Skip to main content

The role of Governance in the Resolution of Socioeconomic and Political Conflict in India and Europe

Final Report Summary - CORE (The role of Governance in the Resolution of Socioeconomic and Political Conflict in India and Europe)

Executive Summary:
Through extensive collaboration between Indian and European researchers, the CORE project (Cultures of Governance and Conflict Resolution in Europe and India) has produced a range of new theory and empirical material on the topic of liberal governance in culturally complex conflict-ridden environments. While centring on conflicts in Europe and India, these findings are of general relevance to governance initiatives in the domains of conflict resolution and peacebuilding throughout the world. In particular, the findings of the CORE project serve as a corrective to theories and policies of ‘global governance’ that give insufficient attention to the cultural biases and local political dynamics of the increasingly sophisticated techniques of liberal governance. The focus of the project has not primarily been on the culture of ‘the governed,’ however, but on the cultural premises of the governance, as seen from perspective of the governed, and how these premises relate to the needs for peace and security that the governance is supposed to address. This focus has thereby questioned the very conceptions of peace, security, democracy and human rights that currently inform liberal approaches to conflict resolution and peacebuilding – approaches that are essential to EU foreign and security policy. The scientifically challenging combination of the study of EU foreign engagement and Indian domestic engagement has proven particularly fruitful for this purpose.

Specifically, CORE has achieved the following objectives:

• Analysing how increasingly globally articulated and networked norms, rules and policies of governance are transforming and affecting conflicts locally;
• Assessing how and to what degree governance measures on global, regional, state and local levels impact each other in a multi-level dynamic, how these dynamics affect the local legitimacy of peace processes;
• Comparing how an emerging EU peacebuilding framework, loosely defined by principles of liberal peace and regional integration or association, compares with regional strategies aimed at dealing with conflict on and around the Indian subcontinent;
• Mapping and analysing a select set of current governance programmes and interventions that are set up to address conflicts in Europe and India;
• Refining methodologies for fieldwork based analysis of governance initiatives implemented in societies of long-term conflict;
• Improving the knowledge and understanding of the cultural dynamics of current governance, peace and development practices in India and Europe;
• Thereby making a significant contribution to basic research on global politics, conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and governance by advancing the theoretical and methodological basis for analysing and assessing the political and social impact of governance initiatives.

CORE brought together five research teams based in India (from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the University of Delhi, the Malaviya Centre for Peace Research at Benares Hindu University in Varanasi, the Society for Participatory Research in Asia located in Delhi, and the Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group in Calcutta) and five teams in Europe (the Peace Research Institute Oslo, the University of St Andrews/University of Manchester, the Central European University, Budapest, the Institute of International Affairs, Rome and the Berghof Conflict Research/Berghof Foundation Operations in Berlin). Together, these teams investigated the effect of governance initiatives on the conflict dynamics in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Georgia, Bihar/Jharkhand, Kashmir and Northeast India.


Project Context and Objectives:
Project Context

The CORE project emerged from the observation that the post-Cold War world, and especially the last decade, is faced by multiple challenges. The international system is becoming both more interdependent, and at the same time more heterogeneous. New forms of nationalism, ethnic conflict and civil war, resource conflicts, transnational terrorism, and violent communalism challenge the conventional means of understanding conflicts and of assuring the peace and stability of the European Union and India.

The changing character of conflicts is a reflection of political and economical changes in local and world structures, economy and politics. Political changes, the strengthening of nationalistic ideologies, as well as violent mobilisation along identity lines, are experienced in both India and the E.U. At the state level, these challenges are causing increasing clashes between different groups within state boundaries, or between the state and internal groups. At the same time, a rise in intra-state conflicts have led to the question of how the state is to adapt to challenges of globalisation, and the role of state institutions and governance agendas in responding to these changes. Part of this challenge is conceptual: the concepts of governance, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution, both in practice and in theory are largely contested.

At the same time, many contemporary large-scale violent conflicts reveal themselves as hybrid socio-political exchanges in which modern state-centric as well as pre-modern traditional and post-modern factors mix and overlap. Several contemporary conflicts, such as Kashmir, North East India, Cyprus and Bosnia, have historical roots dating back to the re-territorialisation of space and identities of colonial times. This raises the question of how new governance structures or regionalised approaches not only to address the current situation, but also accommodate different experiences and interpretations of a shared past. Societies experiencing conflicts will furthermore have competing understandings of solutions to economic, societal and political problems, and different ways of approaching the premises of democracy.

The challenges and solutions to conflicts both in India and the EU are to address and accommodate diversity through acknowledging and addressing the plurality that exists in the host societies. It is thus necessary that different cultural understandings be integrated into regional and supranational policy frameworks seeking to build sustainable peace structures.

The EU region faces very different challenges than Indian state, which is also rapidly modernising and urbanising. Both are under pressure to develop coherent strategies for dealing with conflict. These processes are occurring against a background of India’s phenomenal economic growth and rapid economic, social and environmental change, which is placing pressure on traditional structures and systems of governance, as well as on the basic institutions of the state. India is also playing an increasingly prominent regional role and, through the BRIC and other forums, a more prominent international role.

As the EU and India seek to develop their relations, simultaneously as strategic partners and competitors, they will be confronted with a set of shared and individual problems. There will be opportunities for mutual learning and cooperation. In both the EU and India, we see large confections (a regional organisation in the case of the EU and a multi-ethnic state in the case of India) attempting to present a homogenising agenda. Governance (and the rhetoric of governance) offers potentially sophisticated ways through which states and international organisations can manage conflicts, but much depends on how conflicts are framed and understood. Both India and the EU are under pressure from a range of local and civil society actors to improve representation, rights, democratic practices, the rule of law, security and development, as well as having to confront regional and structural concerns.

Conflict resolution agendas have in the last two decades for the most part been shaped by the political objective of bringing political and economic liberalization in the name of promoting of human rights, rule of law and democracy. However, these strategies often fail to take into consideration the complex social and cultural contexts of the local level. There CORE project developed from the observation that there is a gap in knowledge about the impact that governance agendas have on local conflict dynamics, especially in the cases where identity mobilisation is a prominent factor in the conflict. The contention of the project was furthermore that solutions to this issue must start from improved, but not instrumental or essentialised knowledge and understanding of the cultural dynamics of current practices, as well as intimate acquaintance with the specific cultural context in question. While a burgeoning literature exists on the conditions of democracy, development and peace around the world, there has been a lack of basic research on the effect of implementation of these objectives through governance initiatives on local populations and conflict dynamics.

Against this backdrop, the CORE project sought to analyse the premises and operation of governance initiatives in conflict transformation processes through a combination of fieldwork, qualitative analysis and theory development. In order to address the Indian and European context in depth, six case studies were chosen that encompassed recent governance practices in Bihar/Jharkhand, Bosnia, Cyprus, Georgia, North East India and Kashmir. The CORE project furthermore consisted of a solid consortium with an equal number of partner institutes from Indian and Europe that led to a highly productive and rewarding collaboration between Indian and European researchers.


Project objectives

The CORE project had as objective to review and critique current approaches to conflict resolution in an attempt to revise and improve both the theoretical and operational sides of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The overall aim of the CORE project was thereby to analyse the impact of governance agendas for peacebuilding in conflict societies in which the European Union and India are implicated, and to positively impact the agendas through scientific development and policy recommendations. This two-sided approach made use of a variety of competencies in order to both gather information and to present it in a focused and meaningful way to those who are directly implicated in governance policy, conflict resolution and peacebuilding agendas. The general architecture of the project reflected this general challenge.

The CORE project also sought to clarify a set of principles aimed at understanding the philosophical dimensions of peace and governance. In addition, the CORE project had as objective to facilitate a reciprocal learning process between appropriate parties of the European Union and Indian actors and policy makers in order to enhance the perspectives and methods of both.



The research approach and scientific objectives of the project centred on the following overarching research question:

What are the premises and local effects of governance initiatives at state and regional level in conflicts in India and Europe?

This question involved three themes (WP4), each comprising a range of sub‐questions:

Theme A: The socio-cultural and political premises of European and Indian governance initiatives in areas of conflict transition/resolution
• Which conceptions of peace, human rights and democracy promotion are embedded in current governance initiatives in conflict areas, and how are these premises promoted in governance initiatives?
• To what extent are values embedded in the promotion of these premises effectively addressing the local conflict transformation process and subsequent peace?
• How are categories/identities of people framed by the governance actors, i.e. how are they being conceptualised and ‘managed’?

Theme B: The impact of governance agendas on conflict resolution on local level and the reverse
• How are governance initiatives conceived by the various affected populations in the local host-societies?
• What are the major factors in the conflicts and which governance issues are central to their resolution?
• What are the local implications of governance initiatives on identity conflicts- both regarding spatial, political and social factors?

Theme C: Socio-economic and political conditions for sustainable resolution of conflict
• To what extent can actors and processes of governance adapt to local cultural systems and practices and still be in accordance with the principles of human rights and democracy? Which of the initiatives have been successful in creating such hybrid structures and norms?
• What are the social, political and economical conditions necessary for sustainable conflict resolution processes in the case studies?
• To what extent are (changes in) socio-economical environment influencing/escalating conflict where identity mobilization is prominent, and how can these issues be politically addressed?

The interdisciplinary investigation of the questions listed above complemented an existing theoretical body on conflict resolution and governance with theories and perspectives reflecting the academic background of the project members. This included sociology, social anthropology, cultural theory, postcolonial studies, law, conflict resolution/transformation and ethics/philosophy.

Essentially, the CORE project sought to improve the state-of-the-art on EU and India’s promotion of peace, human rights and democracy in conflict regions by increasing the awareness of their cultural premises and impact and relating this to the general normative principles of EU and India’s conflict resolution and peacebuilding policies. Furthermore, the project aimed to suggest concrete operational implications of these insights, through applying the terminology on the cultural dimension of conflict resolution that has been developed throughout the project. A key part of the project thereby was the interrogation of the cultural assumptions that allow states, international organisations and others to frame conflicts in ways that often suit power-holders and disadvantage those who wish to dissent or who are engaged with localised practices of peacebuilding in various ways.


During the first phase of the project (WP2 and WP3), the researchers applied existing theories and literature within their respective fields to the questions of the themes. This prepared the ground for the empirical part of the study, where the same questions have been applied to five cases of governance in a search for case specific answers to the general research themes (WP4). The case studies were conducted by teams consisting of both Indian and European researchers.

The case studies involved a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative element implied fieldwork conducted by teams consisting of both native and foreign researchers. The quantitative method involves the collection and analysis of all governance actors and approaches involved in the cases (WP3). The findings from the cases have been integrated in the subsequent analyses (WP4-WP6). Here, the researchers returned to complementary aspects of the thematic areas in a consorted effort at illuminating the research question from all relevant sides. Through this exercise, the project entered its final phase by turning to concrete implications for EU policies to promote peace, human rights and democracy (WP6).

Project Results:

The overall aim of the project has been to analyse the impact of governance agendas for peacebuilding in conflict societies in which the European Union and/or India are impacted and to positively impact the agendas through scientific development and policy recommendations. This two-sided approach makes use of a variety of competencies in order to both gather information and to provide it in a focused and meaningful way to those who are directly implicated in Governance and Conflict Resolution agendas. The general architecture of the project reflects this general challenge. The project clarifies a set of principles aimed at understanding the philosophical dimensions of peace and governance. With the research results processes and analysed in a case-by-case comparative way, the focus then returns to formulating input to both training and policy positions that can meaningfully impact the processes and operations that lead to enduring peace.

The most significant result of the CORE project is an emerging understanding of the similarities and differences between India’s and the EU’s governance strategies in conflict countries and their impact on conflict dynamics. In the scholarly articles produced by the project we have elaborated and contrasted the narratives, instruments, and aims underlying those overarching approaches, compared their application across conflict contexts and attempted to assess the effect of those governance strategies. By investigating whether India’s and the EU’s interventions in conflict countries follow consistent patterns we are furthermore trying to evaluate whether distinct governance cultures are emerging in the EU and India.

The project has produced research detailing how EU interventions in conflict countries tend to focus on governance reforms of political and economic frameworks, instead of interfering in the geopolitical context or the underlying power asymmetries that fuel conflict. The EU’s approach diverges from prevalent liberal governance paradigms mainly in its engagement with social, identity, and socio-economic exclusion. Comparative analysis of the case studies shows a large variation of statebuilding, development and institution-building practices across conflict contexts though. This variation stems not only from an engagement with divergent root causes of conflict, but also from implementation failures, the EU’s tendency to bow to external pressures and the lack of coordination between different components of its governance strategies. As a consequence of those intervening variables the EU’s governance strategies tend to fall back on internationally pre-dominant development, peacebuilding and statebuilding rationalities, seeking to appease post-conflict societies through economic and political progress.

The project results suggest that India’s governance approach can best be explained through the interplay of historical, cultural and normative factors in their socioeconomic and political context. In this context, as in others, the overarching approach varies in strategies tackling economic marginalization, decentralisation and security alongside multidimensional issues of recognition and representation. Our analysis shows how party politics can represent a hegemonic consensus with or resistance against governmental policies. Moreover, our research elaborates in which ways governance interventions are resisted on the ground by grassroots actors and local insurgent movements. In comparison with the EU’s governance-as-peace model, India’s approach applies hard security to a greater extent; yet, like the EU it combines security with development policies and the involvement of local institutions in the process of conflict resolution.

The project’s investigation into the impact of autonomy-based conflict resolution strategies highlighted an intricate pattern of (sometimes contradictory) long- and short-term effects. In Jammu and Kashmir, Cyprus, Georgia, India’s Northeast and Bosnia, acute hostilities were minimised or even ended through the territorial separation of the conflict parties. However, territorial separation and ethnic segregation of conflict parties have over time added new layers to the existing conflicts. Partition-induced migration has reinforced ethnic concentration and thus often prompted a fierce competition over land and employment. Such situations of inter-ethnic rivalry tend to cause new fears of domination and thus new tensions as soon as a previous demographic majority turns into a minority. Power sharing along ethnic lines is often the policy tool of choice to ward off fears of marginalisation. However, ethnic power sharing arrangements and redistribution policies have furthermore reinforced ethnic identities and hardened the divisions over territorial disputes, the issue of internally displaced people, property rights or socio-economic inequality as the cases of BiH, Cyprus, Jammu and Kashmir illustrate. Our reports highlight how identities and interests have been reshaped by autonomy-based governance strategies and how the EU and India have been trying to contain the damaging effects of those strategies, while seizing their conflict-mitigation potential.

The project has executed its research along the division into seven workpackages (WPs). Here follows a summary of the main results of each of these WPs.

1. Theory and methodology (WP2)

The primary objective of WP2 has been to combine the theoretical, methodological and ethical dimensions of the project. The WP consisted of two components: theory and methodology, which were closely linked throughout the course of the project. It was therefore decisive that the concepts were coherently clarified at the start of the project.

Given the diversity in terms of knowledge and experience that the partners brought to the project, WP2 was faced with the task—both challenging and rewarding task of bringing these traditions of knowledge together in a common theoretical framework. Instead of treating this diversity as an obstacle to be overcome by the imposition of a Western, colonial and objectifying approach, WP2, with guidance by the scientific coordinator and significant input and corrections by our Indian partners, saw this diversity as a strength that could be used to elaborate a framework that brings peacebuilding and conflict resolution research into dialogue with a range of innovative thinking, both Indian and European. Hence, insights from feminism, anthropology, sociology and other fields of study were integrated into a truly postcolonial perspective and methodology that pays particular attention to aspects of peace(building) and conflict governance that are largely side-lined in mainstream research, aspects such as interaction across different scales of social action, the hybridisation of liberal peace practices and rationalities, and everyday forms of individual resistance against, adaptations to and transformations of peace initiatives and projects (governmental and civil society). Wishing to complement traditional institutional analyses of conflicts and conflict governance, which are typically based on rational actor models, WP2 developed a framework that is grounded in a concern with the ways and the extent to which representation and language, not least in the form of governmentalities and counter-governmentalities, are crucial to the construction of conflict and peace and their associated subjectivities and cultures.

This WP was structured around two core deliverables: D2.1 Background report and work plan and D2.2 Report on the state of the art of governance and conflict resolution literature. Both deliverables served as living documents, so they have been updated in accordance with the empirical findings from the six case studies.


Deliverable D2.1 Background report and work plan started by identifying the gaps in the existing literature that CORE wants to fill; defined the key concepts guiding the research; elaborated a multi-faceted theoretical framework and an appropriate methodology; and, guided by themes A, B and C as outlined in the DoW, developed a series of research questions to be addressed by the case studies. The research questions draw attention to the importance of analysing culture, local agencies and the everyday in conflict governance as well as the interplay and mutual reinforcement of gender, sex, class, religion, culture, race and caste in conflict and peace processes in order better to grasp them and to develop sustainable and participatory approaches to conflict governance and resolution. Finally, this deliverable prompted a lively discussion among all the partners on the project, which has resulted, among other things, in the partners being encouraged to explore the ways in which violence, decision-making, conflict governance, inclusion and exclusion and peace initiatives are in many ways gendered and how this fact affects the life chances of women, their roles in conflict governance and the different meanings, values and hopes they associate with peace.

Deliverable D2.2 Report on the state of the art of governance and conflict resolution literature focused on providing a comprehensive literature review. With significant contributions by most partners, this deliverable addresses both the mainstream and the critical literature in four areas: conflict resolution and transformation, peacebuilding, state-building and governance literature. With considerable help and input from the Indian partners, the deliverable draws extensively on insights from the Indian literature. In addition to outlining the main arguments in the various bodies of literature, D2.2 highlights the plurality of definitions of CORE’s key concepts. Importantly, this deliverable covers both theoretical work and applied research in the abovementioned areas.

Both reports have been updated throughout the project period as a result of ongoing theoretical conversations among the consortium partners and of new issues, questions and conceptual refinements generated by the empirical case study work, as well as comments coming from stakeholders during dissemination activities. In particular, D2.1 was strengthened by incorporating a stronger focus on gender and culture, notably concerning their interconnectedness with governance and conflict resolution. In addition, the revision of the framework attempted to shed more light on the postcolonial character of the project and the fieldwork.

Overall, WP2 has been instrumental in providing the conceptual and theoretical foundations for the other workpackages and, once they were in place, providing more formal guidelines as well, most notably in WP4 and WP5. Initially, guidance was provided by developing a series of research questions to be addressed by the case studies, which were at the core of WP5, and in the thematic analysis, done in the framework of WP4. Later guidance came primarily in the form of feedback to, and input into the work carried out under WP5 and WP4, with a particular emphasis on ensuring clarity and coherence in theoretical terms. Also, D2.1 was regularly updated and revised in line with the output generated by WP4 and WP5, thus maintaining a fruitful theoretical-empirical dialogue with these WPs.


2. Analysis of Policy (WP3)

The main focus of Workpackage 3 (WP3) was to collect, organize and evaluate data and to analyse policy documents. Hence, the workpackage identified governance initiatives for the fieldwork carried out in WP5, collated and analysed the information for academic publications as well as for a project reports. In addition, substantial attention has been given to the technical work of collating and archiving of research results.

The most significant result of WP3 is an emerging understanding of the similarities and differences between India’s and the EU’s governance strategies in conflict countries and their impact on conflict dynamics. In the scholarly articles D3.2 D3.3 and D3.4 members of the team have elaborated and contrasted the narratives, instruments, and aims underlying those overarching approaches, compared their application across conflict contexts and attempted to assess the effect of those governance strategies. By investigating whether India’s and the EU’s interventions in conflict countries follow consistent patterns the team evaluated whether distinct governance cultures are emerging in the EU and India.

In the scholarly articles D3.2 and D3.3 researchers differentiated between governance instruments understood as development policies, statebuilding and security as well as political institutions to allow a more differentiated evaluation of intervention mechanisms. In D3.3 it is argued that EU interventions in conflict countries tend to focus on governance reforms of political and economic frameworks, instead of interfering in the geopolitical context or the underlying power asymmetries that fuel conflict. These follow a liberal pattern often associated with northern donors and the UN system more generally. However, the EU’s approach diverges from prevalent governance paradigms mainly in its engagement with social, identity, and socio-economic exclusion. Comparative analysis of the case studies shows a large variation of statebuilding, development and institution-building practices across conflict contexts though. This variation stems not only from an engagement with divergent root causes of conflict, but also from implementation failures, the EU’s tendency to bow to external pressures and the lack of coordination between different components of the EU’s governance strategies. As a consequence of those intervening variables the EU’s governance strategies tend to fall back on internationally predominant development, peacebuilding and statebuilding rationalities, seeking to appease post-conflict societies through economic and political progress.

India’s governance approach, by contrast, can be explained through the interplay of historical, cultural and normative factors in their socioeconomic and political context. Here again, the overarching approach varies in strategies tackling economic marginalization, decentralisation and security alongside multidimensional issues of recognition and representation. D3.4 shows how party politics can represent a hegemonic consensus with or resistance against governmental policies. Moreover, the article elaborates in which ways governance interventions are resisted on the ground by grassroots actors and local insurgent movements. In comparison with the EU’s governance-as-peace model, India’s approach applies hard security to a greater extent; yet, like the EU it combines security with development policies and the involvement of local institutions in the process of conflict resolution. Whether there a distinct governance culture is emerging on either side remains a matter of debate between and within CORE’s partner institutions, and hence continues to be a subject for further investigation.

WP3’s investigation into the impact of autonomy-based conflict resolution strategies (in, D3.5 Final Analysis Report) highlights an intricate pattern of (sometimes contradictory) long- and short-term effects. In Jammu and Kashmir, Cyprus, Georgia, India’s Northeast and Bosnia, acute hostilities were minimised or even ended through the territorial separation of the conflict parties. However, territorial separation and ethnic segregation of conflict parties have over time added new layers to the existing conflicts. Partition-induced migration has reinforced ethnic concentration and thus often prompted a fierce competition over land and employment. Such situations of inter-ethnic rivalry tend to cause new fears of domination and thus new tensions as soon as a previous demographic majority turns into a minority. Power sharing along ethnic lines is often the policy tool of choice to ward off fears of marginalisation. However, ethnic power sharing arrangements and redistribution policies have furthermore reinforced ethnic identities and hardened the divisions over territorial disputes, the issue of internally displaced people, property rights or socio-economic inequality as the cases of BiH, Cyprus, Jammu and Kashmir illustrate. Our report highlights how identities and interests have been reshaped by autonomy-based governance strategies and how the EU and India have been trying to contain the damaging effects of those strategies, while seizing their conflict-mitigation potential.

With its research archive (D3.6) CORE has made 400 sources available to its partner institutions and created a state-of-the-art reading list of almost 450 recommended books, articles, policy documents and other only offline available publications. The archive can be used to research the link between culture, governance and conflict resolution. The reading lists make this deliverable a resource for a wide range of beneficiaries that can be shared with colleagues in current and future projects working on our six case studies or related theory-focused projects. It has a sustainable impact as it enables researchers access to a data set of relevant information on a range of empirical and theoretical issues. The archive has been constantly updated throughout the project and we intend to do so in the future.


3. Themes relevant to the conception and implementation of conflict resolution (WP4)

The objective of Workpackage 4 (WP4) was to research, organise and outline the thematic divisions of the project. These divisions structured both the empirical studies carried out in the individual casework and the scientific output and policy recommendations. It has been particularly interlinked with Workpackage 5, but related also to Workpackages 2 and 7.

By focusing on the socio-cultural and political premises and structural conditions through the tools of cultural, social and political analysis, the workpackage provided context and background for both fieldwork and for analysis and policy formation. At the start of the project, three themes were identified for analysis: socio-cultural premises, impact research and structural conditions. These have been further refined:

• Theme A: The socio-cultural and political premises of European and Indian initiatives for conflict resolution
• Theme B: The translation of peacebuilding rationalities into practice and its effects: local agency and everyday resistance
• Theme C: The dynamics of relations between actors: the role of hybridity, local culture and dialogue

Within WP4, research results were structured around three deliverables.

D4.1 (Workshop on Theme A)

On June 28, 2011 BCR/BF hosted the CORE Thematic Workshop entitled ‘The Socio-Cultural and Political Premises of European and Indian Initiatives in Areas of Conflict Transition/Resolution’. The partner institutes/universities gave presentations on different sub-topics/questions that had been developed from the workshop theme:

• What are the premises of European and Indian initiatives in the areas of conflict transition/resolution, and how do these initiatives resonate with – or are informed/determined by – the socio-cultural background of either Europe or India?

• How, if at all, are specific socio-cultural and political premises reflected/ incorporated or neglected/ ignored in those peacebuilding and conflict transition/resolution initiatives in Europe and India?

• To what extent do societal or elite discourses of socio-cultural and political issues underpin the principles, goals and strategies conceptualised and applied for peacebuilding in each context?

• How do internal and external governance initiatives interact and how do conceptualised norms of peacebuilding either merge with or compete with one another against the background of political conflict and socio-economic diversity?

• What are the methodological and theoretical challenges for analysing and assessing the socio-cultural sensitivity and political appropriateness of governance initiatives in peacebuilding and conflict transition/resolution, and the results thereof?

In preparation for the workshop, the participants were asked to categorise the social and cultural premises of European and Indian initiatives in conflict resolution in order to find out how these initiatives resonate with – or are informed and determined by – the respective social and cultural background of the conflict. The partners´ responses were then analysed by researchers of the CORE project at BCR/BF, who compiled their ideas and presented a mapping diagram for discussion during the workshop. This diagram provided a concise visual representation of the participants´ responses concerning global, local and hybrid norms and how they relate to conflict resolution and governance initiatives. It set the stage for an in-depth discussion on the different types of norms and norm-building processes in the governance of peacebuilding and conflict transformation.

During the workshop, the partners´ presentations were followed by inspiring and energetic brainstorming sessions, which produced food for thought for the formulation of further refined research questions and for the case studies that were scheduled to begin. The report, which compiled the workshop minutes and discussions, were submitted as D4.1 in July 2011.

During the workshop, it was agreed that each partner would write a 4000-word paper on their presentations, which were then edited and included in a Berghof Foundation Occasional Paper entitled ‘Norms and Premises of Peace Governance: Socio-Cultural Commonalities and Differences in Europe and India’. This was a significant unofficial product of the workshop, which was published in March 2012 and also made accessible on the official website of the project (see also WP7).

D4.2 (Report on Theme B) and D4.3 (Report on Theme C)

The main task within these two deliverables during the second reporting period was the drafting and finalizing of the reports, both of which totalled over 100 pages. While the formulation and clarification of themes and methodology was completed during the first reporting period, the process of consulting literature on the topics and examining and analysing the fieldwork reports (both preliminary and secondary) from the seven partners responsible for carrying out fieldwork continued well into the second reporting period.

The individual fieldwork reports contained information about six different case studies as well as extremely diverse aspects of conflict resolution initiatives within these 6 conflicts. They were also written by different authors and for these reasons are extremely divergent and varied. It took much time and effort to analyse such a vast amount of material sufficiently.

Communication between the two report authors with the partners concerning their respective fieldwork reports was carried out regularly and frequently, such that one can speak of ‘feedback loops’ with the partners in terms of each individual chapter of the reports. Each chapter of the reports was based on one case study. This communication took place in most cases to the satisfaction of the report authors.

D4.2 (Report on Theme B) is entitled ‘The Translation of Peacebuilding Rationalities into Practice and its Effects: Local Agency and Everyday Resistance’. The report identifies where and how local agency in (post-) conflict societies is speaking for itself, in order to provide a forum in which it can do so more easily, and to present what is being said to a wider audience. It investigates the concepts of local agency and ‘everyday resistance’ to peacebuilding initiatives. In particular, critical agencies are highlighted, and how they accommodate, modify and resist the agenda for conflict resolution and peacebuilding that has been established. The author looks at several peacebuilding rationalities and examines the selected governance initiatives in each case. She then turns to the local agency exercised within the context of the initiatives, in an effort to better understand the accommodation of, modification of, or resistance to governance initiatives for conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The report contains chapters on Georgia/Abkhazia, the state of Meghalaya in Northeast India, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bihar/Jharkhand and Cyprus. This report was then published online by the Berghof Foundation and can be accessed at:
http://www.berghof-foundation.org/images/uploads/25062013JGalvanek_CORE.pdf


D4.3 (Report on Theme C) is entitled ‘The Dynamics of Relations between Different Actors when Building Peace: The Role of Hybridity and Culture’. The report investigates culture and identity as key dimensions of relations in peacebuilding and examines more closely how culture and identity influence and shape relations of different actors in peacebuilding. The concept of formation of relations and interactions in the field of peacebuilding is introduced; more specifically, dialogical and hybrid forms of peacebuilding relations are elaborated on, with the concept of hybridity receiving prominent space. Furthermore, the connection between culture and peacebuilding is discussed, and academic perspectives on this connection that are relevant for the theme of this report are outlined. The report contains chapters on Nagaland in Northeast India, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar/Jharkhand, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia/Abkhazia. This report was published online by the Berghof Foundation and can be accessed at:
http://www.berghof-foundation.org/images/uploads/27062013ABernhard_CORE.pdf


4. Case study surveys of societies implanted in governance initiatives (WP5)

This workpackage (WP) involved case study fieldwork in seven locations: Bihar and Jharkland, Northeast India, Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya, Bosnia Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Georgia/Abkhazia.

The fieldwork was conducted in service of the overall project aims: unpacking the relationship between governance and conflict resolution in India and Europe. The purpose was to inform the project about on-the-ground experiences and developments and thus help test hypotheses, confirm/challenge or expand theory, and to bring new evidence (some of it good practice) to light. The approach of WP5 was both informed by other workpackages, and informed them. For example, the research framework developed in WP2 was formative in the approach adopted in the field research. The fieldwork results have been fed into other work packages, notably WP4 led by Berghof and WP3 led by the University of Manchester. Thus WP5 was integrated throughout the Project.

The project was organised in such a manner that different project partners took a lead role in the field research in different areas:

Bihar and Jharkland: Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Central European University (CEU)
Cyprus: University of Manchester (UMAN)
Georgia: The Institute of International Affairs (IAI)
Jammu and Kashmir: Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) and
Delhi University (DU)
Northeast India: Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (MCRG) and Malaviya Centre for Peace Research (BHU)

These partners were assisted by additional out-of-area partners who were able to assist in highlighting comparative points. The fieldwork findings were then integrated into a series of project deliverables (whether reports to the Commission or peer reviewed published outputs). Project meetings (internal workshops and dissemination conferences) included fieldwork reports, or presentations that drew on fieldwork findings.

WP5 had the following sequence:

1. Agreement by project partners on a. the focus of the fieldwork and b. the nature of the methodologies to be deployed;
2. The piloting of fieldwork;
3. The reporting back on the pilot exercise and refinement of the research tools;
4. The main fieldwork.

The submission of reports and collaboration among project partners occurred throughout the duration of the project. This was both structured (i.e. deliverables due at a particular date) and unstructured (i.e. informal and opportunistic communication between project partners on shared ideas and findings).

The first item in the sequence (agreement by the partners on the focus of the fieldwork and the methodologies to be deployed) involved particularly close collaboration between the project partners. The early months of the project were occupied by a further honing of the research proposal and the development of the theoretical lenses that could then be deployed during the fieldwork. This involved close cooperation between the workpackages, and the ‘translation’ of academic and policy concepts into questions that could be taken to the field. On the field research methodologies to be deployed, it was decided that we would use a range of qualitative primary research methodologies (augmented by secondary research and the CORE project archive). We were mindful, however, to strike a balance between the need to gather cross-case comparable data, and the need to allow flexibility to accommodate the differences between cases.

The following fieldwork has been undertaken:

- The Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) undertook four field trips from October 2011 to June 2012 covering the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh and the Jammu subdivision of Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir. The focus was on village councils (panchayats) with over 150 village level elected representatives interviewed, as well as government officials, business people and villagers. The Minister in charge of panchayat affairs in Jammu and Kashmir was also interviewed.

- In addition to this, Delhi University performed field research in Kashmir in June 2012. The field trip included 15 DU researchers and 20 Kashmiri researchers. The local researchers were involved in order to overcome the language barriers as well as to address the anxieties of ‘locals’ in discussing sensitive political and governance issues with the ‘outsiders’ and to ensure the scale of this study: the frame of this study was such that they sought to reach out to people across generations (over a long span of 28 years) who resorted to violence and those who didn’t. The purpose was to study the role and importance of governance processes in underpinning/ undermining or indeed being indifferent to the conflict resolution processes from the perspective of political economy of forces at work.

- The Jawaharlal Nehru University team conducted extensive fieldwork on Bihar/Jharkhand and Jharkhand, interviewing numerous panchayat representatives, government and civil society personnel and villagers. The interviews aimed to capture the multi-level governance in a conflict-prone area and currently the second phase of interviews is underway.

- Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) undertook fieldwork between December 2011 and April 2012 in Delhi and small-scale cities in Uttar Pradesh. Interviews were held with numerous government and civil personnel. The main focus of the fieldwork was the on-going national biometric project in India, the ways in which it is being conducted, the objectives of the project, and the perception and understanding of the biometric project from the point of view of people who have been enrolled. The collection and processing of biometric data has run up as a major instrument of security management in India, complementing, and partly replacing, other forms of conflict governance studied in the CORE project.

- The Central European University undertook two extensive trips to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The focus has been on ‘everyday life’ and efforts have been made to get beyond the capital, Sarajevo, and interviews have been conducted in Tuzla, Brčko, Bijeljina, Srebrenik, Zavidovići, Lukavac, Mostar, Jajce, Doboj, Banja Luka and a number of rural areas.

- The Institute for International Affairs (Rome) took the lead on fieldwork in Georgia, with two lengthy stays in October 2011 and May 2012. Interviews were also conducted in Abkhazia. Semi-structured interviews were held with policymakers of the ruling elites, opposition groups, civil society representatives (including independent CSOs, co-opted CSOs and those having a pro-government stance) both in Georgia and Abkhazia, academics, EU diplomats, i.e. officials of the EUMM as well as representatives of various EU-member states’ embassies in Georgia. The focus was mainly on the EU’s role in conflict resolution and the merging governance frameworks.

- The University of Manchester team undertook three fieldwork trips to Cyprus, one to Georgia and one to Brussels. In Cyprus the focus has been on civil society ‘space’ and the extent to which this has been captured and ‘tamed’ by government and interested external parties, including the European Union. In Georgia, the focus was on attitudes to the EU as a conflict resolution actor in light of the EU Monitoring Mission. The fieldwork in Brussels sought to complement and contrast our findings on policy implementation in conflict regions with interviews at EU institutions on policy formation and the interplay between decision-making and overseas delegations. Our interviews in Brussels were in particular focused on the role of the External Action Service in foreign policy coordination at the EU-level and the impact of feedback from EU overseas delegations on policy formation in the European Council and the European Commission.

- The MCPR/BHU team conducted fieldwork in the Northeastern state of Meghalaya (Shillong- Khasi hills and Tura - Garo hills) on issues relating to ethnic disaffection and insurgency, and the cultures of governance in varied instances of conflict resolution to explore the generic causes of ethnic disaffections and insurgency, and whether existing peacebuilding initiatives appropriately address these through dialogue, negotiation and rehabilitation strategies as well as in governance processes. In accordance with the above objective, the team designed and conducted a series of interviews with state officials, rebels, and members of the organized civil society, opinion leaders and academics from both Shillong and Tura. An open-ended questionnaire in line with, and drawing from, the Berghof concept note shared in December 2011utilized. Both singularities and convergences were discerned in the way respondents explicated the ‘so-called’ peace in an otherwise unstable Northeastern region of India. The research team observed a strong local need to move away from short term pacification efforts, achieved through monetary compensations, in favour of a comprehensive approach towards rehabilitation and development schemes applied as part of a peacebuilding strategy. Our initial findings indicated that while the local political culture offers a range of norms for dialogue and negotiation towards building peace in the region, their success in procuring a workable and positive peace has been rather inadequate. As a result, minority groups in the state of Meghalaya continue to nurture security anxieties in their own hometowns amidst sporadic episodes of insurgency.

- Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (CRG) has carried out field visits in 2011 and 2012 in both India’s Northeast and Bihar/ Jharkhand. The fieldwork focused on the institutional initiatives taken at the governmental and people’s levels in Nagaland in this regard towards peace and implementation of UN Resolution 1325. CRG researchers met the representatives of prominent women’s groups, like the Naga Mothers Association (NMA) and Naga Women’s Association (NWA) involved in the peace initiatives in Nagaland and Manipur. CRG also met representatives of the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF), the Naga Hoho, and the Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR). CRG collected policy documents, statistical material, popular tracts, and conducted interviews. CRG also undertook field visits in Assam and Tripura with a view to surveying the dialogues and peace attempts in both states in the Northeast. The objective of the study in Bihar/Jharkhand was to investigate land relations, labour migration, resulting conflicts and its management through governance mechanisms in the districts. The second study in Bihar/ Jharkhand focused on the relation between justice and lower caste movements in the last twenty years. The material collected explains grassroots ideas of justice, the relation between caste and governance, and the pattern of conflicts and violence in Bihar/ Jharkhand. The study marks a new understanding of the phenomenon of governance of caste relations as part of post-colonial management of peace.


The results from WP5 should be seen in the context of the overall Project as they informed, and were informed by, other workpackages. Key results that can be directly linked to the fieldwork include:

• The balance and sequence between hard security measures and ‘softer’ social justice interventions. In India in particular, this sequence was seen as security interventions followed by social justice measures. This finding connected with wider philosophical and practical concerns relating to the balance between order and justice;

• The existence, notably in parts of India, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cyprus, of an independent civil society that had not been co-opted by the orthodox political system. This civil society was often difficult to access but its existence raised questions of the legitimacy and authenticity of mainstream civil society. This finding echoed the work of James C Scott on ‘the hidden transcripts’ of communities and raised questions of how external and top-down actors can access these transcripts;

• The ability of local communities to take ‘ownership’ of top-down government initiatives. For example, in some communities in India, PRA Institutions have taken on a life of their own that deviates from the initial vision for this tier of local government. This finding connected with wider questions of agency and power, and challenged conventional political accounts that are often biased towards top-down, formal actors;

• The extent to which the cases (both in Europe and India) can be placed along the conflict management to conflict transformation continuum. This finding encouraged fundamental questions on the extent to which conflict response interventions were effective in addressing both conflict manifestations and structural causes;

• The inability of large institutional actors (whether the EU or the Indian state) to access communities that are not organised into formal NGOs. This finding raised further questions on the power of technocracy.

5. Assessment of governance initiatives and policy recommendations (WP6)

WP6 was responsible for the critical analysis and involved very close collaboration between the EU and Indian-based project partners in order to identify points of similarity and divergence in governance programming.

The main goal of the workpackage was to conduct a conceptual and empirical comparison of European and Indian approaches to governance in the six case studies and the international policy implications for conflict resolution and peacebuilding. This goal was achieved through two principal tasks: A conceptual and empirical comparative study of European and Indian governance policies in 6 case studies; and an assessment of how the lessons learned from Indian and European experiences of conflict-related governance initiatives can support or challenge global understandings and practices of governance in peacebuilding. The study draws on: (1) the construction of a comparative framework of analysis; (2) CORE research results and in particular upon the theoretical framework designed by WP2 and the empirical data from the six primary cases in WP5; (3) Policy document analysis and datasets of WP3 as well as the findings of WP4; and (4) Preliminary findings discussed at the workshop meetings.

In order to achieve above described goals the following deliverables have been published:

1. D6.1 Scholarly article on post-national conflict resolution: India’s Peacebuilding between Rights and Needs: Transformation of Local Conflict Spheres in Bihar, Northeast India, and Jammu and Kashmir

2. D6.2 Scholarly article on the Indian Governance Agenda: ‘Implementation of governance initiatives in conflict settings in India

3. D6.3 Scholarly article on the European Governance Agenda: EU Engagement with Civil Society Organisations in Conflict-Ridden Countries: A Governance Perspective from Georgia, Cyprus and Bosnia and Herzegovina

4. D6.4 Report on regimes of global governance, Europe and India: Learning from Governance Initiatives for Conflict Resolution: Local Agency, Inclusive Dialogue and Developmentality

5. D6.5 Comparative report on empirical basis for global governance, Europe and India: Peacebuilding in Europe and India: Theory and Practice

6. D6.6 Scholarly article on re-conceptualizing global governance: The Great Disconnect: Global governance and localised conflict in the cases of India and the EU.


D6.1 Scholarly article on post-national conflict resolution. ‘India’s Peacebuilding between Rights and Needs: Transformation of Local Conflict Spheres in Bihar, Northeast India, and Jammu and Kashmir’ analyses India’s internal peacebuilding approach in Bihar, Northeast India and Jammu and Kashmir regarding its similarity with the liberal peace and its effectiveness in terms of conflict transformation. By focusing on the human rights and needs components of Indian peacebuilding, we investigate whether state interventions have managed to transform the local conflict spheres in their political, economic, societal and family dimensions. Drawing on fieldwork carried out between 2011 and 2013, the paper remains sceptical of both, the novelty and effectiveness of the Indian peacebuilding approach.

D6.2 Scholarly article on the Indian Governance Agenda: ‘Implementation of governance initiatives in conflict settings in India’. India’s restive borderlands along the Northeast, the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir bordering Pakistan, as well as the central Indian states of Jharkhand and Bihar have all been sites of violent conflict at different times following independence in 1947. In analysing the responses to conflicts the framework of governance has been applied with the understanding that while any form of intervention can sometimes ameliorate, manage, or resolve conflicts, it can also fuel them further or generate new ones. Sometimes the processes occur simultaneously as every governance intervention unleashes a set of intended and unintended consequences that impacts multiple actors at different levels. This paper identifies and analyses four important thematic rubrics, around which, we submit, governance and instruments of governmentality coalesce in these conflict spots - namely, electoral democracy, security, ‘developmentalism’ and peace accords. We discuss the governance measures in each of these thematic clusters in terms of their viability, accountability, legitimacy and efficiency and in that context reflect on the nature of sustainable peacebuilding in India.

D6.3 Scholarly article on the European Governance Agenda. ‘EU Engagement with Civil Society Organisations in Conflict-Ridden Countries: A Governance Perspective from Georgia, Cyprus and Bosnia and Herzegovina’ argues that from a peacebuilding perspective, EU support for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in conflict ridden countries can be criticised for artificially boosting a liberal, ‘bourgeois’ civil society at the expense of more representative, established and effective organisations at the grassroots. Seen from a governance perspective, however, this criticism conceals the actual rationale and effects of these practices by underplaying the way in which EU investments in ‘local ownership and participation’ are constrained by general foreign policy objectives. As a basis for a more relevant and realistic debate on sub-national dimensions of peacebuilding, this paper therefore investigates what the character and effects of EU ‘peacebuilding’ support for CSOs in conflict ridden countries actually are: how does it affect the relations between the supported organisations and (1) the state; (2) other societal groups; and (3) the EU? How ought these effects to be interpreted in political terms? In addressing these questions, we start out with four ideal types of EU foreign governance, stretching from ‘liberal peace’ to ‘postliberal peace’. Then, EU CSO support in the cases of Georgia, Cyprus and Bosnia and Herzegovina are considered within this framework, against the backdrop of extensive fieldwork in these countries.

D6.4 Report on regimes of global governance, Europe and India. ‘Learning from Governance Initiatives for Conflict Resolution: Local Agency, Inclusive Dialogue and Developmentality’ carried out an impact analysis of four specific initiatives on their respective conflicts and peacebuilding processes. The first initiative examined was the Green Line Regulation in Cyprus. Critical local agency takes the form of active resistance to the Green Line Regulation, but this resistance is often dismissed as ‘spoiler’ activity and is not acknowledged as a legitimate political statement. This resistance is an example of local agency expressing itself in response to what many Greek Cypriots feel is an unsatisfactory initiative, as such trade is understood to implicitly recognize the government in the north. This renders ineffective much of the Green Line Regulation. In terms of impact, the assessment in general demonstrates that the GLR had a negligible impact on the peacebuilding process in Cyprus and may have even created more tension. A more positive example in terms of dialogical relations is the relationship that many of the women’s organizations in Nagaland in Northeast India have with the central Indian government. Due to patriarchal context of Nagaland, much of what the women promote has been blocked by the traditional norms of Naga society. This has led to the women entering into a strategic alliance with the state, for instance in ensuring the political representation of women. The second section of the report had a closer look at the tendency of conflict resolution initiatives to be used by governance actors as a façade for pacification and the development of conflict areas. Over the last two decades, a change has taken place in the technology of governing conflicts in India. Before, state measures consisted predominantly of counter-insurgency campaigns, but in the 1990s the Indian State realized that counterinsurgency operations alone would not suffice. This led to a shift in the technology of governance. This developmentalism may not be meeting people’s expectations, but it has already created a new desire for development –developmentality. Now the agenda of rights, specifically in Northeast India, seems to have shifted from citizenship defined in contradistinction with outsiders or foreigners, to a rather new citizenship defined as people’s right to equality, equal opportunities, and rights over natural resources.

D6.5 Peacebuilding in Europe and India: Theory and Practice starts with the observation that the European Union and India both pride themselves as promoters of peace within their borders and their immediate neighbourhood. Both have employed techniques of governance – at both governmental and non-governmental levels – as means of channelling potentially (or actually) conflicting demands stemming from different identity groups within institutionalized and rule-bound frameworks of action. But have their approaches to conflict resolution as governance actually been comparable? What are, if any, the similarities in the ways in which governance has been interpreted in conflict settings? And have their practices of governance in conflict contexts in Europe – Cyprus, Georgia, Bosnia – and India – Kashmir, Bihar, Northeast – actually reflected their respective conceptualizations? In a comparative perspective, what can Europe and India learn from one another in terms of their governance theories and practices in conflict resolution?

D6.6 Scholarly article on re-conceptualizing global governance. ‘The Great Disconnect: Global governance and localized conflict in the cases of India and the EU’. Academic scholarship displays a curious disconnect between two trends, connecting peace and governance issues. At the same time when conflicts tended to shift inwards (from inter-state to civil wars), global governance approaches seemed to decentre the management of peace and conflict outwards (from the nation state to international forums). This paper investigates this disjuncture by examining the EU’s and India’s governance strategies in different conflict contexts. It studies whether their strategies operate close to the global governance model and/or whether they are able to connect with and effectively support local peace initiatives in conflict-ridden areas.


Potential Impact:
1. Impact

The project was designed to directly address the following desired impacts:

1) To understand the dynamics of conflict and peace in relation to global changes
2) Foster a comparative perspective on how different cultures of governance emerge and on how peace, democracy and human rights are perceived and acted upon in different parts of the world
3) Advance the knowledge base that underpins policies to promote peace, security, democracy and human rights
4) Enhance cooperation between European teams and researchers from outside Europe working in and around India
5) Foster shared understanding of governance and conflict issues across different federated and multicultural settings.
6) Foster interdisciplinarity

The way in which these objectives were achieved may be summed up as follows:

1) To understand the dynamics of conflict and peace in relation to global changes
Over the past two decades, the governance of civil conflict has become a central dimension of global governance, involving state and non-state actors throughout the world. Instead of producing knowledge on conflict and peace as such to be adopted and implemented by these actors, this project has subjected the very act of governing conflicts to critical scrutiny. This focus has produced a different kind of understandings of the contemporary dynamics of peace and conflict than if this factor of state or non-state efforts at mitigating conflict were reduced to a form of neutral third-party intervention. The topic of central state governance of internal conflict in India proved particularly instructive in this connection. First, this governance involves a meeting of liberal governance for the promotion of modern democratic state institutions with a rich variety of customary Indian political tradition and culture. In this sense, it served as a prism for the study of liberal conflict governance at a global scale. Second, because this topic was well-established in Indian political science, philosophy and sociology from the outset of the project, the Indian partners brought a highly significant competence into the group that was eventually applied to the study of EU foreign engagement as well. On the other hand, the European partners could draw on previous research on the politics of international peacebuilding governance. Brought together, this mix of theory on domestic conflict governance and international peacebuilding resulted in new understandings of relevance not only to EU and Indian foreign and internal engagement, but to the whole array of global governance in conflict regions. In addition to this impact on theory development, the fieldwork produced a range of new empirical insights on the cases studies in the project, which will have a significant impact on education and future research, possibly also policies, on the topic of peace and conflict in these regions.

2) Foster a comparative perspective on how different cultures of governance emerge and on how peace, democracy and human rights are perceived and acted upon in different parts of the world
The main focus of the project was the way in which increasingly globalised ideas and techniques of governance, associated with ‘the liberal peace,’ are interacting with and affecting conflict-ridden societies on the levels of culture, politics and economy. In this connection, the challenge of making a democratic political entity function effectively in a context of deep internal diversity of people, languages, socio-economic conditions, historical and institutional heritage figure centrally. The case studies of the project served to nuance the picture drawn by general theories of global liberal governance, as associated with EU engagement in external conflict regions. They also nuanced and challenged current theories on conflict governance strategies in India, like economic development, local democracy and biometrics. Both in the Indian and European contexts it was demonstrated how governance strategies justified by liberal political objectives took very different forms and were developed pragmatically in response to local challenges. Hence, the notion of liberal governance and liberal peacebuilding proved insufficient as a descriptive conception of the various practices motivated by ‘the liberal peace’ broadly defined. The publications of the project present a range of ways to address this complexity and identify the nuances that make the whole difference for the success or failure of scholarly research into these topics – as well as to governance initiatives.

3) Advance the knowledge base that underpins policies to promote peace, security, democracy and human rights
From the two points above, it follows that the knowledge produced by the project has a great potential for informing more coherent policies for the promotion of peace, security, democracy and human rights domestically and across borders. In particular, the understanding of the interaction between ‘the governors’ and ‘the governed’ presented in the project deliverables, including in workshops and conferences where politicians and politically influential academics were present, serves as a crucial corrective to standard theory and policy on the subject of peace, democracy and human rights promotion. A part of this corrective centres on the way in which culture has been invoked in past policies, as something pertaining to ‘the local context’ in which ‘ethical’ policies are implemented. Instead, the project turned the notion of culture ‘against’ the governors, demonstrating how liberal governance relies no less on cultural context than the societies of ‘the governed’. As a general theoretical insight, this should come as no surprise. The contribution of the project has rather been to demonstrate and conceptualise how these unavoidable cultural biases are conceived by the local communities subjected to liberal conflict governance. In this connection, the image of these communities as ‘recipients’ or ‘subjects’ of governance was also challenged. The ways in which the success of governance initiatives fully rely on the collaboration of local actors, and how this reliance results in various forms of translation, adaptation, manipulation and resistance, affect the very conceptual premises of policies of democracy promotion and peacebuilding. Again, this general conclusion has been drawn in previous research on development, democratization and peacemaking as well, particularly within the discipline of anthropology. The more specific contribution of the project has been to relate these insights to new policies of conflict governance and peacebuilding, thereby also enriching the general knowledge base for global governance.
In sum, by clarifying the premises upon which peace is conceptualised, CORE contributed to raising the precision level of targeted policies and increasing the efficiency of governance initiatives. The project thus provided discursive, theoretical and methodological insights for improving the effectiveness and legitimacy of European and Indian domestic and foreign policies in conflict regions.

4) Enhance cooperation between European teams and researchers from outside Europe working in and around India
Care was taken in the research design of CORE to establish strong integration between the European and Indian institutes active in the project. All workpackages involved collaboration between Indian and EU researchers, as did the working groups, steering group and project management. This collaboration has proven even more rewarding, but also more challenging, than initially envisioned. The diversity of the group, both among and across the Indian and European partners, resulted in more pluralism within the project, and it took longer than planned to establish a consensus on the subject and approach of the project. On the other hand, this involved a genuine exchange, which created new ideas and questioned implicit assumptions underlying the initial project design. This exchange and integration has made way for other, future forms of genuine collaborations between these and, potentially, other institutes.

5) Foster shared understanding of governance and conflict issues across different federated and multicultural settings.
The project’s case studies proved excellent vantage points for forming an understanding of the various practices and understandings of governance across a range of political settings. The project analysed in detail the various structural and social aspects of governance in both India and the EU. Furthermore, the scholarly exchange and policy output of the project enhanced the knowledge base of the principles of human rights, democracy and peace, and how these are understood in various political and social settings. Culture, being central to the conceptual starting point of the project, formed a constant point of reference throughout the analysis of the cases, entailing analyses of the historical roots and influence of different cultures of governance in handling social, economic, environmental, security issues. Much literature already existed on governance and democracy in culturally diverse societies. The impact of the project on this knowledge base has been to combine such literature with literature on conflict resolution and peacebuilding that has often reduced the dimension of culture to a question of conflicting political positions. Indeed, this focus has not only engendered new theory on the subject but a rich empirical material that also serves as a knowledge hub for further comparative research into the subject.

6) Foster interdisciplinarity
By drawing together elements from political science, sociology, philosophy, anthropology and history the project permitted cross-fertilizing on a wide-ranging basis over a long period. As indicated above, this time span proved necessary for a proper exchange across the disciplines represented by the project participants. Probably, these synergies will spread to the respective disciplines and contribute to creating new frameworks for further research, thereby also facilitating further interdisciplinary work. A central part of the project involved exploring differing methodological perspectives. The Indian project partners brought a competence on fieldwork in conflict regions that were invaluable to the implementation of the project, and that also inspired the European project partners. Furthermore, the efforts led by Berghof in comparing and analysing findings from the fieldwork were highly interdisciplinary and proved instructive for the final phases of the projects. In effect, the reports, articles and book produced by the end of the project should have a potential impact across all the disciplines involved.

2. Dissemination
The main focus of the dissemination activities within CORE was on the effective communication of the research results towards targeted policy makers and other users, including research institutes and in both mass media and social media. Another important element was the sharing of project results within the CORE project consortium.

Dissemination of research results happened in close cooperation with the Information Department of the coordinator (PRIO), making use of its competence, editing and publication facilities. The Policy Brief Series was professionally language and copy-edited, resulting in a user-friendly and easy accessible series with concrete policy recommendations, aimed at policy makers. This series is available on the PRIO website and on the CORE website, and also in paper version. Copies have been distributed at the final events of CORE, where they have been disseminated widely to the participating policy makers and members of civil society.

CORE has focussed on dissemination towards different target groups. The structure of the project research has identified several differentiated target groups, as illustrated here below:
• Academics, students and policy researchers/analysts in research centres/ think tanks in India and the EU
• European policy makers, Indian legislators and policymakers.
• Civil society, organisations concerned with the promotion of the values of peace, democracy, governance, development, and human rights; and democracy promotion organisations.
• Media, as the subjects covered by CORE appeal to the media interest, as well as social media

In order to reach these target groups, several measures have been taken so as to implement the dissemination strategy of the project.

CORE Website
This webpage was set up at the very beginning of the project, adopting the project’s research structure. The page can be found on the following link: http://www.projectcore.eu The website was created via a subcontract. Updating of the site was done in close cooperation with PRIO coordinator.

The website included a large amount of content related to the CORE project. Information on policy activities, project activities such as conferences and workshops, and other relevant information like academic publications have been posted on these pages. The webpage furthermore included information on all the partners of the project consortium and the advisory board. The webpage has also been a useful tool for communicating project related items to a broader public. It included information on the 6 case studies of the project, and all project deliverables, reports and briefs have been uploaded thus making all results of the project available to appropriate audiences.

The internal part of the website has allowed the project partners to share internal documents. Bibliographical sources and links were shared via the internal part of the webpage. This facilitated easy information flow between the partners and worked as a common storehouse of project-related information.


Participation in external conferences and seminars and meeting coordination
All members of the CORE consortium have been encouraged to participate to external conferences and seminars. Many of the involved researchers have participated to academic conferences and seminars, where the CORE project results were discussed. These conferences and seminars took place in EU countries, India and the US. One such event was the annual International Studies Association conference in the US in 2012, where the CORE consortium had a common panel titled ‘Cultures of Governance in Conflict Resolution in India and Europe’. This was an important way to disseminate CORE findings to an international research audience. Participation to meetings and conferences stimulated the academic exchanges and assured the peer review of the academic standards of the project activities.

Networking
Networking activities at several levels have taken place. As already mentioned, the participation of project participants to internationally acknowledged conferences, workshops and meetings and interviews in the (local and national) media enabled the consortium to interconnect with the wider academic community, stakeholders and policy making communities (see also list of dissemination activities) .

A host of individual researcher exchanges also took place. J. Peter Burgess from PRIO had several visits in India, in particular to Participatory Research Institute (PRIA) and Calcutta Research Group, where he held seminars and participated in meetings on project-related topics. Prof. Ranabir Samaddar from Calcutta Research Group visited PRIO, and was in 2013 given the honourable title ‘PRIO Global Fellow’ in order to facilitate exchange between the Indian institute and the CORE coordinator PRIO.

The CORE project further participated in inter-project networking through exchange with the following research project: Women Count for Peace (PRIO, Norway).


External email list
The CORE project consortium actively used the website as a source of disseminating information as well as for internal exchange. Rather than regular e-alerts, the partners made habit out of using the website as an active way of sharing information. The consortium decided that a vibrant and regularly updated website combined with the working paper series and policy briefs worked very well as dissemination of the main project results and thereby decided not to write a newsletter.

An external email list has been compiled, based on and updated with inputs from the consortium partners. This list now consists of several hundreds of names of stakeholders, policy makers, MEPs, academics, NGO contacts etc. This list has been used to invite people to the final workshops and conferences.

CORE working paper series
The results of research undertaken mainly in WP4 and WP5 have been channelled through a working paper series, which has been published on the CORE website.

• ‘CORE Working Paper: Summary of fieldwork (1st round) in Georgia/Abkhazia‘, December 2011
• ‘CORE working Paper: National and European Cultures of Governance in Georgia and Abkhaz Conflict Resolution. Report based on I and II round field work results‘, August 2012
• ‘CORE Working Paper: Report on preliminary fieldwork in Bosnia-Herzegovina’, January 2012
• ‘CORE Working Paper: Preliminary field work report from Meghalaya‘, December 2011
• ‘CORE Working Paper: Preliminary field work report from Cyprus‘, November 2011
• ‘CORE Working Paper: Governing Flood, Migration and Conflict in North Bihar’, 2012
• ‘CORE Working Paper: A Gigantic Panopticon: Counter-Insurgency and Modes of Disciplining and Punishment in Northeast India’, 2012

Several of these working papers have in addition been published in other series, among others in ‘Policies and Practices’, which is edited at the Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, Kolkata, and in the Berghof Foundation Series, Berlin. These series are available online and in paper version.

• ‘Governing Caste and Managing Conflicts, Bihar 1990 – 2011’, also published in Policies and Practices, Vol 48, 2012
• ‘Women, Conflict and Governance in Nagaland‘, also published in Policies and Practices, Vol , 2012.
• ‘Tripura: Ethnic conflict, Miltancy and Counterinsurgency‘, also published in Policies and Practices, Vol 52, 2012
• ‘Peace by Governance or Governing Peace? A Case Study of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA)‘, also published in Policies and Practices, Vol 50, 2012
• ‘Government of Peace‘, also published in Policies and Practices, Vol 53, 2012
• ‘Translating Peacebuilding Rationalities into Practice. Local Agency and Everyday Resistance‘, 2013.
• ‘Dynamics of Relations between different Actors when building Peace. The Role of Hybridity and Culture’, 2013.


Public events, final conference and dissemination panel
Several events have been organised within the dissemination strategy of the project:

D7.3 Second Mid-Term Workshop and Conference, organised by IAI in Rome, 18 – 19 October 2012
At this occasion, the consortium members and the advisory board met in order to discuss the progress of the project and to report any changes or results. The second day, emphasis was put on the Mid-Term Conference, where participants from diplomatic corps, civil society and academics discussed the preliminary results from the project.

D7.4 Final Workshop, organised by PRIO in Nicosia, Cyprus, on 10 – 11 October 2013.
The first day of this workshop was dedicated to any outstanding issues or differences regarding thematic aspects. The members of the Advisory Board contributed to this workshop and gave its feedback at the second day of the workshop. Afterwards, to build upon the opportunity of being in Cyprus, several key experts were invited to share their expertise on the subject of reconciliation and conflict resolution in Cyprus.

D7.6 International Conference, organised by PRIA in Delhi, 11 – 12 November 2013.
This dissemination meeting was held over 2 days in New Delhi. Academic practitioners and policy makers shared the key findings from the CORE project and discussed future implications in terms of theory building, research, practice and policy. This event was broadly covered in the national Indian media (articles in The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Era, Gujarat Samachar, and many others) giving the CORE project a platform for discussion.

D7.5 International Conference, organised by PRIO in Brussels, 3 December 2013 and
D7.8 Dissemination Seminar, organised by PRIO in Brussels, 3 December 2013
To this one-day conference and seminar, PRIO invited representatives from the European Commission and the European Parliament by email at several instances. The networks of the consortium were also used to mobilise participants. In addition, academics, diplomatic corps and civil society representatives were invited. The extended mailing list has been used to mobilise stakeholders in Brussels. A press release has been sent to media focussing on European issues. Still the response to this invitation was disappointingly low. The research results were presented towards a broader public.

The reports of these meetings have been submitted as separate deliverables.


Lecture Series.
Back-to-back to the workshops and conferences organised by CORE in the Lead partner institutes, public lectures was organised, reaching out to audiences from university students, research staff, but also, depending on the location, officials from embassies, international NGOs, and EU institutions..

The CORE research results have been discussed and presented at numerous conferences and workshops. An extensive list is included in the list of dissemination activities (section A2). Below we mention several lectures given by consortium members at universities and research institutes:

• ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina. Faking Democracy and Reconciliation since Dayton?’
Elena Stavrevska, CEU, 19/03/2013, Toronto, Canada.

• ‘Migration, Conflict and Governance: A Historical Perspective’
Ranabir Samaddar, MCRG, 26/11/2013, New York, USA

• ‘Women, Conflict and Governance in India’s Northeast’
Paula Banerjee, MCRG, 16/10/2013, Michigan, USA

• ‘Women, Conflict and Governance’
Paula Banerjee, MCRG, 25/09/2013, Syracuse University, USA

• ‘Conflict and Governance in South Asia’
Priyankar Upadhyaya, BHU, 25/12/2012, Trubhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

• ‘Conflict and Governance in Bihar and Jharkhand: Governmentality of Participation and Strategic Veto’
Amit Prakash, JNU, 05/12/2013, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

• ‘Governmentality of Participation and Strategic Veto: Conflict and Governance in Bihar and Jharkhand, India’

• Amit Prakash, JNU, 6/12/2013, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.


Project Book(s).
The manuscript proposal of the book is under review by the editing board of Manchester University Press, and will result in the publishing of the results in the autumn of 2014. This publication will probably be one of the first volumes to compare contemporary Indian and EU governance issues vis-a-vis the search for peace at the local and state level. There is an important debate about divergent and common political trajectories in terms of the development of governance at local, state, and regional levels.

This book will contribute to an emerging debate where there are now far more voices contributing from the ‘emerging’ countries around the world than ever before. Contributions from all CORE consortium partners will be aiming to reach undergraduate and postgraduate students, and peace and conflict researchers. It will also be of utmost interest to policy-makers and practitioners such as governments, inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, and anybody interested in peace and governance in both the global north and in India and other countries in the global south.

In addition, a book entitled Government of Peace: Governance, Security, and the Problematic of Peace, edited by Ranabir Samaddar, MCRG will be published at Ashgate in October 2014. This volume is based on CRG’s research executed in connection with the CORE project and builds narratives of a special type of governance whose aim is to make social conflicts disappear or at least manageable, and schisms in society occasions for society’s modern development. Social governance is a crucial aspect of such rule, which now tries to reshape the society as the stakeholder of ways of governance. Policies are thus aimed at identifying and involving the stakeholders. The idea of a government of peace in this way sits at the core of the interlinked issues of social governance, peace-building, and security.

Through an exploration of this idea, the book addresses a major question in world politics today, namely, how does post-colonial democracy produce a specific form of governance in order to cope with conflicts, insurgencies, revolts, and acute dissents? Analysing the Indian experience the essays in this volume collectively show how rules of social governance have evolved on the basis of the experiences of insurgencies and internal conflicts. As a strategy to cope with acute conflicts, government now expands hugely; money becomes more available; transfer of resources acquires frantic pace; and society becomes more attuned to a money-centric, modern life. Yet this style of governance does not remain uncontested. Dialogues from below challenge the official versions of peace building. New subjectivities emerge from new movements for social justice by women, migrants, farmers, dalits, low-caste, and other subaltern groups.

The MCRG also stands for the publication of the book called Sanghat O Sashan (Conflict and Governance). This Bengali book is written by Anasua Basu and Ray Chaudhury and published at Gangchil Publications, Kolkata, 2013. The book launch took place in Kolkata on 23 December 2013.

Stakeholder seminars
Two stakeholder seminars have been organised to discuss the preliminary results with local civil societies and organisations in both India and the EU. This dialogue with the local practitioners has allowed the project to benefit from their feedback and to disseminate the results locally. The participation of activists, journalists and NGO representatives resulted in interesting discussions and take-aways.

D7.9 Discuss preliminary results with civil societies and local organisations in Sarajevo, organised
by PRIO in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 6 June 2013. This workshop focused on the topic of two reports in WP6, as related to the case of European governance and conflict resolution in the Balkans and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular. These research findings were translated into two workshop sessions, where feedback from the civil society and NGOs mainly from Sarajevo resulted in an interesting dialogue.

D7.10 Discuss preliminary results with civil societies and local organisations in Guwahati, was
organised by MCRG in Guwahati, North East India, on 26 – 27 February 2013. The research results from CORE were structured around several themes: 1. The question of mode of governance and its relation with conflict management and the issue of peace; 2. Peace processes and peace accords; 3. Territorial reorganization in different forms and peace building; 4. Political economy of development, social governance, and peace building; 5. New subjects of developmental governance— women and other subjects. The speakers and audience consisted of academics, social and human rights activists, representatives of civil society and NGOs and journalists. This workshop was reported in national media newspapers- including The Times of India- referring to the discussions and the project.

Briefing to official institutions, media and civil society
The coordinator ensured contact with official institutions, also when engaging in dialogue with the international diplomatic community in India. On November 4th, the EU diplomatic community posted in Delhi invited the coordinator J. Peter Burgess to present the results and recommendations from the project.

Briefings of the media have resulted in several newspaper articles, especially in the Indian press:

• J. Peter Burgess, Briefing to the European Union Council of Political Advisors, November 5, 2013.
• J. Peter Burgess, Interview on Norwegian Public Broadcasting, ‘Ekko’, February 17, 2013.
• Frontier Weekly 13.12.2013 ’Is peace in Kashmir and Northeast possible without breaking the Jinx of Nation-State?’
Available at:
Accessed 05.01.2014
• Frontier Weekly 13.12.2013/14 ‘State-Maoist Conflict in Jharkhand-Bihar: Is peace possible with neo-liberal development?’
Available at
http://frontierweekly.com/views/dec-13/9-12-13-State-Maoist%20Conflict.html
• The Times of India 20.03.2012 ‘Role of governance being discussed at Banaras Hindu University’ Available at
Accessed 01.04.2012
• The Hindu, 07.12.2013 ‘Panchayati Raj institutions key to resolving issues in conflict area’
Available at: Accessed 10.12.2013
• India Era, 28.11.2013 ‘Resolving conflict through effective governance’ (not available online)
• Duniya Khabar, 27.11.2013 ‘Resolving conflict through effective governance’ (not available online)
• Central Chronicle, 26.11.2013 ‘Experts discuss on resolving conflicts through effective
• governance’ (not available online)
• Hindustan Times, 20.11.2013 ‘Panchayati raj representatives in Jharkand have no role: Study’ Available at
Accessed 25.11.2013
• Prabhat Khabar, 20.11.2013 (In Hindi, not available online)
• Hindustan Times, 18.11.2013 ‘Conflict study finds pact between government, extremists’ (not available online)
• Prabhat Khabar, 18.11.2013 (In Hindi, not available online)
• Web News Wire, 14.11.2013 ‘Resolving conflict through effective governance’
Available at Accessed 18.11.2013
• Gujarat Samachar, 14.11.2013 (In Gujarati, not available online)
• Ajir Dainik Batori, 14.11.2013 (In Assamese, not available online)
• One World South Asia 12.11.2013 ‘Resolving conflict through effective governance’ Available at
http://southasia.oneworldnet/news/resolving-conflicts-through-effective-governance#.UyljGyjEPww (Accessed 02.12.2013)


Policy Brief series
Each of the partners of the consortium has published a policy brief in the CORE Policy Brief series, presenting their results towards an audience of policy makers. Policy-relevant conclusions were poured into these and they were made in an ‘end user friendly’ format, targeting policy audiences in the EU, India and beyond. These briefs have been prepared in close collaboration with the Information Department at PRIO, ensuring solid language editing, copy editing and distribution via the webpage and in paper format.

• CORE policy brief 01/2013: Ensuring political representation in a restructured Bosnia and Herzegovina. by Elena B. Stavrevska, Central European University
• CORE policy brief 02/2013: Enabling civil society in conflict resolution: Vogel, Birte; & Richmond, Oliver P. (2013)
• CORE policy brief 03/2013: Interrogating peace in Meghalaya: Upadhyaya, Anjoo Sharan, Upadhyaya, Priyankar; & Yadav, Ajay Kumar (2013).
• CORE policy brief 04/2013: India’s national biometric ID scheme: Jacobsen, Elida Kristine Undrum; & Vij, Priyanka (2013)
• CORE policy brief 05/2013: Opening the Russian-Georgia railway link: Mikhelize, Nona (2013)
• CORE policy brief 06/2013: Village council elections in Jammu and Kashmir: DasGupta, Sumona; & Singh, Priyanka (2013)
• CORE policy brief 07/2013: Conflict, Governance and Development: Amin, Imran; & Prakash, Amit (2013)
• CORE policy brief 08/2013: Governing conflict and peacebuilding in India’s northeast and Bihar: Ghosh, Atig (2013)
• CORE policy brief 09/2013: The importance of dialogical relations and local agency in governance initiatives for conflict resolution: Bernhard, Anna & Galvanek, Janel (2013)
• CORE policy brief 10/2013: Conflict, governance and peacebuilding in Kashmir: Behera, Navnita Chadha (2013)

These briefs have been distributed via the webpage of the project and via all our networks. Also at the final conferences in Delhi and Brussels, these were instrumental in the dissemination activities of the project. The series is available online on the CORE webpage
(http://www.projectcore.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175&Itemid=200) and on the webpage of PRIO (http://www.prio.no/Projects/Project/?x=928). The policy briefs have been distributed in hard copy to the participants of the final conferences in Delhi and Brussels. The available policy briefs have been submitted as D7.11.




Media Section on the website.
The main page of the CORE website (the front page) was made in a user-friendly format so as to invite both journalists and policy makers. This was done replacing the original plan to separate media section on the website. The CORE website was made in a user friendly format in order to have easily available information for journalists/the media as well as easy access to the project’s results, activities and documents.

The front page of the website included news updates on project related activities (conferences, workshops, field studies) as well as information on the appearance of CORE consortium members in popular media. The Policy Briefs were also easily accessed on the front page of the website. Furthermore, pictures from the researchers fieldwork was made available in order for media to have easy access illustration to material on the matter of conflict resolution and peacebuidling when mentioning the CORE project.

Electronic newsletter.
Rather than developing an electronic newsletter, the consortium decided that the combination of a number of activities made a newsletter superfluous. A number of policy briefs and free working papers that were widely distributed, together with a frequently updated website with information on on-going research, as well as conference and workshop proceedings, reports and announcements on events and activities, links to relevant documents and information on CORE events and research.


3. Future dissemination and use of knowledge

During the last dissemination meetings, project partners discussed ways in which they could continue collaboration and how the project aims and findings could be further developed. The project advisory board used their final feedback session to highlight areas ripe for future research and collaboration.

Two issues areas in particular were identified as possibly fruitful sites for further research and collaboration:

• the unanticipated outcomes of governance and conflict resolution interventions, and especially the development of methodological tools that could capture these outcomes above and beyond what is offered by existing monitoring and evaluation tools;

• the new subjectivities of governance, or how changes in the relationship between citizens, the state and businesses are remaking the citizen into a new type of subject. In particular, there was an interest in how the peculiar political economy of governance changes can institute a new set of relationships between citizens and institutions, and recalibrate the expectations that actors have from one another.

The project consortium and advisory board agreed that collaboration between Indian and Europe is highly important and fruitful. On the one hand, the consortium has learnt much through looking at conflicts in Europe and India and the various similarities and differences in governing frameworks. But also the research culture and the cultures of academic thought have brought about many interesting and at times challenging and provoking results. Thus, future research would much benefit from similar collaborative efforts.


List of Websites:
http://www.projectcore.eu/