Nagas and India: Perpetual Conflict

It is true that there is a wide variety of theoretical approach in the field of conflict
management, conflict transformation and conflict resolution. Because of this, we find
different authors and practitioners using the concepts and terms indiscriminately, sometimes
in an inconsistent way. Many scholars use the term conflict management, conflict
transformation and conflict resolution synonymously; however conflictologists suggest that
there exist a technical difference between the concept of conflict management and the others.1
Burton (1986: 125) distinguishes between conflict management and conflict
resolution. According to him conflict management has a wider application, from deterrence
strategies to propaganda. Its significant feature is that it is an attempt, usually by the status
quo party to the dispute, to avoid escalation of the conflict while maintaining control without
giving way. Conflict resolution on the other hand, seeks to resolve the problem, even though
this requires change. According to Cooper (2003: 88) by conflict resolution is meant any
process by means of which the clash of interests is halted; the parties to the conflict are
suitably restrained; ensuing damage is mitigated; and an adjustment of the interests in dispute
is effected by agreement or force. Miall (ibid: 3-4) also says that conflict resolution is about
how parties can move from zero-sum, destructive pattern of conflict to positive-sum
constructive outcome. For this reason it has a costing component so that the status quo party
can reliably assess the costs and consequences of conflict management. Under conflict
resolution the analysis of the underlying sources of conflict situations is very essential. This
analysis is possible only if the parties in conflict facilitate such initiative. The term conflict
resolution also encompasses the process whereby institutional and policy options are
discovered in order to meet the needs of the parties, thus establishing the basis for a
resolution of the conflict.
On the other hand, conflict transformation is a process of engaging with and
transforming the relationships, interests, discourses and, if necessary, the very constitution of
1Azem Hamad argues that the term conflict management is broader than the other concepts such as
conflict settlement, conflict resolution, transformation and prevention. In fact, these concepts along
with other handling patterns such as escalation, complication and initiation should be sub-topic within
the wider frame of conflict management. According to him, conflict management would encompass
understanding, containment, settlement, resolution, transformation and other associated concepts and
theories of conflict (Hamad 2005: 3).

society that supports the continuation of violent conflict. In the words of Lederach, Conflict
transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the human and cultural
resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses through which we do
not primarily see the setting and the people in it as the problem and the outsider as the
answer. Rather, we understand the long-term goal of transformation as validating and
building on people and resources within the setting.2
A distinction can be made between 'settlement' and resolution as well. While it is
possible for a 'settlement' to be arrived at in a power-bargaining situation, just as a court has
the power to 'settle' a dispute, achieving a 'resolution' is not the result of a compromise or an
enforced decision. It is an outcome that develops out of an analysis of the total situation by
the concerned parties to meet their needs (Burton ibid: 125). So, for example, a settlement
with the NSCN (IM) may be possible, even without achieving the final and comprehensive
solution.
The traditional school of conflict management believes that conflicts are ineradicable
and its resolution unrealistic, therefore the concept has been conventionally associated with
conflict containment (Hamad ibid: 4). For instance, Hugh Miall (2004: 3) sees violent
conflict as an ineradicable consequence of differences of values and interests within and
between communities. Therefore, for conflict management analysts, the best option is to
devise a mechanism so that its occurrence is reduced or mitigated whenever there is a
conflict.3 However, others believe that conflicts can be resolved, and see conflict management
as a stage in the handling of conflicts to be followed by other stages. For instance, John
McGarry and Brendan OLeary have divided ethnic conflict regulations into two main
sections: conflict management and conflict termination. 4 There are also other scholars that

2 Miall (ibid: 4), Quoted in Lederach, J.P. (1995: 78), Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across
Cultures, (New York: Syracuse University Press).

3 The traditional approach to conflict management has been criticised by scholars on the ground of excessive
realism, unrealistic, lack of analysis and the problem of integration. For more see (Hamad ibid: 7-11).

4 Hamad (ibid. 4), Quoted in McGarry, John and Brendan OLeary (1993: 56), The Politics of Ethnic
Conflict Regulation, (London: Routledge).

consider conflict management as an umbrella term to include method such as conflict

transformation.5
Hamad in his article The Reconceptualisation of Conflict Management included
both types of conflict transformation, solution and escalation. For him, the field of conflict
management needs to include studying conflicts as they are, on any level or at any stage. In
his words he says, My main thesis in this article is that conflict management is not confined
to solving, suspending and terminating conflicts. Rather, it is part of every tactic or step
adopted by the parties to the conflict or a third party (Hamad ibid: 27). He argues that the
conventional narrow meaning should be replaced with a broader reference to processes such
as containment, escalation, settlement, resolution, transformation, prevention, creation of
conflicts, prevention of solutions, etc. (Hamad ibid: 27-28). As an approach he urged the
scholars to return to the original nature of science and the use deductive method.
According to Miall (ibid: 3) Conflict management is the art of appropriate
intervention to achieve political settlements, particularly by those powerful actors having the
power and resources to bring pressure on the conflicting parties in order to induce them to
settle. It is also the art of designing the appropriate institutions to guide the inevitable conflict
into appropriate channels. Similarly Bloomfield and Reilly (1998: 18) also defined conflict
management as the positive and constructive handling of difference and divergence. Rather
than advocating methods for removing conflict, [it] addresses the more realistic question of
managing conflict: how to deal with it in a constructive way, how to bring opposing sides
together in a cooperative process, how to design a practical, achievable, cooperative system
for the constructive management of difference. Furlong (2005: 2) argues that managing
conflict effectively is a simple two step process that starts with, how we assess the conflict
we are facing, followed by, what action or inaction we decide to take to address it. Therefore
it is pertinent to creatively and insightfully diagnose what is causing the conflict, and also
effectively and skilfully taking action to resolve the conflict. Despite the limitations, in our
study, conflict management is understood as an attempt to contain or limit the effects of the
ongoing ethnic conflict. This strategy is chosen primarily because final and comprehensive

5 For example, Reimann Cordula (2004: 2) considered the term conflict management as a narrow term. Due to
lack of better alternative, she says, I will accept the use of conflict management as an umbrella term, while
cautioning against its definitional pitfall.

settlement or resolution of the conflict seems elusive, given the deep hatred between the
Chechens and the Russians.
The aim of Conflict Management is the safe containment of the energy generated by
the collision leading to its least harmful dispersal and a disengagement of the parties in
conflict. According to Tony Cooper (ibid: 86) management assumes a willingness to desist
or disengage so that the energy produced by the conflict can be appropriately dissipated.
The role of a referee in a boxing match is a good example of conflict management. Therefore,
in order to disengage the parties from collision the conditions for effective management
should be in place. Thus conflict management and resolution presume the existence of rules
governing the matter and an effective mechanism for the enforcement of those rules.

However, many conflicts are regulated ex post facto due to the delay in responding to
the conflict by others. For this reason, conflict resolution efforts are many at times futile as
irreparable damage is already done. Gurr (1994: 366) similarly argued that the more
protracted the conflict, the more resistant the contenders are to settlement. Therefore,
assuming some responsibility early for managing or resolving it will greatly reduce the harm
suffered by both the parties.