What presents itself as a new and untested opening in dealing with past conflicts in Nepal is the application of reconciliation as a paradigm in

long-term peace-building. National reconciliation — as both a process and an

ultimate objective, has a dynamic potential to guide the future of the country to a more inclusive and unified socio-economic-political environment.

Conflicts arise within a context. It does not have its origin at an exact space and time; similarly, it does not end without after-effects. Sustainable peace-building addresses the root causes of conflict through a conflict management framework, which includes transformation. This structural framework must be capable of regenerating itself over time - a spiral of peace and development instead of a spiral of violence and destruction.

A chief part of the

development of a conflict management framework is referred to as "citizen-based peacemaking", incorporating the population as a vital resource in the process. It is exactly this resource that a reconciliation-based peace-building framework brings to the forefront of local peace action.

Reconciliation must be shaped by the particular cultural and regional

settings in which it unfolds. This supposition leads to the difficulty in reaching a simple, uniform definition. It is unreasonable to

conceive a standard definition of reconciliation as

the unfolding of reconciliation needs to address

local concerns in order to

be relevant to parties that have experienced oppressive relationships or a

destructive conflict.

Societies may be divided for many reasons like ethnic disparities, regional under development, regional conflict, absence of viable communication and insufficient provision of information. As such, the drivers of conflict can separate districts or regions within the nation state, touching the fundamental structures of governance and the social fabric of society. Governance may then be described as unfair and undemocratic, resulting in minimum participation or apathy by the concerned public. It is within this context that reconciliation of relationships necessarily is part and parcel of systems of governance and processes of democracy.

The correlation between individual and community spheres of reconciliation may be one of incompatible forces since the individual process can be determined by psychological, while a community or national process of reconciliation is different. However, it is in the shift in focus from individual to social or political that the issue of forgiveness emerges. While truth through forgiveness may be achievable at individual levels, the ambition to create a single, complete, common truth from all possible accounts is rarely hoped for, let alone achieved.

Central to the plethora of themes included in the reconciliation agenda stand the issues of identity and state legitimacy: Who and what to reconcile?

Conflicts have deeply

deteriorated the socio-economic and political climate. The Kathmandu Valley may be considered a boundary, acting as a natural line of

division between the socio-economic center and the rest of the country. Social and political life has been separated or clustered around, say, language, ethnicity, religion or identity, resulting in exclusion as

opposed to integration in the wider political process. Ethnic and geographical fractures within Nepal have also impacted the structures of the state. Building or

re-building society therefore requires action directly targeting social trust,

historical tensions and national identity.

A dividing line along a 'them/us' disparity is fuelling perceptions of marginalization with severe

implications for opinions of a common identity. Re-building of trust subsequently has to include both a community and a national approach, established to work for identical objectives within an agreed framework. Weak state structures pose a problem for the

continued cultural 'binding' of the nation into a

coherent shared identity. The problem is not one of destruction of identity; rather, shared authority

attests to the significance of the identity question. It is this proliferation of

locally based identities that

causes problems for the State's authority over its population's sense of

cultural attachment.

The social-psychology of attachment to locality is a powerful phenomenon, but is also a complex one, with different possible modes of articulation and different consequent implications for people's sense of belonging.

Challenges articulated by civil society to the governance system in addressing the conflict should not be perceived by the Government as a threat or failure, but rather as a window of opportunity to engage more capacity in working for lasting peace solutions. Legitimate challenges should be translated into vehicles

for wider participation, resulting in a situation where civil society is afforded space for involvement and action. A strengthened civil society will eventually strengthen the state, as a democratic state works through the citizens.

(The writer is Team Leader of Conflict Mitigation Programme)