According to a recent study, minority populations in a third of the world’s nations are making strident demands for political rights within existing states or fighting for outright independence. In 1988, the majority of the 111 violent conflicts in the world involved disputes between and/or among minority and majority groups ‘within nations, as of the beginning of 1994, no less than 25 ethnic conflicts involved the regular use of violence by at least one group party to the conflict. There are also dozens of other conflicts that are essentially non-violent, and hundreds of situations of political, economic, or cultural repression that may eventually erupt into Open conflict and violence. Facts such as these suggest a long and troubled future for ethnic relations around the globe. Ethnic conflicts are not all the same, and they take a variety of forms. Generally, there is a difference between conflicts in the developing world and those in industrialized countries, In the industrialized world, conflict Often centers on competition among groups for political dominance; in developing countries, conflict often involves Repression by the government and separatist movements by ethnic minorities. According to David Levinson, editor-in-chief of the Encircle violent conflicts in the world today falls into four categories: separatist movements, rivalry for autonomy, conquest, and survival.
Sikhs in India, Kashmiri in Kashmir, Tibetans in China, and Tamils in Sri Lanka are a few examples of separatist movements in the world. In these places, various groups are struggling to become politically independent. Violence is engendered when the government in power engages in actions calculated to prevent a dispossessed or oppressed group from protecting itself and from achieving its political independence or even a measure of political power. Recently, the end of centralized rule in former communist nations, the end of colonial style rule in Africa and Asia, and economic inequality have fostered ethnic conflicts within and across nations. Some biologically-oriented and ethnic conflict have their roots in human biological evolution, and thus posit that it is not surprising that ethnic groups will fight to dominate other groups or to protect their own interests, South Asia is an arena of considerable ethnic unrest, including that of Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Assamese and Bodo in northeastern India, Sikhs in forth India, Kashmiri in the disputed Kashmir region, Muslims and Hindus in many parts of India, and ethnic minorities such as Karen in Myanmar. Given the overwhelming social and economic disparities, and the world community’s failure of will in terms of addressing them, a continued escalation of ethnic-based conflicts can be anticipated.
The specter of escalating ethnic conflict in the world is virtually without limit in the absence of a coherent response by the world community to it. As opposed to such coherent response, the reaction ranges from non-existent, at worst, to lukewarm, at best. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations, strongly favors preservation of the nation-state as the very foundation of international life and expects sub-national and ethnic factions not to undermine the political unit within which they exist, albeit in some cases, barely. He recently cautioned ethnic and nationalist groups that justice and prosperity cannot be attained in a world made unworkable by endlessly splintering factions. The United Nations and other multi-nation alliances have shied away from formulation of a long-term policy to produce permanent alternatives to ethnic conflicts in multi-ethnic nations and regions. Yet today, ethnic rights and ethnic conflicts are neither legally recognized nor regulated at the international level.
These issues are still to a large extent treated as “internal” matters, to be resolved by the nation itself. Unfortunately, in most of these situations, the state is itself party to the dispute or has a stake in the success of one group at the expense of another group. Thus, the state is often a self-interested party and therefore an ineffective force for peaceful, fair, and long-term ethnic conflict resolution. This fact has Biven rise to the perceptions that most ethnic conflicts are resistant to resolution and that the international community and national governments would be wiser to invest their resources in trying to manage and control them, as opposed to resolving them.
Additionally, because ethnic conflicts are defined as internal matters, the United Nations and other multi-national alliances have generally restricted their involvement to rescue missions and to peacekeeping missions designed to contain and limit the fighting. Similarly, and more understandably, the activities of non-governmental organizations are essentially humanitarian and geared toward assisting refugees and other displaced persons.
Ethnic and religious minorities have undeniably suffered years of discrimination, with resultant erosion of their identities. For example, Buddhism, though born in India, now flourishes only outside India, because within India the dominant Hindu majority overwhelmed and assimilated it. Jains, too, were once a distinctive minority in India, but through incorporation by the Hindu majority, they can now hardly be distinguished from the majority community, Without political power, and the protection it confers, the faith and fare of the Sikh minority in India is uncertain as well. If it is not protected, it also will eventually lose its unique culture and identity and be subjugated by the dominant majority.
The lesson is clear, and minorities are understandably frightened and disturbed by it. Languages may die if they are not given official support, cherished religions can lose their rich practices; indeed entire cultures can wither away if not protected from the assaults of the stronger ones that dominate them.
Only now, with the spread of democracy, are minorities getting the chance even 10 air their grievances. Given the gravity of ethnic conflicts around the world, the world community has to dispel its inertia and take a more aggressive stance toward solving this problem. The need for defined legal measures capable of providing meaningful relief must be recognized if the violence is to end. Further, just how to recognize “people” who do not have formal governments is unclear, burthened for a search for such mechanism is also very urgent. Sukhminder Singh Sandhu, Inmate No. 08442-050 Ranjit Singh Gill, Inmate No. 8443-050
Metropolitan Correctional Center 150 Park Row South New York, New York 10007-1704
Note: Ranjit Singh Gill and Sukhminder Singh Sandhu have been held for nearly seven years in federal prison in the United States, despite being uncharged with any offense against U.S, criminal law. The government of India seeks their extradition, although a federal judge earlier prohibited their return to that country. Messrs, Sandhu and Gill are represented by William M, Kunstler, Mary BoreszPike,and Ronald L, Kuby.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 15, 1994
