Stories of violent conflicts abound in contemporary India. Hardly any day passes when media reports do not capture some form of collective conflict, either between communities or vis-à-vis the state machinery or both. To a casual observer, such persistent conflict may appear to be dangerous for democracy. Quite the contrary, some degree of manifest and vocal conflict is a measure of functioning democracy in society, more so in a society like India which has numerous horizontal and vertical cleavages.

A recent international seminar on governance of conflicts (co-organised by PRIA) threw up a number of issues of contemporary relevance. Conflicts across communities in a heterogeneous society like India are inevitable in decisions about sharing of resources. Given the inevitable imbalance between growing demands and stagnant supply of many public goods and services, democratic governance is an exercise in mediating and navigating conflicting interests and priorities. Governance of conflicts is not necessarily about resolution or elimination of different demands and conflicting expectations. Governance of conflicts is more about creating manageable solutions such that violent manifestations of differences and disagreements do not take place, either from groups within society or from the state machinery or both.

In reality, deficits in governance can further escalate conflicts. Mal-governance has clearly been responsible for escalation of violence in the so-called ‘Maoist’ territory of tribal habitations. Absence of services, violation of tribal rights for self-governance of local natural resources and state apathy resulted in loss of trust of tribal youth in the democratic governance process. Likewise, loss of trust in negotiated settlements in north-east has resulted in decades of violent conflicts across the region.

It is clear that sub-national and local governance institutions and processes need to be strengthened for mediating conflicts. Semi-autonomous governance of Kashmir valley would have pre-empted some of the early violence there. Failure of state government to devolve authority and resources to ‘halqa’ panchayats after 2011 elections has further alienated the community. Granting some autonomous capacity for local governance of natural resources, cultural and linguistic aspects of life would have reduced the potential for violent conflict in the north-eastern states. If panchayats and Gram Sabhas had been enabled to function as per their constitutional mandates in PESA areas from 1996, much of the conditions for violent conflict in the tribal areas would have been mitigated early on.

In this sense, governance of conflicts in Indian democracy today is more about dealing with deficits in democratic governance, especially at the local sphere. By strengthening local institutions and processes of governance, much of conflict of interests and expectations can be negotiated democratically. It is in this sense that the recent provincial elections in northern region of Sri Lanka can also contribute to managing conflicting interests democratically, provided such institutions are allowed and enabled to function with capacity and legitimacy.

As the final round of voting for assembly elections in Chhattisgarh is taking place today, it is hoped that this exercise of democracy will send clear signals for navigating conflicts in the state through further deepening of local panchayati raj institutions and municipalities in the state. The ‘roadmap of devolution’ prepared by Dr Raman Singh’s government should be immediately and effectively implemented as a measure of governance of conflicts in that state after the elections.

Rajesh Tandon