From the Editor’s Desk – Kyrstie Lane
After Violence – Kevin Avruch
Social Media: The Only Contributing Factor in the Arab Spring? – Joseph Bock
Gujarat: Almost Ten Years Since the Genocide – Cedric Prakash
Cover Photo – We Are Not Statistics: Messages of Hope in an Era of 21st Century Gang Violence – P.K. McCary
India Column: Hara Kiri in the Indian Tribal Heartland – Francis Gonsalves
by Francis Gonsalves
As citizens of the world’s largest democracy, Indians are understandably proud of their Constitution that pledges “to secure to all its citizens justice, liberty, equality, and to promote fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.” However, these Constitutional ideals are but illusions for many Indians. Development models favoring the privileged and adversely affecting the marginalized continue to be introduced by successive governments. This invariably results in increased violence towards the tribals, or adivasis (meaning ‘original inhabitants’), one such marginalized group.
Adivasis in India traditionally manage their affairs as members of a virtual ‘village republic.’ They depend on the abundant natural resources of their habitat, which they see as God-given gifts, collectively managed, to be used for the welfare of all. However, over the years, the adivasis have not only been unsuccessful in getting legal entitlement over their lands, but have become victims of (and even engage in) various forms of violence, broadly referred to as ‘Maoist-Naxalite violence.’
The Naxalite movement in India began in the late 1960s. It represented the revolutionary stream of Indian Marxism, with the aim of capturing control of the state through armed struggle rather than parliamentary democracy. The state crushed the movement in the 1970s, causing an already ideologically fractured movement to splinter further. In 2004, two of the major parties united to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The CPI (Maoist) is currently a significant political force across several states, especially in rural areas in central India where state services have been inadequate or absent. Their cadre comes from sections of India’s poorest people, especially the dalits (former untouchables) and the adivasis.
Since 2005, the Maoists have become the main target of the Indian state, with thousands of paramilitary forces (also comprising adivasis) committed to eliminating them. As a consequence, there is armed conflict in large parts of central India, taking several hundred lives annually. This is a kind of hara-kiri, with large groups of adivasis pitted against each other while the Government seems ineffective in tackling the situation and the multinational companies (MNCs) greedily eye adivasi land and hope to benefit from the conflict.
Delhi University’s Professor Nandini Sundar holds that three main perspectives dominate the present discourse. The first, the ‘security perspective,’ equates the Maoists with terrorists. India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, said, “The Maoists are the greatest threat to the nation.” India’s Home Ministry described the Naxals as “cold blooded murderers” in the newspapers. The second, the dominant liberal perspective, can be called the ‘root causes perspective.’ According to this view, poverty and the lack of ‘development’ and primary services are to blame for pushing people to support the Maoists. The third, the ‘revolutionary perspective’ held by the Maoists and their sympathizers, portrays the movement as a product of structural violence. While they describe people as forced into resistance and armed struggle, there is equally an emphasis on active agency and sacrifice, contrary to the ‘root causes perspective’ that sees people as passive victims. Professor Sundar opines that the situation is further compounded by many social, economic, political, historical, and ideological factors.
According to Government estimates, 92,000 square kilometres are under the control of the Maoists (the Government calls this the ‘Red Corridor’). In 2005, the Chhattisgarh Government felt that the Maoists were a danger and started the Salwa Judum, meaning ‘Collective Peace Campaign’ – an adivasi contingent who, with Government support, began to accuse fellow adivasis of protecting the Maoists. The Salwa Judum began forcing the adivasis out of their villages and into camps at the edge of the village. Currently, the Salwa Judum has been reinvented in the form of ‘Special Police Officers’ (SPOs) who are mostly illiterate and unemployed armed youth who help the Government in combing operations, arresting and killing people, burning houses, and looting. The struggle by the Government to wipe out the Maoists across states is termed ‘Operation Green Hunt.’
While numerous civil society groups have condemned the violence by the Maoists, many ask, “Why have the Maoists-Naxalites been successful in winning over the confidence of the adivasis?” Himanshu Thakkar, a Gandhian who has worked for tribal development for two decades, replies,
“All roads for the adivasis are closed. The police beat them. The political leaders – be they from the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – support the Salwa Judum. The courts do not give them a hearing. The media does not care. To whom will they go except to the Maoists? When the police attack them, the Naxalites defend the adivasis.”
Although the adivasis have been exploited for centuries, one must ask: why has the Maoist-Naxalite violence peaked recently? In 2001, the formation of the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand provided an incentive for the ruling parties in these states to intervene in areas that had hitherto been relatively neglected. Both Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, states with large mineral and forest areas predominantly inhabited by adivasis, explicitly set out to promote industrialization. Yet, when people protest against land-grabbing and forced displacement, successive governments have always pointed out that this is done in the name of development. Also notable, the formation of the CPI (Maoist) in 2004 roughly coincides with the liberalization of India’s mining policy in 2003 and with the Special Economic Zones Act in 2005, both of which resulted in indiscriminate land grabbing of adivasi lands.
Human Rights activist Gladson Dungdung from Jharkhand points out,
“In violent attempts to grab and gift adivasi lands to MNCs for business ventures, the Government has never bothered about the plight of the adivasis. In Jharkhand, the Government signed 102 MoUs (Memoranda of Understanding) with 40 corporate houses, one of the biggest being the POSCO project… Our ministers argue that India’s top priority is economic growth. Jairam Ramesh, the former Indian environment minister, said: ‘Projects such as that of POSCO have considerable economic, technological and strategic significance for the country’.”
POSCO’s plant, which will produce 12 million tons of steel every year, is to be built on a plot of 4,000 acres. The adivasis are denied their rights under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 but POSCO is given the same land at throwaway prices. Is this development?
The saddest part of the crisis is that the adivasi community and its leaders are never consulted about the development that they require. Thus, it is time to ask: what development is being promoted? By whom? For whom? At what cost? Dr. B.D. Sharma, who was once Advisor to the Indian Government on tribal affairs and now dedicates his life to the welfare of adivasis, says,
“The whole scheme of so-called development will have to be redrawn with reference to the customs and traditions of the adivasi. His well-wishers would do well, as advised by Tolstoy more than a century ago, ‘to get off his shoulders’ on which they are all perched so that he can stretch his back up and move upright around as a free person and master of his own destiny.”
Unless the Government, the police, the Salwa Judum and the SPOs, the MNCs, and other parties with vested interests respect the rights of the adivasis and genuinely seek their welfare, they must be told by the adivasis, “Get off our backs!” Because, if they do not, there is little hope of seeing the end of this violence.
Dr. Francis Gonsalves, a Jesuit, received his Licentiate in Dogmatic Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome and his Ph.D. from the University of Madras, India. He has taught at the Vidyajyoti College of Theology since 1997, and has been the Principal since 2009. He has taught at a number of other institutions, including the University of Madras. His areas of interest in teaching and study include interdisciplinary approaches to theology, interfaith dialogue and initiatives, socio-religious and subaltern movements, and developing the arts as alternative sources of theology. He has published extensively both in India and abroad on issues of religion and theology, political affairs, and social justice. He currently serves on the board of editors for four publications. He has also lectured widely and conducted numerous seminars on his areas of interest.
The conflicts that gain the most attention and media coverage tend to be those that are most sensational and violent. But there are many other conflicts we do not hear about, and those living through them must struggle to make their voices heard. This column seeks to bring attention to serious events, issues, and conflicts that receive little coverage but deserve our attention, our acknowledgement, and our best efforts in resolving them.
The Mexican government’s efforts to combat the influence the cartels hold over the country, known as the “War on Drugs”, has received a great deal of attention, especially in recent years. There are numerous stories about the toll the violence has taken on politicians, communities, and Mexico as a whole. However, the complicated story of the disappeared women from Ciudad Juarez, which began in the 1990s, has received only sporadic attention in the media. While the mainstream media has covered this story more thoroughly in recent years, much of the coverage paints a simplified picture, blaming the disappearances solely on the “War on Drugs.” While it is true that drug-related violence has increased in Northern Mexico, police brutality and corruption, collusion with the cartels, extreme poverty, and horrible working conditions all contribute to the disappearances; as well as, many would argue, a culture of machismo that undervalues women. Thus, these disappearances often have little or nothing to do with the “War on Drugs.” One reason for this erroneous analysis is that gathering information and finding out what is really going on is very difficult, and many journalists attempting to cover the story have been murdered. Few of the cases have been solved because there seem to be many different causes for the deaths and not one single responsible party. The political will in Mexico is not strong enough to encourage real investigative and preventative action because the police, politicians, drug traffickers, and gangs are all connected in a web of corruption and collusion. These women are innocent victims of the turmoil in Mexico, and they and their families deserve justice.
Most civil wars gain international attention when the number of victims reaches a certain point. But others are forgotten, as the duration is simply too long to capture and sustain the interest of the international community. Over the past fifty years, the press has intermittently covered the violent internal conflict in Colombia. While some progress towards peace has been made in the past decade, the country continues to be a dangerous place for human rights campaigners, politicians, and women. Women lack a great deal of resources, as their access to opportunities such as education have suffered due to the lack of infrastructure present in the country, a result of the internal conflict. During these decades of conflict, many women in Colombia have been and continue to be victims of sexual violence. A comparatively small percentage of sexual violence against women can be classified as domestic violence or crime; most is committed by the military, paramilitary, and other armed groups. Indigenous women, women who have been displaced from their homes as a result of the conflict, and women living in extreme poverty are at particularly high risk of becoming victims of sexual violence. These women are also typically those with the least access to recourse or social and legal services. In Colombia, as elsewhere in the world, a large number of rapes go unreported. This is also because the women who have been raped and their families receive threats if they even consider reporting the crime. In 2010 more than 20,000 cases of sexual violence were investigated in the country but less than 200 of these were classified as a result of armed violence, thus continuing the invisibility of sexual violence against women as a war-related crime. Colombia has not adequately protected the safety of women, who are becoming the victims of internal violence. More international attention and support is needed to protect and aid the innocent, forgotten victims of this armed conflict.
In April 2011, a movement started in Toronto to protest a police officer’s comment that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. The movement, known as “SlutWalk”, has spread to many cities within the United States, with one scheduled for early October in New York. This proposed walk will take place on the heels of a comment by a Brooklyn police officer who, similar to the officer in Toronto, suggested women should dress more conservatively to avoid being attacked. For many women, the movement signifies their reclamation of the word “slut”, as well as a challenge to our culture’s tolerance for violence against women. Though it is similar to another movement known as “Take Back the Night”, the protests and methods through which the participants of “SlutWalk” attempt to convey their messages are much bolder. During these walks, women dress provocatively and self-identify as sluts. The issues these walks address have gained a great deal of support and interest among women in the United States. However, there are other women who feel marginalized by the movement because they believe it will not succeed in transforming the negative meaning of the word “slut”. A significant number of African American women have publicly denounced the movement. They do not believe that walking through the streets, self-identifying as sluts, would make women in their communities safer. Their argument is that ‘black’ women are already more sexualized than white women. So, the question really is: what exactly is this movement trying to accomplish? It raises awareness of the issues in our communities surrounding violence against women, yet is also extremely controversial because through women dressing in provocative ways their sexuality is further objectified. In the end, it all comes down to how one views and interprets the movement. What is not clear is how this movement would help make women safer in their own communities, the very issue which sparked the initial protest in Toronto.
by PK McCary
At Alisal High School, a young student asked me, “Don’t you know? We’re the gang violence capital of the world!” The high school is in Salinas, California, situated near the area where much of the gang violence in the city occurs. I was reminded of the saying that in order to teach, one must know whom one is teaching. A trip to this school revealed how violence robs a community of its essence and its ability to believe in itself and its possibilities. How many people had walked through the doors of this school offering a panacea for the ills of the community? More than one would guess.
My visit to pitch a nonviolent training workshop to students in Salinas came just days after gang violence took the life of a 6-year old child. Azahel Cruz was another victim of the random violence that plagues the city. Salinas has become known as a place where waste of life is a regular occurrence.
A young Latino male living in Salinas, California is more likely to be a statistic of violence than a statistic of success. At the end of summer 2009, 21 people had been murdered in the city, and every murder was gang related. So, when I was invited to provide nonviolent training to Salinas students aged 13 to 19, I was excited. However, I was warned that training would be an uphill battle, or even a waste of time.
When I say Salinas, you say Gang Violence!
When this student reminded me that his city was the gang violence capital of the world, I challenged the students to tell me anything about Salinas that did not include “gang” or “violence” in the sentence. At first no one could. So I recited all that I knew about Salinas, from the best place for salsa the city’s famous burritos, to the best music and pastries. I told them how Salinas was known as the Salad Bowl of the World, and then some told me about their family members who worked in the fields. By the end of the day, more than a dozen young people had signed up for the workshop.
For more than 18 months, partnerships formed to support the growing participation of young people in their community. Students from LaPaz Middle School created a video entitled I Am Salinas. Students from Alisal partnered with students from Alvarez to create a group called Teen Salinas Speaks. Originally a slam poetry group, it expanded to speak before City Council and at other events about the need for a larger library so that new programs could flourish. At the end of their performances, these young people chant, “We’re Teen Salinas Speaks. Are you listening?” With the help of the library and others, teenagers are defining a healthier community for all. Are you listening?
PK McCary is a writer, storyteller, and peacekeeper in the US. Her training and education is in media and communications. Her work focuses on young people, helping them to see their place and responsibilities in and to the world. She has more than 30 years of experience in anti-violence programming for youth. She believes in a thriving global community, and that by teaching both nonviolent and compassionate communication the ills of the world can be healed. She is the founder of Think Peace International in Walnut Creek, California. Think Peace is a multimedia training and educational organization made up of artists, teachers, and social activists sharing their stories and models of peacemaking. The vision of the organization is to provide a voice to those who are underrepresented in areas of the world affected by conflict and disparities and to those whose stories, which would provide great insight and clarity to others, are missing from media narratives. Through collaboration with others, PK works to create effective tools for peacekeeping in the 21st century and beyond.
by Cedric Prakash
On Sept. 13 of this year, the US Department of State released its International Religious Freedom Report (July to December 2010) in which the communal riots of 2002 in Gujarat, India once again feature very prominently. Here are some excerpts from the Report:
“There was continued concern about the Gujarat government’s failure to arrest those responsible for the communal violence in 2002 that killed over 1,200 persons, a majority of which were Muslim. Media reports indicated some Muslims still feared repercussions from Hindu neighbors as they waited for the court cases to be resolved.”
“The situation for many persons displaced by the 2002 violence remained difficult. In September, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring Center reported that approximately 19,000 persons remained displaced eight years after the violence, living in 86 relief colonies that lacked adequate infrastructure and typically were not connected to city centers.”
“Consulate and senior embassy officers continued to express concern over the slow pace of bringing the perpetrators of the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002 to justice.”
February to May 2002 will go down in the annals of Indian history as one its bloodiest chapters. In the early hours of the morning on Feb. 27, 2002, a train car was set on fire just outside Godhra railway station in Eastern Gujarat. The fire left 58 persons (mostly Hindu pilgrims) dead.
Even today, no one has been able to establish the cause of the fire. The then-home minister of India announced in Parliament that it was an accident, and most reliable reports seemed to agree with this assumption.
A day later several right-wing Hindu groups began mobilizing people toward violence, attacking unsuspecting Muslims throughout Gujarat. Murderous mobs plundered, looted, burnt, raped, and lynched at will. After almost three months of unabated violence, it is believed that more than 2000 Muslims were killed, with many more missing and hundreds of thousands rendered homeless.
India has a history of communal violence. Even before the country attained independence, religious wars between the Hindus and Muslims were commonplace. Even as he led the nation towards independence, Mahatma Gandhi (a native of Gujarat) strongly believed that unless communal harmony, meaning the tolerance and acceptance of one another across the religious divide, could prevail, India would never be truly free.
The tragedy of the Gujarat genocide was that the chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, orchestrated it. There is ample evidence and testimonies of reliable witnesses who reported that he ordered top police and other officials to ensure that “the Muslims are taught a lesson.” That the army and other security forces were never called out to quell the violence or that Modi, as the chief executive of the state, has not shown any remorse nor uttered a word of compassion to the victims, also strongly supports these allegations.
Several Independent Commissions and Inquiries clearly point the blame at Modi, with the Supreme Court of India referring to him as “a modern day Nero” in a very disparaging remark.
Citizen groups, human rights activists, and others have consistently aided the victims of this genocide in their quest for justice. Victims have filed several cases in the Lower Courts, the High Court of Gujarat, and even the Supreme Court of India. There have been a handful of convictions and some perpetrators have been held responsible for the crimes they have committed.
Foreign governments have also responded. In 2003 the U.S. government denied Modi permission to enter the U.S. and even revoked two of the valid visas that he had held for the country. The European Union, through a demarché, held him responsible for the violence in Gujarat and declared him a “persona non grata” in all countries that form a part of the Union. Of course, the Islamic bloc would never think of allowing him to enter their states. Thus, despite being a democratically elected head of government, he is also considered an international pariah.
And yet, Modi continues to “get away.” Just a day before the U.S. State Department report was released, the Supreme Court passed a verdict that the monitoring of one of the Gujarat cases would be handed over to a trial court, which would frame charges and refer it to a Sessions Court. This was directly against and in spite of an allegation made by the petitioner, a victim, that the administration and the lower judiciary of the State were complicit in the denial of justice.
Modi and his right-wing political outfit, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), went into overdrive saying that the Supreme Court had exonerated Modi. “God is Great,” Modi tweeted, implying that he had been vindicated and that he was no longer culpable for the Gujarat genocide. In the meantime, the Indian media has been forced to blank out the U.S. State Department report.
On Sept. 17, in an act of bravado, Modi launched his Sadbhavna (harmony) Mission, including a three-day fast, with much fanfare and publicity. He said all the seemingly “right things” and stage-managed the show to near perfection, even allegedly getting people to dress up as Arab Sheikhs or Muslims with burquas and skull caps or Christian Pastors. He needed to showcase to the world that Gujarat 2002 is forgotten and that communities across the board supported him in his plans for “development and harmony.”
While Modi did get extensive media coverage, several editorials and op-eds were critical of his stunt. The victim survivors of the Gujarat carnage vociferously maintained that there could be no harmony without justice. There was not the slightest tinge of remorse in his many speeches during the three-day jamboree, though he constantly maintained that he had succeeded in vanquishing his detractors.
Modi and his supporters in power continue to twist the truth in a manner that is beneficial to them. What makes it worse is that there are many who buy into these lies. Modi continues to ride on waves of popularity, albeit only in certain pockets of the country. Yet at the same time, given his political ambitions to run for prime minister and rule the country, he and his coterie engage in acts that to a certain degree appear to be directed by fear. However, for the most part his actions are merely sinister.
In an incisive op-ed in the leading English Daily, DNA, the doyen of the human rights movement in Gujarat, Mr. Girish Patel, says,
“Chief Minister Narendra Modi may be celebrating what he believes is the ‘clean chit’ given to him by the Supreme Court in its September 12 order on Gujarat riot cases. But he forgets that besides personal culpability under criminal law, there is also what is called ‘constitutional culpability’ for elected government heads. Modi is clearly guilty under international criminal law on the basis of the principles of ‘command responsibility’ and ‘joint criminal enterprise’ for genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of basic human rights. Indian laws, Supreme Court judgments, and electoral victory cannot erase his guilt under international law. Let us join the international community and eliminate the current culture of impunity for those in power that prevails in the country.”
Clearly, almost ten years down the road, the journey, for many, has been a painful one. But they live in the hope that one day, truth and justice will prevail!
Fr. Prakash is a Jesuit Priest of the Gujarat Province of the Society of Jesus, as well as a human rights and peace activist. He has held several positions in the Society of Jesus and numerous other organizations. In the wake of the Gujarat Carnage of 2002, Fr. Prakash has been one of the voices championing the cause of the Muslims and other minorities. Currently, he is the Director of PRASHANT, the Ahmedabad-based Jesuit Centre for Human Rights, Justice, and Peace, which he founded in 2001. He is also the Convener of the Gujarat United Christian Forum for Human Rights. Fr. Prakash is a visiting faculty member at numerous universities, including Marquette University, where he was the Wade Chair Scholar in 2009 – 2010; Eastern Mennonite University; and the Development Education Summer School of the European Union in Slovakia. His expertise includes group facilitation, strategic planning and evaluation, institutional mapping, conflict resolution, and peace building. He has been conducting workshops and trainings on these subjects for many years. He is the recipient of many prestigious awards from India, France, and the US for his work in peace building.
by Joseph Bock
The world is enamored with the political transformations taking place in Tunisia and Egypt. What has happened there is inspirational to all who are interested in the promotion of democracy through non-violence, though the struggles ahead are bound to be difficult.
There is fascination with the role played by social media in these two largely nonviolent struggles. We must recognize, however, that the role of social media is one of a number of factors operative in pro-democracy struggles. It is tempting to ascribe a dominant influence to new Information and Communications Technologies, but I am reminded of an example of synergistic factors presented by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline. He points out how the first commercially viable plane, the DC-3, was introduced in 1935, thirty years after Orville and Wilber Wright proved that powered flight was possible. McDonnell-Douglas, the corporation that made the DC-3, pulled five technologies together. According to Senge, they were “the variable pitch propeller, retractable landing gear, a type of light weight molded body construction called ‘monocque,’ a radial air-cooled engine, and wing flaps. To succeed, the DC-3 needed all five; four were not enough” (1990, 6).
What are the factors that were combined in Tunisia and Egypt? Much more needs to be researched about how these remarkable processes unfolded, but here are some ingredients that appear to have been in play: careful cultivation of positive relations with the police and military, or members of the uniformed services (skillful uniformed relations); an understanding of and training in nonviolent strategy among a core group (strategic organizing); and, last but not least, the use of social media, involving text messages about events, digital mapping, visualization, and inductive reasoning in seeing patterns and anticipating problems, yielding an early warning capacity that facilitated early response to incipient, localized violence (communication and intervention).
Skillful Uniformed Relations
A critical aspect of the success of pro-democracy movements in both Tunisia and Egypt involved a disciplined approach to the police and military. Deliberate, strategic efforts were taken to prevent a demonization of protesters by the police or military. The strategy was to create an atmosphere in which those in the uniformed services were at once unable to legitimately shoot at the crowds while at the same time unable to demonize the crowds. Being treated kindly by protesters meant that the police and army could not stomach hitting their own people. In such circumstances, violence prevention techniques using early warning and early response are a critical component to preventing violent conflagrations. Organizers need to stay informed about incipient violence so they can extinguish it before it gets out of hand. Otherwise, the moral high ground maintained by the protestor, on the one hand, and the social psychology of restraint held by the uniformed services, on the other, evaporates.
Strategic Organizing
The European spring, involving Eastern Europe’s transition to democracy, used longstanding tenets of effective non-violent political transformation, incorporating strategies used by Mahatma Gandhi in British India; Abdul Ghaffar Khan (who created the world’s first non-violent army, inspired by a fusion of satyagraha and Islamic teachings) in the North West Frontier Province of what is now Pakistan; and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the United States. One pro-democracy initiative in Serbia is particularly noteworthy in that members of the youth movement which succeeded in overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic were involved in providing guidance to their counterparts in the Arab world, in an inspirational demonstration of global solidarity.
We know that in the case of Egypt a group of Egyptian expatriates living in Qatar formed the Academy of Change and worked alongside the Serbians and Tunisians in providing guidance and training to the Egyptian youth movement. Academy of Change translated documents on nonviolent change from English to Arabic.
Strategies for non-violent change demand a discipline not unlike that which underpins command and control mechanisms in the military. People need to be prepared to receive violence without giving it. They need to refrain from what is in some instances a natural human response to aggression of becoming aggressive. Some would say that a collective spiritual underpinning is required so that humans have the grace to do what is inhuman — namely, to be kind to those who have caused pain. And pain there will be, precisely because the strategy is not one of passivity (as some detractors of passivism mistakenly claim). Rather, it is one of tactful assertiveness, increasing tension, while strategically steering away from an outbreak of massive violence.
Informed Intervention
There is no question that an advantage which young people involved in both the European spring and the Arab spring have had over the initial pioneers of non-violent political transformation is modern Information and Communications Technology. Cell phones have made communication in the heat of tension much more extensive and timely. Even more recently, the co-mingling of digital mapping and the aggregation of events data from text messages, micro-blogs, and other Internet-based services provides greater precision as to what is happening where. Ushahidi is one such platform for data aggregation that is being used. It was developed by a group of journalists in Kenya trying to keep track of violence following what was viewed by many as a corrupt election process in 2008.
There are, of course, many other factors that are impacting political transformation in the Arab world. Political transformation is messy. We must acknowledge the idiosyncratic influences of charismatic individuals, the courage of those with official authority who stepped out of their comfort zones, and the fortunate timing of these largely non-violent movements. At the same time, the combination of skillful uniformed relations, strategic organizing, and informed intervention offer us hope.
It is important to keep in mind that technology is useful but has its limitations. We need to understand what combinations of factors lead to successful non-violent political transformation. It took 30 years after the discovery of flight before flying became widespread. Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, and King showed us how to use strategic non-violence in the 1900s (indeed, writers like Walter Wink argue that Jesus Christ taught us how some 2000 years ago), and numerous movements throughout the world — such as in Latin America — have had success. The use of social media is another factor adding to what we know already about how to succeed in strategic non-violence. In that sense, social media can help us make strategic non-violence more “commercially viable,” in the sense of its widespread, successful use.
Joe Bock directs the Master’s in Science for Global Health program at the Eck Institute for Global Health at the University of Notre Dame. He is the liaison to Catholic Relief Services for Notre Dame and an editorial adviser to Development in Practice, founded by Oxfam GB. He received his Ph.D. in International Relations from the School of International Service of American University and an MSW and BSW from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr. Bock has twelve years of humanitarian relief and development experience with Catholic Relief Services and the American Refugee Committee. He was a Fellow with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Executive Director of the Center for Peace and Global Citizenship at Haverford College and the Secure World Foundation, and a member of the Working Group on Reconciliation of Caritas Internationalis. He served six years in the Missouri House of Representatives, with various leadership positions. Dr. Bock has taught at four prestigious universities and published numerous works. He is currently completing a manuscript based on his consulting work with The Asia Foundation in Sri Lanka.
by Kevin Avruch
Whatever the underlying causes, many serious social conflicts are characterized by violence, and once violence has occurred everything changes. All of our responses and remedies to conflict, including development, become more difficult to implement when the conflict has left in its wake victims and victimizers, traumatized individuals and collectivities.
Violence produces profound effects on three levels: the individual, the local society, and the larger context, or system, in which the individual and society are nested. The responses we craft have to work at all three levels, and because of this there is no one set of responses, no single remedy, that can address all.
Violence transforms individuals. Research in the neurosciences shows that violence can reconfigure the brain, changing everything from brain chemistry to neurological structures to cognitive functioning. This transformation at the most basic biological level happens not only to the direct victims of violence but also to those who were witnesses and bystanders. Violence transforms the brains of the perpetrators as well. The killers emerge as damaged psychological goods in the aftermath of these conflicts (though they may not know it, and others may refuse to recognize it). Beyond biology, new identities and new subjectivities follow violent social conflict. These identities sharpen the boundaries between self and others. Survivors of violence experience and respond to the world differently. For the most part, the world narrows and horizons shrink. Many observers, social scientists among them, argue that “identity” — national, religious, racial, and so on — causes conflict. But we lose sight of the powerful ways in which conflict also “causes” identity.
These transformations of identity and self reverberate at the level of the collectivity. Social groups become struggle groups, and resources — material, social, and human — are mobilized. Social horizons shrink: the tunnel vision of individuals translates to the narrowness of the social groups that include them, and group boundaries become more rigid. An “us vs. them” dynamic resonates with the exclusionary criteria of group membership, to the mantra of “you are either with us or against us, and if against us you are the enemy.” A prime casualty of this is the “civility” of civil society, much as the first casualty of war is truth.
Groups require leadership. The leadership that emerges strives to mobilize resources, and articulates an ideology of exclusion in order to convince reluctant potential members that safety lies only within the boundaries of the group. Those who remain reluctant suffer the consequences of being labeled traitors, especially so-called moderate leaders, those who in other times flourish in and enrich the civil society of collectivities at peace. Insocieties wracked by violent conflict, political groups and parties are pushed to the margins — or become merely “front-men” — and armed groups fill the political space. Much as the world of the individual shrinks in the face of violent social conflict, so too does the social world of the collectivity. Political options (including peaceful or nonviolent ones) seem to disappear as the political middle is squeezed out, or delegitimized, by the extremes.
As violent conflict continues or intensifies, changes at the third and broadest level take place. This is the level of context or system, including the global system. Often these changes occur at the level of political economy, of capital and human flows. Others, not directly party to the conflict, become partners to it. This happens when the national interests of other countries can be furthered through making sure that the conflict continues, or when profit can be made. These interests are served and these profits accrue in places far away from the actual site of the fighting or suffering, often accumulating in world political and financial capitals.
As for remedies: where do we go from here? In a sense, we must go everywhere that the effects are, and we must go there simultaneously. This is what many in the field of conflict resolution/transformation understand by peacebuilding. First, we have to find some way to stop the direct violence and ensure the foundation for human security, for very little can be accomplished while violence continues and before individuals can (actually and metaphorically) safely leave their houses for the wider world outside. Then we can address our three levels.
At the level of the individual we address the trauma that violence (suffering it, witnessing it, or inflicting it) brings about. We find ways to tap the remarkable reservoir of resilience that humans possess, and direct it toward healing. At the same time that we attend to the psychological and the spiritual, we must also attend to the material privation that follows serious and long-standing conflict. With some measure of security, healing, and the satisfaction of material needs, we can begin to engage in the sort of “social identity expanding” exercises that counteract the constrictions of self that inevitably occur during conflict. Such exercises include dialogue and intergroup encounters, all aimed toward some measure of reconciliation, to re-humanize former enemies and reduce — or at least revalorize — the distance between “us and them.” In the medium and long run, peace education plays a crucial role, as does coming to grips with the very different versions of history that the collective memories of antagonistic groups come to hold as sacred. In a divided society trying to accept a past with serious intergroup violence, there are few tasks more daunting than writing a junior high school history textbook.
At the middle level of the local society or collectivity, struggle groups need not disappear (after all, “struggle groups” populate democracies as well), but must be transformed from armed paramilitaries and militias into political parties, turning the pursuit of their goals from bullets to ballots. Resources should be acquired and mobilized toward rebuilding the social institutions of civil society. Politicians replace warlords as leaders (sometimes a former warlord can make the transition himself). These politicians should be committed to what some have called “constructive conflict,” that is, conflict without the specter of violence and the fomenting of intergroup enmity.
At the broadest systemic level, the political economy of a globalized world needs to be addressed. Countries or states outside the immediate conflict should commit to encouraging its resolution, or at least to keeping out. Illegal trade in exportable commodities (opium, diamonds, coltan, timber), in human beings, or in lethal imports (small and medium sized arms, landmines) needs to be controlled by those outside countries (some of whose citizens benefit from such trade). The problem of global environmental concerns, or the local environmental degradation that extractive industries (coal, timber, petroleum) engender, also resides at the
systemic level.
When we think about how to address problems at all three levels simultaneously it should become clear there is no one solution, no one technique or protocol, specialist or institution, that can do all of the work. At the systemic level, world leaders and governments, international nongovernmental organizations, and corporations committed to ethical commerce and fair trade all must play a role. At the level of the local collectivity, local elites (politicians, religious leaders, students and educators, trade unionists and businessmen, women as well as men) must play a role. If people at these levels can work toward the goals of
peacebuilding, then perhaps at the level of individuals (where violence is first and ultimately inscribed) identities and selves can extend to include social others, and even reconciliation can be imagined.
Kevin Avruch is the Henry Hart Rice Professor of Conflict Resolution and Professor of Anthropology in the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (S-CAR), and faculty and senior fellow in the Peace Operations Policy Program (School of Public Policy) at George Mason University. He received his B.A. from the University of Chicago and M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California at San Diego. He has taught at UCSD, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and, since 1980, at GMU, where he served as Coordinator of the Anthropology Program in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology from 1990-1996. From 2005-2008 he served as Associate Director of S-CAR. Professor Avruch has published more than sixty articles and essays and is the author or editor of six books, including Critical Essays on Israeli Society, Religion, and Government (1997), Culture and Conflict Resolution (1998), Information Campaigns for Peace Operations (2000), and Context and Pretext in Conflict Resolution: Essays on Culture, Identity, Power and Practice (forthcoming). His other writings include articles and essays on culture theory and conflict analysis and resolution, third party processes, cross-cultural negotiation, nationalist and ethnoreligious social movements, human rights, and politics and society in contemporary Israel. Professor Avruch has lectured widely in the United States and abroad.
by Kyrstie Lane
Conflict and violence, though often spoken in the same breath, are not synonymous. Violence is what occurs when we do not have the structures, skills, or capacities to efficiently and effectively manage conflict or change. Nonviolent conflict is certainly possible, but also more difficult, and too many of our conflicts today move quickly towards violence. In this issue of Reflections, our authors examine many different facets of violence in conflicts across the world, searching for ways to diminish its prevalence in conflict.
In the U.S., when we think of violence, we usually think of it as something that happens in other parts of the world. But before we rush off to examine the problems that plague other countries, P.K. McCary’s cover story and photo remind us of the violence we face right here at home, in California. The city of Salinas, as she tells us, has become known as the”world capital of gang violence,” and despite efforts by law enforcement and community organizations, violence remains high. McCary’s story reminds us of the help that is still needed here in this country, but also provides a hopeful account of how youth in Salinas are seeking to redefine their city in a nonviolent way.
Fr. Cedric Prakash presents a commentary on his personal area of study: the conflict in Gujarat, India. The horrific violence in Gujarat in 2002 (which continues to manifest in various ways today) and the fact that it is not well known internationally is disturbing, particularly as it occurred in the “largest democracy in the world.” Fr. Cedric delves into the details of this violence and helps us to understand the truth behind this conflict.
This issue’s Picks of the Quarter focus on lesser-known violence against women that is embedded in larger conflicts across the world, such as the turmoil in Mexico and internal violence in Colombia. This column also discusses the controversial “SlutWalk” that is gaining popularity in the U.S. These brief highlights remind us to examine structural and cultural sources that may place a disproportionate burden of violence upon women in a variety of ways.
Dr. Joseph Bock examines the headline-grabbing “Arab Spring” in the Middle East, and offers an analysis of new technologies and old practices that were utilized in this conflict to prevent it from brimming over to widespread violence. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were skillfully managed and planned in order to be largely nonviolent, and Dr. Bock’s piece raises questions about how these same practices can be applied to manage conflict in other parts of the world.
Dr. Kevin Avruch’s article delves into the question of what happens after violence has occurred. How can perpetrators and victims pick up the pieces and move on, attempt to heal from what has happened and prevent it from happening again? This theory-based article outlines what needs to take place in the post-violence period of a conflict, an issue that is too often neglected.
We are also pleased to introduce two new columns in this issue. First is the India Column: as the Centre has offices in India as well as in the U.S., we welcome this opportunity to highlight important conflicts and issues in this country. In this first installation, Dr. Francis Gonsalves analyzes the history and implications of the Maoist violence in central India. Secondly, Pedagogy of Conflict, written by our director, Dr. Pushpa Iyer, presents commentary and analysis of theories and events in the field of conflict resolution. This first column introduces the crucial and widely used theory of structural violence, and discusses the various reactions to this theory and why it is often found to be controversial.
As emphasized in our last issue, conflict in and of itself is not inherently negative: it is when it moves to violence that it becomes such. We hope that the analyses of violence presented in this issue, from theories to case studies, will provide ideas about how we can diminish the use of violence in conflict and encourage nonviolent methods for the benefit of all.
Table of Contents
From the Editor’s Desk – Kyrstie Lane, Managing Editor
Pedagogy of Conflict: Neutrality – Pushpa Iyer, Director
The Future of the Nepali Peace Process – Jitman Basnet
Reflections on the Importance of Unarmed Civilian Protection – Katherine Hughes-Fraitekh
Empire’s Prisoners – Anita Seth
Cover Photo: Portrait of Dago – Adele Negro
India Column: Peoples’ Power Versus Nuclear Power – Francis Gonsalves
by Kyrstie Lane, Managing Editor
Human rights is something everyone likes to talk about, yet few actually pursue with dedication and resolve. It is easy to proclaim support for human rights, but do we really know what they mean? How can we define these rights, and how can we tell when they have been violated? How can we create better protections for them, and how can we punish the violators? Are we willing to stand for them even in difficult and dangerous situations? These difficult questions often remain unasked, because it seems almost blasphemous to engage in discussion on something that everyone claims to support, something that would be monstrous to deny. Ironically, and unfortunately, this blind faith prevents us from furthering human rights by limiting our definition and conception of them.
With such difficult questions in mind, this issue of Reflections seeks to open a discussion on a number of important human rights issues. Our authors offer their ideas on a range of issues and cases, based largely out of their incredible personal experiences. Adele Negro’s photo of Dago, a young El Salvadorian boy, and her comments on the possibilities for his future and that of other children like him provides us with a powerful, emotional link to the issue of human rights. Jitman Basnet comments on the condition of human rights in Nepal’s ongoing peace process; a situation he knows all too well, having been imprisoned at different times by both major conflict parties. Katherine Hughes-Fraitekh reflects on the vital work that organizations such as Peace Brigades International have done in protecting those who stand up for justice and rights in conflict situations, and why we must continue to improve and strengthen this type of work. Anita Seth of IF discusses the controversial issue of the prison system in the United States: is our system of punishment just, and further, is it effective? In Pedagogy of Conflict, Dr. Pushpa Iyer explains the paradox of neutrality, and how conflict resolvers and human rights activists alike should approach this difficult concept. Finally, in this issue’s India Column, Francis Gonsalves presents a worrying case of disregard for human rights and the voice of the people through the pertinent example of nuclear power in India.
Human rights is a difficult and complicated concept, but we must continue to discuss what it means and how we can work to further it. We hope this quarter’s reflections will contribute to your ideas about human rights, and spark continuing discussions.