(Report of the Book Discussion held on 20 November 2006 at IIC Annexe, New Delhi. The panel comprised of Dhirendra Singh, P Sahadevan, VG Patankar, Ajit Kumar Doval and EN Rammohan.)

Dipankar Banerjee

South Asian region, which consists of 16-17 percent of the world's population is beset with numerous conflicts. Some of them though internal have a significant external dimension. Some are ethnic and governance related. Therefore, despite all its potential, South Asia remains under developed. It is essential to understand the nature of conflict in order to address them. A primary objective of this project has been to try and understand the causes and ways to address the peace processes within these internal conflicts in South Asia today.

Dhirendra Singh

A meeting between analysts and practitioners is essentially needed. Peace and conflict are intertwined feeding on each other. When there are long years of peace there are latent stirrings of conflict as well, that is the 'peace of the grave yard' prevails. The intellectual resurgence, different ideas trying to take permanence over others, aspirations of people in terms of words or actions, over a period, turn into armed conflicts. Even when there were great empires such as the Mauryan and the Pax-Romana, which lead to long years of peace, there had been stirring of national and ethnic feelings. Now that the Nation-state have stabilized, sub-nationalism seem to emerge. In that context, the book has identified the most appropriate area - the South Asian region. It provides a wonderful mosaic for study.

These studies help practitioners in dealing with the problems. Future studies could be conducted on the implications of the opening of areas such as J&K and the Naxal effected area. What are the lessons to be learnt from the conflicts? There are constitutional hindrances in tackling problems, which if allowed to grow, could destroy the framework of the nation. The arrangements such as those in the North-East are fragile. What happens in the intervening period? The dilemma as to when does peace begin and action stops. The study should go deep into the mosaic of the region.

In future, a more in-depth study into the inter-linkages and issues of the South Asian region should be attempted. The peace processes in the surrounding countries should be studies even while tracing the similarities and dissimilarities and experience of success and failures.

P Sahadevan
(Discussant of Chapters "Armed Conflicts in South Asia: An Overview" by Prof. Chari and "Promoting Peace in South Asia" by Maj Gen Banerjee.)

The two chapters provide a platform for future study. The chapter by Professor Chari poses conceptual question. Some amount of rethinking has to be done on the traditional data bases and definitions. It is significant that the latent conflicts in South Asia have to be taken into account in order to capture the reality. The distraction, displacement and level of threat has also to be taken into account. One has to go beyond traditional definitions.

Secondly, most of the conflicts in South Asia have international and regional dimensions. Geographical and demographic compulsions make nations interfere in conflicts in neighboring countries. Therefore, no conflict remains internal. Thirdly, interstate rivalries/conflicts are prevailing in South Asia. New forms of inter-state conflicts emanates from the regional countries channelising their mutual animosities into subterranean forms of interstate violence like subversion, proxy war and promotion of militancy and terrorism. Fourthly, the traditional definition of conflict, in terms of the root causes has been transcended to include the ethnic differences, socio-economic political exploitations, new social and political consciousness of long oppressed classes, growing dissatisfaction stemming from globalization and liberalization and media revolution that heightens public expectation to secure better quality of life.

Fifthly, apart from manifest conflicts, identification of latent conflict is equally essential. There are conflicts which remain latent in the form of grievances and have the potential to erupt into full fledged ones. Sixthly, conflicts do have constructive results although at heavy costs. It is done under pressure from groups and individuals. Seventhly, there has been mixed responses from different forms of governments in the South Asian region. Even the most vibrant democracies behave in an authoritarian way in dealing with diversities and the authoritarian ones behave alike in denying legitimate space for growth. India can be a model for dealing with diversities. Pakistan has not entered in any agreement with the minorities. Sri Lanka is also a resistant democracy. Finally, the culture of conflict prevention is lacking in South Asia. The chapters highlight the ways to find out ways to promote peace making.

The chapter by Maj Gen Banerjee gives a broad conceptualization of peace-making processes. The importance of international community has been highlighted. Secondly, despite differences on minority rights, all states have consensus towards state formation. Thirdly, it stressed on arriving at settlement with the various groups through democratic processes. Fourthly, it gives a considerable theory that the conflicts are contagious. Spread of Left wing extremism is threatening. Fifthly, a prophetic statement that all conflicts have a propensity to move towards terrorism at a short notice. Corrective policies at correct time are necessary. Genuine processes are needed to counter these.

Sixthly, the role of state in process of peace is important. Excessive use of force proves to be counterproductive. Minimum force should be used within the framework of law. Seventhly, in most of the peace processes there is no are no quick fix solutions. India can be a good model for dealing with ethnic separatism. Eighthly, the importance of international actors in peace-making has been highlighted. A case for UN's role in South Asia has been made in the chapter which is problematic as India has been resisting it formally even though it has been open to the idea of involvement of a group of countries as in Sri Lanka. India is looking for limited intervention of very formal organization in South Asia for making peace. There is a regional component to peace resolution. SAARC is made irrelevant to conflict resolution. SAARC existence as an organization depends on creating peace within states. Finally, diversities are to be celebrated managed properly.

Lt Gen VG Patankar
(Discussant of Chapters "Armed Conflicts in South Asia: An Overview" by Prof. Chari and "Promoting Peace in South Asia" by Dipankar Banerjee.)

The two chapters are interconnected. Prof Chari's Chapter is more an overview and is analytical while that of Banerjee is more prescriptive. The distinction between the internal armed conflict and civil war on one hand and a criminal war, terrorism and insurgency have been brought out. The transformation of various conflicts into civil wars has been talked about. More importantly, the chapter talks about the paradoxes, roots and characteristics of South Asian conflicts in an analytical fashion. The mention of the perception that India's hegemonic postures as a source of conflict in South Asia doesn't make any authoritative contribution to conflict in South Asia. It can be tenable in the interstate conflicts but not in intra-state conflict.

An interesting paradox that has been pointed out is that the factors such as commonality of language, shared history and religion which establish civilization bonds among people and states have also been the reasons for incompatibility. The argument that territory, ethnicity and religion are three main causes of conflict in the region and that any conflict in the region could be clubbed into any one or more of these is well taken. The submission that absence of interstate conflict state does not mean that states can live in peace and harmony because of the propensity of the states to use subterranean forms of interstate violence such as subversion, promotion of terrorism and proxy wars in the neighboring countries is important. This makes South Asian conflicts distinct from others and that they require special treatment.

An equally convincing proposition is that regional countries intervene in the internal affairs of neighboring countries to externalize internal problem to gain political leverage. From the point of view of the people in decision-making, research and academics, it would have been better if the root causes of conflict as identified have been exemplified in order to complete the linkages and understanding if the issue. Passing references to secular and sectarian causes in a general sense have been made without being any country specific. Conflict prevention is equally important. Warning about left extremism is ominous. As far as left extremism or naxalite type of extremism, it is important, to attend the root cause, if not then similar conflict may erupt in other countries. The recommendations that military of sources of security will persist. The cross-border movement due to ethno-political, socio-economic, communal, religious and politics and terrorism is where the breeding ground of present and future conflicts lies.

Intervention in neighbouring countries through subterranean forms of violence need to be watched carefully. Some passing comment on one of the ways to reduce these conflict could be mutually beneficial trade ties. General Banerjee has characterized conflicts as interstate /intrastate, independence/autonomy, ethnic/tribal, socio-economic movements, insurgency and terrorism. This is where the thrust if two article distinguish from each other. This chapter has a lot of reference to the current situation. This provides an understanding of the present and also helps in moving in to the future. The point that apart from the political causes all other causes are intra-state is well taken. Highest percentage of conflicts in future, would be interstate. The two chapters are interlinked yet stand alone. That they arrive at similar conclusions despite following different routes justifies how close and accurate they might be and this is where the value of the book lies.

A special treatment of vested interests is essential and should be focussed. An acceptable level of conflict is wanted by some. Nobody wants final solution. The last chapter deals with the transformation of conflict. It takes place overnight, but with that everything changes. It is a different game altogether.

Ajit Kumar Doval
(Discussant of Chapters "Left Extremism in India: From Red Corridor to Red Line" by Mallika Joseph and "Nepal: Continuing Violence" by PG Rajamohan)

The left wing problem should not be seen statistically. It is seen as a serious problem because it tends to spread as of today, even if incidents take place sporadically. The important aspect, is the number of people involved in the attacks or incidents of violence. In such cases, response option becomes difficult and is limited. Such helplessness of response brings violent changes. In future, this is likely to increase as more and more people are being mobilized.

We should get out of our propensity to look all the problems in a single readymade framework and deal with this problem independently and in alienation. There are vested interests which want to preserve the conditions. This way, the problem becomes extremely difficult. The chapter, falls short of tracing out a comprehensive history/background of left movement. Various crucial stages have been found missing from the historical background. The dynamics within the ideology have also to be taken into account to understanding the problem. In different areas, different dynamics are prevailing.

Impact of patterns of violence that takes place need to be studied. It would have been worthwhile, if this would have been taken into account in the chapter. There is a problem with the identification of the groups, which could have been as ideologues, armed groups etc. A deep study of how the money is generated, where does it go and how is it disbursed, who all are involved is needed.

The chapter on Nepal was a good though events have fundamentally changed since when it was written. It provides a wonderful background as to how it developed from the beginning till the last decade. Factors that influenced it have been covered. Last one year had been eventful. Recommendations for genuine and transparent democracy are agreeable. Recent visit and remarks by Prachanda that Indian Maoists are ideologically mislead is significant.

E N Rammohan
(Discussant of Chapters "Bangladesh: A Slow Beginning?" by B Rajeshwari and "North-East: Failure of Peace Process by BP Rhoutray)

At times government create counter insurgent groups. This approach has failed. Only Government should posses arms and that any group which is created would ultimately turn against the state. But it seems the government has not learnt any lesson. It doesn't solve problem.

What is needed is that development reaches to the lowest strata. The realities have to be brought out and made known. The ongoing exploitation has to be put to an end. In 1971, in Bangladesh, the military leadership and bureaucracy were unhappy. Those who later became president were those who fought Muzib.

Zia-ur-rehman brought them back instead of punishing. No action was taken against those who opposed. The political leadership was not being followed. The orders were not carried out. The problems are within the state. Bangladesh all the extremist parties of Pakistan are existing and expanding. There actions are being planned there.

MR Narayanswami
(Discussant of the Chapter "Sri Lanka: Negative Peace, Positive Violence" by N Manoharan)

The peace talks involving both the parties and US, EU, Norway and, Japan is going on. The Sri Lankan problem has three dimensions. First is the Srilankan Government-LTTE angle. The situation is messy. 'Peace of the graveyard' prevails. More than 2000 casualties this year. On the one hand, Sri Lankan government is convinced and determined to have a military solution and on the other, the LTTE is fixed on its demand. Since, 1989 onwards there have been 65000 casualties. It can only get messier.

The second dimension is that the international community's negotiations are at a dead end. They have no solutions, as both LTTE and Sri Lankan Government are adamant. The intenrational community is not in a position to impose any solution. The third dimension is that there is a feeling in the international community that India is not involving itself in a way it should been and that some have a conviction that India has certain influence over LTTE and it is not exercising it.

That India is not engaging itself could be because of the previous history of betrayal by the Sri Lankan Government and LTTE. Also, there is a complete lack of political consensus. That the Indian government has banned the LTTE it would not be possible to negotiate with it. Lastly, neither the LTTE nor the Sri Lankan Government wants India to play a role. But India has made it known that it is against civilian causalities. So the picture is negative and messy unlikely to getting better.

Discussion

Intensive study of peace process based on the empirical data needs to be done. LTTE and Naga could be case studies on how to exercise the soft power of the state in the future while dealing with the conflicts. Sri Lankan government always had a problem with federalism. Prabhakaran's personality is of significance. He is determined to carve out an independent Elam and he is confident. Going by benchmarks he has succeeded to a considerable extent.

Question: Only India can effect changes in the present scenario. Politicians always want India to intervene. Misconception of IPKF operation has to be addressed.
Answer: It is a thing of past. The Tamil Nadu of 1983-87 no more exists and the inherent feeling of sympathy has vanished. There are no demonstrations in favor of Srilankan Tamils now. Karunanidhi is under contact severe attack from pro-LTTE media. Parties are no more speaking favorably any longer. Dynamics of Tamil Nadu politics today may not force Indian state to intervene.

Question: What should be our policy towards Sri Lanka.?
Answer: India does not want Sri Lanka to break up but the legitimate aspirations of Tamil community should be met. Both are not happening.

Question: How do we achieve that?
Answer: To have repeated close consultations with the international community and ensure that the negotiations are on track.

Comment: Problems within South Asia are manifestations of the process of stabilization that nation states are witnessing. It could take about half a century more for them to stabilize. Conventional fault lines are being replaced by new ones. The relationship of nations will also have greater linkages.

Comment: In the Sri Lankan chapter there are 8 points. They could be looked into to understand the gravity of the situation in Sri Lanka.

Ambassador Eric Gonsalvez

The interstate conflicts are declining. Future study should be based on understanding as to what successes and failures we have had in dealing with problem. This is an evolutionary process in the whole of post-colonial paradigm. We have to tackle both inter and intra state conflicts, by stressing on development. Peace can be ensured by making the economic progress reach the extremely underprivileged. We have to large extent taken away the professional attitude to deal with conflicts. The decision making is too shallow and too answerable.

The only answer to Sri Lankan problem is to remove one of the parties. Bangladesh is to be dealt with more carefully in a socio-economic cultural pattern. Nepal has relatively stabilized. Third party involvement may be welcomed and used. But one of those should be India. We should get involved in most of the neighborhood not just in development but political processes also. Cooperation across the borders at all levels should be enhanced. The regional factor is important if India is to be taken seriously in the world so that it harnesses all the forces around.