Activists of People’s Committee for Peace Initiative in Assam at a protest rally. A file picture

Civil society, peace bids

In the context of Northeast India, the words civil society and peace initiatives sound very common. There are innumerable instances when people have come together under some banner or the other to try and contain violence or to appeal to the actors of violence to stop the bombing and killing spree. In many ways, these groups of citizens who have come together have done so as a reaction to violence. There are very rare instances when citizens have come together proactively to become the agents of peace by trying to understand the roots of conflict and violence.

In Assam we have the two most important peoples’ groups like the People’s Consultative Group (PCG) and the Peoples’ Committee for Peace Initiative in Assam (PCPIA) an umbrella of more than 20 organisations. These peoples’ groups are what one would term “civil society”.

These are welcome moves and they help to soften the contours of violence, especially because militants or perpetrators of violence usually find it difficult to go against the demands coming from peoples’ groups.

However, both these organisations are reactive forces.

We do not as yet have a proactive peoples’ movement that cuts across all communities in Assam, Nagaland or Manipur that have come together after serious considerations and with the right intellectual inputs so that they move in a manner that is as intelligent as that of the state’s. Very often, peoples’ groups or a civil society that works for peace gets labelled as a mouthpiece of militants.

Arm-twisting

Of course, the state also uses strong-arm tactics against peace workers. We have the example of Binayak Sen in Chattisgarh, a medical doctor who works with the tribals of that place. He is now under arrest on various charges, the most important one being that he confabulates and advises the Naxal leaders. And why?

Merely because he has selflessly tried to provide medical treatment to everyone without seeing whether the person is a militant or an ordinary human being.

As a doctor working for a humanitarian cause among the poorest of the poor, Sen might have tried to argue with the Naxals about the futility of an armed struggle. He might even have engaged with them at different levels because they would have been the people that he knows very well having worked and lived in Chattisgarh for decades.

But the state finds it hard to accept such realities.

The state expects people to alienate themselves completely from armed groups, quite forgetting they are part and parcel of society.

A young person who until yesterday was well meaning and a law-abiding citizen could suddenly decide, for whatever reasons, to join a militant outfit. The society and family he belongs to cannot suddenly ostracise him.

The state does not understand the intricacies of human relations. It wants a complete severance of ties between those who live within the law of the land and those who have decided to create new paradigms of living outside that rule of law. And yet when we talk of peace initiatives it becomes necessary for the mediators to have access both to the state and non-state parties in conflict.

Human relations

So why does the state suspect mediators when they confer with non-state actors? Ironically, sometimes the non-state actors also suspect peoples’ groups of being pro-state. They prefer a group that is hand-picked by them to negotiate peace and on their terms.

The state also would like to see a group that is amenable and does not enjoy complete independence of views. Hence in both cases it is difficult to think of peace initiatives. Of course you could say that peace-builders need to work on issues of livelihood without engaging either with the government or the actors of violence. In that case, the group is bound to be ineffective as it fails to touch the root of the problem.

That is why, in peace-building, it is important for civil society to have clarity of vision and be objective and non-partisan, apart from remaining equi-distant from both parties in conflict, in order to achieve their objectives.

This is tough call and one that requires a tightrope walk. But peace- building processes across the globe have failed whenever mediators have veered from the middle path and when they have not been absolutely honest in their objectives.

Mediators for peace must have credibility and integrity. There cannot be a “what’s in it for me?” rider when one decides to become a mediator for peace.

In the Northeast the concept of peace has been intricately linked to security or the military response to conflict. In building peace, mediators need to identify the root causes of conflict.

They have to start from the beginning. Very often the cause of conflict lies in the perception of groups that they are victims of injustice. The injustice could be in the way in which goods and services are distributed by the state.

Forms of conflict

Conflicts in the Northeast are not merely linked to political histories and how they are perceived, but new and virulent forms of conflict are occurring in areas that suffer developmental backlogs such as hunger, poverty, poor health and lack of access to education as in Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills Although hunger and poverty may not be direct causes of conflict they are powerful factors in triggering conflict.

If India continues with the kind of skewed growth process where the fruits of development are not shared equitably, we can expect to have many more discords triggered by the unjust sharing or non-sharing of resources by the state with those who are actual owners of those resources.

Integral to any peace initiative is the demand for good, transparent governance. Peoples’ uneasiness about corruption is a strong reason for turmoil.

Civil society initiatives for peace must, therefore, address the issues of participatory governance, accountability and equitable distribution of resources.

Hence the group must comprise a mix of thinkers, intellectuals, strategists, activists, implementers and above all, someone who can best represent the views of the groups coherently and without compromise on some of the laid down principles.

The group has to function with utmost transparency. Its members must be seen to have gained nothing from their peace initiatives from either party. This makes peace-building a complex task but not an impossible one.

(The writer can be contacted at patricia17@rediffmail.com)