The Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme from West Bengal and other parts of India has opened avenues to researchers from social sciences and management domain to learn the process of change and factors responsible for the new programme (Roy, 1993).
Villagers may differ from the angles of caste, class, occupation, age, sex etc., but they need a common goal for resource management. Experiences in community forestry programme has shown that conflict is essentially based on inequity and inequality. They can be classified as follows :
Classification of conflict based on inequity and inequality
Inequity is very much present in respect of gender and its access to and control of resources.
Inequality manifests in -
1) Gender
2) Religion
3) Nationality
4) Race
5) Political ethos
6) Occupation and
7) Distribution of resources.
Stakeholders have different interests and goals. Each of the stakeholders tries to achieve goal by different means and actions. This happens because of weak institutional norms, rules and regulations and lack of trust among the partners.
After a lengthy period dominated by economic considerations and de-escalating to quantitative growth, the human factor has resumed its rightful place, both as the driving force and the ultimate recipient of development (Huynth Cao tr, et.al. 1986). Human beings develop their own identity based on socialisation, further through education and employment. Here lies the importance of sensitization. It is one of the vital processes to educate people to make them aware of reality and motivate them to resolve disputed issues.
What is sensitization? Its redeeming features
Sensitization enables people to come out of their shell of prejudices and narrowly perceived world. After sensitization a person can test the reality with reasonings and from an objective view-point, using his experience fully, seeking alternative solutions and estimating the consequences of each alternative step (Roy, 1992). Reality testing will be in the form of separating facts from fantasy, opinions, feelings and even traditions. Sensitization includes perceiving and evaluating the prevailing situation and relating the factual date to past knowledge and experience. After sensitization one can take calculated risk, not just jump into action out of enthusiasm and impulses. Even the risk taking is based on realistic, dependable and complete information strengthening a person’s ability to gather, organize and evaluate information more accurately. His own learning, experience and awareness can be evaluated by himself. Sometimes his inner conflicts or interactions between his own ego states are consciously evaluated (at the psychic level) and past assumptions are accepted or rejected on the basis of reality needs and appropriateness.
Thus a sensitized person is mentally prepared for conflict resolution. His mental state becomes really fire-proof even though at times may appear to be defensive. He becomes an unbiased spectator, capable of resolving problems and conflicts calmly and happily.
Approaches to manage conflict
There are some basic steps towards conflict management. They are :
(1) Self sensitization - understanding one’s own self and interactions of ego states.
(2) Active listening.
(3) Maintaining eye contact with the people spoken to.
(4) Recognizing the strength of the people and praising them sincerely.
(5) Respecting common ground and identity.
(6) Giving correct information. If information is inadequate, using non-verbal communication such as gesture or tone.
(7) Seeking options and suggestions.
(8) Respecting values.
(9) Pragmatic planning emanating from the people.
(10) Having precise commitments - what, how, when, who, where.
(11) Monitoring plans of action.
The above approaches would be meaningful in the context of a case study.
It was at Sarugarh, North Bengal. The forest was fast depleting. With considerable efforts specially on the part of the Range officer, a forest protection committee was formed. For a systematic and well-monitored collection of fuel by the community members, identity cards were issued.
The community members were refugees from the neighbouring country and even the women were quite vocal about their demands. The proximity of the large town centre, Siliguri, created additional pressure on the use and sell of the forest products. The forest was deteriorating rapidly and the Forest Department was worried and seemed to be helpless. There was a tense conflict situation between the FD and the FC.
At this stage IBRAD came into picture to help resolve the conflict and come out with a micro plan for the development of the forest community.
IBRAD researchers and faculty members met quite a few people of the community in front of a temple. They all sat on the ground and disclosed their identity - that they were from an NGO in Calcutta, they all had heard about their FPC, one of the earliest FPCs in West Bengal. The IBRAD people wanted to know the methods of running the FPC to learn from them as students.
The villagers were however very vocal and came out with the following charter of demands :
(1) Fuel for all.
(2) Valid identity cards to be issued and respected by the forest department officials so that fuel collection were not hindered.
(3) The local forest ranger was to be removed.
(4) The FD must come to terms with the villagers.
Seeing the tense feeling of the villages, IBRAD people tried to diffuse the emotional outbursts and started an exercise on resource mapping. They spread a big piece of chart paper on the ground and requested the villagers to teach them about the village, its resources, forest etc. and draw a map of the village. After some hesitation one villager came forward and began to draw the map. Slowly curiosity was aroused and those who were around contributed either to map preparation and discussion or just discussion throughout the map making (conflict resolution) process.
The objective was not to develop a good and correct map of the village, but to get men and women involved in some activities. The IBRAD people have learnt from the past experiences that however much the villagers remain critical about the development programmes imposed from outside, when they work together a different kind of relationship is built up. Moreover, when people share information about their own village, its roads, wells, paddy fields, ponds, trees, schools, temples etc. they shift from critical positions to cold facts. The field worker submits himself or herself as a learner with all humility. Villagers then feel proud of their knowledge, feel important and are willing to share their indigenous knowledge with the outsider. These activities help develop work relationship between the villagers and the outsiders and among the villagers themselves. Women also come forward and sometimes indicate the mistakes made by others during the mapping exercise. They substantially contribute to the mapping.
More than 100 men, women and children assembled around the ‘outsiders’. It was evident that the critical behaviour against the foresters was reduced because the foresters present there were also asking questions to the villagers about the mapping. They had also sat down on the ground, at the same level with others.
Now the foresters had to collect information on the demography profile and the actual needs of the villagers. The foresters were asking questions and the villagers’ answers were being noted by foresters on the printed format of the Forest Department. It was also seen by the researchers of IBRAD that the expectations of the villagers were raised high and higher when questions like ‘how many of you can be employee?’, ‘Do you need fuel?’, ‘What kind of employment do you require?’, ‘Do you need drinking water from the government well?’, ‘Do you need roads to be constructed by the government?’ were asked.
Being tuned to the notion of a popular government dishing out everything they need, the villagers perceived that whenever any government official asked such questions, he was certainly going to give something to the villagers. So they often shifted from fact finding attitude to the begging one and demanded a lot of things which was not possible for any government to provide. Here the villagers demanded :
(1) Employment for all
(2) Fuel for all
(3) A lozenge factory to be constructed
(4) Sewing centres to be established
(5) Good roads to be constructed
(6) Drinking water facilities provided
(7) Special schemes for employment.
All these were faithfully recorded by the foresters.
The researchers and the facilitator, Dr. S. B. Roy, were all listening to the problems and expectations of the villagers. Dr. Roy quietly intercepted and posed some questions to them : Is it possible for the government to provide employment for all? Can the central or state government do it? The forest department is only a tiny part of a government. The range officer’s is again a negligible post of the department. How can the officer meet all your demands? If you ask for more than what the department can offer you, are you not heading for the impossible?
Surprisingly they all admitted the demands were too high and unrealistic. They admitted that the forest was the only sustaining factor for their living and they must protect and enlarge it for their own survival. Their grievances against the range officer and the department boiled down to only two things : i) the villagers must be treated like human beings, ii) The identity cards issued by the department must be respected by all its officers. They must not contradict themselves. The villagers assured the facilitators of proper care of the forest if a meaningful joint management is ensured.
When the IBRAD people were about to get up, the villagers specially invited them : “Please come again to our village. We have enjoyed your company and talks very much. We have never seen any official sitting on the floor.”
Dr. Roy, the facilitator said, “We are very happy to meet you and spend some time with you. I am sure there will be good cooperation between you and the forest department. I will come again to see a good forest.”
One of the villagers who looked like a leader said, “Yes, we are also happy to hear good words from you. Please suggest how best we can go about the FPC?”
Suddenly an idea flashed in. Dr. Roy thought, “If the people have so much good will and love for us because we listened to them for a while, why not try this power of love in resolving the conflict with the range officer? After all, he has done a lot for the villagers, moved from door to door to form the FPC, sincerely devoted his energy to protect and enlarge the forest!” So he said, “The power is with you and you can do it.”
The villagers looked on eagerly. The first author said, “Can you do one thing for my sake?” They answered they could with pleasure. The first author assured them that they could change the range officer instantly. “How is that possible?” - One surprised villager burst out. The first author smiled and said, “Will you do what I say?” The villagers answered in one voice, “yes, of course”. Then the first author came out with his idea. “Just tell the Range officer,” You are a good range officer. You have come to our village. We are grateful to you. We want to protect the forest. We want to have your help and we will support you.”
All the villagers were quiet. No one responded. It was evidently very difficult for them to say good words for the Range officer. Then the facilitator said, “What happened? You the simple innocent villagers are rich in one thing - the power of love. Show it to the Range officer and this will surely change his heart. Can’t you do this for me? Even if it looks artificial or mechanical, please do it and see for yourself what happens. The rest I will take care of.
The villagers agreed to do it for the facilitator who advised them to go to the nearby training centre for forest officials at about 10 a.m. and say what he had asked them to in presence of the DFO with due respect to the Range officer.
The villagers promised to do so and said, “We will also show him that we are not bad people and we all want the forest department to work for us.”
Next morning in the midst of the training programme, the villagers came in a large group in the form of a procession. They brought garlands. They entered the camp where many forest officials including the CCF and DFO and Range Officers were present. The villagers put the garland round the neck of the Range Officer and said, “Sir, we have come for you and need your help. You have come to our village for our benefit. We are grateful to you.”
The Range Officer could not anticipate it. He was visibly shocked and overwhelmed with emotion. He lowered his head down to receive the garland. He then said in a chocked voice : “I never knew so many villagers are with me. I never knew so many villagers love me. I promise I will go to the village. I will go there next Tuesday and will try to start some schemes for you.”
What lesson do we derive from this real life case study? Let us tabulate them here :
(1) The whole story may appear very simplistic. But if we delve into the mater a little deeper, we will realize that the simple tool that emerged out of experiences and researches of different disciplines is essentially love, empathy and objective concern for the resolution of conflicts.
(2) The tools will be effective when we clearly understand the logic of our approaches.
(3) For emotion-free management of conflict, self-sensitization is of utmost importance.
(4) To spread the gospel of conflict management, short workshops and manuals are helpful.
(5) In the same way follow-up and process documentation of conflict management at different places can go a long way to help management workers.
(6) Conflict management is done in various ways all over the world. Many of them are well-documented. Collection of bibliography and sharing through net-working are vital for our efforts.
Acknowledements
Authors express their sincere gratitude to Mr. S. Roy, IFS, (then CF), the Divisional Forest Officer, the Range officer of Sarugarh Range and other forest officials for extending all possible support and participating in the process. Villagers deserve appreciation for providing us an opportunity of learning while working with them. Without them this experiment of “How to resolve conflict” would not have been successful. Our sincere thank go to Mr. Debabrata Ghosh, educationist for editing the research paper. We are thankful to Mr. Indranil Bhattacharya for computerising the report.
References
Bendix, Reinhard. “Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power,” In Merton, et al (eds.) Reader in Bureaucracy. (Glencoe: Free Press, 1952, 114-134.)
Collins, Randall. Conflict Sociology (New York : Academic Press, 1975).
Coser, Lewis A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, III. Free Press.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1971). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Standford, Calif,: Standford University Press.
Dhyani, S.K. (1980). Chipko Andolan, Kyon our Kaise? (In Hindi), Himalaya, 4(6): 29-32.
Dibble, Ursula, & Straus, Murray. (1980). “Some social structure determinants of inconsistency between attitudes and behavior : The case of family violence.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(February) : 71-82.
Freeman, David M. (1974). Technology and Society : Issues in Assessment, Conflict, and Choice. Chicago : Rand-MacNally.
Gecas, Victor. (1981). “Contexts of socialization.” In Morris Rosenberg & Ralph H. Turner (Eds.), Social Psychology : Sociological Perspectives (pp.165-199). New York : Basic Books.
Malhotra, K.C., D. Deb, T.S. Vasulu, M. Dutta, G. Yadav and M. Adhikari. (1991), Role of non-timber forest produce in village economy : A household survey in Jamboni range Midnapore district, West Bengal, IBRAD, Calcutta.
Malhotra, K.C. and M., Poffenberger, (1989). (Ed.) Forest protection through community participation. Working paper, West Bengal Forest Department, West Bengal, India.
Marx, Gary T. (Ed.). (1971). Racial Conflict.Boston : Little, Brown.
Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social structure, N.Y. : Macmillan, pp.387.
Oberschall, A. (1973). Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
“Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook” Resources Management Support Series No. 1. The National Environ. Secretariate, Govt. Of Kenya Clark University, Egerton Univ. The Centre for International Development and Environment of the World Resource Institute.
Parajuli, Pramod. (1991). “Power and knowledge in development discourse : new social movements and the state in India”. International Social Science Journal : International Conflict Research, No. 127 : 173-190.
Phillip, Viegas and Geeta Menon. (1991). Forest protection committees of West Bengal : Role and participation of women. Paper prepared for the ILO workshop on “Women and wasteland development”, New Delhi.
Ritzer, George. (1977). Working : Conflict and Change (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Roy, S.B. (1991). Forest Protection Committees in West Bengal, India : Emerging Policy Issues. Working paper prepared on Social Forestry, Environment Policy Institute, East West Centre, Hawaii.
Roy, S.B. and Mitali, Chatterjee (1990). Manual for orientation course on the microplanning through participatory forest management system. Working paper of IBRAD, Calcutta.
Singh, A.K. et al. (1987). Forest resource, economy and environment. New Delhi : Concept Publishing Co.
Smelser, Neil J. (1962). Theory of Collective Behavior. New York : Free Press.
Star, Akos. (1984). Culture and power. Sage Publishing.
Stryker, Sheldon. (1981). “Symbolic interactionism : Themes and variations.” In Morris Rosenberg & Ralph H. Turner (Eds.), Social Psychology : Sociological Perspectives (pp.3-29). New York : Basic Books.
Suttles, G.D. (1972). The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Toennies, Ferdinand. Community and Society (1887) trans. & Ed. Charles A. Loomis. (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957)
Turner, Ralph H. (1964). “Collective behavior.” In R.E.L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology (pp.382-425). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Weber, Max. (1970a). “Bureaucracy.” In H.H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp.196-240). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1910).
Wellman, Barry. (1979). “The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers.” American Journal of Sociology, 84(March): 1201-1231.
Zurcher, Louis A. (1977). The Mutable Self: A Self-Concept for Change. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
♣ Chairman, Indian Institute of Bio-Social Research and Development (IBRAD), 3A Hindustan Road, Calcutta – 700 029.
♦ Project Director, IBRAD
♥ Project Director, IBRAD
