Conflict resolution is endemic in all cultures as it involves negotiating its encounter with the world. However, conflict resolution in the modern world has become, more than ever before, a politically explosive concept because it is interpreted differently by different political entities and by different cultures based on their own contextual positions and experiences. In the process the idea of a shared humanity has given way to power politics. Consequently, in today’s situation, the study, approaches and models of conflict resolution has become primarily exclusive, thereby, violating its own innate principle of inclusivity.
In today’s world, conflict resolution has been packaged and exported by States, Governments and the powers that replaced the politics of "cold war" with an ideology of "hot peace" to help sustain State dominance over Peoples. Within this context the diversities of rich indigenous peace cultures and indigenous knowledge systems have been negated. It is therefore unfortunate that the term conflict resolution is widely accepted in third and fourth world nations without much critical thought and without looking into its own cultural traditions and practices of building peace.
The Kenyan artiste and activist Babu Ayindo noted that “From Pax Romana on, or the Incas and the Aztecs, or the British and American empires, or Hitler’s Thousand-year Reich, imperialisms have always sought to monopolize the world. There is nothing modern about the modern world; there are still troglodytes!” Is the dominant definition of conflict resolution part of this monopoly? The implication of the State approach to conflict resolution is that it has been responsible in systematically negating indigenous knowledge which has led to eroding indigenous approaches to peacebuilding that is more holistic, people-centered and one that examine issues of culture, justice, nature, history and human development.
This erosion of indigenous understanding and concepts of Peacebuilding is primarily due to the inability of the dominant knowledge system and the Western notions of education to recognize and value the indigenous knowledge system. Consequently, it has stifled genuine dialogue between cultures and between peoples.
Hence, there is a dire need to consciously promote critical partnership between the first world and the fourth world – more specifically the modern and the indigenous – in the search for new paradigms in resolving and transforming conflicts. In this regard, those involved in conflict resolution must do an honest and thorough research in examining indigenous concepts and contribute towards evolving inclusive approaches of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
All concepts need to be contextual so that their application is relevant and purposeful. It is within this need that genuine dialogue with humility can begin to enhance understanding between the Western and indigenous knowledge system. This is inevitable for humanity to co-exist in mutual respect. We need to ask the difficult and honest questions if the process of dialogue is to lead to meaningful understanding. This understanding needs to consciously and critically act in creating a new culture – a culture of justpeace.
For the Nagas, the need to critically examine conflict resolution theories and practices is of upmost importance. While there is a growing need to introduce conflict resolution courses to our education system, it needs to begin by first educating ourselves on the values and practices of our own indigenous peacebuilding concepts and values. Given the historical and political legacy, it is important that Nagas do not fall into the politics of conflict resolution.
