Steering Committee Meeting and Workshop on “The Socio-Cultural and Political Premises of European and Indian Initiatives in Areas of Conflict Transition/ Resolution.

Steering Committee Meeting and Workshop on “The Socio-Cultural and Political Premises of European and Indian Initiatives in Areas of Conflict Transition/ Resolution."

June 27 – 28, 2011, Berlin, Germany

The first Steering Committee Meeting of the CORE project was held in Berlin at the Berghof Conflict Research on 27 - 28 June 2011. One of the core objectives of this project is to encourage and strengthen exchange of ideas between European and Asian researchers. In order to achieve this it was agreed upon at the workshop that close dialogue will be maintained

The workshop provided a suitable opportunity to discuss/brainstorm with project partners about how to initiate local peacebuilding processes against the global norms. It was a good opportunity to hear about research being carried out in different regions of the world – Bosnia, Georgia, Jammu and Kashmir. Important issues were raised regarding “what is the local”, “who owns the local?” and “what defines the global?”, and a need was felt for further reflection on these questions while moving further in the project. Some thought-provoking discussions were held on understanding the issue of the global and the local and it was felt that these two ideas have to be studied in synchronization; at the same time one has to be conscious of the fact as to who owns the local/who is defining the local. Another compelling question raised during discussions on Bosnia was how do people/citizens of a state perceive the situation when officials say that conflict has been resolved? And what role do internal and external governance initiatives play at this juncture?

PRIA’s presentation reflected on the disjuncture between elite perception of national security and the people’s perception of what makes them feel safe in conflict regions. Some of the critical questions raised through PRIA’s research related to how, if any, governance initiatives in conflict regions within the country (North East, Kashmir and tribal areas) have impacted people in the region. In the Indian context, instead of governance the emphasis has been on policing and restoring law and order. On the issue of need for dialogue and talks in conflict regions, Dr. Dasgupta from PRIA pointed out that there was a need for ‘multilogues’ rather than dialogues in order to address the feeling of exclusion and marginalization felt by people in conflict zones.

Discussions about the Indian scenario by other partners representing India revolved around the internal dimensions of conflicts in India and the government’s policy of neglect towards non-violent movements until they turn violent. In fact, the government seems to show a better track record of dealing with violent protests/secessionist movements. The Indian government seems to keep a non-responsive attitude towards non-violent protests. Elections in these states (the north eastern states of India, Jammu and Kashmir or the Naxal affected areas) are taken as evidence of democratization of the state, proving yet again that Indian democracy is an example of procedural democracy but not substantive democracy. Interesting questions such as “At what stage does the Indian state feel forced to address the issue?” were asked during these presentations. ” It was pointed out that at least in the Indian context researchers have to factor in the concept of justice and dignity which might vary from an European perception. As cautioned by Dr. Samaddar (from MCRG) there are many globalities and we should avoid getting stuck with binaries such as global vs. local. Looking at India’s rich political history the Indian nation has been involved in peace and non-violence for long; the nation has witnessed diverse governance initiatives differing from region to region. Professor Chadha (from Delhi University) noted, the “Indian constitution is like a living document” accommodating space for different actions, “national territorial integrity is non-negotiable but the division of territory internally (e.g. new states, linguistic reorganization, districts, divisions of villages) used to both consolidate and share power.”

Further discussions were generated around the themes of:

• reflections on local and global peacebuilding initiatives in Georgia.
• technical approaches to conflict resolution
• governance initiatives in Bosnia being implemented by local and global actors and its impact, state/non-state governance initiatives.
• methodologies for analyzing conflict strategies and whether they are socio-culturally sensitive or not.
• definition of what is “governance” and usage of the term over time.

The discussions looked at bridging the gap in relation to cultural sensitivity and political appropriateness.

As a follow up to the Berlin meeting the next Steering Committee meeting (II) and the first Advisory Board meeting will be held at PRIA, New Delhi on 1 – 2 December, 2011. In conjunction with the meeting a session has been slotted to share “reflections from the field”, as the partners would have completed some part of the fieldwork. Project Partners will have conducted preliminary field visits and the December meeting will provide a good opportunity to share learnings/experiences and challenges faced. It will be an interesting exercise to further share Indian and European experiences from the field.

Priyanka Singh, programme officer from PRIA also attended the workshop. Read her impressions of the Berghof centre.

To know more about the project, click here