power structures, conflict resolution and social...

EqUIP – EU-India Platform for Social Sciences and Humanities

Reflection Paper (D.3.2) on the

EqUIP Symposium on

Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice

13-14 October 2016

Sohna, Haryana, India

Report prepared by the

Research Council of Norway (RCN)

with Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research,technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613236

2

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Background........................................................................................................................................................ 5

What is EqUIP? .............................................................................................................................................. 5

EqUIP Symposium Series ............................................................................................................................... 5

Scope of ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice’............................................................. 6

Aims and Formats of the Symposium............................................................................................................ 7

Symposium Participants ................................................................................................................................ 8

Topical Sessions............................................................................................................................................... 10

Social Justice, Power and Identity (Topic 1) ................................................................................................ 10

Challenge I: Staying relevant and close to social reality.......................................................................... 10

Challenge II: Addressing institutional barriers ........................................................................................ 11

Challenge III: Overcoming conceptual and cultural biases...................................................................... 11

Opportunity I: Exploring difference, diversity and (de)democratization ................................................ 11

Opportunity II: Research for/on cross-cultural enrichment.................................................................... 12

Opportunity III: Critically rethinking globalization and justice................................................................ 12

Gender and Conflict (Topic 2)...................................................................................................................... 12

Challenge I: Thinking of gender in singular terms ................................................................................... 13

Chellenge II: Categorization, womanhood and data construction.......................................................... 13

Challenge III: Marginalization of gender research................................................................................... 13

Opportunity I: Redefining gender and conflict........................................................................................ 14

Opportunity II: Intercultural exchange for new knowledge.................................................................... 14

Opportunity III: New attention to patriarchy and masculinity................................................................ 14

Peace and Conflict Resolution (Topic 3) ...................................................................................................... 15

Challenge I: Back to the basics?............................................................................................................... 15

Challenge II: Rethinking taken-for-granted categories and templates ................................................... 15

Challenge III: Grounding peace and conflict resolution .......................................................................... 16

Opportunity I: Enriching the palette of conflict resolution ..................................................................... 16

Opportunity II: Discovering the pluralities of peace ............................................................................... 16

Opportunity III: Bringing together peace research and political economy............................................. 17

3

Crosscutting Sessions ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Formulating Research Priorities .................................................................................................................. 18

Choosing the Top Priorities ......................................................................................................................... 18

Research Priorities........................................................................................................................................... 20

Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................... 22

Annex A: Symposium Programme............................................................................................................... 22

Annex B: Moderators Guide ........................................................................................................................ 25

Annex C: Symposium Participants............................................................................................................... 27

4

Executive Summary

This is a report on the EqUIP symposium on ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice’, whichtook place at The Gateway Resort in Sohna, Haryana, India, on 13-14 October 2016. The objective of thissymposium – the fifth in the EqUIP symposium series – was to identify key priorities for future collaborativeresearch between European and Indian researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Anotherimportant aim of the symposium series was to facilitate networking among European and Indian SSHresearchers.

Participants were invited to this symposium based mainly on suggestions from EqUIP memberorganisations. The symposium had a total of fifty registered participants, representing thirty-nine differentorganisations from all over India and Europe, of which 46% were from India, and 44% were women. Amongthe six keynote speakers who presented at the symposium, there was an equal share of speakers from Indiaand Europe, and an equal number of women and men. Moderators of group discussions were staff of EqUIPmember organisations and the convener, the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). The symposium waschaired by Dr. Åshild Kolås, Research Professor (PRIO).

Results of group discussions (World Cafés) on Day One of the symposium were written up, distributed andpresented in the morning of Day Two, in the format of World Café Proceedings. These are presented in thisreport, under the heading Topical Sessions. We also present a synthesis of the results of the formulation ofkey priorities, under the heading Crosscutting Sessions. The symposium identified five key researchpriorities for future Indo-European SSH research collaboration within the topics of this symposium. Thepriorities are:

1. Reinventing the Community: Politics and Belonging in India and Europe

2. Rethinking Statehood, Citizenship and the Social Contract in India and Europe

3. Social Justice, New Movements and Political Alternatives

4. Global Challenges and Local Scenarios: Contesting the "Traditional"

5. Gender Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of Gender Relations in India and Europe

Another five thematic priority areas were also formulated in the symposium, but received less support thanthe five priority areas listed above. These are:

1. Understanding Youth Radicalization in Europe and India

2. Power and Democracy: Knowledge Production, the University and the Public Sphere

3. Democratic Politics, Development Agendas and the Political Economy of Peace

4. Pluralities of Peace: Peace Discourses in India and Europe

5. The Role of Cultural Resistance in Transnational Networks

5

Background

This is a report on the EqUIP Symposium on ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice’, heldat The Gateway Resort in Sohna, India on 13-14 October 2016.

What is EqUIP?

The EUIndia Platform for the Social Sciences and Humanities (EqUIP) brings together researchers andresearch funding agencies to discuss research and support for research organizations from Europe andIndia, in order to develop a stronger strategic partnership for multilateral research collaboration in theSocial Sciences and Humanities.1

Key objectives of the EqUIP Platform are:

• to provide a more coherent overview of the current scope of collaborative research activity betweenEurope and India in the Social Sciences and Humanities,

• to provide foundations for enhanced interagency cooperation between research funding agencies inIndia and Europe in the Social Sciences and Humanities,

• to develop best practice approaches and identify challenges for research cooperation between Europeand India in the Social Sciences and Humanities,

• to identify opportunities and priorities for future research collaboration between Europe and India in theSocial Sciences and Humanities,

• and to establish networks of panEuropean and Indian researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanitiesconducting excellent research addressing cutting edge questions.

The EqUIP platform supports Social Sciences and Humanities research funding agencies across Europe andIndia to build a stronger strategic partnership, increase opportunities for networking and dialogue amongstresearchers, and explore ways of working together to enable future joint research programming. Inparticular, EqUIP aims to identify barriers and challenges to effective research co-operation and search foropportunities and priorities for future research collaboration by organizing a series of symposia. With theassistance of academic experts, a total of 38 research priorities and strategic areas that were identified anddescribed by EqUIP partner organisations have been organised into five themes, and one EqUIP symposiumhas been organized on each of the five themes. This constitutes the EqUIP Symposium Series.

EqUIP Symposium Series

The EqUIP project has organised altogether six academic symposia: one for each of five selected themes,and a final symposium, which will compile and discuss the results from the other five symposia. The themesof the EqUIP symposia (listed in Table 1 below) were defined in the EqUIP Scoping Report.

1For more information about EqUIP, see: http://www.equipproject.eu.

6

Table 1. Overview of the EqUIP Symposium Series

EqUIP Symposium Time and place

Inequalities, Growth and Place/Space 19-20 October 2015, India

Digital Archives and Databases as a Source of Mutual Knowledge 5-6 May 2016, Italy

Sustainable Prosperity, Well-being and Innovation 9-10 June 2016, Finland

Social Transformations, Cultural Expressions, Cross-CulturalConnections and Dialogue 28-29 June 2016, India

Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice 13-14 October 2016, India

Final Symposium 25-26 October 2016, Slovenia

The aim of the EqUIP Symposium Series was to facilitate expert discussions to gain a full and nuanced viewwithin the broad themes that were identified, and develop expert recommendations to the EqUIP partnerson priority areas for future research collaboration. The symposia were also meant to create opportunitiesfor networking between experts in the Social Sciences and Humanities from across Europe and India.Experts from relevant disciplines, from both Europe and India, nominated by EqUIP partners, were invitedto each event to discuss the opportunities and challenges in each thematic area, exploring the potentialadded value in addressing societal challenges through a distinctly Indo-European research agenda, andthereby identifying needs and priorities for future research collaboration.

The EqUIP Symposium Series has provided opportunities to:

• stimulate the networking of existing collaborative projects working in areas of mutual interest,• create new networks to identify and explore the state of the art research needs of a thematic area,• strengthen the production, use and communication of existing research findings to policy makers andpractitioners,• share experiences of the challenges of undertaking collaborative research between Europe and India, andhow these challenges can be overcome,• and most importantly, identify broad research priorities for possible future collaborative initiatives amongresearch funders.

Scope of ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice’

The EqUIP Scoping Report defines the theme of the symposium on ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolutionand Social Justice’ as follows: 2

“Workshop D. Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social JusticeSummaryThis theme is concerned with enabling and understanding conflict resolution and social justice. It will beorganised around the topics of social diversity and structures, gender and conflict, with the latter includingissues relating to peace and therefore linking to the ‘Sustainable prosperity and well-being’ (Theme A) and‘Inequalities, growth and place/space’ (Theme B) groups.”

As described by the Scoping Report, the core areas of this theme are:• Social and power structures and justice• Gender issues particularly related to women• Conflict and conflict resolution, including peace• Inequalities in this context focuses more on understanding social and cultural diversity and

2See the Scoping Report online here: http://equipproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EqUIP-D2-1-Scoping-

Report-on-Existing-Collaboration-and-Future-Interests-and-Opportunities.pdf

7

should be fundamentally embedded across all core areas of this theme.

The Scoping Report further notes that:

“The complexity of this theme may lead to tension between those scholars that study the reform of theexisting structure by studying State processes (such as international law studies) and those who studybottom-up changes (such as activism). Experts suggest that calls should be formulated in a way thataccommodates both approaches.

Whilst some of the considerations in this theme are specific to India e.g. caste system, it was emphasisedthat this should not just be an ‘India’ theme. Peace and conflict was highlighted as a particular area of equalrelevance and for example Indian researchers and the Indian traditions, such as the Gandhian one, couldcontribute to the study of conflict in Europe and European thinking about peace.”

As core partner priorities relevant to this theme, the Scoping Report lists the following:

• Inequality, Social Diversity and Differences• Public Protests, Identity Politics, Social Justice• Democratisation• Human Security• Peace and Conflict Resolution• Gender Violence and its Social Roots• Social Structure, Caste System, Gender

Aims and Formats of the Symposium

The overarching objec�tive of the symposium on ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice’was to identi�fy areas of potenti�al collabora�tion between European and Indian research institutions, andresearchers of India and Europe. This was based on the idea that Indo-European research collabora�tionshould involve crosscultural communica�tion and facilitate indepth collaborati �ve studies of localizedunderstandings. Research collaborati�on between India and Europe should also include a mul�tiplicity ofperspec�tives, drawing on both the Social Sciences and Humani�ties.

The symposium used tools and methods designed to collect information and ideas on:

- challenges and obstacles to collaborative research between Europe and India,- emerging and new research opportunities within the topics of this symposium, and- priority research areas of mutual interest for collaborative SSH initiatives between India and Europe.

The symposium on ‘Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice’ also sought to encouragescholars to rethink how academic research can contribute to peace and social jus�tice.

The symposium was organized around the three topics:

1. Social Justice, Power and Identity

2. Gender and Conflict

3. Peace and Conflict Resolution

The symposium utilised inter-ac�tive formats designed to encourage a bott�omup agendasetti�ng process.On Day One, three topical sessions were each introduced by two 15-minute keynote presentations given byselected participants, of which one was from Europe and the other from India. The keynotes set the stage

8

for World Café discussions on each topic.3 One moderator was seated at each of six World Café tables. Themoderators were staff of EqUIP member organisations and the convener, the Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO). In each of the three World Cafés, participants joined two consecutive tables to discuss for 20-30minutes at each table.

At the beginning of each session, a chairperson was elected from among the participants at each table. Atthe end, participants were asked to write up (on a post-it note) their thoughts on key challenges andopportuni �ties for research within the topic under discussion. Participants were asked to add their name tothe note, to enable the convener to identify the author of each note. The moderators then requestedparticipants to move to a different table in order to engage in a new discussion. At the end of the session,participants had the opportunity to add to, or modify their note. The moderators then collected all thenotes and forwarded them to the convener.

The same procedure was repeated in the subsequent topical sessions: listening to keynote presentations(1/2 hour), discussing at two different tables, and wri�ting up a note on challenges and opportunities relatedto the topic of discussion (1 hour). The compilation of notes was subsequently transcribed and collated bythe convener into a document of World Café Proceedings.

Day Two started with a presentation of the results of the topical discussions (World Café Proceedings) bythe convener. This was followed by two crosscutting Open Space sessions, in which participants were againseated around six moderated tables. In the first Open Space session, participants were invited to discussand write down (on a postit note) one key priority for research collaboration. Participants were againasked to add their name to the note, in order to enable identification. At the end of the session everyonewas asked to post their note on a large poster board at the back of the conference hall.

In the refreshment break, the convener sorted the notes with an eye to areas of convergence. Drawing onthe most concisely formulated notes, the convener identified nine key priorities. Nine priorities were thusformulated by the convener, written up and posted at the top of the large poster boards.

In the second Open Space session, participants were invited back into the conference hall to study theformulations on the poster boards. They were then asked to retrieve their own note and engage in asorti�ng exercise by placing their note under one of the key formulations. In case someone felt that theirideas were not captured by any of the nine formulations, participants were invited to add a newformulation onto the board. In the final phase of the last Open Space session, participants voted for fiveresearch priorities among ten candidate formulations. Using these methods, we finally arrived at the fivekey research priorities described in the Research Priorities section of this report.

For a detailed programme and moderators guide, see Annexes A (Annex A: Symposium Programme) and B(Annex B: Moderators Guide).

Symposium Participants

Participants were invited to this symposium based mainly on suggestions from EqUIP memberorganisations. A strong effort was made to secure representation from all EqUIP member countries andassociate member organisations, to ensure that the participants represented both the Humanities andSocial Sciences and the entire spectrum of research topics covered by the symposium, also taking intoaccount gender balance as well as the balance between Indian and European researchers. Unfortunately,

3For a description of the World Café method, see: http://www.theworldcafe.com/key-concepts-resources/world-

cafe-method/

9

we were unable to achieve participation from all EqUIP countries, as none of the invitees from theNetherlands were available.

The symposium had a total of 50 registered participants. The participants represented 39 differentorganisations from all over India and Europe. About half of the participants were from India (46%) andEurope (54%). As regards to gender balance, the symposium had 22 female participants (44%) and 28 maleparticipants (56%).

Among the six keynote speakers who presented at the symposium, there was an equal share of speakersfrom India and Europe, and an equal number of women and men (three of each). The moderators of thegroup discussions were staff of EqUIP member organisations and the convener, the Peace ResearchInstitute Oslo (PRIO).

For a complete list of participants, see Annex C (Annex C: Symposium Participants).

10

Thematical Sessions

The symposium had three thematical sessions, one for each of the topics under discussion. Two keynotespeakers introduced each session – one from Europe and one from India. This was followed by a WorldCafé for each topic, as a tool for productive group discussions. In the World Café, participants were askedto write down one key obstacle or challenge, and one opportunity for future research on the topic inquestion in that particular session. The participants were then asked to move to a different table, toencourage participation in several discussions and wider engagement among participants. Towards the endof each session, participants were again asked to write down one key challenge and opportunity for futureresearch.

Syntheses of challenges and opportunities from each of the World Café sessions are presented below.

Social Justice, Power and Identity (Topic 1)

India and Europe are both among the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse regions in theworld. At the same time, both Europe and India are home to an extraordinary number of movements forsocial justice. While much of the academic theory-building has been focused on Europe, India – known asthe world's largest democracy – is also a cradle of secular and revolutionary thinking, and a launching padfor many local, regional and international reformist and activist movements. In recent years, we have seennew forms of nonviolent resistance and new movements for social justice and peace, emerging especiallyamong marginalized people.

Social injustice has often been explained by inherent differences between social groups, in other wordsidentitybased inequality. While issues of identity are important, social conflict is also about the absence ofinstitutional mechanisms to regulate power and contestations between groups, or about rapid socialchanges that pose a challenge to the mechanisms already in place. This can be observed in Europe as wellas India. The discussions in this symposium suggest that Indo-European collaboration on the study of socialjustice, power and identity can enrich this field by illuminating the different ways in which people in Indiaand Europe value, respond to and act on inequality and injustice. In so doing there is also a potential tobridge disciplines such as law, with its focus on the state, and social movement studies, with its focus onnon-state organizations, through cross-disciplinary as well as transcontinental academic exchange.

These were the results of the World Café discussions on the topic of Social Justice, Power and Identity(Topic 1):

Synthesis of Challenges

Challenge I: Staying relevant and close to social reality• Constructing a perspective that is less academic and closer to the world that we seek to explain

• Developing a conceptual language to engage with empirical reality, whether in India or Europe

• Learning from living and being open-minded

• Making the realities of India (in terms of culture, history, society) more evident in research projectsand calls

• Remaining relevant to society

11

• Closing the gap between theoretical research and the impact that such research should have on theground

• Combining academic interest with policy recommendations

• Making a contribution towards a real political conversation

• Navigating the politics of research collaboration

Challenge II: Addressing institutional barriers• Rethinking the insistence on standardization of research format

• Challenging biases against peripheral areas and ignorance of the margins

• Improving the coordination of research topics

• Becoming aware of the dominance of Western/European frames

• Supporting decentralization to avoid concentration of research in a few institutions

• Creating inclusive funding calls that provide room for new findings and approaches

• Rethinking the supposed gap between applied and basic research

• Addressing monopolization and gatekeeping of research by universities

• Overcoming biases against action-based research as “risky”

• Deconstructing the parameters of what is defined as “good” and fundable research, which is oftendefined narrowly and in homogenous ways

• De-centralization of research to enable multifaceted ways of building knowledge

• Addressing institutional barriers to funding

• Reviewing the marketization of higher education, technocratic and neo-liberal pressures onresearch

• Prioritizing smaller, more manageable collaborations to avoid oversized “monster projects” wherecollaboration suffers due to discontinuities of scale

• Making better use of new information technology enables more real-time academic collaboration

Challenge III: Overcoming conceptual and cultural biases• Assumptions that there is one Europe and one India, and disregard for discontinuities

• Lack of a common vocabulary

• Conceptual confusion

• India appears more as examined object than partner

• A need for decolonization of minds and academic practices

• Addressing the persistence of Orientalism, and the essentialization of Europe among Indianscholars

• Challenging persistent Eurocentrism in theory-building and conceptual work

• Paying attention to plurality and diversity, whether in India or Europe

• Putting internal colonization in Europe on the agenda

• Rethinking the way we manage cultural specificities in comparative research

• Addressing the challenges of comparison in comparative studies

• Building conceptual agreement

• Listening to marginalized and minority voices

Synthesis of Opportunities

Opportunity I: Exploring difference, diversity and (de)democratization• Studying different historical routes to democracy, and loss or recession of democracy

• Exploring the governance of difference in a longue durée perspective

12

• Working on the theme of power and democracy in the university, and the emergence of theuniversity as a public sphere

• Researching affirmative action in both India and Europe

• Studying minorities and legal practice

• Researching minorities in the media, in production of news and views/opinions

• Studying political voices and activism of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) and sexualidentity movements in India and Europe

• Developing new theories based on research in both Indian and European diversity, and newnarratives and solutions to social problems in both regions

• Studying the construction of concepts such as majority and minority in both Europe and India,highlighting elements of distinctiveness as enriching

Opportunity II: Research for/on cross-cultural enrichment• Introducing new concepts of Indian ethics such as ahimsa4 into European epistemological

frameworks

• Enabling Indian research on European societies to allow Indian critiques of Europe

• Engaging with vernacular forms of knowledge to deconstruct existing forms of knowledgehierarchies

• Building new concepts and common ground from cultural specificities

• Using a deep knowledge of Indian society to question and investigate social sciences andhumanities concepts in order to enrich these disciplines

Opportunity III: Critically rethinking globalization and justice• Contextualising global challenges in local scenarios

• Studying how global connectivity facilitates global and intercultural criticality

• Looking at rapid social change as opportunity for engagement, learning and sharing

• Exploring web-based knowledge production and globalization

• Offering critique of the approaches of international organizations

• Studying how conflict, justice and gender are negotiated locally

• Researching access to water and natural resources in a rights perspective

• Qualitative research on migration, displacement and refugees in Europe and India

• Action research as a way of reaching out to marginal communities and spaces

• Researching the relationship between science and society in localized case studies

Gender and Conflict (Topic 2)

Much of the literature on gender and conflict maintains a focus on militarism, insecurity, women'svictimhood and violence against women. Another body of research highlights women's agency and the newopportunities for women arising during and after conflict (in post-conflict reconstruction). Conflictresolution and peacebuilding processes are hence understood as windows of opportunity for addressinggender inequality, women's equal rights and political participation, as also reflected in UNSC Resolution1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security. Conflict resolution could be understood as a potential site

4Several streams of Indian religion and thinking (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) have mentioned ahimsa

essentially as a comprehensive negation of violence at all levels. Derived from the Sanskrit word (hiṃsā ), which means violence, a-hiṃsā connotes its negation or opposite. Best articulated by Mahatma Gandhi in recent times, it refers to non-violence against all living beings on the planet as well as its ecology. It also entails non-violence inthought, speech and action towards one and all, as well as an avowed commitment to peaceful means.

13

where women can contribute to a just and inclusive peace. While Indian as well as European scholars havecontributed to reorienting the study of women and conflict towards a greater attention to women's agency,studies of gender and conflict in India have often been side-lined by the international debates, due partly tothe framing of India's internal conflicts as matters of law and order, and partly to conflict resolutionpractices in which negotiations are held without civil society consultation. Nevertheless, Indian cases canoffer important insights into the study of women's participation in peacebuilding in cases of conflictresolution without international intervention.

Drawing on the discussions in this symposium, it is clear that Indo-European collaboration on the study ofgender and conflict provides opportunities for critique of the assumptions and templates of contemporaryliberal peacebuilding. Such collaboration also has the potential to enrich and redefine the study of genderand conflict, and even to move it into the very core of peace and conflict studies, by interrogating howconflict is defined and what security means, and by reengaging with theoretical frames and concepts suchas structural and cultural violence.

These were the results of the World Café discussions on the topic of Gender and Conflict (Topic 2):


Challenge I: Thinking of gender in singular terms• Lack of attention to the diversity of the “gender” category, and how the meanings and implications

of gender vary across class, community and region

• Tendency to focus primarily or exclusively on “women in conflict” in the study of gender andconflict, limiting the potential of gender studies to inform conflict studies

• Side-lining of gender studies, especially in light of the strong gender relevance of key areas of SSHresearch such as migration, development, social movements and popular culture

• Limited attention to class and other important social divides in the study of gender and conflict

• Academic discourse on “gender equality” as an institutional norm, drawing attention away fromthe study of gender roles and practices to the extent that these may require new forms ofrethinking

Challenge II: Categorization, womanhood and data construction• Underlying patriarchal norms still dominate both the academic discursive environment and the

collection and organization of primary statistical data

• Conceptualizing gender remains problematic, bringing up questions about what (or who) isincluded and what (or who) is excluded in gender categories, which categories to use, and how tolabel or name them

• Challenges in terms of data collection, data reliability and data translatability, especially due tolimited attention to the difficulties of comparing gender categories across class, region, country,etc.

• Life histories of individuals (women as well as men) tend to be filtered out of multidisciplinaryresearch or undervalued as compared with large-N studies

• Accessing the field of conflict studies remains difficult, especially in terms of security challengesrelated to gender

• Continued naturalization and de-politicization of womanhood, and limited understanding of thecategory of “woman” as socio-culturally constructed identity rather than biological or natural

Challenge III: Marginalization of gender research• Tendency to conflate gender research with women’s studies or feminism

14

• Persistent gender imbalances in European and Indian academia

• Isolation and/or marginalization of gender research, as gender research is relegated to separatedepartments and programmes

• Misconstruction of gender studies as the study of “women’s issues”

• Compartmentalizing women’s issues under the rubrics of development, social inclusion and povertyreduction

• Equating “women” with “gender”, and ignoring masculinity studies as well as the study of non-binary identities and experiences

• Confusing the methods of the academy with the teleology of activist engagement


Opportunity I: Redefining gender and conflict• Exploring the linkages between the struggles and activism of women’s movements and those of

LGBT movements for equality and recognition of rights

• Including micro-histories in studies to create a more nuanced and multifaceted picture of groundrealities and experiences

• Comparing gender in Europe and India to allow for a broader thematic approach, beyond feministtheory and narrowly defined women’s issues

• Studying the relationship between conflict resolution and European post-war imperialist projectsthrough a gender lens

• Reflecting on the social impact of feminist and LGBT studies in Europe and India

• Bringing the notion of intersectionality into the mainstream of peace and conflict research

• Cross-cultural collaboration to address patriarchal biases in the definition of conflict

• Redefining conflict with a focus on structural violence, everyday resistance and violence againstwomen, thereby shifting gender closer to the center of peace and conflict studies

• Challenging the implicit liberal peace assumptions at the core of multilateral gender mainstreamingattempts through cross-country and/or cross-regional case studies

Opportunity II: Intercultural exchange for new knowledge• Deconstructing the category of gender in and across the Indian and European contexts, with

attention to how gender and other forms of identity is fragmented along class, caste, religion, andregional divides

• Drawing on the work of Indian feminists on Islamophobia and the politics of women’s rights toinspire research at the nexus between gender studies and political studies

• Researching tribal societies in India for alternative narratives to better understand gender relationsand conflict

• Investigating Islamic feminism and feminism in European peace movements in a comparativeperspective

• Studying similarities and differences between forms of oppression faced by Indian and Europeanworking women

• Drawing on both Indian and European experiences of caste and ethnicity, cultural, normative andsocio-economic relations to broaden the scope of gender studies

Opportunity III: New attention to patriarchy and masculinity• Contributing comparative studies of masculinity in India and Europe

• Creating opportunities for cross-cultural research on the relationship between masculinity andpatriarchy

15

• Exploring the configuration of patriarchal power through multi-sited case studies, especially inrelation to migration, power structures and inequality

• Applying a gender perspective to the study of British intellectual colonialism, masculinity andpower as interlinked “political weapons” in the Indian context

• Expanding gender research to the study of masculinity across multifaceted social divides,contributing a gender approach to global studies

Peace and Conflict Resolution (Topic 3)

The postCold War explosion of interna�tional peacebuilding operati�ons has been cri�ticized for advancing"Western" poli�tical agendas, ideas and norms at the expense of "the local". Moreover, criti�cs have viewedthe heavy involvement of mul�tilateral and internati�onal organiza �tions in shaping postconflict peacebuildingagendas as a form of topdown social engineering. In response to such cri�tiques, policymakers, prac��titionersand scholars have turned to the idea of supporti�ng "local actors and structures" with a growing number ofpeacebuilding organizati �ons promo�ting bo �ttomup conflict transformati�on. This supposedly anchors peacein local ownership and par �ticipati�on. However, "grassroots peacebuilding" discourse reinforces the viewthat root causes of conflict are to be found in the cultural, social, and even psychological environments ofwhat are o�ften described as "conflictprone" societi�es or "failed states". With conflict conveniently"localized" to the periphery and the "underdeveloped", an urgent task in the current rethinking of peaceand conflict studies is to keep the focus on the "local" or "indigenous" without simultaneously "localizing"the roots of conflict.

As discussed in this symposium, India is on the one hand among the most conflictprone countries in theworld, and on the other hand it is rich with traditions of nonviolence made famous by Mahatma Gandhi,and the birthplace of several religions propagating the virtues of peace, like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.Addressing this conundrum necessitates a reinvestigation of Indian as well as European thinking aboutpeace, and as importantly, collaborative studies of peace movements and activism across both continents.This would open up new avenues for the study of peace and justice, and the political economy of peace, toencourage a rethinking of contemporary peacebuilding and conflict resolution templates in Europe as wellas India.


Challenge I: Back to the basics?• Critically reviewing exclusionary outcomes, monopolies of power and interests behind customary

law

• Reassessing how democracy and its institutional modalities actually work

• Understanding conflict as rooted in struggles for control over natural resources

• Revisiting the idea of the nation state as the peacekeeper

• Reviewing the relationship between local and universal values

• Investigating the power of definition of conflict

• Questioning the need to resolve all conflicts, and problematizing the end goal of conflict resolution

• Critical thinking about conflict resolution as a barrier to peace, as a mechanism for perpetuatingunequal power relations and/or injustice

• Deconstruction of normative approaches in peace and conflict studies to allow less prejudicedunderstandings of conflict, beyond good vs. bad, perpetrators vs. victims

Challenge II: Rethinking taken-for-granted categories and templates• Reconnecting the notion of peace with justice, and revisiting the meaning of justice

16

• Exploring multiple meanings of peace and conflict, resisting textbook clichés

• Re-evaluating the relationship between traditional institutions and state mechanisms for conflictresolution

• Understanding through empirical study the local meanings of general categories like traditional andnon-traditional

• Retrieving the voices and practices of those who defy or cut across ethnic lines

• Investigating multi-sovereign settings as challenges to our conceptions of the state

• Understanding the contradictions between peace and sustained inequality, and justice andreconciliation

• Resisting the technocratic use of conflict resolution templates, which are often promoted as readilytransferable across cases, despite vital socio-cultural differences

Challenge III: Grounding peace and conflict resolution• Situating conflict within local contexts and histories

• Appreciating the subtleties of social change and its conflict potential

• Prioritizing situated, local knowledge about conflict and peace processes

• Attention to the interconnectedness of multiple conflicts and complexities of conflict

• Addressing the risk of moving conflict from one area to another, or redistributing resources fromone group to another, in the process of allegedly resolving conflict

• Deconstructing culturalist approaches to identity, while appreciating diverse views

• Dealing with contestations over victimhood and emotional narratives of suffering

• Resisting the tendency to generalize, copy or model from other countries or contexts

• Raising awareness of differences in Indian and European understandings of key concepts such aspeace, conflict, reconciliation, justice, conflict resolution

• Critically assessing the durability and appropriateness of non-indigenous or externally imposedconflict resolution templates

• Questioning the comparability of Europe as a continent and India as a country


Opportunity I: Enriching the palette of conflict resolution• Studying conflict and its resolution at the grassroots level enriches our understanding of conflict

resolution

• Critically assessing the notion of conflict as a celebration of diversity, asking not only how, but whenconflict needs to be resolved

• Assessing the role of soft power in tackling conflicts and building cohesive societies

• Researching traditional methods of conflict resolution with a focus on whether and/or how theyare applicable in new settings

• Studying successful cases with a variety of interventions including state interventions, localnetworks and non-conventional interventions to deepen our understanding of what works and how

• Exploring non-violence as a political ideology and its use I conflict resolution, in Indian andEuropean contexts

Opportunity II: Discovering the pluralities of peace• Deepening our understanding of Indian political philosophies and their differences, especially the

ideas of Ambedkar (Ambedkarism) as opposed to Gandhian thinking

• Revisiting access to justice as a prerequisite to peace

• Addressing peace and justice as both universals and locally specific, contingent and contextuallyembedded, across multiple sites in Europe and India

17

• Exploring a variety of narratives, with attention to emotions

• Studying education about conflict and peace, looking at curricula as narratives

• Investigating histories about conflict and comparative works about conflict as objects of study,across European and Indian cases

• Interrogating the difference between pacification and peace

• Exploring social media discourse, and applying media studies to unpack the plurality of perspectivesand discourses on peace, across India and Europe

Opportunity III: Bringing together peace research and political economy• Bringing political economy more squarely into peace research

• Revisiting the relationship between social change and conflict in a political economy perspective

• Bringing issues of resource control back into the peace and conflict research agenda

• Exploring more deeply the political economy of conflict as an untapped area of research

• Contextualising conflict research in relation to historical self-consciousness and with regard tomacro-economic structures

• Exploring in-depth the political networks and stakeholders who construct peace movements andengage in peace activism

• Critically review democratic politics and development agendas to revisit their contributions toconflict, and assess how the cost of large-scale development schemes can be minimized

18

Crosscutting Sessions

Day Two of the symposium started with a summary of the results of the topical discussions (as presented inthe section above). This was followed by two crosscutting Open Space sessions, designed to identify andformulate key research priorities in the topics of the symposium of mutual interest for future collaborativeresearch initiatives between India and Europe in the Social Sciences and Humanities.

The final goal of the exercise was to select five top research priorities among a number of formulationsproposed by the symposium participants.

Formulating Research Priorities

As a result of the first Open Space session of the symposium (described in detail in the section on Aims andFormats of the Symposium) the convener drew a total of nine formulations of potential research prioritiesfrom the notes of the symposium participants. One participant availed herself of the opportunity to addanother formulation to the list (the tenth formulation listed below). The total number of formulations ofkey research priorities thus reached ten.

These were the ten formulations:

1. Democratic Politics, Development Agendas and the Political Economy of Peace

2. Pluralities of Peace: Peace Discourses in India and Europe




6. Power and Democracy: Knowledge Production, the University and the Public Sphere


8. Understanding Youth Radicalization in Europe and India


10. The Role of Cultural Resistance in Transnational Networks

Choosing the Top Priorities

In the second and final Open Space session, participants were asked to vote for a maximum of five researchpriorities among the ten candidate formulations.

19

These are the research priorities along with the number of votes received by each of the candidates (inparentheses), with the top five formulations in bold:

1. Democratic Politics, Development Agendas and the Political Economy of Peace (15)

2. Pluralities of Peace: Peace Discourses in India and Europe (11)

3. Social Justice, New Movements and Political Alternatives (21)

4. Rethinking Statehood, Citizenship and the Social Contract in India and Europe (22)

5. Global Challenges and Local Scenarios: Contesting the "Traditional" (20)

6. Power and Democracy: Knowledge Production, the University and the Public Sphere (16)

7. Reinventing the Community: Politics and Belonging in India and Europe (30)

8. Understanding Youth Radicalization in Europe and India (16)

9. Gender Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of Gender Relations in India and Europe (18)

10. The Role of Cultural Resistance in Transnational Networks (7)

Here are the ten research priorities sorted by number of votes each of them received from the participants:

Reinventing the Community: Politics and Belonging in India and Europe (30)

Rethinking Statehood, Citizenship and the Social Contract in India and Europe (22)

Social Justice, New Movements and Political Alternatives (21)

Global Challenges and Local Scenarios: Contesting the "Traditional" (20)

Gender Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of Gender Relations in India and Europe (18)

Understanding Youth Radicalization in Europe and India (16)

Power and Democracy: Knowledge Production, the University and the Public Sphere (16)

Democratic Politics, Development Agendas and the Political Economy of Peace (15)

Pluralities of Peace: Peace Discourses in India and Europe (11)

The Role of Cultural Resistance in Transnational Networks (7)

From the plenary debate at the end of the symposium, we draw the conclusion that most, if not all, keyconcepts of relevance to contemporary SSH research can and should be questioned. A number ofparticipants pointed to the lack of common meanings of key concepts, and voiced concerns about theusefulness of these concepts in terms of comparison or translation across continents and contexts. Wereached an agreement to disagree, or a common understanding of the near impossibility of finding anyunambiguous, non-contingent, universally homogenous concepts. However, we would see this as a sourceof strength, rather than a weakness. The potential of multi-sited and comparative research lies precisely inthe ability it gives the researcher to shed new light on taken-for-granted theoretical underpinnings, tointerrogate hegemonic understandings, and question assumptions about the universality or commonnature of socio-culturally contingent meanings and conceptual frames.

20

Research Priorities

These are the top five priorities for Indo-European collaborative research on ‘Power Structures, ConflictResolution and Social Justice’ within the Social Sciences and Humanities, as identified by the symposium:






The discussions in this symposium suggest that Indo-European collaboration on the study of social justice,power and identity can enrich the field by illuminating the different ways in which people in India andEurope value, respond to and act on inequality and injustice. In so doing, there is also a potential to bridgedisciplines such as law, with its focus on the state, and social movement studies, with its focus on non-stateorganizations, through cross-disciplinary as well as transcontinental academic exchange.

As regards the study of gender and conflict, symposium participants were alert to the opportunities ofintersectional approaches to gender, while some called for a stronger focus on masculinity, patriarchy andLGBT studies. Both of these turns can benefit from cross-cultural insights combined with multidisciplinaryperspectives. Indo-European collaboration on the study of gender and conflict can also provideopportunities for a critique of the assumptions and templates of contemporary liberal peacebuilding. Byinterrogating how conflict is defined and what security means, and by reengaging with theoretical framesand concepts such as structural and cultural violence, we can see opportunities for enriching and redefiningthe study of gender and conflict, and moving it into the very core of peace and conflict studies.

India is on the one hand among the most conflictprone countries in the world, and on the other hand it isrich with tradi �tions of nonviolence made famous by Mahatma Gandhi, and the birthplace of severalreligions propagati�ng peace (e.g. Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism). Addressing this conundrum necessitatesa reinves�tigati�on of Indian as well as European thinking about peace, and as importantly, collaborativestudies of peace movements and activism across both continents. This would open up new avenues for thestudy of peace and justice, and the political economy of peace, to encourage a rethinking of contemporarypeacebuilding and conflict resolu�tion templates in Europe as well as India. Peace and conflict studies canthus be directly informed by Indo-European research collaboration, as it has been in the past. Among themany possible outcomes, we envisage a reorientation towards the study of cultural and structural violence,and a heightened attention to contradictions between peace and social justice.

21

Concluding Remarks

The organisers would like to thank all the participants for their valuable contributions to this symposium.EqUIP will use the results of this and other EqUIP symposia when designing a possible research agenda forfuture research collaboration and other activities, and we hope participants will keep in touch with theEqUIP project.5

Symposium participants called for a balanced approach from the EqUIP project, to allow for the study ofEurope as well as India. To avoid what might critically be construed as neo-Orientalism, and take fulladvantage of the potential of mutual exchange, we recommend conceptualizing future calls for proposals interms of multi-sited and trans-continental mutual research collaboration, to encompass research on Europeas well as India. Conflict resolution and struggles over social justice, power and identity are as important inEurope as they are in India. By exploring these vital issues across contexts and in meaningful cooperation,Indo-European research collaboration can no doubt inspire new insights.

5Information on EqUIP activities can be found on the EqUIP website: http://www.equipproject.eu .

22

Annexes

Annex A: Symposium Programme

www.equipproject.eu

EqUIP Symposium on

Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice

13-14 October 2016 in Sohna, Haryana, India

Wednesday 12 October

Time Content Duration

Arrival of participants

19.00 Welcome dinner

Thursday 13 October


9.00 – 9.30 Registration and tea/coffee 30 min

Inaugural session

9.30-9.35 Welcome on behalf of the organisers Merethe Sandberg Moe, Senior Advisor,Research Council of Norway (RCN)

5

9.35-9.45 Welcome on behalf of EqUIP Dr. Jacqui Karn, EqUIP coordinator,Senior European Policy Manager,Economic and Social Research Council(ESRC), United Kingdom

10

9.45-10.00 Welcome on behalf of the Indian partners Professor Sukhadeo Thorat, Chair, IndianCouncil on Social Science Research(ICSSR)

15

10.00-10.15 Inaugural by Ambassador of Norway to India Ambassador Nils Ragnar Kamsvåg, RoyalNorwegian Embassy in New Delhi

20

23

10.15-10.20 Welcome on behalf of the convener Dr. Åshild Kolås, Research Professor,Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

5

10.20-10.30 Group photo 10

Networking session

10.30-11.15 Round of self-introductions Merethe Sandberg Moe (RCN) 45

TOPICAL SESSIONS: Obstacles and Opportunities

Social Justice, Power and Identity (Topic 1)

11.15-11.30 Keynote speech Dr. Samir Kumar Das (University ofCalcutta, India)

15

11.30-11.45 Keynote speech Dr. Daniel Rycroft (University of EastAnglia)

15

11.45-12.45 World Café session I 60

12.45-13.30 Lunch 45

Gender and Conflict (Topic 2)

13.30-13.45 Keynote speech Dr. Swarna Rajagopalan (Independentscholar)

15

13.45-14.00 Keynote speech Dr. Marjaana Jauhola (University ofHelsinki, Finland)

15

14.00-15.00 World Café session II 60

15.00-15.25 Tea/coffee 25

Peace and Conflict Resolution (Topic 3)

15.25-15.40 Keynote speech Dr. Priyankar Upadhyaya (Banaras HinduUniversity)

15

15.40-15.55 Keynote speech Dr. Janel Galvanek (Berghof Foundation,Germany)

15

15.55-16.55 World Café session III 60

16.55-17.20 Tea/coffee 25

17.20-18.00 Summing up of World Cafés Keynote speakers and convener 40

19.00 Dinner

24

Friday 14 October


9.00-9.30 Presentation of World Café Proceedings Åshild Kolås (PRIO) 30

OPEN SPACE SESSIONS: Action Planning and Recommendations

9.30-10.45 Open Space session I Formulating research priorities

75

10.30-11.00 Tea/coffee 30

10.30-11.00 Parallel work by conveners during the break:Sorting and selecting the best formulations ofkey research priorities

Åshild Kolås, Ida Roland Birkvad (PRIO) 30

11.00-12.30 Open Space session II Sorting exercise/formulation of new proposals;Election

90

12.30-13.45 Lunch 75

13.45-14.00 Presentation of election results Åshild Kolås (PRIO) 15

14.00-15.15 Plenary debate Chair: Dr. Reena Marwah (ICSSR) 60

15.30-16.00 Closing remarks and Vote of thanks Dr. Upendra Choudhury, MemberSecretary (ICSSR)

15

25

Annex B: Moderators Guide

Dear colleagues,

Welcome to the EqUIP/RCN academic symposium on Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and SocialJustice. We are happy that you are willing to act as moderators throughout the event. Your role as amoderator is to:

• Ensure that the discussion stays on topic

• Monitor the time

• Ensure that notes are being written up by each participant

• Collect notes from the participants and submit them to the convener

There are three consecutive topical discussions (World Cafes) taking place on the 13th October, and twocrosscutting discussions (Open Space) scheduled for the 14th October.

Topical Discussion 1 (World Café 1): Social Justice, Power and Identity

Topical Discussion 2 (World Café 2): Gender and Conflict

Topical Discussion 3 (World Café 3): Peace and Conflict Resolution

Open Space 1: Opportunities for Europe-India research in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

Open Space 2: Recommendations for priority research on the topics of this symposium

Overall aims and methods

The symposium uses interac �tive formats designed to feed into a bott�omup agenda-setti�ng process.

A key objective of the discussions is to collect information and ideas on:

- challenges and obstacles to collaborative research between Europe and India,- emerging and new research opportunities within the topics of this symposium, and- priority research areas of mutual interest for collaborative SSH initiatives between India and Europe.

Aim of the three thematic discussions

The aim of the three World Café sessions is to discuss challenges and opportunities for collaborativeresearch between India and Europe under each of the topical headings. Notes from the three topicaldiscussions will be wri�tten up and collated into a document of World Café Proceedings, which we intend topresent in the morning of the second day of the symposium.

Aim of the two Open Space discussions

The two Open Space discussions will follow up on the World Café discussions, across the topics discussedon Day One.

The first session will look for opportunities that EqUIP should consider in aiming to foster enhancedcollaboration in SSH research between Europe and India.

The second session will guide the participants to choose priorities for research of interest on the topics ofthis symposium for future collaborative SSH initiatives between India and Europe.

Structure of the three topical discussions

The three topical discussions follow an identical format. Each session will be introduced by two shortkeynote presentations (max. 15 minutes each), by selected participants. The keynotes set the stage for the

26

subsequent World Cafés on each topic, and brings up key topical issues or questions, which the delegatescan relate to in their discussions.

During the World Cafés, the participants will be asked to take a seat at one of six café tables, to discussfreely for 20-30 minutes. After the discussion phase, participants should be asked to spend a few minuteswri�ting up their thoughts on obstacles and opportuni �ties, to be written up in bullet points on a post-it note.When the first half of the session is finished, we ask everyone to move to a different table, to engage in anew group discussion. The same procedure (discussing and wri�ting) is repeated. The moderators shouldmake sure to collect all the notes at the end of the session.

Throughout the symposium, the moderators should remain seated at the same table. However, you willhave different delegates joining your table during and between each session.

Prior to each World Café session, the convener (Åshild Kolås) will ask participants at each table to nominatea chairperson.

Structure of the Open Space discussionsOn the second day, two Open Space sessions will be held. Prior to each session, the convener will again askthe moderators to be seated, one at each table, and advise each table to nominate a chair.

In the first Open Space session, participants should be informed that the goal of the exercise is to writedown (on a postit note) one (and one only) key priority for research collaboration, on the topic of thissymposium. After participating in a roundtable discussion at the table where her or she is seated, eachparticipant should be asked to write down one (and only one) bullet point on a post-it note. Themoderators should tell the participants to post their note on a large poster board.

In the refreshment break, the convener will quickly go through all the notes, and eight or nine key priorities(points of convergence) will be writt�en up on pieces of paper and posted on the large poster boards. In thebeginning of the second Open Space session, participants should be asked to retrieve their own notes (froma table near the door) and engage in a sorti�ng exercise. After finding their own notes, they should be askedto place each note under one of the key priorities posted on the poster board, or (if necessary) add a newtitle for a key priority on one of the smaller poster boards, and post their note under it.

When the sorting process is completed, participants will be asked to again take a seat at one of the tables.The participants will then be given their final task: to elect five research priorities. After a discussion, eachparticipant should be asked to write down five priorities on a post-it note, and hand in their "ballot" to themoderator. The moderator will then count the votes, to arrive at a list of five priorities for his or herparticular table. The convener will then count up the votes from all of the tables, to arrive at the five topresearch priorities overall. This means that at least three or four priorities have lost the competition.However, we will use the subsequent plenary debate to fine-tune each of the five research priorities, whichgives even the "losing" suggestions an opportunity to make their way into the final recommendations.

27

Annex C: Symposium Participants

Participants in the EqUIP Symposium on Power Structures, Conflict Resolution and Social Justice

Name Affiliation Country

Ajay Behera Jamia Milia Islamia University India

Ajith Kaliyath National Institute of Urban Affairs India

Amit Prakash Jawaharlal Nehru University India

Andrea Priori Universita Roma Tre Italy

Ângela Barreto Xavier Instuto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa Portugal

Anja Zalta University of Ljubljana Slovenia

Anshuman Behera National Institute of Advanced Studies India

Arijit Sen Amnesty International India India

Arild Engelsen Ruud University of Oslo Norway

Ashok Swain Uppsala University Sweden

Biswajit Mohapatra North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong India

Carmen Parra Rodriguez Universidad Abat Oliba CEU Spain

Daniel Rycroft University of East Anglia UK

Elida Jacobsen Peace Research Institute Oslo Norway

Fabian Schuppert Queen’s University Belfast UK

Gabriela Echegoyen Nava Economic and Social Research Council UK

Gonçalo Zagalo Pereira Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia Portugal

Ida Roland Birkvad Peace Research Institute Oslo Norway

Jacqui Karn Economic and Social Research Council UK

Janel Galvanek Berghof Foundation Germany

Jerca Vodusek Staric Ministry of Education, Science and Sports Slovenia

Jiri Krejcik Czech Academy of Sciences Czech Republic

Kumar Suresh National University of Educational Planning and Administration India

28

Satish Kumar Queen’s University Belfast UK

Mahesh Madhukar Indian Council of Social Science Research India

Manendra Pratap Singh Ministry of Human Resource Development India

Marjaana Jauhola University of Helsinki Finland

Merethe Sandberg Moe Research Council of Norway Norway

Neera Chandhoke University of Delhi India

Per-Olof Fjällsby Karlstad University Sweden

Peter DeSouza Centre for the Study of Developing Societies India

Prakash Sarangi Ravenshaw University, Cuttack India

Priyankar Upadhyaya Banaras Hindu University India

Raghu Menon Independent Researcher India

Reena Marwah Indian Council of Social Science Research India

Rosa Maria Perez University Institute of Lisbon Portugal

Samir Kumar Das University of Calcutta India

Sangit Ragi University of Delhi India

Sanjukta Das Gupta Sapienza Universita di Roma Italy

Sirpa Tenhunen University of Jyväskylä Finland

Stéphanie Tawa Lama-Rewal Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique France

Sukhadeo Thorat Indian Council of Social Science Research India

Swarna Rajagopalan Independent Scholar India

Tania Friederichs EU delegation to India India

Tommaso Bobbio Universita' di Torino Italy

Ulf Mellström Karlstad University Sweden

Upendra Choudhury Indian Council of Social Science Research India

Veena Hariharan Jawaharlal Nehru University India

Åshild Kolås Peace Research Institute Oslo Norway

power structures, conflict resolution and social...

Documents