10. Another learning we gather from peacemaking experience is that there is a profound longing for peace even in the heart of the sternest combatant. But peace at what terms? At whose terms? Not certainly at the cost of a party’s central interests. Not certainly at the price of having to compromise their honour or damage their image. If the peacemaker wants to retain her credibility, it must be clear to the contestants that she is not going to sell out the gains they have made during a lengthy struggle or compromise their future; that she understands that they were compelled to resort to violence only because they wanted to convey a message most powerfully, especially to the opponents.

11. Carl Jung once said that the strongman must somewhere be weak, and the cleaver man must somewhere be stupid…otherwise it would not be true to reality. In the same way, the violent man must somewhere be peaceable.

12. Thus, even the fiercest fighters are looking forward to an era of peace. That is why they keep a little door open for the peacemaker, which they can snap shut any time they feel threatened. It is this hidden entry point that the peacemaker tries to target. But often, sadly, that secret door remains bolted and barred. But a determined peacemaker never gives up.

13. The peacemaker ultimately finds the “Open Sesame” formula when she has established a welcome presence in the subconscious of the warrior-group. If she and her community have been around for a significant period of time in beneficent services and non-controversial activities among the groups in collision, exhausted belligerents may turn to her as a peacemaker, or welcome her when she takes her own initiative. Her ability to build up confidence-generating relationships with the parties concerned is the key to her success. Those who have fought hard for justice need not consider themselves excluded from the privileged position of becoming peacemakers, if they have always taught non-violence, sought to be fair to all parties concerned, consistently avoided exaggerated ego-claims, have a special skill for establishing warm-hearted relationships with people, and their universal outlook on public issues is well-known.

14. The peacemaker begins by interacting with the two groups in hostile relationships. If she presents herself as a self-appointed mediator or arbitrator, she will be rejected. If she has already earned a measure of credibility through the evidence of neutral stands and convincing works, she begins with an advantage.

15. Criticizing one party to the other is not the best way of proving her neutrality. A commitment to humanity that comes through in one’s words, deeds, and relationships is far more convincing. This quality is far more important than some techniques that she may have picked up in a recent conflict-management seminar. A universal outlook, a sensitivity to human pain no matter who suffers, a keen desire to come to the assistance of people in anxiety, these are some of the qualities that a peacemaker needs to cultivate.

16. As battles rage, bringing the right people together for negotiations itself is an achievement. Now, who are the right people? It is not likely that the frontline fighters will come to talk. Their skills lie in another direction. It is not likely either that the war hawks will deign to sit for dialogue. They have a vested interest in keeping the fires burning. I would describe the people who matter in a peace-dialogue as “socially important people”: people who are respected in society; groups whose opinions have wide acceptability among both radicals and moderates, like thinkers, writers, speakers and people who stir society with their charismatic leadership or prophetic utterances.

17. Their “importance” is not to be measured by their rank in the social hierarchy, the size of their purse, or the number of thugs they command. The people who really matter in the fighting federation are those who think, provide a philosophy for action, develop strategies, keep public contacts, and control publicity.

18. Do not be bewildered by these qualification. Very often the ‘big’ man is a small man. He may not be a graduate. He may even be illiterate. He may be a humble, soft-spoken person, a stocky and stunted figure. But he is a perceptive person, and has the ear of the militant ‘boss’ and his confederates. Plato thought that we would have the ideal society if it was ruled by philosophers. I do not want to discuss the merit of this view, but merely want to say that it is not the thinkers that often rule.

19. Even in political or militant movements the same is true. The doer is not always the thinker. He acts fast, but does not always reflect. So, after organizing a few agitations, he is exhausted; or after killing a few harmless people and inflicting severe injury on the other party, he runs short of ideas, and the entire movement fizzles out. It is the thinker that interprets history, constructs a theory, visualizes a future in order to sustain the movement. I am not referring necessarily to just one person. There may be many at different levels of the hierarchy scattered in the various units.

20. It is not likely that you will easily persuade the key-thinkers of a militant organization to come to the negotiation-table. The next best thing to do is to draw those who are close to them; and the next best thing again is to get those who are close to those who are close to them. In other words, we may have to work through mediators, or at least such people as, we think, have some influence on the guiding-group in the organization. Though we have such comprehensive plans, those who really come for dialogue may be persons totally remote from the frontlines. But at least they should be respected persons in their own society. Even if ultimately those who turn up are people who are known to be peaceable, as long as they have the confidence of their own societies, the message will ultimately reach intended circles.

21. A last piece of advice is this: it is not sufficient to send a routine letter of invitation to the participants in the parleys. The peacemaker may have to do a certain amount of personal canvassing (directly or through respected representatives) to make sure that key people will not be missing. Or else, she may be greatly disappointed with the turn- up.

22. There are times when negotiators representing conflicting interests will feel unprepared to meet each other. Even if they are already at the venue, they may feel emotionally and mentally not yet ready for direct discussions. It would be best that they spend some period of time in separate gatherings, to thrash out their own two separate points of view, and get themselves ready for actual negotiations. Some time also may be very profitably spent at a common gathering of all the participants of both parties, in which the peacemaker herself or some other neutral animator(s) may make a passionate appeal for peace, basing themselves on arguments from human experience, philosophical thought, wisdom of the respective societies, (and if they are believers) teaching from the scriptures. Depending on the charisma and moral authority of the animator(s) a great measure of mental transformation takes place during such an exercise. Experience is witness to this fact.

23. It is only when both parties feel ready to meet each other, does the peacemaker invite them to come together. After a few motivating words from the peacemaking team, one spokesman (spokeswoman) from each side places the entire problem before the general assembly as his/her group perceives it, expresses his/her desire for peace, points to possible difficulties, proposes solutions and alternatives, invokes collaboration from the other side in the most acceptable way possible, and concludes. After this, there may be common discussions to deepen the understanding of the problem and of each others’ position on the entire matter. A few rounds of separate and common meetings to narrow the differences and widen the areas of consensus may bring the participants to the final stage and conclusions. Often such efforts fail, and the peacemaker has to begin all over again.

24. I would suggest that during the entire period of the negotiations the peacemaker remains merely helpful and intelligent, leaving full freedom to the contestants to thrash out their differences. Only during a deadlock should she offer some suggestions, mostly regarding procedures. Occasionally it may serve to draw the attention of the debaters to some point of view they had overlooked. The less she presses her vision, her course of action or her set of solutions on the participants the better. If the solutions are their own, they have a better chance of winning wide acceptance and of being implemented.

25. The best role of the peacemaker is that of a confidence-builder, facilitator, creator of a serene atmosphere…an atmosphere in which interactions become easy. If she remains inconspicuous and keeps a low-profile, her long-term contribution can be greater. But the temptation to win recognition and wide acclaim is so great, that the peacemaker, if she is successful, rushes into the roles of a mediator, arbitrator and judge. Even if the contestants agree to such an idea, it would be unwise to assume such roles. Winning the headlines may be flattering, but the fruits therefrom may not last long. The simple reason is that the solutions you propose are not theirs. Doing things as though not doing it-----that is the role of the true peacemaker.

26. Premature publicity is fatal to the cause. By this I do not mean to say she should keep media at a distance. But she should feel free from having to play up to the gallery. She should not give chance to those opposing the cause of peace to track her down at every step and make her stumble. If she is not careful, they can undermine her initiatives long before they begin to yield fruits. That is why I say premature publicity can leave you exposed and vulnerable.

27. Living together always means being prepared for compromises. This is true of a family, a village, a nation or the international community. The most valuable contribution the peacemaking team can make is to lead opposing partners towards a gradual awareness of this great truth. Self evident as it is, if you rush to conclusions urging compromise and quoting adages and aphorisms when the anger is still high, the pedagogic process you have initiated may be disturbed. It is far more profitable to draw their attention to the disastrous consequences of on-going conflict. You have to walk a long distance with them sharing the pain of their people. Only when they are mentally prepared to look for alternative solutions, is it pedagogic to propose compromises.

28. It is unwise too to prompt specific issues on which a compromise may be worked out. It is best that they emerge from the participants’ lived experience and their own agonizing search for a way out of the deadlock they are caught up in. Prodding compromises in the area of their central concerns may appear insensitive to them. What they themselves are ultimately willing to concede is their gift to God in view the future of their community and that of humanity.

29. Often the negotiators themselves have no authority to decide on issues in behalf of the two contending parties. But they can make recommendations. And if these are well-phrased, balanced and respond to realities, they may evoke a good reaction. The participants in the first trend-setting meeting we have described above, can make an effort to organize similar meetings at the local level, try to reproduce the same atmosphere and goodwill, and discuss the recommendations that they have drawn up for the public. Each party will do this with their own people and then with others. If there is wide acceptance of the proposals, the communities may move on to final negotiations in the presence of civil authorities, in which the peacemaker need not take part at all. If in the process she is clean forgotten or is marginalized, she should rejoice, for it is God who is the author of peace no matter who all served the cause.

30. The problems that the peacemaker will have to face are of infinite variety. There may be stiff opposition to the entire effort from interested parties on either side. The peacemaker may appear a threat to militants committed to violence and to those benefiting from the insecurity created by armed conflict. Violence is not broken by superior violence, it is broken by another power: a tremendous capacity to endure suffering. If you want to save the lives of others, be prepared for death. Several peacemakers have given their lives for their cause: in recent History, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

31. In the same way, representatives of the Government may be suspicious. Petty-minded officers may be jealous. Certain groups may be critical and unhappy about the influence that you seem to exert. There may be negative interpretations in the press. There may be repeated failures in the peace-promoting work itself.

32. Negotiators whom the peacemaker contacted may refuse to put up an appearance. Their ears may be poisoned against such initiatives. Follow-up efforts may never take off. People may get discouraged from the recurrence of violence. Collective anger may be rekindled if their community is hit again unexpectedly. Malicious rumours may be deliberately spread. The press may inflate the number of victims, interpret the issues wrongly, ignore the peacemaker’s initiatives and successes. She may feel left alone to struggle. But even in the midst of troubles, she should hold her head high. She need not try to refute every charge and counter every opposition. She could respond to these difficulties with simple explanations or even by allowing things to happen and events to flow. She could let people speak just as they wish for a while. But she should be honest and upright in her intent and ego-less in her service. Her very non-resistance may prove a turning-point for the current to reverse the flow. And finally, the truth reveals itself.

33. She may come across another type of difficulty as the dialogue progresses. It will seem to her as though words have changed their meanings. For example, someone may be using the word ‘justice’ to refer to the advantage of his own community only, not of others. By ‘peace’ he may mean retaining in serenity a whole lot unfair advantages and privileges. ‘Democracy’ may mean doing as one pleases, freedom to do injustice, or total chaos. Sometimes discussions cannot make headway because the contestants have their own style of using words, their own way of interpreting history, their own strategies of making allegations, their own fashion of creating myths. The peacemaker should not give up.

34. She may come across contradictions between professed intentions and actual conduct. This is as much true of local gunmen and World Powers. Wars may be fought for saving democracy on the one hand and salvaging one’s imperial interests on the other, or for defending human rights and the flow of oil into one’s tankers. People who claim to be allegedly fighting to save their ethnic identity and cultural heritage, may, in fact, be striving to keep the routes of their drug-trade clear. Even so, at depths they all have some good will. The peacemaker does not turn cynical, but tries to ransom people from their own inconsistencies.

35. If memories of historic injuries are alive in people’s hearts and if negative stereotypes of each other have developed, it will be difficult to solve the problem in a short time. In such a case, every peace-agreement is a truce. Hostilities may be renewed any time. But the peacemaker finds renewed strength and motivation in her faith and love. She is ready to begin all over again. She gets busy with the healing of historic injuries and demolishing of stereotypes. For God will is with her.

36. During our relief operations at Kokrajhar in 1996 when 400 volunteers worked for 4 months in hearty unity, a brief prayer in the morning and evening gave us the needed strength to toil tirelessly in the rain and in the heat. The mysticism of the brief moment to which we clung passionately during those difficult days, helped us to welcome new volunteers as they came, to create a climate of mutual esteem and collaborate across cultures, to overcome tensions, to recognize our vulnerability and seek remedies, to join hands together ecumenically and inter-religiously, and serve 250,000 victims of an ethnic conflict. Silence is strength, prayer provides energies.

Peace is God’s gift

37. Most peacemakers in history failed in their central objective. Peace did not always come in response to their efforts. Not rarely, they lost their lives. Their accounts read like a tragic waste. But nothing is lost in God. Peace comes in His own good time, independently of all that the peacemaker can do. The fighting may end for many reasons: weapons run short; fighters are exhausted; army pressure mounts; good sense comes to prevail. There are many ways in which God makes people beat swords into ploughshares.

38. The peacemaker’s effort is like the flickering lamp over the high altar, which speaks of a Presence and whispers hope. And when His peace comes at last, there is sunshine and joy over every hill and in every valley. It is a sunshine that pierces the secret thoughts of every heart, dispelling gloom and holding out hopes.

******* ********