Current Affairs: Conflicts, Conflict Resolution and the Fundamental Problem with Liberals of India

The Purpose of this Article

The purpose of this article is to characterize the kind of conflicts taking place in India - ie., the clash of the grand narratives or the clash of civilizations that is playing on a daily basis affecting almost every day's life.

In the process of this characterization, the article also characterizes the role played by Modernity as thought and the Liberals who are harbingers of this Modernity.

Conflicts are playing themselves at different levels..... 

The myriad conflicts of India and the conflict resolution efforts operate at multiple levels. In particular, discussions around these conflict resolution mechanisms need some education on either side of those involved in conflict resolution. We should be clear at the level an argument/effort is being made as a proposition to resolve the conflict.

Let us list these Conflict Resolution Levels 

1. Quick Resolution to move forward: Purely from the stand point of conflict resolution using instruments easily accessible, with less concern for the aggrieved. Typically, this is how a conflict is resolved in a neighbourhood, exploring the next harmonious state post conflict.
2. Compensating the Aggrieved: Compensating or Addressing perceived or real injustice suffered by a genuine party. 
3. Using Established frameworks of law, here the moot point is efficacy of the law
4. Using Principles of Law, Constitutional principles - fundamentally arguing for applicability of the law
5. Using Principles of Ethics - the questioning the principles based on which existing laws are operating, exploring the foundations based on which laws are made
6. Social Transformation based on a certain Vision for the Society.

In practice, in particular the informal discussions, the resolution efforts are not pure expositions sticking to one of these levels strictly. Quite naturally, they are a complex muddle of all these - often without an explicit realization. Each Level has its own necessity, merit and limitation. 

However, the more important point is - that there is a guiding philosophy that shaping different arguments/resolution mechanisms in each of these levels. The arguments/resolution mechanisms dont operate independently, in thin air - without the support of a guiding philosophy. In particular, the notions of 'Right' and 'Wrong' in each of these (arguments/resolution mechanisms at each level) is a function of this underlying 'philosophy'. Multiple philosophies are operating within the society and they are conflicting with each other at all times. Hence, one cannot claim a ' Universal Right/Correct' without evaluating these philosophies on the one hand. Since the conflict is at a philosophy level as well, indulging in a genuine, respectful and meaningful conflict with the counterpart on the other side is mandatory at each level. False moral high ground cannot be claimed by any party. 

In summary, 'Philosophy' itself is the 7th Level and arguably the final level.

Let us now explore each of these to understand their scope and limitation.

1. Community Intuition based Quick Resolution

For most people and communities, ending the conflict (thereby ending the negative energy that affects normal life) and moving forward is most important. They resort to evaluating the situation with practical considerations of moving forward. What instruments will help everybody move forward - is the consideration. Most people who strive to resolve conflicts on purely practical grounds - are often more honest than others. They are not servile to any lofty notions of correctness and hence are void of all arrogance that comes with it. Instead, they are focused on somehow resolving a conflict. The heartening matter is most social conflicts are resolved in this way. 

In this mode, people access instruments of resolution that they can access through social/community intuition. Such instruments are a result of philosophy/thought that has transformed into customs and practices over centuries. Here, people do not need to understand their philosophies in order to resolve conflicts - the philosophies are available in translation from the concept to practice and as ready instruments of action accessible by community intuition. Communities evolve and preserve these instruments and pass it on as practised knowledge. In summary, this is about invoking instruments that are readily available to you as inheritance and community intuition. 

However, there are obvious limitations of such instruments. A typical Modern criticism of such resolution are

1. If a society is not highly adaptive to changing realities, the instruments of action become blunt, ineffective resulting in more injustice than justice. (On the contrary, a highly adapting society would have evolved these instruments through its a diverse experiences and interactions over a period of time and their conflict resolution instruments are quite effective.) 
2. Such instruments may merely release a conflict temporarily but not deliver justice. Societies may have lost their ability to perceive injustice resulting through such instruments. Even when they recognize injustice - change may be too slow in some societies. 
3. Worse, societies may excessively focus on resolving a conflict alone, by reaching some common ground, in the immediate - with no concern whether the conflict is truly resolved or if it is a patch work. In other words, societies may less focus on whether the aggrieved party perceives the resolution as true justice.

Hence, Modernity trashes this community intuition based conflict resolution. Modernity espouses the cause of explicit, specialized institutions alone for delivering justice and continuous change. (Its a different matter if Modernity has delivered the desired result and should be the concern of another blog.)

In summary, merely being practical and invoking obvious instruments accessible by community intuition cannot resolve all conflicts. Worse, it cannot even help us in understanding all conflicts - it is the latter that is more important for our discussion here.

2. Aggrieved Party oriented Conflict Resolution

Focus on the aggrieved party rather than merely the conflict - completely changes the nature of conflict resolution. This can be better narrated through an example.

When a woman comes with a harassment complaint there can be two concerns. First - saving the institution of family and Second - compensating any injustice meted out to the woman through harassment. At the outset, both are important concerns which nobody can deny. The former is a concern for tomorrow and the latter is a concern for today. However, they may both conflict with each other, at times. When we resolve it in favour of the Institution the woman may suffer but resolving it only in favour of the woman could result in other practical problems for the family. Replace woman with man in these sentences - and the problem remains the same. Focusing on the aggrieved party through creates a unique opportunity for the society - to correct flaws within the institution - apart from resolving the conflict and creating a sense of justice - and evolve corrective measures. Fundamentally it places the individual above the institution.

Modernity champions the cause of this approach. Even within this it espouses the cause of  Institutional Jurisprudence in the form of Codified Laws, Courts, Constitutions and Law. But there is  no reason a why a Community cannot create and possess capabilities in this space without the formal Institutions of modern nature. In reality, the communities of India have evolved these capabilities however not palatable to the modern way. The Philosophy that guides the community jurisprudence is different and without codified laws. Traditions of India were based on principles to help them change and evolve over the years, not remain static. Their very purpose was to navigate through change with minimal damage. Our societies have always had ways and means of resolving conflicts creating a balance between the Institution and the Individual.

But Modernity neither recognizes that our communities contain such an ability nor does it agree with its philosophy.

3. Conflict Resolution using Frameworks of Laws in Vogue/Code

This is the method of resolution that we are most familiar with in the modern era - the Laws and the Courts of Law. The latter are responsible for both application of law and interpretation of law. Rightful application of law is not straight forward at any point in time, courts are there exactly for this reason to determine which law should apply and how. 

However, Constitutions - the repositories of law - are not created in void through universal common sense, logic, reason. They are the result of sometimes a single philosophy or at other times a complex combination of different philosophies. It represents the complexity of underlying society and its aspirations of change.  As a result, we have conflicting laws within a single constitution. For example - Indian Constitution espouses the concept of uniformity, secularism on the one hand and separate religious personal laws for communities on the other. 

As a result, when judges uphold one law above the other in a conflict situation, it results in an interesting case for study. What are the guiding principles behind such an upholding? It could be one of these

• Sometimes it is purely a practical approach to conflict resolution
• At other times it is by invoking social/community intuition Eg., The Ayodhya Verdict of 2010
• In limited numbers, a complex interpretation of what is important within the Constitution Eg., Privacy and Security - Aadhaar
• In rare situation, it is often upholding one philosophy above the other without stating in as many words For eg., In Sabarimala case SC upheld Universal Equality vs Universal Exclusivity

Hence, it is important to appreciate that the judgements operate at multiple levels and there is genuine scope for multiple views. Two different approaches cannot be viewed in a criminal sense of right and wrong. When two parties are arguing for two different kinds of applications of laws within a single constitution, both sides need to be viewed with legitimacy and respect as genuine applications of law. 

Taking the Sabarimala case in particular, the Traditional Indians have been arguing that the "Equality" principle cannot be applied and distinction must be made between Civil Rights and Religious Rights when the principle of Equality is applied within the framework of Indian Constitution. This must be respectfully argued against by the Liberal Moderns rather than bulldoze through hyperboles of preconceived/assumed progressiveness.

4. Conflict Resolution by Principles of Laws

At times conflicts are argued not by which law should be applied from among the many but based on principles governing a Law. Its one thing to say whether Equality should be above Personal Law or otherwise. Its another thing to say if the principle of Equality applies in a case at all. 

Equality is an important principle that most people today value as important for the society and non-negotiable, particularly by the modernists. Even the traditionals of India will agree that Equality is a considerably important principle for a society for justice, harmony and good life. However, there ends the similarity. A key difference is whether Equality is a Universal Principle or if it is an exclusive principle. 

This discussion is in the realm of Principles governing the very making of a Law. If Equality is a universal principle then men and women are equal at all times and all times in terms of physical, material and intellectual access to everything. However, there is a different vision of Equality that is legitimate in its own and deserves respectful consideration. Universal Equality is neither practical, nor desirable. A "Net-equality" is both achievable and desirable. Net equality says that everybody will not have access to everything but everybody will have exclusive access to 'something'. Exclusive access balances out the negatives of what is not accessible. Further, exclusive access is what leads to diversity. These are two different views of the very Principle of Equality. Both views are respectable and must conflict with each other with respect.

However, in the Sabarimala case -  the Principle of Absolute Equality has demonized the Principle of Exclusive Access - denying people a genuine opportunity to reflect between the two and make informed choices.

5. Principles of Ethics

There are situations when application of existing laws is quite trivial and clear for a situation. Yet there may be a good reason to question such an easy application. What then are the principles based on which you will question a law or a principle of law.

It is necessary to remember that Law Books are made by people. It is based on their stated/unstated philosophies/ideologies over which a reasoning is constructed. In summary there are experiences and assumptions as well behind this reasoning. It may have been constructed through a process of Justice. But the eventual destination that a law make take us - upon its application - is always to be reflected upon and corrected. This applies to both a Law and a Principle of Law. The purpose of all laws is to deliver justice in such a manner that the next state after the application of law is better than the previous in net summary apart from compensating for the loss of aggrieved. What is a loss and What is the next best state is always defined in the context of the larger life and hence ethics is an important consideration. 

In criminal cases such as murders this aspect may not be pronounced but even in those cases, the quantum of punishment is a function these ethical considerations. However, in bigger cases these get pronounced. In matters such as reservation, principles of equality, social justice it is often the larger ethical consideration that is the guiding principle. A decision must move the society into a more healthy state. The Ayodhya Verdict of 2010 probably had a component of ethical consideration. The concept of Dharma in India guided societies for centuries in this endeavour to always reach a healthy next state from the current state. 

Without ethics, a discussion on healthy state is impossible. Ethics will always remain a function of philosophy and culture. Modern ethics is much different from the Traditional Ethics of India. They need to conflict with each other with mutual respect. 

6. Social Transformation

There is no society without a problem. Each society identifies its big problems and frames specific laws that are designed to solve those big problems. For eg., Dowry System. In one era, dowry may not have caused any problem but today it has resulted in a severe exploitation of the unfortunate. Hence, there is a law with a specific vision of social transformation into a society without Dowry System. Similarly, there are laws that espouse the cause of equality between men and women such as property rights. Equality has fundamental value in Indian constitution. Modernists believe that the Constitution of India is not just a justice delivering framework but a Transformational Document. Some do not accept that view.

In summary, our world view of Social Transformation - our Vision of the next state of the society becomes an important consideration in conflict resolution when an existing law or principle of law is not sufficient. Or the Laws and the Principles of Law keep are exposed to a continuous scrutiny of the larger society consciously and subconsciously. In any healthy society that does not want to be dogmatic this is an imperative.

As we have multiple social transformation projects in a society, often when important conflicts are being discussed it is not a blind application of law under consideration. It elevates to become a discussion on the conflicting perspectives. Each perspective has to respect the other perspective in order to realize a constructive way forward.

For eg., the conflict between the Decentralized polity and Centralized polity, as a society with absolute free speech vs restricted free speech are all in this realm. 

7. The Philosophy

In India the Social Liberal Secular Modernity and the traditional Dhaarmic Philosophies on the other - have completely two different value-sets. The Secularism conflict is in this realm. Does Secularism really fuel more religious conflict in India or resolve it? Does the traditional dhaarmic philosophy accommodate diversity better? These discussions belong to the realm of philosophy

However, In India, what Modernity Does is .....

Modernity does not recognize that these conflicts as geuine conflicts. It does not realize that it is merely an ideology with untested ideals that is in conflict making with a living tradition that is part of a Civilization of many thousands of years. The Civilization may have changed over a period of time, absorbed many influences but never without a constructive or destructive conflict. A civilization and its constituents need to be accorded respect. However, Modernity and its proponents have other considerations. In its endeavour to create an all powerful space for itself, it tends give itself a finality and universality - as a philosophy. It considers anything in conflict with it as lowly, unworthy of lofty considerations and as evil. It considers the Constitution of India as its instrument to destroy everything that is in conflict with Modernity and the values it espouses. 

This grand villainy role played by Modernity can be summarized as follows. 

• It fundamentally refuses that a sophisticated philosophy exists behind the conflict resolution mechanisms of the Traditional India. 
• The non-recognition of a sophisticated philosophy makes it easy for the Modernity to demean any jurisprudence evolved by the Communities of India. It refuses to recognize the existence of jurisprudence capabilities and deny any sophistication to any jurisprudence when the existence cannot be denied.  
• This makes it further easy to De-legitimize any native conflict resolution mechanism of the Communities of India - particularly in the eyes of those who are being taken through a modern education
• This makes it easy to use the Modern state power to De-capacitate the ability of Indian societies to invoke their own mechanisms of conflict resolution

Once, the communities become weak and their ability to use good mechanisms weaken further, then Modernity heckles these communities incessantly for not being able to resolve its conflicts. It all becomes very convenient to criticize and consume.

This is the in-summary-story of what is happening in India since the British era, more-so in the post independence era.

How do the Modern Liberals of India go about with their process

There are different kinds of liberals in India. Some are self-claimed. Some have a liberal orientation by the virtue of modern education and tend to believe that is the only way of thinking. All the Modern Liberals, with all their disagreements, have one thing in common that is to demean the past to create space for their vision of the future.

To achieve their objective, Self proclaimed Liberals and those with similar orientation go about in a very simple way - which can be summarized as follows.

• Push their vision of Social Transformation (6) 
• Without sufficient philosophical discussion (7)
• Without even conceding that an alternate philosophy exists with which they must engage (7) 

How do they propose to achieve this? 

• Not by indulging on discussions on ethics and principles of law - (5)
• But by directly jumping into an Actual Law - (3)
• Through Interpretations of Constitutional  principles that enables their vision of Social Transformation - (4 done with dishonesty)

In this many of them understand that this entire approach is fundamentally undemocratic. Social Transformation has to be first negotiated through Society that then results in appropriate laws. Not twist existing laws or push existing laws without sufficient discussion in the society. 

Now how do they manage the undemocratic nature of their enterprise? 

• By absolutely cutting other views on each of the 7 dimensions and making their  own version the only version accessible by society
• By constantly denigrating (1),  although much of life has to be conducted in (1). 
• Worse, By continuously weakening, de-legitimizing and de-capacitating (1) to ensure that 
• it's inherent ability to change and evolve is destroyed
• control keeps shifting to Institutions that are under their watch and access.

In particular, in the Sabarimala case there is almost no (2) - there is no original, genuine aggrieved party. The aggrieved party is a Liberal who believes in a different (7) - with a certain social vision that the larger society does not agree. That weakens their case. 

How do they overcome their limitation

They smartly use (3) and (4) selectively, create narratives from that, take society on an imaginary guilt trip and create (2) ie., aggrieved parties where none exist. This they do in order to create more capacity to push their vision of social transformation. Generally, they succeed in taking society through a guilt trip and inducing a sense of injustice - in this case women. But in the Sabarimala case they miserably failed.

In summary, what the liberals do is 

• to un-democratically push a vision of society they have
• by weakening existing frameworks of society to resolve and evolve
• thereby creating new conflicts in the society where none existed. 

The ulterior among them do this to shift controls/powers within the society to those institutions and instruments that are more under their charge, access, monitor and manipulation.

Fundamentally, it's a Society Control Mission under the garb of Social Progress.