Peace can be defined as a two sided concept. On the one hand it\u00a0implies absence of violence and on the other the presence of positive,\u00a0harmonious, cooperative relationships. These two aspects are referred to as\u00a0negative and positive peace. Johan Galtung clarifies that peace research is\u00a0based on the assumption that peace is as consensual a value as health. He\u00a0further states that interdisciplinary and multilevel approaches are needed for\u00a0peace research besides adoption of symmetry. Peace research needs to draw\u00a0from all corners of the world and in order to understand an issue the\u00a0researcher needs to see it from either side but the solution should not be\u00a0based on the assumptions of one party alone. No party should be allowed to\u00a0prevail over the other. Solutions should be found from which both parties\u00a0might benefit. Findings should be symmetrically available. Peace research\u00a0should be open in all its phases, never clandestine, never classified. Galtung\u00a0also opines that for peace research most modern techniques of empirical\u00a0study should be used. Data should be collected, processed, analysed and\u00a0systematised into theories so as to provide a deeper understanding of the\u00a0nature of conflict and that of peace. Last but not the least is the relevance of\u00a0research. Research should help in the realization of peace. A researcher\u00a0should not stop by ending a research project with policy implication but\u00a0should get involved in concrete action by making propaganda among\u00a0intellectuals and the public; persuading the establishment into action and\u00a0challenging the monopoly of decision makers.1 Thus the scope of peace\u00a0research is very wide. It covers the efforts for understanding of conditions\u00a0that may prevent violence and also steps necessary for creation of conditions\u00a0for furtherance of harmonious relations.2<\/p>\n
Peace research recognizes that people as people are not always peace\u00a0loving. Often governments are prodded on by an angry nation but more\u00a0commonly governments share their nation\u2019s \u00a0idiosyncrasies and they even find\u00a0it useful to play them up in order to have backing for their rule and policies.\u00a0In other words irrational nationalism is deeply enshrined in people\u2019s feelings\u00a0about themselves and other people.3 In order to eliminate conflicts ways are\u00a0to be devised to prevent misconceptions.4<\/p>\n
Conflict consists of three components: incompatibility, action and\u00a0actors. It is a situation in which a minimum of two actors strive to acquire at\u00a0the same moment in time an available set of scarce resources. Examples of\u00a0extreme conflicts are war, systematic repression, sexual and domestic\u00a0violence, totalitarianism and genocide. In conflict both the parties want to\u00a0win but that often is not possible or does not resolve the conflict completely\u00a0and permanently.<\/p>\n
Conflict Resolution is a social situation where the armed conflicting\u00a0parties in a voluntary agreement resolve to peacefully live with and\/or\u00a0dissolve their basic incompatibilities and henceforth cease to use arms against\u00a0one another. Thus conflict is transformed from violent to non-violent\u00a0behaviour by the parties. In theory there are seven distinct ways in which the\u00a0parties can live with or dissolve their incompatibility. First, a party may\u00a0change its goal i.e. its priorities. The second way is when parties stick to their\u00a0goals but find a point at which resources can be divided. The third way is\u00a0horse trading in which one side has all of its demands met on one issue while\u00a0the other has all of its goals met on another issue. The fourth way is shared\u00a0control. The fifth way is to leave control to somebody else and the sixth way is\u00a0resorting to arbitration or other legal procedures that the parties can accept.\u00a0The seventh way is that the issue can be left till later or even to oblivion.5<\/p>\n
There are certain conflict catalysts which can be divided into positive\u00a0and negative. Positive catalysts are creative. They promote but streamline\u00a0the conflict and create a healthy atmosphere for communication,\u00a0understanding and cooperation for reconciliation whereas negative catalysts\u00a0activate the conflict, format it, bring a bad taste to it. They substantiate the\u00a0conflict and escalate it to an irrepressible stage, to the point of liquidating the\u00a0parties. Negative catalysts are fear, force, bad language, exaggeration,\u00a0secrecy, distrust, prejudice and adding new conflict issues. Positive catalysts are fearlessness, faith, love of opponent, empathy, morality, openness,\u00a0introspection, confining to conflict points, readiness to compromise,\u00a0voluntary initiation of dialogue.6<\/p>\n
In analyses of conflicts, an analysis of incompatibility is necessary i.e. identification of conflicting interests, positions and needs of the parties. Then\u00a0conflict strategies are to be analysed through which parties aim at reducing\u00a0the influence of the other side and enhancing the influence of its own side.\u00a0The behaviour of the other side is watched carefully. A positive\u00a0announcement must be followed by positive steps otherwise the former is\u00a0regarded as propaganda and the later as the reality. Once there is shift in\u00a0behaviour a dynamic development may follow and build momentum. The\u00a0parties may search for compatible positions and finding them will attempt to\u00a0create new structures via which these can be expressed. Spoilers may be dealt\u00a0with carefully for they will attempt to shift the conflict back to upper level.7<\/p>\n
In civil wars and intra-state conflicts concerned parties will have a\u00a0longer shared history of conflict and cooperation. The dividing lines can be\u00a0ideological, economic, social, ethnic or racial. Here the most important issues\u00a0are: first, to construct a social and political system that gives reasonable social\u00a0and political space to all groups. The second is the issue of security as the one\u00a0party that wins acts against the other. Thus it is important to end violence in a\u00a0way that it removes this security dilemma. Without the parties being secure,\u00a0subjectively and objectively, peace is unlikely to be sustainable. Democracy\u00a0can be a solution here as it gives a way to handle the participation of parties in\u00a0a society after a violent conflict and to give space to a host of actors who have\u00a0previously been suppressed or excluded from having influence. Democracy\u00a0also gives choices apart from winning and perishing such as winning but not\u00a0gaining complete dominance; being strong enough to play a role; having some\u00a0strength which can be enough to prevent undesirable developments or losing\u00a0but still keeping a position in society. But for this to be a reality three\u00a0conditions are important. First, the winner must be committed to respecting\u00a0the rights of the loser and make a come back. In other words defeat with\u00a0security. Secondly, the state should not be seen to belong to any of the\u00a0parties, and thirdly, a neutral peace keeping force. Reconstruction of society\u00a0on principles of inclusion is also necessary for example to solve the problem\u00a0of refugees. This signifies that the extreme condition that gave rise to the\u00a0flight has been removed. Human rights\u2019 provisions and international\u00a0connections are also important.8<\/p>\n
There can be territorial solutions within a state in the form of self\u00a0determination, autonomy and federalism. In self-administration devolution\u00a0of power takes place from the centre to local level. Autonomy is given by the\u00a0centre and is subject to policy changes by the centre. It can be of weaker or\u00a0stronger type. Autonomy can also be guaranteed by outside actors not just\u00a0subject to policy of the centre. Federalism is created for many units with\u00a0uniform constitution and the central government is composed of constituent\u00a0units.9 These are useful especially in cases where minority groups are\u00a0regionally clustered. Self-control of regional groups over their internal affairs\u00a0allows the protection of dignity, identity and cultures by placing minority\u00a0groups on an equal footing with the rest of the national security.10 These go a\u00a0long way in building positive peace where exploitation is minimized or\u00a0eliminated and there is neither overt violence nor structural violence. For\u00a0structural violence is built into the very structure of social, cultural and\u00a0economic institutions and is more indirect and insidious than observable\u00a0physical violence. It denies people important rights such as economic well\u00a0being; social, political and sexual inequality; a sense of personal fulfilment\u00a0and self worth. Thus positive peace-building implies establishment of non-exploitative\u00a0social structure i.e. something that does not currently exist.11\u00a0This also implies that structures and institutions need to be created that are\u00a0capable of ensuring human rights and managing the effects of\u00a0democratization and liberalization.12 In other words positive peace cannot\u00a0exist without human rights.<\/p>\n
Gandhian Approach to Conflict Resolution<\/b><\/p>\n
The people who established peace studies in the west \u2013 Johan Galtung\u00a0and Kenneth Boulding were admirers of Gandhi.13 However in the west peace\u00a0studies have taken a very different path to that of Gandhi. Probably the\u00a0reason was that Gandhian peace demands a great deal of sacrifice from the\u00a0practitioner. He calls it satyagraha i.e. \u2018adherence to truth\u2019 and truth and\u00a0non-violence are the main planks of satyagraha. A person who resolves to\u00a0adhere to truth cannot remain silent at the sight of violence which is negative\u00a0of truth. Truth functions in the form of nonviolence or love. While the lover\u00a0of truth ought to oppose violence such an opposition would mean \u2018fight the\u00a0evil\u2019 while \u2018love the evil doer\u2019. It is a dynamic soul force based on the concept\u00a0of self-suffering. As there are many forms of injustices there are many forms\u00a0of satyagraha too such as non-cooperation, civil disobedience, fasting, hijrat,\u00a0hartal, picketing, boycott, and renunciation of titles, honours and positions.14<\/p>\n
References<\/b><\/p>\n
1- J. Galtung, \u2018Peace Research: Past Experiences and Future Perspectives\u2019 in Radhakrishna\u00a0(ed), Peace Research for Peace Action<\/i>, Gandhi Peace Foundation, Indian Council of Peace\u00a0Research, Sahitya Kendra Printers, New Delhi, 1972, pp- 13- 31.<\/p>\n
2- Mahendra Kumar, Current Peace Research and India<\/i>, Gandhian Institute of Studies,\u00a0Varanasi, 1968, p- 9.<\/p>\n
3- Gunnar Myrdal, \u2018Peace Research and Peace Movement\u2019, Ghanshyam Pardesai (ed),\u00a0Contemporary Peace Research<\/i>, Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1982, p- 30.<\/p>\n
4- Ghanshyam Pardesai, Contemporary Peace Research<\/i>, Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1982,\u00a0p- 4.<\/p>\n
5- Peter Wallensteen, Understanding Conflict Resolution<\/i>, Sage Publication, London, 2007, pp-\u00a03- 51.<\/p>\n
6- Pooja Katariya, Conflict Resolution<\/i>, Deep and Deep, Delhi, 2007, pp- 68- 73.<\/p>\n
7- Peter Wallensteen, Understanding Conflict Resolution<\/i>, Sage Publication, London, 2007, pp-\u00a054- 56.<\/p>\n
8- Ibid, pp- 121- 152.<\/p>\n
9- Ibid, pp- 171- 172.<\/p>\n
10- Ho- Won Jeong, Peace and Conflict Studies: An Introduction<\/i>,\u00a0Ashgate, USA, 2006, p- 235.<\/p>\n
11- David P. Barsh and Charles P. Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies<\/i>,\u00a0Sage Publication, New Delhi, 2002, pp- 6- 8.<\/p>\n
12- Roland Paris, At War\u2019s End<\/i>, Cambridge University Press, New York,\u00a02004, p- ix.<\/p>\n
13- Negeen Zinovieff, \u2018Ancient Wisdom\u2019, The Gandhi Way<\/i>, No 96,\u00a0Summer 2008, Glasgow.<\/p>\n
14- Pooja Katariya, Conflict Resolution<\/i>, Deep and Deep, Delhi, 2007, pp-\u00a068- 73.<\/p>\n
___________________________<\/p>\n
Dr Anupma Kaushik is Associate Professor in Political Science, Banasthali University,<\/i> Rajasthan. kaushikanupma@yahoo.co.in<\/i><\/p>\n
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Gandhi Foundation.<\/i><\/p>\n