By Rajkumar Bobichand
Like conflict is an inseparable part of social interactions, change is also a normal part of life in human relationships and inseparably linked to conflict transformation and peacebuilding. Change, in itself, is not a problem. In many situations, change is desperately needed as a way of addressing social and political conflicts. In conflict transformation, we wish to bring about some kind of change in a conflict situation. And without conflict, change may not happen.
Coser (1956) explored the functions of conflict as an inevitable element of social processes of change. However, change is uncomfortable to many people. All agree that social change demands a great deal of energy and individual motivation. Effective strategies for change must build on the caring and personal commitment of all the players involved. One should start where s/he cares the most and do what s/he likes to do the most to contribute the most energy and to be the most effective.
Change can be viewed in two modes: the reactive and proactive (Azar, 1990). From one perspective, individuals and groups are the objects of change. They are at the receiving ends, in the sense that change happens to them. From the other perspective, individuals and groups are the initiators of change and change follows from human volition. Both perspectives have their validity and, of course, they are closely interrelated. For instance, when one social group actively tries to bring about change, there are invariably other groups who try to resist the change.
Williams (2005) argues that Change can be a source of conflict or it can be a means to resolve or transform a conflict depending upon the context. In situations where a dominant group or elite is entrenched in power, any efforts to bring about change could be seen as a threat to their position and authority. However, it is also possible that any change which addresses the causes of conflict and is agreed and implemented through consultative and inclusive process, could help to reduce levels of conflict and violence.
The relationship between conflict and change is dynamic. Change should not be seen as a one-way and final process, but rather as a process that is flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the conflict.
Williams further asserts that the most effective and enduring change in a conflict situation will derive from internalisation of a desire for change by those involved, rather than a change through outside influence or pressure. This, of course, assumes that people want to change, which is not a given in most conflict situations. There will always be some who benefit from the status quo and will therefore resist any efforts to effect changes in themselves or in the situation.
When individuals and groups become involved in a conflict, their motivation for a change in the conflict situation will depend on their own particular experiences of the conflict as well as from the changing dynamics of the situation. In other words, the causes of a conflict may be viewed as layers that are added to the situation as the conflict progresses. Those who get involved at different stages will have motivations based on the causes that were dominant in their experience of the situation at that time.
To transform the conflicts in Manipur, it is necessary to bring about changes to our understanding of the conflict itself first and foremost; to our understanding of ethnic identity, to our mutual perceptions, attitudes and behaviour, and to our knowledge of the conflict dynamics. Being key players, the ethnic armed group leaders and the leaders of civil society organisations, particularly of the Meiteis, have to change their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour.
To add up to the desired change, the rational-empirical approach assumes that people are rational and practical. They will change on their own given the following appropriate conditions: by providing accurate information, relevant education or training to allow individuals to change on their own; by ensuring that the ‘right’ people are in the ‘right’ place to bring about needed changes; by doing information-gathering, research and publications about matters we want to change; by promoting visionary thinking to stimulate creativity and ‘best-case’ scenarios; and by clarifying the issues and/or reconceptualising the situation in order to bring about greater overall understanding about the need for change.
Another approach to add up to the desired change, the normative-reeducative approach is based on the view that change begins from the individual level. It focuses on first changing attitudes and behaviour of individuals as means to effecting changes in the wider social system by improving the problem-solving capacities of a system, by encouraging individuals to be self-diagnosing, and by releasing and fostering growth in the persons who make up the system.
In Manipur’s context, I believe that both approaches approach are required simultaneously. However, I am aware that changing the attitudes and behaviour of the ethnic armed groups and civil society leaders by themselves will not automatically lead to transformation of the conflicts –both political and ethnic – in Manipur. The social, economic, and political structures that cause the conflicts in the first place have to be changed as well. I am also aware that there are powerful external influences, which are beyond the control of ethnic armed groups or civil society organisations, which play a role in aggravating or ameliorating the conflicts in Manipur.
My understanding and thinking as applied to most of my work and research is that if the attitudes are changed, the behaviour will be changed, and vice versa. Even the structure and system that mould undesirable attitudes and behaviour may be changed when the people are united on a common understanding of the conflict. Therefore, to bring about a positive change in Manipur, the first step is to change the attitudes and behaviour of the ethnic armed group leaders and civil society leaders in particular and of the Manipurese people in general.