Sociology

ETHNIC PROBLEMS AND VIOLENCE

An ethnic conflict is a conflict between ethnic groups. It involves two contending groups that fulfill the ethnicity criteria: a “myth of common of descent.” While the source of the conflict may be political, social, economic, etc., the combatants must expressly fight for an ethnic issue or the ethnic group’s position within society. This final criterion differentiates an ethnic conflict from other forms of armed struggle. Ethnic conflict does not necessarily need to be violent. For example, ethnic conflict might be a non-violent struggle for resources divided among ethnic groups.

Ethnic violence is a common phenomenon almost in every nation and dates back to the history of human civilization. Sometimes, it is due to nationalistic patriotism. Also, relative developmental differences, economic isolation, continuous discrimination by the ruling class, remoteness and isolation of various social groups, lack of representativeness in administration, difficulty in communicating grievances, and non-representation in the ruling government can lead to the generation of parochialism. The violence in whatever form ultimately leads to the loss of property and human life and generates various related socio-economic issues, including the demographic restructuring that has further social and economic implications. It generally takes back the society backward in the trend of development path, which may not always be linear as perceived.

Causes:

There is an inverse relationship between income, equality in income distribution or economic growth, and ethnic conflict. The source of ethnicity can broadly be divided into two categories:

1. Many times, it is instigated by sowing the seeds of ethnic conflict in the name of communal ethics for the vested interest in capturing and controlling unrest areas, exploitation of vulnerable, dependent, and fragmented groups, and for the economic gain of some particular dominant social or ethnic groups with the ultimate goal of (keeping politically dominant social or ethnic groups with the power) weakening the nationalist movement and control over power and economic benefits, which would otherwise be very strong if people across ethnic or religious groups remain united. In the present day, sometimes the rulers in some places instigate a section of the population through various ways to divert attention from political and strategic defaults like corruption. Inability to solve the problem of unemployment, reduce inequality and poverty, control inflation, lack of proper bureaucratic service, or simply for election benefit (by polarizing the target population).

2. Spontaneous violence also erupts out of nationality, identity crisis among a group or community, psychological fear from other class or community of being overpowered in terms of population or representation in various socio-economic and political activities, inter-group exploitation, rumours, persistent lack of development, ignorance and following the movement of similar other groups across the region and constitutional imposition or imposition of certain rules in the name of administrative control and good governance.

Apart from these, differences in social mobilization, rate of assimilation, and uneven economic and political development distribution cause ethnic rivalries. Further, a lack of unifying activities in the form spread of education, industrial activities, promotion of sports, tourism, and interaction of people along with opportunities and communication may lead to widening inequalities and further tension among groups.

Sometimes, the misconception on the part of both the government or some ethnic or social groups and mistrust may lead to the use of excessive power by the security forces, resulting in intensive violence.

Also, in some cases, to exhibit demands of various kinds like autonomy, statehood, reservation, and other concessions or anger against government policies, an ethnic group takes the path of violence.

Displacement may also generate ethnic issues and conflicts. People from the conflict zone of the mixed population at the time of displacement chose to move towards their kinship or similar groups (in terms of religion, caste, creed, race, etc.), and the whole region gradually became clusters of several groups of different communities. Instead of reducing tension, it finally leads to further intensifying various groups in many social and economic matters (Sparber, 2008).

The issues like –

1. Historic injustice

2. Common identity

3. Religion

4. A shared sense of injustice or principle

5. A degree of inchoate racial-cultural affinity

6. Humanitarian considerations etc., are also instrumental in generating ethnic conflicts.

Political scientists and sociologists debate the causes of ethnicity and generally fall into three schools of thought: primordialist, instrumentalist, and constructivist.

1. Primordialist accounts: 

Proponents of primordial accounts of ethnic conflict argue that “[e]thnic groups and nationalities exist because there are traditions of belief and action towards primordial objects such as biological features and especially territorial location.”

2. Instrumentalist accounts: 

This new theory sought to explain such persistence as the result of the actions of community leaders, “who used their cultural groups as sites of mass mobilization and as constituencies in their competition for power and resources, because they found them more effective than social classes.”

3. Constructivist account: 

A Constructivist set of accounts stress the importance of the socially constructed nature of ethnic groups.

There is also a modernization theory of the development of ethnic forces and conflict that states the reason for such development when modernization fails to account for ethnic or group identity affiliated with the traditionalism developed over the years (Horowitz, 1985). Ethnic conflict is thus treated as a product of the forces of modernization and part of the process of change; differential modernization. Sometimes, modern education is used by the elite for vested selfish and political interests.

Ethnic conflict in North-east India:

In North East India, during 2003, there were 1,107 militancy-related deaths in the region, 882 in 2004, and 715 in 2005 (Institute for Conflict Management 2006). A crucial aspect of the violence in the region has been frequent ethnic clashes resulting in heavy loss of life and property. These have also led to large-scale displacements. Estimated internally displaced persons in the region during 2003-04 were between 1.5 to 2 lakh. There is a record of 76000 internally displaced populations in the region during 2011. An estimate states that there was over 8 lakh displaced population owing to the violence that occurred in Assam-Meghalaya between Garos and Rabhas in 2010-11, along with the displacement in western Assam due to ethnic conflict during the 1990s and 2000s and also from Mizoram to Tripura during 1997 and 1999 (IDMC and NRC, 2011).

The lack of industrialization and poor agricultural performance in North-East India left the region to meet its public budgets only with centrally sponsored schemes and aid. With fragile governments and a lack of a  strong administrative system in this fragmented region over time generated a system of poor implementation of sponsored schemes and an attitude of appropriating public resources for self or allied groups.

Economic backwardness, political hegemony, and colonial-type behaviour of the rulers raise regional patriotism among the people of this region. While, relative developmental differences, economic isolation or blockage, observation of continuous nepotism or discrimination by the members of a ruling class with the objective of personal gain or for the alliance group, remoteness, and isolation of various social groups, lack of attention from the ruling administration and lack of representativeness in administration and difficulty in communicating grievances, non-representation in the ruling class, government, etc., cultural segregation can lead to the generation of parochialism among certain groups. Parochialism is manifested in various forms, and in its extreme case, it results in violence.

Control

Ethnic prejudice is directed against some social abstraction, and some stereotypes develop out of a social context. These conceptions arising out of social situations become powerful directives of behavior once established. In their diffusion, they may become embedded in folklore, literature, theology, law, art science, and so in our educational institutions. Thus, their perpetuation may influence persons without direct contact with particular ethnic groups. There are remarkable parallels in the experiences of all minority groups in our society.

Since these attitudes are social constructs, it becomes possible to deal with them. There are two methods available for meeting this problem: first, by altering the actual or potential situations in which people act; second, by appealing to the sentiments of individuals without necessarily altering the situations but by manipulating symbols, changing attitudes, or influencing their “definition of the situation.” The latter method is the method of education and the only one readily available in our type of society. Educational appeals for reducing and eliminating ethnic conflict must be based primarily on the developing institution patterns and cultural traditions. It must emphasize the common basic bounds and loyalties of all population segments. By doing so, it will have aided in the development of attitudes that minimize differences and emphasize our fundamental social solidarity. The symbols of cohesion and integration become, as a result, necessary elements of our educational curriculum.

The overall policy of a program instituted to control ethnic conflict should include the following considerations. First, indiscriminate attacks on every manifestation of prejudice may intensify the ethnic conflict. Second, conspicuous vulnerable individuals invite ethnic prejudice and assist in developing ethnic conflict. Third, the problem of ethnic conflict should be studied in the manner of the psychiatrist, examining all the relevant factors continuously and dealing with, as does the psychiatrist. Fourth, not suppression and punishment of ethnic conflict will help, but education and propaganda aimed at controlling causes.

A number of scholars have attempted to synthesize the methods available for resolving, managing, or transforming ethnic conflict. John Coakley, for example, has developed a typology of conflict resolution methods employed by states, which he lists as indigenization, accommodation, assimilation, acculturation, population transfer, boundary alteration, genocide, and ethnic suicide. Greg Meyjes suggests that the degree to which ethnic tensions stem from inter-group disparity, dominance, discrimination, and repression has been critically unaccounted for and proposes a cultural rights approach to understanding and managing ethnic conflicts.

Conclusion:

Ethnic conflict or communal violence generally takes back the society backward in the trend of the development path, which may not always be linear as perceived. Society will be sustainable if there is the peaceful coexistence of the heterogeneous groups, which is conducive to economic activities and reduce unproductive military expenses, facilitating freedom for workers to achieve their goals. Political, administrative, and educational inclusiveness also helps build confidence and keeps detractive forces away.