I know a lot of you may have read, heard and debated a lot
about the ongoing JNU stir but there is a certain aspect that seemed, to me,
lost in all the brouhaha. That aspect is one of the difference between conflict
resolution and conflict escalation beginning with the initial reaction to a
particular event. I would like to follow two threads of conversations to make
my point. I have also added the most probable emotional/mental state of the
persons to give a better picture.
The statement is: Bharat tere tukde honge.
1) Conflict resolution:
Person A (agitated): Bharat tere tukde honge
Person B (reacts calmly): alright, but why?
A (agitated): because… (Numerous statements)
B (still calm): Ok, besides dividing the country, do you
think that there might be other solutions too.
A (now less agitated because his grievances were heard moves
to reflection): there might be, but… (Numerous statements)
B (still calm): Ok, elaborate more on the other options that
seem viable.
A (now growing calm, elaborates on his own, other feasible options)
B: Ok, so how can I help so that we can together build
towards a better future?
A: we (no longer related to self but keen to work together)
can do these things and maybe we never really needed to break the country.
More often than not, such methods work as most of you may
already know. You may have learnt them in debating teams, communication basics
etc. Just because the statement was initially offensive (and it was), it does
not mean that this approach be abandoned.
2) Conflict escalation:
A (agitated): Bharat tere tukde honge.
B (offended and gives in to the first impulse of outrage):
How dare you say something like that?
A (grows defensive): Who are you to tell me what to say and
what not to say?
B (further provoked): I am an Indian and I will not tolerate
any such statements against my country.
A (his position hardens even further at being called
non-Indian, albeit implicitly): I do not recognize your authority over me, nor
do I care what the government says, this is what I think and this is what I’ll
say.
B (enraged by now): starts abusing, threatening and going
bonkers.
A (enraged by now): Starts abusing, threatening and going
bonkers.
The issue gets lost, no common ground is found, conflict escalates
exponentially and by the end of it no one has a clue what the whole fuss was
about.
The point that I am trying to make is that had the first
method been the initial reaction of the government, fellow students, media etc.
we may never have come to this point where the divisions are so stark that we
have literally come to blows. The initial reaction sets the tone for a
conversation and now, more than ever, it has to be realized. Most of the political agitations have been reduced to mindless mud-slinging precisely because this method is not used. Do not trust me but try it out the next time you feel outraged.
Further, it is a cardinal rule of any discussion that
someone play the devil’s advocate (I’m not saying that the students shouting
anti-India slogans were doing that but you get the point). So if there is
debate, discussion, or even peaceful protest (mind you, without incitement to
violence) over national identity, territorial integrity etc. then as far as I
am concerned It won’t hurt to bring up that particular statement and reason it
out.
I may be wrong, but not an ‘anti-national’
