Dr. Rao VBJ Chelikani
Every human being is unique; nobody is identical to or a copy of another. In other words, they differ from one another. Secondly, a profound human phenomenon unfolds itself within the naturally sacred and hidden sanctuary of the womb. Here, enveloped in a highly protected world, the developing fetus begins to shape an angelic, blissful and serene mind and a harmonious body. A mother‘s womb is an Eden‘s Garden for the baby. Through the lifeline of the umbilical cord, a flawless stream of blood delivers oxygen, glucose, and vital nutrients from the placenta, nourishing both body and spirit without a single negative trace. Barring any rare deficiencies that might disrupt this peace, a newborn emerges from the mother‘s womb not only as a unique being, but also as one who is inherently serene, tranquil, warm, and floating, capable of generating noble sentiments like smiling, enjoying, loving, and being affectionate. Yet, the moment of birth forces a sudden and dramatic shock and a fall into human hands. Thrust into an outside world of biting cold or burning heat, blinding light, and irritating sounds, the newborn confronts an immediate sensory experience of hostility. This abrupt transition naturally discomforts the child, prompting that very first cry of weeping as humanity‘s oldest, most instinctive form of communication. Thus starts a human being‘s historical struggle for survival, which is very authentically portrayed by Charles Darwin. The harsh and diverse external conditions made life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" in a state of nature as described by a 17th century political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan. Later, in stark contrast to this, Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed life in the state of nature as a peaceful, idyllic state where humans are born free, healthy, and morally innocent.
In his book Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau argued that humans are naturally good, and it is modern society and civilisation that corrupted us, famously declaring later in The Social Contract: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Just like in the natural world, in the social world too, human differences became a source of competition, disputes, hatred, quarrels and wars in the mind first and then in bilateral and multilateral relations in family, in tribes, within the state and in international relations. According to him, it is due to lack of a common power that leads to a 'war of all against all'.
Across the history of mankind for the past ten thousand years, till the end of the 2nd World War and the beginning of the United Nations Organisation, roughly, in a ratio closer to one death for every 1.5 births happened due either to Nature or to human beings, apart from natural deaths. During this period, the sheer volume of non-natural deaths had been increasing with human violence by way of cannibalism, tribal and civil conflicts, royal battles and national wars. The Swiss historian Jean Jacques Babel has estimated that the 5,500 years or so of recorded human history have witnessed a meagre total of 292 years of peace, and the rest of the years were years of conflict. Thus, we understand that a human being is born and conditioned by not only natural conditions but also social conditions. Conceived with a genetic heritage, the baby is born into a family with an identity of race, colour, country, religion, etc., mostly by accident. Thus life starts with a social identity, even though in the course of his or her life, one might change these traits. Thus, both these environmental and social conditions influence the baby‘s behaviour mostly, and the rest of its life is determined by experiences in nurture, education and living. Since not only are all human beings as individuals different and their behaviour is personal to each individual, there are bound to be differences in their interactions with each other in society.
Hence, it is inevitable to have disputes in personal, family, tribal or community, local, national and international relations. Thus, human conflict is inevitable but can be managed non-violently. Early humans possessed a capacity for both extreme cooperation and lethal violence, driven primarily by personal conflicts, survival needs, and reproductive competition, though Palaeolithic humans were particularly known as brutally aggressive cavemen. The earliest documented evidence of human violence dates back 430,000 years at Sima de los Huesos, Spain. Skeletal remains show a skull fractured by multiple blows from a blunt instrument, indicating a personal, lethal conflict. It includes individual homicides and small-scale family feuds; personal disputes, revenge, and resource scarcity; and ownership of land and agriculture, stored wealth, the introduction of property, fenced boundaries, stored food supplies, and social classes and social hierarchies transformed personal aggression into systematic and organised violence and early warfare by chiefs and kings.
Even though the scourges of the 1st and 2nd World Wars left us with a profound psychological trauma, soon after, many states entered into a new mad race for nuclear and other more sophisticated weaponry, assuring Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). For the first time in history, one can say that humans are capable of destroying the entire human civilisation, even by accident. The most rigorous attempt to categorise the history of human conflict is the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod in 2004–2005, which chronicles nearly 5,500 years of documented human conflict, from ancient battles dating back to 3,500 BCE. Humanity has proven tragically efficient at inventing endless reasons from flags to frontiers, from gold to God to wage wars against each other.
Look at present-day villages, where nobody can keep one‘s land and its borders intact and undisputed without social domination, force and without bribing the Revenue department officials.
II. Since disputes are human and social in nature, force and violence are very bad tools to resolve them. As civilisation advances, laws are made to regulate human behaviour and lawyers and judges are trained to resolve most of the human disputes as civil and criminal, and decide authoritatively who is right and wrong. As civilisation advances, the arguments in favour and against are so sophisticated and as more and more eventualities are envisaged, the judicial pronouncements are based on rational norms of social justice in behaviour in a given situation. In view of the length of procedures and time taken, away from the litigants in the scene, judgements are a post-facto exercise, which is, nevertheless, absolutely necessary, as they represent human progress. But the Courts and their judgements are not able to help directly to educate the individuals and improve their future behaviour for more cooperative and harmonious human relations.
Neither are they able to lessen the occasions for further disputes. On the other hand, the sources of disputes are multiplying as population grows, and the political states, meanwhile, have become the agents of violent disputes, causing a lot of suffering and destruction to impose their power and for their glory. Therefore, we need alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and processes which are more humane and voluntary with immediate effect, so that they reduce suffering, distrust, suspicion and fear of the other. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides structured ways to resolve conflicts outside of traditional courtroom litigation, by preserving good neighbourly relations and restoring social harmony. These mechanisms vary in formality, binding authority, and legal structure depending on whether they are applied locally or globally. Some mechanisms already exist, and others are to be invented and adopted, whether they are statutorily recognised or not by the administrative officers or legal authorities.
III. At the level of an RWA: In dense housing situations, conflicts are highly unique as they involve long-term neighbours, shared finances, limited collective resources, and interconnected lifestyles. These micro-urban communities present and represent future society. There might be instances of neighbourly disagreements, family conflicts, or small-scale property issues to be decided quickly and affordably. Standard corporate icebreakers fail here because one cannot simply "walk away" from a neighbour and their children with whom one has to enjoy the private and common areas cooperatively.
1. Peer-Counseling by the management members who are approached to find a remedy for a member‘s problem, privately or in the Executive Committee, which operates like a mini-community.
2. The Bye-laws of the Association or the Society should have a provision for the general assembly tonominate every two years a Committee of Elders for Reconciliation, with elders known so in the building or colony or in the community. Preferably, such a committee should include former office bearers.
3. For personal, marital and family problems, the Management should refer them first to the Committee of Elders and to the nearest Group-Therapy centres, De-addiction, Rehabilitation centres, etc. The Management should strongly advise the members not to keep the problem to themselves and to express it vocally or in writing to somebody. This will reduce domestic violence or suicides.
4. The role of the RWA Management is to persuade both parties in dispute to accept a Specialised Mediator or a Counsellor or an Expert in the matter in dispute who is trained and has experience in living or operating in RWAs, preferably from the neighbourhood. Such a person can help neighbours to talk through issues like noise complaints, boundary lines, water leakages, parking issues or landlord-tenant friction to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
5. Usually, there are ADR Mediation and Arbitration centres that assign a trained mediator on payment who reconciles the parties. If necessary, s/he prepares a document of agreement between the disputing parties and such a document can be validated as a kind of Decree by the nearest Civil Court.
6. If the issue is related to physical assault and other criminal offences, domestic violence, etc., the RWA Management should have such a relationship with the nearest Police Station and with the Police Officials in the PS that an Inspector comes to visit and counsel the parties in conflict.
7. The Management can refer some of the cases to the District Consumer Complaints Redressal Commission, and specialised Appellate Tribunals for Senior citizens, etc. or to the District Legal Services Authority.
8. The RWA Management should advise the schools and colleges around to adopt a system where trained student-mediators help fellow students resolve playground or interpersonal conflicts.
IV. Playing games to learn and practice techniques of conflict resolution: Games are being conceived to play a role in teaching right pacific attitudes towards disputes, where residents can experiment with AI communication strategies,experience the consequences of their choices, and learn to adjust and harmonise relations. By transforming abstract emotional and social concepts into concrete, interactive challenges, games move conflict resolution from theoretical advice into interesting, practical and experiential learning. There are specialised games and simulation structures tailored exactly for Resident Welfare Associations, which the urban residents can use specific simulation templates and gaming frameworks to build empathy and resolve real world disputes amicably.
If you want to introduce these concepts to your members of your Association or Society, use a structured approach to avoid defensive pushback from residents: call it a workshop for Better Mutual Understanding among the residents and avoid calling it a conflict class, as residents will feel targeted. Plan it for one hour before or after the Executive or Board meeting or the general body meeting. These conflict resolution games, simulations, and complete training guides can be downloaded directly through AI platforms from academic institutions, mediation networks, and open-source non-profit repositories. Because these are structured social simulations rather than digital video games, they can be downloaded as PDF kits containing facilitator manuals, printable role-play character cards, and scoring sheets.
Some sources:
Neighbor Disputes and Resolutions Script on Scribd, Neighbor's Role Play PDF from FreeWay Languages, IMI Roleplays Database and for more researched model go to Harvard Law School
TNRC: PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center and CRN Training Manual Portal.
In the RWA context, the games can be selected to focus on issues such as shifting focus from "my car" to "shared transit space", indifference or defection as well as withholding of monthly maintenance charges or refusal to pay for corpus waterproofing or roof repairs, emotional talk and impulse control, stopping public shouting duels, etc. Role-playing games force participants to adopt their opponent's mindset, reduce bias and prejudices. Turn-based mechanics and rule enforcement naturally train players to pause, control emotional reactions, and think before responding; lower anxiety and allow participants to experiment with active listening. Players instantly see how a competitive response escalates a conflict, whereas a collaborative response de-escalates it. They learn new skills of collaborative negotiation, identifying shared interests, collective decision-making and teamwork. Social recognition triggers positive behaviours. Here, the Management acts as a neutral facilitator to ensure that the final guidelines can create a clear, transparent Community Handbook or Bye-Law Amendments.
0 Comments