Search results

The purpose of this paper is to apply five models of conflict negotiation (power‐based, interests‐based, needs‐based, dignity model and comprehensive systemic) to Hindu‐Muslim religious conflict in Ahmedabad city, India and assess their relative applicability.

The general principles of each of the five models of conflict negotiation are first laid out from literature review. The principles are then hypothetically applied to resolve the contextual particularities of the Hindu‐Muslim conflict that occurred in 2002 in Ahmedabad city, India.

The comprehensive systemic approach is a good model to be used as a diagnostic tool for assessing the Ahmedabad conflict. Following that diagnosis, however, a combination of the need‐based and dignity model is useful in effectively negotiating the conflict.

This article creates awareness about the advantages and drawbacks of popular models of negotiation; this will enable negotiators to adopt a more realistic approach while negotiating conflicts in the field. The paper recommends that, while trauma, emotions and fears are real, so are destruction of property, livelihood and resources – peace cannot be long‐term unless negotiation addresses questions of subjective as well as material violations by raising questions of distributive justice.

This article indicates that conflicts are complex processes rooted in particular places and hence negotiation should be contextual and experiential. Through a comparative evaluation of different approaches the paper provides a tool kit. However, it also elucidates how reality may require negotiators to be more spontaneous and hence adopt mix‐models.