KARACHI: How can a multi-stakeholder approach be pursued to minimise confilct in the context of Pakistan? What are the ways in which conflicts can be resolved in Karachi? What has been the outcome of the multi-stakeholder approach in Nepal and Sri Lanka? These questions were deliberated in a day-long workshop titled `The Challenges of Conflict Prevention in Pakistan and Measures to Prevent Future Conflicts`, organised by the Programme on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Karachi University`s International Relations Department in collaboration with the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflicts.

In the inaugural session, Javed Jabbar, former information minister, delivered the keynote address that centered on the diversity of Karachi. According to him, Karachi is the youngest, fastest growing and the most diverse city in the region. Comparing it to Mumbai, Kolkata, Dhaka, Colombo, Kabul, and nationally to Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta, he felt `all these cities are predominantly homogeneous`.

Mr Jabbar spoke of nearly 30 indicators that made Karachi such a uniquely heterogeneous metropolis. For instance, the city had five districts, six cantonments, unplanned areas, the private water mafia, city courts, graveyards, lawn sales and the arts council, to which he couldn`t resist a jibe at the recently concluded elections saying `what a form of democracy` On a serious note, though, he said: `What strikes me about Karachi is the perpetrating atrocities over its natural capital`. He also referred to vulnerable groups in the city that not only included women, minorities and the youth but also men citing the murder of Professor Shakil Auj, the dean of KU`s Islamic Studies Department. `All are vulnerable in Karachi.Strengthening institutions and creating new ones that facilitate dialogue, curb violence and non-violent extremism were some of the suggestions offered by Mr Jabbar as ways to resolve conflict in the city.

Other speakers during this session included urban planner and researcher Arif Hasan who spoke about lack of skilled labour and women dropping out of the workforce due to transportationissues.

Defence analyst retired brigadier A.R. Siddiqi said there had only been one narrative in Pakistan and that was of conflict citing the examples of Partition and the wars with India.

`Taliban cannot be the stakeholder` The paper read by Dr Moonis Ahmar, dean of the faculty of social sciences at KU, in the second session of the day focused on three themes: what is the multi-stakeholder approach? What is the rationale behind it? And what are the impediments? `The aim of this approach is to get all actors on board during all the stages through dialogue and consensusbuilding.` But the reality is that we reject the stakeholders and discount them. Dr Ahmar cited the examples of South Africa and Northern Ireland where this approach had been successfully applied. However, he said, had it been applied in the case of Afghanistan it would have led to conflict resolution, but `not using the approach had deepened the crisis`. Political will, better networking with dif ferent groups, creating a conducive environment for talks were some of the requirements needed to implement the multi-stakeholder approach.

Interestingly, when queried about who should be the stakeholders in the insurgency under way in the tribal regions and whether the Taliban could constitute as one of the stakeholders, he responded that ordinary people who were sufferers of the conflict should be one of the stakeholders but `not those who are against the rule of law, violate the Constitution and target the innocent` Educationist Dr Bernadette Dean, however, disagreed with Dr Ahmar citing the example of the Maoists in Nepal who more or less committed the same violations as the Taliban but eventually became a part of the political process. `If you do not include them in the process and do not convince them to renounce violence, how can there be a broader representation that would solve the conflict in the tribal region?` The presentation of Aaranya Rajasingam, programme officer at Regional Centre for Strategic Studies in Colombo, discussed the multi-stakeholder approach and its implications in Nepal and Sri Lanka. With regards to Nepal, she said the larger population did not see the dividends of the monarchy leading to demands of democracy and fuelling the Maoist insurgency. But she said there was a realisation among the various stakeholders during the time of talks that not everyone had the same goals. `The Maoists wanted a social change and other nationalist groups wanted constitutional monarchy.` However, there was a commitment by all that they did not want to go back to the earlier conflict situation, desiring a form of conflict resolution.

The Sri Lanka situation, however, was abysmal after the violent quelling of the Tamil insurgency. `The Tamil women in the north were active participants in the armed conflict but post-war they have to be punished and saved.

What Ms Rajasingam meant was their participation in the insurgency had led to their detention and torture, yet at the same time the women had to be saved in order to legitimise the civil war. Responding to a comment over the necessary killing of the main perpetrator of the insurgency, Prabhakaran, Ms Rajasingam said: `But the economic and social grievances of the Tamils still exist even though the perpetrator of violence is dead. Academic studies have indicated that the government did not stand by its promises while holding talks with the Tamil insurgents, mediators` role was severely limited among other reasons and that is why talks failed.` In the context of Pakistan, she said: `Killing the Taliban may not be the answer.

Dr Arshi Saleem of National Defence University, Islamabad, suggested structural changes that included `an in-conflict mechanism` When asked about the Peshawar school massacre and the subsequent steps taken by the government and the military by forming a committee, lifting the moratorium on executions, intense bombardment of tribal areas, `fake` encounters in Karachi, `claim the mosque` movement by the civil society, she said: `I do not agree with this in-conflict mechanism. It is short-term and reactive.

About the Red Mosque, she answered: `This is a turning point for Pakistan. I hope the momentum goes forward and we should support it.

Other speakers in this session included Maria Saifuddin who read a paper on conflict cycles and Dr Najam Abbas from The Institute of Ismaili Studies in London read a paper on preventing armed conflicts mentioning his case study on Gilgit-Baltistan.

Education as a source of conflict Dr Bernadette Dean, director VM Institute for Education, highlighted the tremendous contributions of Christians, Hindus and Parsis in formal and technical education, and nursing. `The educational institutions set up by the Christians served to prevent conflict by providing access to all. They were inclusive and hence reduced social, religious and ethnic divisions.` But she also said that education had also become a source of conflict in Pakistan due to different school systems, and content of textbooks fuelling violence.

Other speakers in the final session included Dr Naeem Ahmed of the International Relations Department, Nargis Rehman and Haider Abbas Rizvi of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement.