There is no right or wrong and true or false in eco-political conflicts. There is no truth other than what is true in popular perception. This is the main emergent truth in the backdrop of the eco-political unrests seen all over. Brexit has amply demonstrated that growth needs to be inclusive so that it is popularly perceived as such. In USA, Trump is getting stronger day by day by cunningly picking up threads of popular disgruntlement and yarning and articulating these before greater public platforms. This does not mean reform measures are futile. But that reform can’t be imposed — instead of being done gradually through discussions, trying to change the extant understanding of the issue in question.
India is a multi-racial and multilingual country. On every common issue, there are differing perceptions in different regions. Views of one region can’t be imposed on another. Neither can disenchantment be wished away. These have to be squarely faced and sorted out. Otherwise separatism will manifest itself. That is why federal approach with continuous discussions and persuasions is the golden way.
EU faced such dilemma on most economic restructuring attempts such as in Greece and Ireland. The restructuring of outstanding debt and often accompanying austerity package is settled through discussions and negotiations. Similarly for trade negotiations under WTO, where renewed efforts are made time and again, despite many setbacks.
Therefore in all such conflicting situations, continuous discussion and negotiation must occur. What is eventually needed is a process of limiting the negative edges of conflict while increasing the positive aspects of it. And this process comprises one or more of the following techniques.
Accommodating: The accommodating strategy essentially entails giving room to the opposing side, what it wants. The use of accommodation often occurs when one of the parties wishes to keep the peace or perceives the issue as minor.
Avoiding: The avoidance strategy seeks to put off conflict indefinitely. By delaying or ignoring the conflict, the avoider hopes the problem resolves itself without a confrontation.
Collaborating: Collaboration works by integrating ideas set out by various groups/ people. The object is to find a creative solution acceptable to everyone. Collaboration, though ideal, calls for a significant commitment in terms of mutual appreciation of each other’s position, not easy in most conflicts
Compromising: The compromising strategy typically calls for both sides of a conflict to give up elements of their position in order to establish an acceptable, if not agreeable, solution. This strategy prevails most often in conflicts where the parties hold approximately equivalent power.
Ultimately, a competitive situation allowing a zero-sum game, in which one side wins and other loses — and the winner takes all — must yield to a situation of mutual understanding and appreciation, allowing positive sum game.
In Indo-Pak conflict, ‘accommodating, avoiding and collaborating’ have been tried by India and in that order, but unsuccessfully. What remains to be tried is compromising as mentioned above.
Time is now ripe for widening the agenda for discussion on this conflict by including the issues of self-determination in PoK, Balochistan and Gilgit. This would strengthen our position in the discussion platform and enable adoption of a compromising approach more meaningfully and strategically.
The author, a former banker, is a commentator on contemporary issues
