The world is gripped by various conflicts, including terrorism, insurgencies, sub-nationalism, ethnic issues, and struggles for freedom or rights of communities. Insurgencies and conflicts have been part of human history, but post-9/11, terrorism has become the most prominent form of modern conflict. Despite being one of the most frequently used words of the 21st century, terrorism lacks a universally accepted definition. The absence of international consensus, coupled with the complexities and connotations attached to the term, has led to its use and misuse for state or political interests, enabling many states to label freedom struggles or resistance against tyranny as terrorism.
The ever-increasing lethality of weapons used by opposing sides in conflicts is leading to an exponential increase in the loss of life and resources. Additionally, conflicts have a corrosive effect on political processes, contributing to domestic and international instability and disrupting global trade. This necessitates a deeper analysis of past conflicts to understand their causes, what led to their continuation, and how they were resolved amicably.
Most struggles arise from a specific segment’s or the general public’s real or perceived grievances which, when not addressed, lead to conflict. These grievances often revolve around demands for a better life through equality and equity in the social system. They can be further divided into demands for equal opportunity for economic growth, healthcare, education, justice, human rights, freedom of speech, and the right to practise one’s beliefs. Denial of any of these to a specific segment of society due to inappropriate policy or poor policy implementation over an extended period can lead to an organic uprising. Even externally provoked conflicts rely on exploiting some vulnerability; thus, discontent within the population provides fertile ground for provoking or manipulating public sentiment. The information age has added yet another dimension by increasing the speed at which conflicts can expand and transform. Modern communication systems can also be exploited by inimical elements to inflame situations by injecting fake news, quickly turning differences into unwarranted and uncontrollable conflicts.
Looking at past conflicts, we find that nations like South Africa, Singapore, and Switzerland managed conflict through inclusive policies and systems. In South Africa, the abolition of discriminatory laws and the establishment of inclusive political, economic, and social policies and institutions ended the conflict and brought socio-economic development and stability to the country. Similarly, the integration of socio-cultural diversity in Singapore created better opportunities for socio-economic development by achieving synergistic results through inclusion. Kenya and Nepal are other good examples of conflict resolution through dialogue and reconciliation. Afghanistan is a recent example where the world’s most powerful military nation was forced to negotiate its exit with the Taliban, against whom it had waged war for almost 20 years.
On the contrary, Sri Lanka was able to end terrorism through force, but the lack of reconciliation and justice has left the country politically and economically unstable. Similarly, despite decades of brute force and repression leading to ongoing genocide, Israel has failed to end the Palestinian resistance. Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir remains conflict-ridden even after seven decades of using brute force. These examples suggest that even with the best military equipment and international support, force can never resolve conflicts, especially when faced with resilient people. The resilience of the people of Bangladesh is the most recent example, where a movement initially started against the quota system in government jobs. The government’s decision to use brute force to suppress the movement instead of resolving it through dialogue ultimately resulted in the ouster of the incumbent party.
History suggests that indiscriminate violence rarely achieves desired results as it only leads to a hardening of stances and increases the resilience of the people, closing off the option of reconciliation. Therefore, no time should be lost in making course corrections. The use of force to confront radical forces under a coherent and comprehensive strategy to find a lasting political solution can work in some, but not all situations. This highlights the importance of dialogue and reconciliation efforts based on common goals aimed at achieving a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
No two situations are alike, as each conflict has different dynamics. This necessitates finding novel solutions in each case. However, better coordination of institutional methodologies, bringing together multiple skills, can help achieve better results. For cohesive living and lasting peace, differences and diversity must be recognised and dealt with fairly. Since policies are used to manage state affairs, there must be minimal gaps between policy and public perception. Additionally, vertical and horizontal coherence must be ensured in policy formulation and implementation. The end result of every conflict always favours the side with public support, as seen in the case of Bangladesh. Public support largely depends on the credibility of the government and mainstream media as well as the acceptability of the narrative. Statesmanship can reunite people and lead to peace, progress, and prosperity, while the use of force can only create friction, increase resistance, and lead to unacceptable consequences. Similarly, while the rule of law is always helpful, ruling by law does not last long.
Air Marshal M Ashfaque Arain (Retd)
The writer is a retired Air Marshal of the PAF who served as Pakistan’s Air Advisor at New Delhi from 2002-06. He can be reached at ashfaquearain@yahoo.com
