund Gullvag and Jon Wetlesen (eds.). In Skeptical Wonder: Inquires into the Philosophy of Arne Naess on the Occasion of the 70th Birth Day. Oslo: Universities for Laget.

Galtung, Johan (1985). A Gandhian Theory of Conflict, David Selbourne (ed.), In Theory and in Practice: Essays on the Politics of Jayprakash Narayan. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Galtung, Johan (1990). Cultural Violence, Journal of Peace Research, 27.3 pp. 291305. Galtung, Johan (1992). The way is the Goal:Gandhi Today, Ahmedabad: Gujarat Vidyapith Peace Research Centre. Galtung, Johan (1995). Conflict Resolution as Conflict Transformation. The First Law of Thermodynamics Revisited. In Kumar Rupesenghe Ed. Conflict Transformation. Basingstone: Macmillan Press Ltd. Galtung, Johan (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means. Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. London: Sage Publications. Galtung, Johan (2000). Conflict Transformation by Peaceful means (the transcend method), Cluj-Napoca, http://www.transcend.org/pctrcluj2004/ TRANSCEND manual.pdf. Galtung, Johan (Non Dated). After Violence 3R, Reconstruction, Reconciliation, Resolution: Coping with visible and Invisible Effects of War and Violence. http://www.google.com. Gandhi, M.K. (1940). An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth. Ahemedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M.K. (1948). Non-violence in Peace and War. Vol.1, Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M.K. (1949). Bapus Letters to Mira. Ahmedabad. Gandhi, M.K. (1949). For Pacifists. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M.K. (1949). Non-violence in Peace and War. Vol.2, Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M.K. (1951). Satyagraha. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publication. Gandhi, M.K.(1954). Sarvodaya (The Welfare of All). Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House. Gandhi, M.K. (1957). Socialism of My Conception: Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan. Bombay.

Gandhi, M.K. (1959). All Men are Brothers .London : Longmans Green & Co. Gandhi, M.K. (1970). Non-violent Rsistance.New York: Schocker Books. Gandhi,M.K.Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.1969-1988. (90volumes) Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publication Division, New Delhi. Gangal, S. C. (1960). The Gandhian Way to World Peace. Bombay: Vora and Co. Publication Pvt. Ltd. Goreux, Lovis (2001). Conflict Diamonds, World Bank Africa Region Working Paper Series, No.13, March, 00 7-8 and 21-23. Greg, Richard B (1962). The Best Solver of Conflicts. Gandhi Marg, Vol. 6, no.2, pp. 116-121. Groom, A.J.R. (1998). Paradigms in Conflict. The Strategist, the Conflict Researcher and the Peace Researcher . Review of International Studies 14(2). pp 97-115. Gurr, T. R. and B. Harff (1994). Ethnic Conflict in World Politics, Bounder, Co: Westview Press. Gurr, Ted Robert (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Gurr, Ted Robert (1993). Minorities of Risk. Washington, D.C: US Institute of Peace. Gurr, Ted Robert (1996). Minorities, Nationalists and Ethnopolitical Conflict. In C.A Crocker, F.O. Hampson and P. Hall (eds.) Managing Global Chaos: Sources of the Responses to International Conflict. US Institute of Peace: Washington D.C. Gurr, T.R., M.G. Marshall, D. Khosla (2000). Peace and Conflict 2001: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self Determination Movements and Democracy. Center for International Development and Conflict Management: University of Maryland Haksar, Vinit (2003). The Right to Civil Disobedience. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 41, Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 408-425. Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton. (2000). Rethinking Globalization. In David Held and Anthony McGrew, (eds.), The Global Transformations Reader. London: Blackwell Publishers.

HIIK (2005) (ed.). Conflict Barometer 2005: Crisis, Wars, Coups d etat, Negotiations, Mediations, Peace Settlements, Heidelberg, http.//www.zuser. uniheidelberg .de/ ~Ischeith/CoBa05.pdf. Hingorani, Anand (ed.). (1998). Gandhi for 21st Century, Vol.4. The Science of Satyagraha. Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Holsti, Kalevi J. (1983). International Politics. A Framework for Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Holsti, Kalevi J. (1989). Ecological and Clausewitzing Approaches to the Study of War. Assessing the Possibilities. Paper Presented at the 30th Anniversary Convention of the International Studies Association, London. Holsti, Kalevi J. (1996). The State, War and the State of War, Cambridge Hook, Sidney (1936). From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx. London. Horsburgh, H.J.N., (1968). Non-Violence and Aggression: A Study of Gandhis Moral Equivalent of War. London: Oxford University Press. Huntington, S. (1968). Political Order in Changing Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Making of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Jordens, J.T.F. (1986). Gandhi and the Bhagavadgita. In Robert Minor (ed.) Modern Indian Interpreters of Bhagavadgita. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Kaldor, Mary (1999). New & Old War: Organized Violence in a Global Era: Cambridge/Oxford. Kara, K. (1968). On the Marxist Theory of War and Peace: A Study. Journal of Peace Research. Vol.5.

Kasai, Minoru (1981). Gandhi and the Converging Points of Cultures: India, Japan and others. In K.P. Mishra and S. C. Gangal, Eds., Gandhi and the Contemporary World, Delhi: Chankya Publications. Kaufman, Stuart J., (2000).Peace Building and Conflict Resolution. Prepared for Conference, Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Debating the Kautman Hypothesis. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Oct 14, 2000. Kautsky, K. (1964). The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Michigan: An Arbor. Kelly, Petra K (1989). Gandhi and the Green Party. Gandhi Marg, July-September, pp. 192-202. Kelman, Herbert C./ Fisher, Ronald J. (2003). Conflict Analysis and Resolution. In David O. Sears/Leonie Huddy/Robert Jervis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford, pp. 315-353, http.//www.wcfia.harvard.edu/faculty/hckelman/papers/hck CAR.pdf. Kothari, Rajni (1975). Changing Nature of Human Conflict in Our Times. Gandhi Marg, Vol. 19, No-223, April-July, 1975. pp 129-140. Kriesberg, Louis (1998). Constructive Conflicts. From Escalation of Resolution. Lanham. Kriesberg, Louis (2005). Nature, Dynamics and Phases of Intractability. In. G. Dosi (ed.) Grasping the Nettle. Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Washington, D.C.: USIP Press. Laider, Julian (1977). On the Nature of War. Swedish Institution of International Affairs. Laqueur, W. (2005). Reflections on Terrorism. In R. O Kane, (ed.), Terrorism. Edward, Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Larson, Deborah Welch. (1985). Origin of Containment: A Psychological Explanation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Larsson, J. (2004). Understanding Religious Violence- Thinking Outside the Box on Terrorism. Ashgate, Aldershot Lederach, J.P. (1995). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. New York, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Lederach, J.P. (2003). The Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Intercourse. PA: Good Books. Lederach, J.P. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lerche III, Charles O. 1998. The Conflicts of Globalization. International Journal of Peace Studies, 3(1), January, pp. 47-66. Mac Lean, John (1998). Beliefs System and Ideology. Richard Little and Steve Smith (eds.) Belief System and International Relations. Oxford: Basic Blackwell. Maritain, J. (1951). Man and the Stage. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Mc Carthy, Ronald and Gene Sharp with Brad Bennett (1994). Non-Violent Action: A Research Guide. New York: Garland Publishing. Mesquita, B de (1981). The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press. Miall, Hugh (2005). Conflict Transformation: a Multidimensional Task. In David Bloomfeld/ Martina Fischer/ Beatrix Schmelzle (eds.), Berghof handbook for conflict transformation, Berlin, http://www.berghofhandbook.net /articles /miall handbook. pdf. Miall, Hugh (2007). Conflict Transformation Theory and European Practice. Paper prepared for the Sixth Pan European Conference on International Relations, ECPR Standing Group on International Relations, Turin 12-15 September, 2007. Michaei, Salla (1989). Constructing a Methodology of Non-Violence. Gandhi Marg, vol.II, pp. 332-339. Mitchell, Christopher (2002). Beyond Resolution: What Does Conflict Transformation Actually Transform? Peace and Conflict Studies, Vol. 9(1). [http.//www. Gmu.edu/academic/pcs/CM83pcs.htm] Mitchell, Christopher (2005). Conflict Social Change and Conflict Resolution. An Enquiry Berghof Hand Book Dialogue, Series No.5 Berlin. Pp 13-37. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1983). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Naess, Arne (1958). A Systematization of Gandhian Ethics of Conflict Resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. II, pp. 140-155. Nakhre, Amrut W. (1983). A New Focus on Non-Violent Conflict Resolution . International Peace Research News Letter. No.2, pp. 17-21. Narayan, Shriman (1978). Towards the Gandhian Plan. New Delhi. Neumann, Von. and Morgenstern (1994). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour: Princeton University Press. Nicholson M. (1992). Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict. Cambridge Studies in International Relations: Cambridge University Press. Paige, Glenn D. (1991). Gandhis Contribution to Global Non-Violent Awakening. Gandhi Marg Vol.12. Pareto, Vilfredo (1935). Mind and Society. Arthur Livingstone (ed.) New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. Pathak, D.N. (1983). Gandhis World View. Intimations of a Peaceful World Society . Gandhi Marg, Vol.12, No.1, January, pp. 918-926. Pfetsch, Frank R./Rohloff, Christoph (2000). National and International Conflicts, 1945-1995. New Empirical and Theoretical Approaches. London. Pontara, Giuliano (1965). The Rejection of Violence in Gandhian Ethics of Conflict Resolution. Journal of Peace Research. Oslo, Vol.2, pp. 197-215. Power, Paul F. (ed.) (1971). The Meaning of Gandhi. An East-West Center Book: The University Press of Hawaii. Ramachandran G. and T.K. Mahadevan eds., (1970). Quest for Gandhi. New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation. Ramsbotham, O., T. Woodhouse and H. Miall (2005). Contemporary Conflict Resolution, The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. 2nd Revised Edition, London: Polity. Rapoport, Anatol (1989). The Origins of Violence. New York: Paragon House. Rath, Biraja Shankar (1986). Gandhi and Conflict Resolution. Gandhi Marg, March 1986, pp. 850-857

Rath, Biraja Shankar (1991). Gandhi and International Conflict Resolution . Anima Bose (ed.) Peace and Conflict Resolution in the World Community. New Delhi: Vikash Publishing House, pp. 120-145. Rath, Biraja Shankar (2009). Violence and Non-Violence. The Structuralist Dilemma and the Gandhian Response. In P.K.Kar (ed.) Domestic Violence. Need for Legal Awareness.New Delhi: Dominant Publishers and Distributors, pp. 8996. Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rayalu, T.V., (1987). Relevance of Gandhis Non-Violence in Modern Times. Gandhi Marg, Vol.9, No.7, pp. 469-476. Raz, Joseph (1979). The Authority of Law. Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reimann, Cordula (2005). Assessing the State-of-the-Art in Conflict Transformation. In David Bloomfeld/Martina Fischer/Beatrix Schmelzle (eds.), Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation,Berlin,http:/www.berghofhandbook. net /articles/ reimann handbook. pdf. Reno, W. (2000) Shadow States and Political Economy of Civil Wars. In. M. Berdal and Malone, D. (eds.) Greed and Grievance. Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Boulder: Co. Lynne Rienner. Pp 43-68. Rupesinghe, K. (1995). Conflict Transformation. New York: St. Martins Press. Rupesinghe, K. and S Ni Anderlini (1998). Civil Wars, Civil Peace. An Introduction to Conflict Resolution. London: Pluto Press. Ryan, Stephen (2003). Peace and Conflict Studies Today. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, Vol.2, No.2 pp. 75-82. Said, Abdul Aziz and Nathan C. Funk (2002). The Role of Faith in Cross Cultural Conflict Resolution. Peace and Conflict Studies, Vol. 19, No.1, May, 2002.pp 37-56. Schmid, H. (1968). Peace Research and Politics, Journal of Peace Research, No.3, pp. 217-32. Scholte, Jan Art. (1997). The Globalization of World Politics. In John Baylis and Steve Smith, (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sethi, J.D. (1976). Gandhi Today. New Delhi: Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Sharp, Gene (1960). Gandhi Weilds the Weapon of Moral Power: Navjivan Publishing House. Sharp, Gene (1967). Technique of Non-Violent Action. In Adam Robers (ed.), The Strategy of Civilian Defence. Non-Violent Resistance to Aggression. London, pp. 98-104 Sharp, Gene (1970). Post Military Defence . Gandhi Marg, Vol. 14, No.3, pp. 170-186. Sharp, Gene (1970). Gandhi as a National Defence Strategist . Gandhi Marg. Vol.14, No.3, pp. 254-273 Sharp, Gene (1973). The Politics of Non-violent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent. Sharp, Gene (1979). Gandhi as Political Strategist with Essays on Ethics and Politics. Boston: Porter Sargent Publisher. Sharp, Gene (1980). Social Power and Political Freedom. Boston, Porter Sargent Publishers. .Shearer, David (1997). Exploring the Limits of Consent. Conflict Resolution in Sierra Leone. Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol. 26, No.3, pp 845860. Shridharani, Krishnlal (1939). War Without Violence: A Study of Gandhi s Methods and its Accomplishments. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. Singer, J. D./Small, Melvin (1972). Handbook, New York. The Wages of War 1816-1965: A Statistical

Singer, J.D. (1996). Armed Conflict in the Former Colonial Regions: From Classification to Explanation . In L Van de Goor with K. Repusinghe and P. Sciarone (eds.) Between Development and Destruction. An Enquiry into the Causes of Conflict in Post Colonial States. London and New York: The Mac Millan Press Ltd.pp. 35-49 Sookdheo, P. (2005). The Myth of Moderate Islam. Spectator, vol. 298, pp. 12-14. Sundhaussen U. (2004). Terrorism and America. Social Alternatives, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 6 -29.

Tidwell, Alan C. (1998). Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution, London and New York: Pinter. Tilly, Charles (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading Mass: AddisonWesley. Tucker, R.C. (1970). The Marxian Revolutionary Idea. London. Unnithan, T.K. and Yogendra Singh (1969). Sociology of Non-Violence and Peace. Some Behavioural and Attitudinal Dimensions. New Delhi: India International Center. Vayrynen, Raimo (1991). To Settle or to Transform? Perspectives on the Resolution of National and International Conflicts. In Martin Van Creveld (ed.), New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation, London, pp. 1-25. Wallensteen P. and M. Solenberg (1999). Armed Conflict, 1989-1998. Journal of Peace Research, Vol.36, No.5 pp 593-606. Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the State and War. New York: Columbia University Press. Weber, Max (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York. Wehr, P and J.P. Lederach (1991). Mediating Conflict in Central America. Journal of Peace Research, Vol.28, No.1, pp 85-98. Woodhouse, Tom. (1999). International Conflict Resolution: Some Critiques and Response. Working Paper-I, Department of Peace Studies: University of Bradford. Young, Crawford. (1993).The Dialectics of Cultural Pluralism. Concept and Reality. In Crawford Young (ed.). The Rising Tide of Cultural Pluralism: The Nation State of Bay? Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Zartman, Ira William (1985). Ripe for Resolution: Conflict and Intervention in Africa. New York. Zartman, Ira William (ed.) (1996). Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.

**********