By Patricia Mukhim
The pro-ILP pressure groups have called yet another rally to explain to the public the imperative for implementing the Inner Line Permit (ILP) in Meghalaya. There has been much agonising on this issue. While a section of the intelligentsia (which includes faculty from certain colleges who are aligned to political parties), are supporting the ILP, another section that belongs to the group of free-thinkers (unaligned)feel the ILP is a retrograde step that will be an apology of an instrument for checking influx by illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Nepal. There are others who feel that this current issue has provided grist to the mill of some political parties who don’t seem to have a better plot to sell to the electorate before the District Council elections. The ILP has also become a hastily crafted bandwagon for jaded political parties that could not get a single seat in the last state assembly elections. Each of these political parties supporting the ILP is branding itself as a warrior who will redeem the tribal community from nemesis. And the simplistic explanation for this impending doom and gloom is that the tribes (currently making up 87% of the population) would be decimated; all jobs and businesses would be taken away; all tribal land would be alienated (forgetting that less than 1 % of tribals own nearly 65% of Meghalaya’s land) and that tribal women are falling prey to the wiles of non-tribal men and have become their collaborators in the great game of buying up precious land.
Amidst the confusion there are also pragmatists who are looking for a breakthrough and wonder how this will happen. So far no back-channel negotiations have been facilitated between the opposing groups. We don’t seem to have anyone here with sufficient experience in conflict management. I would like to believe that no matter how intransigent the two sides of a warring group are, there is always space for negotiations. The book, “Getting Past No” by William Ury says, “The essence of a breakthrough strategy is indirect action. It requires you to do the opposite of what you naturally feel like doing in difficult situations. When the other side stonewalls or attacks, you feel like responding in kind. Confronted with hostility you may argue. Confronted with unreasonable positions, you may reject. Confronted with intransigence you may push. Confronted with aggression you may escalate. But this just leaves you frustrated, playing the other side’s game by their rules.”
Dr Mukul Sangma would do well to read this book and the next one, “Getting to Yes” by the same author. If he does not find time he could read it on a flight. Two hours is good enough time to learn tactical skills from these books. It might be a good idea for the KSU and FKJGP leadership too to get copies of Ury’s books. After all, none of us have all the wisdom in the world to steer a State of 3 million people. Besides, the ILP groups which are on a self-imposed sabbatical have enough time to read now. Che Guevera is good for revolutionaries but Ury’s books are counter-intuitive.
At this juncture Meghalaya needs a game changer. However, even if a game changer were to emerge at this moment, the air is so thick with suspicion that the person or persons would soon be labelled a ‘government agent’ and be dismissed outright. This makes the situation here a bit difficult to navigate. Hence the two groups would have to think out ways and means of ‘Getting Past No’ and Getting to Yes.’
The Japanese have perfected the martial arts of judo, ju-jitsu and aikado where a practitioner is told to avoid pitting his strength directly against the opponent’s. Breaking the other side’s resistance usually only increases it. So the smart way is go around that resistance. After all, there chinks even in the best armour! This is where breakthrough negotiation comes in. Breakthrough negotiation is the opposite of imposing one’s position on the other side. Rather than foisting a new idea from the outside, it is important to help the opposing side to reach the idea from within. Rather than changing the opponents’ minds it is better to create an environment in which they can learn and bring about a break-through in their own resistance. The job of the game changer is to help them reach that learning curve.
The most important barrier to overcome is the other side’s negative emotions – their defensiveness, fear, suspicion and hostility. It’s no point getting drawn into an argument. That’s the easiest thing to do. It is better instead to help the other side regain their mental balance. Here both the Government and the pressure groups are looking at the same problem from two different prisms. So why not have a joint-problem solving group? To do this both sides would need to defuse their negative emotions. Both sides must do what the other side does not expect them to. Both sides have behaved like adversaries. Both sides need to abandon this position and just sit and listen to each other talk. Neither side would lose if they acknowledged the wisdom that resides in the other and shows respect for their points of views. This is the beginning of the road to tackling the problem together. And this is not an absurd suggestion since the problem at hand is the same – INFLUX.
Trying to tackle the problem together could be difficult when the other side refuses to budge from their stance and try to force their points of view on the other side. At such times the wise thing to do for an adversary is to probe their minds by asking, “Help me understand why you want that?” Reframing the entire issue helps to get past it and perhaps arrive at a solution. A good adversary will always try to build the golden bridge. Hence both sides must try to bridge the gap between two opposing viewpoints. Each side needs to help the other side save face. The outcome should look like a joint victory. If the attempt by either side is to win the argument the issue will be lost.
The more powerful adversary needs to use that power not to escalate tension but to enhance its own negotiating power and try to bring the other side to the negotiating table. The other side must know that this game cannot be won alone but by working with the adversary. The important thing to remember is that one cannot defuse the other side’s negative emotions unless one has controlled one’s own. Effective negotiation begins with hard preparation. Those who come to the table with the ILP proposal should have been given time to demonstrate effectively and with a power point why they are pushing for it. You cannot ask for something without trying to convince the other side with facts, figures, and evidence based arguments. We cannot come to the negotiating table with assumptions and hope to win the debate by shouting our way through. We need to prepare the counterpoints and we must have the flexibility to step back when the opposite party picks holes in our arguments. In fact, neither side should take offence when their arguments are punctured by better arguments/viewpoints. We can always come back to the negotiating table a second or third or fourth time. See how long it takes to solve some of the world’s intractable problems. Yet people don’t give up. So why should the pro and anti-ILP groups behave as if this is the end of the road for them? Nothing is lost in talking…talking and talking….and coming to the boardroom again and again. That is real negotiation. But only people with political acumen, intellectual maturity and statesmanship can ‘Get Past No’.