South Asian Dilemma of Particularism and Globalization Dr. Pramod Kumar

Introduction
Specific historical conditions in the countries of South Asia are throwing up new questions and challenges posed by the economic formations and developments in politics, culture and religion. The complex processes as observed in Europe or the United States of America, do not seem to be taking place in post-colonial countries of South Asia with any degree of regularity. In the post-colonial South Asia, political processes, neither their form nor manifestation of causal links like those between free market, private property, role of the peasantry or the industrial elite, are similar. The specificity of social institutions like the caste system, religious practices and beliefs, tribal social formations and gender relations provide sufficient conditions for the emergence of inter-state and intra-state conflicts. These conflicts have their basis in the quest for identity, re-allocation of scarce resources and competition for power.

They have acquired alarming proportions and virtually engulfed every dimension of human existence. Nuclearization further adds to the culture of violence in the region, which has acquired greater legitimacy with the people. Consequently, many conflict situations are taking a violent form and have resulted in the violation of the rights of citizens. The South Asian region is experiencing intrastate conflicts which have invariably got intermeshed with interstate conflicts. The new reality of globalizing the world order is also shaping conflicts and throwing up challenges to a dominant worldview in South Asia, nurtured by the cold-war era where cultures, territories, identities and economies had fixed boundaries. These challenges have a bearing on issues relating to human security, environmental degradation, deteriorating ecological balance, population mobility, poverty, distributive justice contextualized in multicultural settings.

There have been serious attempts to comprehend and analyse these issues, but these were vaguely and variously explained either as pre-capitalist practices or in terms of 'Asiatic' or 'oriental formations'. Attempts have also been made to understand issues thrown up by socio-economic formations with the help of 'borrowed' models and concepts. In other words, ideas developed by social science research on specific issues like nationalism were not, to a large extent, an expression and product of social realities, but were the product of a process of mere academic thinking or imitation.

Cultural and ideological factors, including those relating to social relationship between groups and/or classes, were not given adequate weight and were not subjected to a critical examination with historical-ideological framework of knowledge. In South Asia common heritage, ethnic contiguities, cross-country cultural ties, geo-political context, shared issues of poverty, illiteracy, disparate socio-economic under-development are relevant factors in shaping the political and strategic dynamics within the region.

To provide a brief overview of the region's common history and similar issues confronting national development, delivery of justice and the eruption of intra-state conflicts, one has to scroll back 5000 years.

The Indian subcontinent that post-colonially evokes the description of the South Asian region, draws upon a civilizational evolution from the era of the Indus Valley civilization1. Over time, a gamut of cultural affinities and religious faiths grew and the present population compositions in the South Asian countries reflect this diversity. Each country has representations of minorities, be they religious, ethnic, caste or migrant groups. For instance, Sri Lanka has a Buddhist majority of 70 per cent followed by Hindus (15 per cent), Christians (8 per cent) and Muslims (7 per cent)2; Bangladesh has a Muslim majority (83 per cent) with Hindus 16 per cent. Pakistan's Muslim majority is divided as Sunnis (77 per cent) and Shias (20 per cent). India is predominantly Hindu (81 per cent) with Muslims (12 per cent), Parsis (2.5 per cent); Christians (2.3 per cent), Sikhs (1.9 per cent). Nepal's population is largely Hindu (86.2 per cent), with Buddhists (7.8 per cent), and Muslims (3.8 per cent). Moreover, these religious representations are further compounded in terms of ethnic, caste, migrant identities. The Sri Lankans have Sinhalese (74 per cent), Tamil (18 per cent), Moor (7 per cent); the Bangladesh population of both Muslims and Hindus together becomes Bengali (98 per cent). The Pakistani Muslims, on the other hand, are divided in terms of Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch and Muhajirs3. In India the religious demarcations are reconstructed in Dalits (16.20 per cent), Scheduled Tribes (8.19 per cent)4, other backward castes (50 per cent), besides other ethnic identities. These diverse identities both subdivide national populations and transcend state boundaries to find affinity across the borders.

Developments within the political economy have ensured that diverse grouping continue to reflect within each nation while the GDP ranges from $ 1500 in Nepal to $ 4000 in Sri Lanka (India $ 3100, Pakistan $ 2200, Bangladesh $ 2200), populations below the poverty level range as high as 22 to 45 per cent of the total population (Sri Lanka 22 per cent, India 25 per cent, Pakistan 32 per cent, Nepal 42 per cent and Bangladesh 45 per cent).

Illiteracy levels are high (except in Sri Lanka) with an astounding number of people uneducated in India 40.5 per cent and 57 per cent in Bangladesh. Pakistan has 54.3 per cent and Nepal 54.8 per cent illiteracy. A micro analysis would further show that vulnerable sections such as migrants, Dalits, OBCs, minorities and women constitute bourgeoning numbers in the illiterate and poverty stricken groups. A cumulative index of the quality of life and services available is reflected in the abysmally poor HDI Index of these countries. Sri Lanka, ranked the highest in the group, stands at a poor 89, followed with a clubbing of the rest 124 India, 138 Pakistan, 140 Bhutan, 142 Nepal and 145 Bangladesh5.

The shared heritage and contiguity of socio-economic parameters extends to endowments of energy resources, grassroot institutions of governance, colonial administrative mechanisms and opportunities in market affiliations. While South Asia has a low rate of investment to the GDP ratio, a large potential of energy with complementary resources in these countries, the abundance of natural endowments, be it energy, water or tapping global markets through an economic transnational network, can address the economic, cultural and identity aspirations of its populations.

Regional Particularism And Dimensions Of Conflicts

1. Territorial Nationalism, Explosion of Identities and Mobility of Population
   The common cultural and historical processes in interaction with the structural reality, nature of state and politics, path and pace of development transformed the reservoir of peace and co-operation into conflict. Politics in post-colonial South Asia was guided more by territorial concept of sovereignty and nurtured through appropriation of cultural capital leading to reinforcement of ultra-nationalism. The focus of nation-building project has been on monocultural and hegemonic nationality. Its interaction with a multi-cultural social reality produced conflicts which often took a violent turn.
   There is need for examining how far the multi-cultural character of societies in South Asia could find corresponding expression in the practice of politics and state structure. The denial of access to different cultural groups to their own language, culture and other resources due to the interactive relationship between the structural conditions and state apparatus has alienated a large section of the state from their culture, language and physical and material resource base. These redefined and reformulated national identities sometimes acquire fundamentalist overtones. They reinforce the 'traditional' purity of culture and project the perceived dominant culture as a threat.
   In other words, the denial of access to diverse linguistic and cultural groups to their own resources, culture and language may have caused conflicts based on identity assertion. The most obvious examples are the ULFA assertion in the North-East, the Kashmiris' movement in Jammu & Kashmir, Khalistan in Punjab in India, the ripples of ethnic Tamil struggle in Sri Lanka and Pakhtoon nationalism and Sindhi identity assertion in Pakistan.
   The explosion of these identities has a potential to cause disintegration of the whole of South Asia. The assertion of these identities transcends territorial boundaries. For instance, the assertion of Panjabi identity transcends the territorial boundary of India and Pakistan, the Tamil identity India and Sri Lanka, Bengali identity India and Bangladesh, Gorkha identity India and Nepal, Sindhi identity India and Pakistan. We need to illustrate the post-colonial state response to autonomy assertions within the same framework. For instance, the Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelem's (LTTE) armed resurgence could not get the support of the Indian establishment in spite of the pressure put by the Tamil alliance partners in the Central Government. The arguments reported in the media were that such a support would result in a movement for a separate Tamil state in the region.
   Similarly, in Kashmir, the Indian establishment presents it as an Islamic Jehad and Pakistan considers it as an unfinished agenda of the partition, rather than a movement for the preservation of the ethno-cultural identity of Kashmir. The fear is that this would, in turn, result in restructuring the territorial boundaries of the two countries.
   The assertion of these identities questions religion as well as communal-based identities. Therefore, expedient politics, in order to weaken the process of identity formation, excessively relies on communal and religious mobilisation. This leads to nationalist myth-making by describing various assertions as Pan-Islamic, Hindutva and secessionism. The hyper sensitive response to territorial sovereignty in the context of cross-border linkages with the population having similar cultural and ethnic basis result in excessive state enforcement rather than drawing on collatral advantages.
   The claim to sovereignty is seen against in the backdrop of the capacity of the states to control immigration. Mobility of capital, goods and services transcends the conventional definition of sovereignty. But the mobility of human beings continues to be subjected to state controls and its inability to enforce the controls produces illegal immigration. The seeming inability of the states to control cross-border migration is seen as an evidence of a soft state. This process has nurtured a number of conflicts in the context of post-colonial South Asian countries. If the local communities have ethnic bondage transcending territories, the state's quest to preserve its territorial integrity gets compromised. Given the existing predisposition, the state has options like renegotiating with the local communities to insulate their social support systems vis-à-vis immigrants or negotiate the control mechanism with the sender countries or regiment its borders, as is the case between India and Bangladesh.
   The South Asian countries reflect a complex interdependence in terms of their politics carefully nurtured by colonial constructs. Their economies represent scarcities coupled with lack of resources, their culture blurs the distinction between domestic and foreign migration. Above all, migration, both legal and illegal, from Burma, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, highlights the fact that there are channels such as cultural, economic and political which connect South Asian societies and which transcend the territorial concept of sovereignty and governmental channels. Conflict resolution strategies have to find answers to the multi-cultural needs in the South Asian context. The dichotomy between territorial nationalism and multicultural needs is leading to a fragile sovereign identity of the state as cultural similarities are transcending territorial boundaries and overactive violent reaction is meshed up with ultra-nationalism.
2. Globalis1ation, Territorial Nationalism and Identities
   Globalization has provided a new context to identity conflicts in South Asia. Globalization of capital has been accompanied by localization of human capital (labour), their aspirations, culture, history, language etc. This has provided impetus to 'sons-of-the-soil' movements in different parts of the world and has led to the explosion of ethnic identities.
   This has led to manifold increase in intra-state conflicts in South Asia in the decade of 1990's. In South Asia cultural and ethnic identities transcend territorial boundaries and as a result intra-state conflicts acquire inter-state antagonism.
   And in such a situation, the trend of globalisation has provided a new context to these conflicts. This shift has meant greater power and autonomy with the market forces. The escalation of violent conflicts in a post-cold war globalised world has brought to the surface in an aggravated form what is a continuation of the dominant power philosophy. The nation-state has surrendered to the market both the path and pace of development. In certain spheres some states having comparative advantage may get higher investment from multinationals and experience greater autonomy. But the underdeveloped states, even if they achieve constitutional autonomy, will see their backwardness multiplied in real terms as the market forces acquire greater autonomy to transcend non-friendly economies. The developing countries are being integrated into the new global economic order without having any autonomy to dissent. Economic integration with political marginalisation is the end result. These countries are being coerced into signing economic agreements.

Therefore, after the signing of WTO agreement, will the countries be autonomous enough not to abide by the terms of the agreement which adversely affect their national interests? It has given rise to a paradox. Failure to fulfil the national mandate, will result deligitimisation of the political system and will give a fillip to intra-state conflicts such as fundamentalist movements. Whereas, non-compliance of the global mandate will result in political isolation, and exposure to pressure both violent and 'peaceful' of the dominant global powers. It is paradoxical that in the new global economic order, economic integration and political marginalisation is simultaneously taking place and the political establishments yet to overcome the centrality of territorial nationalism.

Political establishments in South Asia have given their own meanings to 'national interest', 'threat' and 'security'. For them national interest is to protect the 'territory' and not the political and economic sovereignty of the people. And 'threat' is perceived from the 'weak', Taliban', Jaish-e-Mohammad' and not from the powerful regimes that keep the developing countries on the margins of politics and economy. And, 'security' is to be sought from military deployment and nuclearisation rather than strengthening democracy6. The non-conventional sources of security i.e. poverty, population explosion, environmental degradation, water and energy resources which constitute comprehensive security do not merit the attention of political establishments. There is excessive emphasis on military security rather than addressing issues relating water, energy, technology, poverty eradication, gender etc. For example, non-resolution of disputes regarding water sharing and harnessing has contributed to escalation of deprivations leading to intra-state conflicts. There are about 11 large hydroelectric projects, including Baglihar, on which India and Pakistan could not come to an agreement making Pakistan seek World Bank mediation. Similarly, India and Bangladesh share 54 rivers. They could not resolve their dispute relating to eight rivers and water sharing of Ganges.

Similarly, Nepal perceives that many treaties relating to water like Sharada Dam (1927), 1950 treaty and letters of exchange of 1950 and 1965, Koshi (1954), Gandak (1959), Tanakpur (1991) agreements and the Mahakali treaty (1996) are not just. Other issues, besides water sharing, are food security, poverty, environment and agriculture. The maintenance of domestic peace has also come within the realm of global political decision-making. Why has this happened and without much reaction from the people? “What was not brought to the surface was that this philosophy was a power philosophy, the common good turned out to be, both at the domestic and international levels, the common good as interpreted by the powerful” (Burton, 1990, p.42)7. In this scheme, superior position and knowledge to resolve conflicts has been attributed to the external “interventionist”. On the contrary, the conflicts are reinforced and conditions for their growth are nurtured.

In politics, external interventions in the region are driven by market interests, whereas, regional politics is more sensitive to territorial considerations.

Threat and Need Paradox
The post-colonial states are embroiled in a vicious circle: a paradoxical threat and the needs for democracy. Political actors feel threatened by the same institutions which legitimize their power and start subverting them. In the process, however, they become powerless. At best they realise the need for reviving these institutions. This cycle is experienced by almost all South Asian countries. It includes subversion of institutions which aggravates the conflicts. Some strata increasingly rely on a repressive state apparatus to freeze (“resolve”) these conflicts, and at the same time legitimise violence.

The conflicts identified here are linked with the changed character of nation-states, the consolidation of democracy, questions of migration throughout the region, problems of national and human security as well as matters of identity, with special reference to gender in the context of globalization and nuclearization. For instance, strong emphasis on sovereignty means that there is little resort to outside third parties. At the same time conflicts are not resolved directly by the parties. The options are, therefore, restricted to ways which may impede creative solutions like evolving a South Asian identity.

Existing Process of Conflict Resolution
Conflicts are inevitable. These are pervasive in the realm of incompatibilities, contradictions and scarcities. Invariably, attempts are made to manage and resolve the manifest conflicts. In South Asian societies most of the conflicts remain dormant and are not seen as part of the conflict spectrum. It is so because a conflict is seen to have evolved from interaction between the parties and actors. For instance, in Indian Punjab, the problem was identified as Sikh separatism and a counter-strategy was operationalised against the Sikhs, leading to attack on Sikh symbols, Operation Blue Star (attack on the Golden Temple at Amritsar, the most revered Sikh religious shrine) and victimisation and brutal killing of Sikhs in November, 1984. In Kashmir, the problem is understood as Islamic Jehad leading to migration of non-Muslim Kashmiris (Pandits) from Kashmir, strengthening the religious concepts of nationality assertions.

Similarly in Sri Lanka, the Tamil nationalist movement which started with a goal of regional autonomous rule acquired secessionist overtones by the mid-1970s. It also started as a non-violent political assertion under the leadership of the Tamil United Front in 1976 and acquired a violent form with Tamil guerrilla operations in the North and massacre of Sinhalese in 1987 and anti-Tamil violence in Sinhalese majority area in late 1980s And riots in Colombo in 1983 in which Sinhalese mobs killed 3000 Tamils.

In India, all the north-eastern states are embroiled in violent assertions of secession to autonomy. There are about 238 ethnic groups having a population of around 30 million which are increasingly defining their identity in relation to the Indian state. There are two main trends. The assertions of groups like Nagas, Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), Mizos, Mizo Nationalist Front (MNF), Asomiya, United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), Manipuris, People's Liberation Army (PLA), Bodos, National Democratic concern of Bodoland (NDCB), Tripuries, All Tripura Tiger Forte (ATTF) are secessionist in nature, whereas, groups like Karbi National volunteers, Bodoland Tiger Force in Assam, Achik National Volunteer Council (ANVC) in Meghalaya etc. are raising demands for greater autonomy and using secessionism as a bargaining plank.

The states are hypersensitive regarding territorial nationalism which in turn blurs cultural homogeneity and economic interdependence. The problem is multi-dimensional. In these contexts the issues have been articulated in three broad tendencies; one, stands for state autonomy without unduly disturbing the existing political arrangement, the second for self-determination within the constitutional framework and the last raising the demand for secession.

Further, the parties to the conflict have been identified on the basis of religious or ethnic group positioning. For instance, in the case of Punjab the two religious groups i.e. the Hindus and the Sikhs and in Kashmir the Muslims and the Kashmiri Pandits. The Sikhs in Punjab and the Muslims in Kashmir are both seen as monolith groups questioning the Indian state. In Sri Lanka, Sinhalese and Tamil as group have 'enemy image' of each other. 'They all say they are loyal to the government, but scratch' any Tamil, and beneath the skin there is an Eelamist' asserted a Sinhalese businessman8. Accordingly, each member of a religious group is expected to conform to the same norms and beliefs since all members of the religious group are perceived and projected as having common interests at all times. This understanding undermined the norms of secular and democratic politics. The conditions which generated violence have not been analysed. The interaction of multi-cultural social reality and the mono-cultural nature of the state is producing various tensions.

The main focus of these conflicts is on unequal distribution of resources, imposition of alien democratic polity replacing traditional grassroot governing institutions, exploitation of natural resources and creating a 'dependency syndrome' by doling out economic resources without providing basis to productive development processes. The uneven sharing of, for instance, water resources between countries of South Asia, has provided legitimacy to intra-state conflicts leading to inter-state tensions.

Reinforcement Of Culture Of Violence
Further, competitive militarism and nuclearism has vitiated the security environment in the region. Domestic political considerations have found an escape in generating feelings of ultra-nationalism. This became evident in the euphoric response of the people to assertions like nuclear explosions in India and Pakistan. These acts are justified in the words of George Herbelt, “Having a sword of one's own keeps the swords of others in their sheaths”.

Greater emphasis on military security has resulted in an increase of 44 per cent in military expenditure in South Asia, which is relatively the highest in the world and is equal only to North Africa. It rose from US$ 12 billion in 1993 to US$ 173 billion in 2002. As a consequence, and besides other reasons, human security continues to be undermined since 42 per cent or 488 million people out of a population of 1.4 billion live on less than a dollar a day, making South Asia home to nearly half of the world's poor. India, ranked eleventh among the big spenders on defence, followed by Russia, increased its defence expenditure from US$ 8051 million in 1990 to US$ 12882 million in 2003. Pakistan's defence spending rose from US$ 2636 million in 1990 to US$ 3176 million in 2003, despite a worse period of fiscal crisis and sanctions9.

This is also reflected in the multiplication of military spending by diverting funds from life supporting systems. For example, 'India ordered 20 MIG-29 fighter aircraft from Russia at a cost that could provide basic education to all the 15 million girls out of schools…. Pakistan ordered 40 mirage 2000E fighters and three tripartite aircraft from France at a cost that could have provided safe water for two years to all 55 million people who lack safe water, family planning services to an estimated 20 million couples in need of such services, essential medicines for the nearly 13 million people without access to health care and basic education to the 12 million children out of primary schools10.

Another trend which is contributing to the culture of violence is the increasing legitimacy attached to the use of violence for the restoration of peace. The argument that the use of violence by the state against the non-state actor e.g. a terrorist is taken as an instance of violence in self-defence and, therefore, normatively justifiable, is fallacious. This argument has its basis in prevention and control framework of insurgent forms of violence11. Similarly, the use of violence by a terrorist is justified as it may have a directional component.

In this framework, conflict behaviour and attitude are central and, therefore, become the main focus of conflict resolution. In other words, it is assumed that conflict can be created and resolved with the manipulation of behaviour and attitude and this view is widely accepted by conflict strategists.

According to this framework, the causation of violence must be seen in the manner in which the state is organised and functions. This has a limited analytical value. This perspective finds its empirical evidence in the functioning of ex-colonial states. The western notion of inalienable rights was antithetical to the interests of the colonial powers who, therefore, were slow to promote the notion among the colonised12.

The post-colonial state became the embodiment of individual rights, but the practice of politics and social interaction provide continuity to colonial policies. In other words, the administrative-legal system concerned itself and responded to individual rights, whereas the politics and social discourse relied on ascriptive categories for mobilisation and maintaining their support base. In a nutshell, the politics of colonial states found continuity in the post-independent phase, particularly in the practice of politics.

The perspective excludes from its purview the violence perpetrated by the individuals or collectivities against each other. The analysis of the socio-economic formations did not find adequate place within this framework.

In this context violence becomes a 'truncated object' of study because it confines itself to state and non-state actors. This precluded the need for understanding violence as a part of the historical process. Violence is the result of certain social conditions and is also inseparable from the existence and functioning of social and political institutions. For example, the return of peace in Punjab does not imply that the conditions, which caused violence, have been moderated, subsumed, or resolved. Therefore, it is not proper to see increasing violence as merely a result of inadequacies of the police apparatus. This is not to deny the law and order dimension of terrorism. But a check on democratic mobilisation against terrorism in the name of security, only strengthens the forces of terrorism.

In view of this, it can be observed that the use of violence in the context of a collapse of 'Ideological State Apparatus' as it happened in the case of Sri Lanka, in India Punjab and Kashmir, acquired a blatant form. Similarly, because of the collapse of political parties and dysfunctional nature of non-violent means of protest, the use of violence by the militants acquired a terrorist character.

Much of the political space has been appropriated by conflict management through repression and demonstration of force, the excessive use of physical force and the frequent misuse of paramilitary forces to manage intra-state conflicts. For the management of inter-state conflicts, there is an excessive reliance on competitive militarism and regulation of borders. This has led to increase in expenditure on military security at the expense of human security which is abysmally low.

To manage intra-state conflicts the countries in the region are excessively relying on repressive measures, for instance, the legalized version of state repression in India in the form of TADA which has recently been replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). In Pakistan, the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act of 1975 was upgraded with the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. And during direct military rule, Martial Law regulations and in the present military regime, the Chief Executive's orders have been used to suppress dissent. Similarly, in Sri Lanka, Prevention of Terrorism Act was imposed in 1979 and human rights protections under the rule of law have been made non-functional. In Nepal, to counter the People's War launched in 1996 by the Maoists a state of emergency has been declared and the army has been unleashed.

The practice of suppression of dissent through laws has multiplied extra-legal killings described as 'encounters' in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India and Nepal. The excessive use of force by the state in the region has contributed to sharpening the dichotomous relationship between the state and the nation and reinforced the culture of violence.

After independence the nation-building project was implemented by the state in an aggressive fashion. This led to the excessive reliance of the state on security forces. It took the initiative away from the community. This adversely affected the state's claim to the allegiance of its members and the members' claim to some conception of shared purpose or a sense of shared benefits. In other words, the denial of access to the members to their own language, culture and other rights, alienated a large section of the people from the state, culture and language as a secular space and their own physical and material resource base. It provided a fillip to religious extremism and communal form of identification like Hindutva in India, Islamic rivalism and extremism in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Sinhala Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka and monarchist religious ritualistic forces in Nepal. The ultra-nationalism appropriated religious extremism and communalism to reinforce theocratic conceptions of nationality assertion.

The inability of the political system to subsume crisis upholding the norms of dissent and consent with the active involvement of the people has resulted in aggravation of intra-state conflicts leading to inter-state wars. The structure of security perception in South Asia is linear and superordinate and subordinate in nature. The linearity is more pronounced between India and Pakistan, whereby both see each other as strategic rivals and must match each other in terms of military security. Whereas, in relation to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Bhutan the specific nature of intra conflicts provide content to India-centric security paradigm. For instance, Sinhala dominated political establishment in Sri Lanka is in conflict with the Tamils has a potential to destabilize Indian political establishment as it may cause discontentment among the Tamils in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Similarly, secessionist insurgents in North Eastern states of India are making India's relationship with Bhutan, Bangladesh and Burma military security oriented, neglecting issues like sharing of water, energy and other resources.

The linearity is also intermeshed with the perception of India being a big country covering 70 per cent of the land and population in South Asia. Not only this, it is perceived as a hegemonic regional power without responding to the security needs i.e. material as well as human, of its neighbours. The parity conflict between India and Pakistan is preventing South Asia from emerging as a region as other countries of the region do not find functional institutional remedies for the resolution of their disputes and enhance their growth. The increased defence expenditure of India and Pakistan is the result of seeking parity in military security rather than non-conventional security. Therefore, the existing modes of interaction between countries are leading to freezing of conflicts and multiplying the trust deficit.

Pre-Requisites for Conflict Resolution

1. Delegitimisation of Violence
   There is an increasing trend of authoritarianism in the world. Tolerance is generally receding and a pall of gloomy monism hangs over the globe. Consequently, efforts to realise 'other utopias' are negligible and even the desire to speculate about 'other possibilities' has been tamed. One is in agreement with Dr. Jan Oberg's13 observation that 'our best 'weapons' are better thoughts, ideas, ethics, compassion and networking and independent minds in an increasingly authoritarian era the slogan of which is that 'there are no alternatives'.
   Therefore, one is not only opposed to nuclearism and militarism, but also to the culture of violence through which the possibility of building alternatives is thwarted.
   The nuclearisation of South Asia should be seen in the background of 'dangerous developments' like the proposed expansion of NATO. It has been rightly argued by Dr. Jan Oberg that 'Nuclear and other illegitimate weapons of mass destruction represent another threat to world peace. No purpose can justify their use. In addition we witness a decreasing control of nuclear technology and fissile material. NATO expansion implicitly lends more, not less, legitimacy to these morally indefensible policies... NATO expansion cannot but increase US arms and military technology sales'.
   

   This perspective has vitiated the security environment in the region and initiated a competition for accumulation of conventional weapons between India and Pakistan. The impact of these trends within South Asia has a direct bearing on the peace process in the region. It has contributed to the following process; Escalation of low cost proxy war in Kashmir; Set-back to the resolution of conflict through the process of peace with the active involvement of the people, particularly in Kashmir; Rationalisation for the use of excessive force to suppress dissent even in other spheres; Ultra-nationalism as an instrument to strengthen forces of religious fundamentalism in both countries; Set-back to the process of decentralisation of power to the provinces for it is believed that a strong centre is essential to defend the country.

This is an empiricist trap which has to be avoided. Military action and senseless terrorist attacks both consider violence as a substitute for political action and mass mobilisation. Both are wrong. The underlying philosophy is to build a world order around violence. Terror which struck on September 11 has provoked various states to reassert their claim to be in possession of a greater reservoir of violence. The reaction is to unleash violence on terrorists and their supporters and also helpless citizens who have no sympathy for either of them. In the process, terrorism stands reinforced. This is what the perpetrators of terrorism want. To quote the Taliban, "If they want to target particular persons, they won't be able to find them; if they want to eliminate a whole nation, it will create more hatred for the US."

The focus of this approach is to target individual perpetrators of violence. In other words, the policemen eliminate the militants and vice-versa and even the judiciary isolates individual policemen for punishment. This becomes a vicious circle. The assumption is that killing of terrorists and punishing a few policemen will result in the elimination of terrorism. There are lessons to be learnt. Terrorism shall thrive if it is fought by harbouring it. This is precisely what is being done. Secondly, there is an attempt to counterpose individual terrorists with institutionalized violence and calling it a peace war. This amounts to legitimising violence. Thirdly, the dominant powers, rather than imposing a 'political consensus' for their own conception of terrorism, should evolve a consensus against terrorism.

These lessons are simple but difficult to operationalise. There is an urgent need to have an alternative conception of politics in opposition to the dominant power interests. Otherwise, peace will become elusive and violence more institutionalised. It is the culture of violence which is contributing to the escalation of conflicts and therefore a culture of peace by democratisation and incorporation of human tradition should be reinforced. There is need for recognition of political-economic rights of countries, collectivities and people and at the same time they need to be encouraged to participate in the decision making processes at the global level. It will be worthwhile to put in place institutional mechanism to build a culture of multi-lateralism where in each country people's forums may also take initiatives for the resolution of conflicts and building peace in the global context. These forums should address the issues of conflict resolution as a continuum, incorporating conflict settlement initiatives.

For delegitimisation of the culture of violence, it would be relevant to analyse the basic issues relating to the eruption of violence in a proper historical context, such as;

1. Is violence being used as a substitute of democratic mode of political strategy by the state as well as non-state individuals or groups?
2. Is it being used only as one of the tactics in a broader strategy ranging from the ideological persuasion to violence?
3. Is the cause which the users of violence espouse regarded as just by a majority of the people?
4. Is the relationship between the nation-state and society an interactive relationship. How far it would be appropriate to see state violence as a manifestation of structural violence and violence indulged in by non-state actors or collectivities as a product of structural violence.

II. Incompatibility of Goals to Compatibility of Interests

A pre-requisite for the resolution of conflict is the transformation of the incompatible to compatible goals. In the case of South Asia, intra-state conflicts are intermeshed with inter-state wars between countries of the region. The goal of political establishments in the region is to maintain domestic peace even at the cost of inter-state wars or antagonism. If the goal is transformed to South Asian peace and resolution intra-state conflicts by responding to its multi-dimensional components, the conflict spectrum may undergo a change and lead to activisation of co-operative mechanisms in security, trade, sharing of scarce resources and making provisions for human security. To illustrate, in both Kashmir and Punjab it has been identified on the basis of religious groups' positioning. The Sikhs in Punjab and Muslims in Kashmir are both seen as monolith groups and their interaction with the mono-cultural nature of the state has produced intra-state tensions.

III. Defining Boundaries and Limitations of Negotiations

It is important to understand the limits to the resources and capacities of the parties to the conflict and the civil society as a feedback to negotiations for entering into peace agreements and accords. For instance, in Indian Punjab, successful negotiations between the then Indian Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition regional Akali party, Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, resulted in the signing of the 'Punjab Accord' in 1985. It led to the assassination of Sant Longowal. The accord could not be implemented and violence was escalated. Similarly, violence got escalated even with the initiation of negotiations in various conflict situations. For instance, the assassination of President Premdasa of Sri Lanka in 1993 and Presidential candidate Dissanayeka in 1994 happened when the framework for devolution of power was under discussion. Therefore, it is imperative to prepare the people's capacity for combating increase in violence and their stakes in peace. It would also be appropriate to make an assessment of the resources and capacities to face violence if negotiations fail or accords are not implemented.

IV. Building People's Stakes in Peace

To harness shared values which are in abundance rather than regulation of incompatibilities, the most important issue is sharing of cultural capital, water, energy, technology and other scarce resources. An integrated approach to managing sharing and harnessing these resources between India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Nepal can build people's stakes in peace. Similarly, the co-operative security framework has to move away from a confrontationist posture to the use of instruments of peace-building like negotiations, demobilization etc. This can provide a security blanket for the civil society to participate in resource sharing initiatives.

The common cultural reservoir has to be transformed into cultural capital for peace building so that the capacity of the civil society to find innovative and creative avenues for the resolution of conflicts is enhanced. Institutional mechanisms should be worked out (through SAARC) to change the terms of trade from informal to formal, thereby build the stakes of the common people.

The total informal trade in the South Asian region exceeds three billion which is almost double the formal trade in the region for the corresponding years for which informal trade estimates are available. India's informal trade with Pakistan is almost ten times the formal trade in the region, that with Nepal and Bangladesh is almost as large as the formal trade, with Sri Lanka it is almost one-third of the formal trade and that with Bhutan it is three times the formal trade (Table 4 and 5)14.

It would be worthwhile to examine the extent to which policy reforms will discourage the use of informal channels and encourage the formal trade routes and the impact it might have on building people's stakes in peace.

Another area which can lead to creating an environment conducive to building the people's stakes in peace is trade in services like students, health providers and seekers, professionals. The South Asian region, in co-operation with each other has a potential to develop services and attract service seekers from the rest of the world. It would, therefore, be worthwhile to estimate the extent and nature of this market and study its impact on the socio-cultural dynamics of the region15.

V. Focus on factors rather than on actors

To counterpoise violence of the state with the violence perpetrated by non-state actors and collectivities and thereby formulate strategies of conflict resolution are fraught with danger. To see state and non-state actors of violence in an isomorphic relationship with each other is to overlook the structural basis. This understanding looks for causes in the behaviour of the actors. This kind of understanding attributes an autonomous space to state and non-state actors. In other words, policemen eliminate the terrorists and vice-versa and even the judiciary isolates an individual policeman for punishment. It becomes a kind of vicious circle. The underlying assumption is that killing of terrorist and punishing a few policemen will result in the elimination of terrorism.

VI. Conflict moderation for peace building

For conflict moderation, it is necessary to focus on controlling the triggers that contribute to the escalation of violence and transform intra-state conflicts into inter-state confrontations, and building a consensus around shared values like restoration of peace, desired by all the affected parties. The incompatibility of goals may persist, but incompatibility of interests is put on the negotiation table.

To reduce hostility without a resolution of underlying causes, through unilateral demobilisation and evolving mechanisms to exercise controls over the instruments assigned the task of combating violence will contribute to a moderation of conflicts. For instance, the killings of Indian Border Security Force personnel by the Bangladesh Rifles, and mutilation of their bodies, increased the pressure on the Indian state for revenge. In India, Operation Blue Star in 1984 provided continuity to the secessionist movement for another decade which it was petering out in 1984. Politics of conflict moderation, may have avoided excessive use of force by the Army and enforcement agencies.

Further, if non-conventional issues are brought into focus it can act as major reservoir for conflict moderation leading to peace building. To illustrate, poverty eradication, gender constructs, water and energy can act as major resource.

Towards Conflict Resolution in South Asia

Societies have been traditionally made up of self-supportive communities. The social order, no doubt, has been hierarchical, but social conflicts were resolved within the community itself. In other words, the community used to look after its own needs and even resolve its own conflicts. With development, the autonomy of the communities was curtailed, but without creating adequate institutionalised mechanisms to take care of their social needs and conflicts.

Historically, most of the interventions took the initiative away from the communities and reduced them to mere victims, beneficiaries, clients, recipients etc. This was justified on the basis of common good, and majority rule being the divine goal pursued by the states. Therefore, participation of the people became symbolic and their role in conflict identification and resolution was marginalised. The functioning of society based on hierarchical systems took the initiatives away from the community to the sub-system, from the sub-system to the state and ultimately to the dominant power in the global system. Each hierarchical layer abdicated its responsibilities to the higher layer. For instance, community systems abdicated their responsibility to the sub-system and sub-system to the state and state to the dominant power in the global system. In this scheme superior position and knowledge to resolve conflicts has been attributed to the external "interventionist". This system has failed to resolve conflicts. On the contrary, it has reinforced the existing conflicts and nurtured conditions for their growth. In response to the ineffectiveness of the existing interventionist mechanisms, the states and within the states sub-systems have started abdicating their responsibilities regarding the resolution of conflicts to and in favour of the community at the grassroot level. In fact, catch phrases such as power back to the people are being bandied about, to cover their inability to perform the necessary functions for the resolution of conflicts.

The need is to evolve a collaborative interactional relationship between states and within the states, among sub-systems and the community. The perspective needs to be interactive with various components of the larger global world setting while ensuring relative autonomy to various sub-systems within this. Therefore, the process of conflict resolution can be categorised into inter-state level in the global context and intra-sub-system level in the local context. And strategies may be worked out to ensure the relative autonomy of each unit so that they are able to:

A. Identify their conflicts according to their socio-cultural specific needs.
B. Work out resolution strategies maximising on the existing authority system within the sub-system.

The emphasis of this approach is on sufficiently empowering the parties in the conflict to identify and resolve these by themselves. This does not mean that non-parties or observers in the conflict situation have no place in this scheme of things. On the contrary, their role corresponds to the interactional relationship which each layer has evolved within the larger global system. The conventional methods of conflict resolution may have to be amended to respond to the new set of issues posed by changes in socio-economic formations and developments in politics, culture and religion. And also to respond to the specificities of social institutions and norms like casteism, racism, religiosity and gender relations which have played a central role in shaping the conflict of divergent sorts.

Three-tracked framework for conflict prevention in South Asia. First to identify the reasons and causes of intra-state conflicts and formulate interventions for prevention, moderation and management of the conflict within the countries. To identify the triggers that act as catalytic factors responsible for intermeshing of intra-state conflicts into inter-state confrontation like cross-border terrorism, migration, etc., and to evolve corresponding strategies for appropriating of abundant cultural and non-conventional resources for peace building. The relevance of transforming the cultural reservoir into cultural capital has to be established and steps taken for making it functional in the domain of peace, rather than be a reservoir for providing content to the culture of violence. The third track is to carve out South Asia as a region based on the principle of multilateralism and multiculturalism.

Process Of Conflict Resolution

It would be appropriate to see the emergence of conflicts in the South Asian context and evolve alternatives within the framework of explosion of identities in whole of South Asia, comprehensive security and co-operative institutional building mechanism. If the alternatives are merely confined to nuclearisation or country-centric linearity, it would merely be a reaction to the politics of political establishments of countries and other dominant global powers.

The problem identification should not be narrow. It is the culture of violence which is contributing to escalation of conflicts and therefore a culture of peace by democratisation and incorporation of human tradition should be reinforced. There is a need for recognition of political-economic rights of countries, collectivities and people and at the same time they need to be encouraged to participate in the decision making processes at the global level.

The process of conflict resolution should build up a culture of multi-lateralism where each country forum also takes initiatives for resolution of conflicts and peace in the global context.

The process of conflict resolution in South Asia may have to structure around four broad issues; redefining the goals, shifting of goal from domestic peace to South Asian regional peace; institutionalization of redefined goals e.g. democratization of politics; multilateralism and standardisation e.g. attempts towards strengthening SAARC and citizen rights and security e.g. redistribution of security resources. The process may have to be operationalised in two stages by incorporating conflict moderation initiatives leading to conflict resolution, however, operationalised simultaneously.

Redefinition of Goals

Conflict analysis in the South Asian context suggests that it is imperative to redefine the goals for conflict resolution, moderation and management around comprehensive security, incorporating themes of multiculturalism, distributive justice, democracy and global political marginalization.

The conflicts emanates from goals of territorial nationalism and the monotheistic concepts of nation-building in South Asia.

The premier issue for conflict moderation and resolution in South Asia pertains to a redefinition of goals. While conflict resolution involves an integration of multiculturalism and distributive justice to the deprivations felt and perceived in the identity conflicts, conflict moderation would involve mobilization of resources for building consensus for peace making, peace building and its sustenance. Simultaneously, the options of political economy and cultural interests need to be articulated. Such a Conflict moderation would build forward and backward linkages to micro economic policy and transitional cooperation for trade, infrastructure, communication etc. These issues would further addressed for conflict resolution in terms of a structural reconstruction of economy and incorporation of multicultural groups in terms of their language, ethnicity and culture.

The pursuance of economic interests through activisation of hegemonic market expansion by the new global order is in dissonance with goals pursued in South Asia like territorial nationalism and autonomy. This dissonance is not adequately comprehended for resolution of conflict. If there is a convergence of interests between the South Asian region and the global order, the nature and site of conflict may undergo a change.

The hypersensitivity of the South Asian region to territorial nationalism is providing content to security, national interest and threat perception. As the process of market expansionism is being pursued through global institutionalised systems and mechanisms controlled by dominant powers, assertions for greater autonomy in the developing countries in the absence of comprehensive security framework may become notional. The shift from military security to comprehensive security shall lead to diffusion of intrastate conflicts which invariably acquire inter-state dimensions in South Asia and reduce the dissonance between the pursuits of market of the global powers and territorial centric adventures in South Asian region. It would be pertinent to explore that how far the shift from territorial model of security to a comprehensive security in South Asia shall activise peace reservoir?

This dissonance between global order and South Asian worldview has provided sufficient space for third party interventions by the dominant world power without providing institutional visibility to their interventions in peace process. This smudges and blurs their interests in the region and conflict entails therein. Given the shift from military security to comprehensive security the emphasis on building domestic peace through inter-state antagonisms and wars may become redundant. In that sense, the South Asian peace may become another necessity for meeting the challenges of global order and maximize on regional collated advantages. To achieve this, a multilateral South Asian policy regime in terms of building up forward and backward economic linkages and adopting common tariff policy and subsidy framework and addressing issues of labour flows across borders, its social, political and economic implications, may have to be evolved. This research may analyse human rights and criminal dimensions of human trafficking leading to the integration of labour flows as an issue for economic co-operation.

Institutionalisation Of Goals

These goals have to be integrated into the institutional structures within the state mechanisms and established, strengthened and upgraded at the South Asian regional level. Institutionalisation of conflict resolution parameters shall help to overcome problem centred ad hoc initiatives, vulnerability to political conveniences and individual perceptions. This shall make peace building sustainable and dynamic process.

To activate these redefined goals institutionalized structures need to be created both vertically and horizontally to ensure response to conflict interests and on-going resolution. Conflict moderation in this context would involve institutionalization of representation of cultural groups in the decision-making bodies, participation in elections, and institutional mechanisms to incorporate the rights of minorities in terms of their language, religion and cultural interests. Resolution mechanisms for integration of multi-cultural constructs and secularlisation at various levels in society, politics and economy have to be put in place. It will involve an assessment of capacities of each state, parties to the conflict and society to overcome reliance on structural and behavioural violence. An active search for peaceful ways and means has to be undertaken to build a consensus among the actors for peace building in each specific conflict site and form of the conflict.

 

Multilateralism and Standardization of Mechanisms

To allow regional, country and multicultural groups to maximize on collateral advantages and protect their democratic, cultural economic needs, a priori to specific needs, the goals of peace-building and conflict resolution has to be incorporated as regional standards. This activisation of multilateral institutional avenues shall curtail hegemonic articulations of countries, political establishments and reactionary and ultra-nationalist forces.

These layered multilateral forums i.e. South Asian Confederation, Federal and democratic forums at the state level and activisation of decentralized democratic mechanisms shall contribute to conflict resolution. These long term goals can be achieved by strengthening SAARC, formulation of comprehensive security framework, macro economic policy integration. This will also help meet the existing trust deficit in the region in the short run. The moot question remains that how far these multilateral forums shall be able to shape transnational cultural reservoir as cultural capital for peace building and resolution of conflicts. This will require a systematic enquiry to assess the resources and capacities of each state and South Asia as a region to sustain peace building. Peace building involves reconstruction of social relations as well as infrastructure and formal institutions of democratic decentralization.

No one wants the conflicts to erupt again after settlement, or to return in a different clothing. Therefore, an active search for peaceful ways and means to create a stable and responsive society is a major task after the settlement of a violent conflict. Peace-building to this end is one of the best examples of how bottom-up and top-down approaches go together; all levels of society need to be responsive to each other in order not to develop fundamental threats to the cohesion of a society. Peace-building, for instance, has as its major aim the implementation of peace agreements in an effective and comprehensive manner.

Citizens Rights and Security Framework

The 21st century has thrown up major challenges to human security. These have added new dimensions to the principles and scope of accountability of security systems. With the globalisation of rights and crimes, the threat posed by terrorism, technological revolution and the emergence of diaspora, the nature and scope of security has been transformed. With the introduction of new principles of governance in the new era, it would be appropriate to delineate the nature and scope of security framework and the corresponding principles of accountability. This will largely depend on what this new era symbolises? What are the main characteristic features of the new global order?