COVER STORY
at the same time. Unfortunately, I conclude that the absence
of any of these three conditions, could bring these groups
into confl ict. Contact without common identity or common
goals could intensify rather than palliate confl icts. Similarly,
a common goal once achieved could render the groups to
relegate into confl ict situations again and in absence of
suffi cient common values as well as proper communication,
common goals can trigger misguided (often over-confi dent)
competition rather than cooperation. Finally, a common
identity and shared values are diffi cult to attain and even if
they are present, in the absence of communication, can take
divergent paths while in the absence of common goals can
trigger rival claims on the identity, thereby precipitating
confl ict.
to multitudes of case fi les that captured such inter-group
confl icts. Confl icts between nations are anything but. Upon,
delving into the research on inter-group confl icts whether
at the national levels, or the subnational, caste, community,
or even in at the level of groups within schools, it becomes
apparent that human beings have a tendency to form groups.
And slipping into confl ict with other groups is easy once a
group identity is formed and can be summarized in a three
staged process (adapted from Bipan Chandra’s analysis of
the rise of communalism):
Stage 1: By mere identifi cation of belongingness to a
group one begins to identify their individual interests with
the interests of the groups they belong to (and vice-versa).
Stage 2: They begin to look at the “other” and begin
defi ning the other’s interest as essentially diff erent from their
own interests
Stage 3: Eventually they begin to see the other’s interests
as antithetical to the interests of their own group.
Various scientifi c studies have shown that it is easy for
groups to slip into stage 3 from stage 1 and that it almost
happens instinctively. The recommendations, although
tentative and laden with assumptions, that I have forwarded
in my book “Our Egalitarian Universe?” to resolve such
confl icts are threefold, which I call the Three Cs:
1. Contact: The confl icting groups should have neutral
spaces to communicate and come into contact with each other
2. Common Goal: They should have a common super-
ordinate goal that binds them together and which needs the
cooperation of both to be attained and a failure of attainment
should threaten both of their survival.
3. Common Super-Ordinate Identity: Shared sets of
values, binding identities, common cultural and mental models.
This however, is a diffi cult mix of conditions to be fulfi lled
On the 11th hour
of the 11th day of
the 11th month
when the guns
fell silent, we will
remember
UN and the Way Forward for Global Peace
It is only institutions which are strong, innovative, and
robust that can facilitate the three conditions. So far, one can
say that the United Nations has been doing a satisfactory job at
it and has been successful in maintaining a long global peace.
Perhaps its greatest test would be to innovate and facilitate
a peaceful resolution to the contestation of the United States
and China so that they may come to a mutually benefi cial
equilibrium while the global systemic change does occur
perhaps through trade wars rather than what we understand
as traditional warfare. Indeed, a case of no war is a diffi cult
equilibrium to attain, but one upon which the fate of the world
order perhaps hinges once again.
* Arpit Chaturvedi is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive
Offi cer of Global Policy Insights
32 • Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Diplomatist • Vol 6 • Issue 10 • Oct-Nov 2018, Noida