Introduction

It is evident that problems of managing ethnic and religious diversity are increasingly important in ensuring peace and stability of many Asian countries. Differences of religion, language, region, kinship and other ethnic cleavages can form the basis for polarization and conflict, especially when manipulated for political and economic advantages. States vary in their capacity to manage and reconcile these differences through political arrangements designed to ensure power sharing and conflict mitigation. In some cases state actors and political parties have been responsible for encouraging mobilization of ethnic and religious loyalties resulting in heightened tension and conflict, or even outright secession. Civil society plays a contradictory role, both as a prime focus for identity formation along ethnic and religious lines but also as a potential source of reconciliation and conflict mitigation. Experience suggests that education and culture are critical ingredients of identity formation that can be harnessed for productive ends, by creating the basis for respect between communities, the evolution of common traditions and mutual exchange.

Main Objective
The main objective of this project was to convene an Asia wide conference on Diversity and Co-existence in Asia which was held in Kandalama, Sri Lankan from February 5-9, 2003.  It was attended by nearly 70 participants from all over Asia. 

The conference had three main plenary sessions: 

• Intellectual frameworks for understanding ethnic conflict and mutual co- existence

This session was aiming at analyzing intellectual frameworks that exist for the understanding of ethnic conflict and mutual co-existence, especially in the area of political arrangements and economic policy.

• Civil Society Initiatives in Diversity and Co-existence in Asia.

This session was designed to analyze the role of civil society in supporting mutual co-existence in Asia and in identifying areas for future research and action.  The session was an interactive session with a facilitator who raised issues and called on individuals to engage in dialogue and discussion.

• Cultural Aspects of Diversity and Co-existence

This session was aiming at identifying the role of culture of the realm of diversity and co-existence as well as intellectual frameworks that help us to understand its importance in ethnic co-existence
The purpose of this conference was to bring together researchers, activists, practitioners and policy makers from different parts of the region, to provide an opportunity to share regional/national experiences, for the cross-fertilization of ideas and to learn from international participants who were experts and/or have played an active role on issues involving ethnic diversity and peaceful co-existence of diverse groups.  Key goals here were to deepen insights into various sources and implications of diversity for the purpose of peaceful co-existence; for the critical interrogation of some of the concepts and intellectual frameworks which have been currently used; and, from which we can borrow and develop further.  The main objective of the conference was to come up with a checklist of research areas and civil society activism on the topic of ethnic diversity and peaceful co-existence, and, to outline priority areas for future research and follow up activity.  The outcome of the conference in terms of future research priorities and follow up work has been identified at the end of this report.

Day 1 - Inauguration

            The first day was inaugurated by Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy, director of the International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women.  She outlined a brief history of the origins of ICES its purpose and contributions to both scholarly work and practice in the political context.  As ICES celebrated its 20th anniversary which began with various programs last year, she noted that this conference was in a sense a culmination of this celebration.  She commemorated the founders Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam and Professor K.M. De Silva.  In particular, she mentioned the loss of Dr. Tiruchelvam and his dynamic, visionary leadership and guidance to the organization and Professor K.M. De Silva’s years of experience and scholarship, noting that his absence at the conference was due to recent ill health.
            The genesis of ICES began in the early 1980s when its founders, Dr. Thiruchelvam and Professor K.M. De Silva served on a Presidential Commission to look at issues of devolution with regard to the Sri Lankan ethnic problem.  The lack of sufficient research material on the topics concerned, especially on managing ethnic conflict through structural arrangements prompted them to organize a seminar sponsored by Ford Foundation.  The establishment of ICES soon followed with two offices based in Colombo and Kandy. 
She noted the irony of the situation where there was opposition and deep suspicion directed toward the term ‘ethnicity’ when ICES first emerged as an organization and its significance twenty years later in the current political context.  In the same context she pointed out the challenges that lie ahead in ethnic studies and identity politics.
            Dr. Mark Robinson, Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, U K in his welcome address touched on some of the points of contention surrounding the theme of diversity and coexistence.  Issues of governance in the domain of ethnicity have to acknowledge and respect ethnic/religious differences while preserving political stability and social harmony.  He emphasized that these are issues of global concern and not simply limited to Asia.  He outlined some of the main objectives of the conference areas noting that a key objective here is to confront the challenge of ethnic diversity and how to deal with it through political arrangements.  
Mark emphasized the need to learn from the theoretical and empirical insights of scholars and researchers in the region about the theory of co-existence.  To identify cutting edge intellectual issues and attempt theoretical refinement as well as elaborate and reflect upon established, limited explanatory frameworks of this phenomenon.  He noted that the conference provides venues to develop ground level insights by activists and practitioners engaged in bridge-building efforts for co-existence among multi-ethnic communities.  It is also useful for discerning the relevance of deliberations for policy and practice, particularly for governments trying to deal with the question of conflict and accommodation and determine who can benefit by some of the fresh approaches that come out.  In the conference paper presented by Mark Robinson on ‘Religious and Ethnic Co-existence in Asia: Framework for Analysis and Intervention,’ he further reiterates some of these key points, and reviewed a full body of social science literature in attempts to broaden and reach a deeper understanding of issues surrounding the issue of co-existence; examined linkages between bodies of knowledge and identified biases and omissions on some of the existing literature

Keynote speeches were delivered by Arjun Appadurai and E. Valentine Daniel
            Prof. Arjun Appadurai (William K. Lanman Jr. Professor of International Studies and Director of Initiative on Cities and Globalisation, Yale University, USA) mentioned 3 interventions for discussion purposes on the broad theme of diversity and co-existence.  He pointed out that the general approach to ethnicity is the primordial approach which continues to occur both in scholarship and practical life because of a lack of a stronger alternative.  While the primordial position takes the view that large scale ethnic violence essentially flows from oppositions, enmities, prejudices etc. he throws open the question, what are the materials for sustained alternatives?  Appadurai noted that we cannot question this primordial position unless we have a view of equal strength and clarity to challenge this position which he clearly sees as a limitation in both the academic and non-academic sense.
            On the theme of violence he notes the forces that transcend national boundaries, the issue of globalization and the manifestations of violent and non-violent ethnic problems which bring into question the crisis that surrounds the state.  Another question he has set forth is how and under what conditions does the erosion of the ability of a modern state, that allows the claim of trusteeship over economic sovereignty of the nation, translate into cultural fundamentalism?  These issues must be examined at local level which is a better approach than an exclusively state-centric approach.
            Another significant point he made is the need to look closely at history, that the history of culture in anthropology has bought into the idea that culture has to do with the past.  Memory, habit, custom and usage, norm law etc.  There should be an analysis of how societies have cultural designs not just about the past but also about the future.  The future is not only a matter of individuals, it is collective, involves designs that we call culture.  He stresses that we have very little systematic knowledge in this area and emphasized the need for anthropological engagement and further work in this regard.
            Prof. Valentine Daniel (Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University and Director of Columbia University’s Southern Asian Institute) emphasized the concept of recognition and the politics of recognition as an important element in multiculturalism in the peace process context.  However, he noted that the significance of this recognition is based on the mutual reciprocity of recognition, challenging existing social hierarchies, stressing the need for identity to be affirmed by those occupying socially dominant positions.  Thus recognition given out of ones free will in the context of inter-relationships of majority/minority cultures, is crucial and should form the basis of society.  The politics of recognition necessitates that every citizen will be able to preserve his/her identity with dignity and should be extended by dominant cultures to all minorities.
            It should be noted that both keynote speakers challenged the paradigms under which we have been working with, in looking at issues of diversity, identity and co-existence and urged us onto newer paradigms.

Day 1 - Conference Session I

            The second day began with a plenary session on the topic of ‘Intellectual Frameworks for Understanding Ethnic Conflict and Mutual Co-existence.’ The aim of this session was to analyze existing intellectual frameworks that provide for the understanding of ethnic conflict and peaceful co-existence, particularly in the areas of political arrangements and economic policy.  Hans Antlov of Ford Foundation chaired the plenary making note of the need to move beyond understanding causes and consequences of ethnic conflict and direct more attention on the processes through which constructive interaction and positive values can be fostered.  In particular, on cooperative efforts that cut across ethnic/religious divides.  The panellists for this session included Ashutosh Varshney, Rajeev Bhargava, Radhika Coomaraswamy, E. Sridharan and Rubina Saigol.      

Ashutosh Varshney (Director, Centre for South Asian Studies and Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) delivered the keynote speech, providing a general overview on ‘Ethnicity and Peaceful Co-existence in Asia,’ focusing on the relationship between civil society and ethnic violence.  Varshney presented his conference paper on ‘Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society.’  Based on his research of six cities in India, he argued that there is an integral link between structures of civic life in a multiethnic society on the one hand and the presence or absence of ethnic violence on the other.  He noted that certain forms of civil society organizations are more effective in a multi-ethnic society in preventing/containing ethnic disorders and violence.  Emphasis was on strong networks of civic engagement which brings diverse communities together, particularly strong associational forms of civic engagement, formed in organizational settings as opposed to everyday engagement.  His point of significance here is that it is ‘interethnic and associational’ forms of civic organizations as opposed to intra-ethnic that are effective in a multi-ethnic society in preventing/containing ethnic disorders and violence.  He will continue and expand his work in this area through comparative studies which will include a selection of additional countries in his future research work.

Rajeev Bhargava’s presentation and paper were on Indian Secularism and whether it can meet the challenge of militant Hindu nationalism.  He challenged the critics of Indian secularism by arguing that the proper form of Indian Secularism has been misunderstood by most of its critics and supporters.  Notes it is not modelled on the variation which is the “wall of separation” practiced in America, therefore, it is critical that we see the real strengths and weaknesses of ideas by ridding ourselves of the habit of reducing complex value-based ideas into simple formulae.  He stresses the importance of understanding its conceptual nature in order to realize that it is not anti-religion, nor does it privatize religion or undermine and/or pamper minorities.  His position is that Indian Secularism has the resources to meet the challenges of Hindu nationalism.

Radhika Coomaraswamy outlined legal frameworks for understanding ethnicity and brought out some of the issues raised.   At the international level it was only in 1994 that the United Nations put out a declaration for the protection of minorities and standards necessary at the national level for the protection of minorities.  She discussed the ways in which the law recognizes ethnicity and how it operates with regard to ethnicity noting the awkward and contradictory nature of the relationship between law and ethnicity.  The law, she pointed out, recognizes the primordial notion of ethnicity as it validates the notion of citizenship through bloodline through its application.
The universally accepted legal world view of ethnicity is through the standard human rights formulation of equality and non-discrimination. The whole issue of ‘recognition’ by law, which in the past was given to majority communities and cultures in the past, now emphasizes recognition of minorities and indigenous groups.  In practice, this has resulted in various problems that have arisen causing a tension between equality and differences.  Tensions between giving people equality and recognizing some of their differences but without violating the rights of others i.e. women and minorities.  Hence, a fundamental reason for the tensions in relations between law and ethnicity is the contradiction that exists between the basic elements of jurisprudence, the foundational elements of universality, objectivity, neutrality, and, the particularity aspects and realities of ethnicity.

E. Sridharan focused on the political dimensions of ethnicity and explored the issue of structural accommodations of diversity.  He raised the question of whether constitutional/electoral systems actually contribute towards the abatement of ethnic problems.  Using India as an example, he discussed electoral system in the context of social cleavage patterns that can determine and/or are reflected in the party system, and the prospects for minority representation under these circumstances.  He concluded that electoral/constitutional engineering can help bridge social cleavages only if you start with a fairly unpolarized society at the outset.  He believes that in a very polarized society, the only solution is consociationalism with very strong group rights which cannot be touched by majority rule.

Rubina Saigol opined that ethnicity, its causes and consequences cannot be explained within a single framework, thus, she touched on four theoretical frameworks for various analyses and interpretations of ethnicity and the significance of ethnicity in identity politics.  The Marxist framework, feminist framework or looking at inner constructions of ethnicity as a discourse and globalization theory are necessary theories for understanding the dynamics of ethnicity and ethnic identity.  Emphasis was made on the multiple nature, fluidity and constant state of influx that characterizes ethnic identities as opposed to looking at ethnicity as a constant monolith.  While noting the importance of using different theoretical frameworks in attempts to understand and explain the different dimensions of ethnicity, she warned against the dangers of over simplification and broad generalizations.
The next plenary session focused on the economic dimensions of ethnic conflict with three presentations, opening with the keynote presentation made by Sonali Deraniyagala. The afternoon sessions involved working groups, brainstorming and identifying priority issues for future research and action.  The economic dimensions plenary focused on the relationship between economics and ethnic conflicts.  To a great extent, emphasis was on the need to move away from statistical testing and approaches that generate dubious data, to a focus on in depth case studies in order to understand ethnicity.  There was a clear warning against data dependency in the analyses of conflict related issues.
Sonali Deraniyagala provided a broad overview of how economists have begun to study ethnic conflict, looking at theoretical approaches of orthodox and heterodox economists.  The stark contrast between the orthodox economic approach to conflict and that of the anthropologists and other areas of social science was noted. 
            The violent nature of ethnic conflict particularly in the 90s, brought into focus a need for the study of conflict by economists, who, as pointed out have a tendency to believe they have the best explanation of conflict as opposed to other social sciences.  Hence, Sonali noted the somewhat arrogant approach of orthodox economists pointing out its limitations because of the tendency to reduce the understanding of ethnic conflict to theories based on “utility maximization” and that of “predatory behaviour over notable resources.” Other approaches have progressed further by actually acknowledging ethnicity, and emphasizing the existence of both horizontal as well as vertical inequality between ethnic groups in their analyses of conflict.
            Causes and costs of conflict, economic consequences of peace, reconstruction and co-existence are three broad areas in the economics of conflict.  She touched on the existence of divergent views of orthodox and heterodox economic theories out there. The limitations of a purely statistical framework in attempting to understand conflict which results in the reduction and oversimplification of complex social/human phenomena.  From the perspective of economic dimensions of conflict, the need to develop an intellectual framework through methodological innovation, thus making it policy relevant is seen as a significant necessity.  She concluded on the note that a lot of work needs to be done in the field of economics and ethnic conflict, both in theoretical terms and at practical, policy level. 
Diana Wong – discussed issues dealing with the economy of recognition and the economics of uncertainty among others.  The difference between minority identity politics in Western homogenous states and the economy of recognition in the context of diversity in contemporary, post-colonial Asian nation-states was noted.  Diana emphasized that in this pluralist, post-colonial, Asian context, the issue is not recognition as a minority but the struggle against ascription as a minority, hence, pointing to the existence of a contradiction between the human right to recognition and the right to participation.
            She challenged the notion that globalization promotes uncertainty and held that the economics of uncertainty may have less to do with anxiety generated by globalization than the marginalization processes generated by a failed state, and by the corruption and predatory behavior of state elites.  We were warned that the sole focus and over emphasis on globalization could mask the internal failure of the state in a particular country.
Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah’s contribution to economics and ethnic conflict, supported the critique of existing economic approaches to conflict by noting his deep scepticism of the quantitative, empirical, neo-liberal agenda that many economists engage in, in analyzing ethnic/internal conflicts.  Based on the work he has been conducting, on the political economy of conflict in Sri Lanka, he stressed that inequality within ethnic groups is far more significant in real terms than inequality between ethnic groups, thus there is a need to focus more on inequality within and between groups.  He also points out the limitations of economists in aggregating inequality and emphasizing wholesale measures of socio/economic factors.  This has resulted in the missing out on insights provided by other social scientists in understanding key aspects in relation to conflict that possibly has very little to do with the wider economy.
            Concluding that “economics does matter,” he too emphasized the need for further work in the field of economics and conflict, particularly on the international aspects of economic dimensions of ethnic conflict.

Day 3 – Conference Session 2

            The third day’s sessions focused on the topic of civil society initiatives in diversity and co-existence in Asia.  This session aimed at analyzing the role of civil society in supporting and promoting mutual co-existence of diverse groups in Asia, and in identifying areas for future research and actions.  The sessions were structured around interactive question and answer panel discussions facilitated by Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu.  The panel discussions were conducted in two sessions with eight individuals participating in each session and ended with a presentation of six country case studies.  Working groups on civil society issues were replaced by written comments and informal conversational input, contributed by participants on 3-4 questions they were asked to consider, by identifying key recommendations for follow up in terms of civil society initiatives,
            These sessions attempted to move away from theoretical, conceptual frameworks to the pragmatic.  The goal was to relate theory to experiences on the ground, hence, synthesize the two as well as to identify practitioner concerns at ground level.  Participants looked at forms of civil society organizations that are more effective in multi-ethnic societies to prevent/contain ethnic disorders or violence.  They looked at mechanisms that work or are working that can make a difference.  They also explored the role of civil society networks that can facilitate and constrain elite strategies, how the autonomy of civil society organizations impact on government policy in the areas of ethnic diversity.
Shirin Rao opened the panel discussion by sharing her views civil society networks that are effective in facilitating/constraining elite strategies and prevent and/or contain ethnic violence.  She noted the difference between civil society and civil society organizations and the importance of looking at the relationship between the state and civil society.  The importance of the state in maintaining or not maintaining the parameters of civil society and of the politics in mediating between particular interests of civil society and unniversalist claims of the state. Thus, the potential for and limitations of change that can be brought about by civil society organizations was brought out.  She also stressed the need to move away from relationships that reduce civil society to capitalist economic relations as well as those which separate civil society from its material bases and challenged the popular idea that civil society is a sphere of uncoerced freedom for all.
            Several participants in this discussion group expressed their concern over the dictates and control of civil society/organizations by the international donor community, the use of civil society organizations through NGOs to impose controls on the state.  Some noted that civil society is a discourse created by the World Bank, that it is a relatively new concept in the context of Asia.  Dharini Rajasingham-Senanayake endorsed these concerns by pointing to the instrumentalization of the civil society sector by the Washington/Post-Washington consensus to get certain kinds of agendas pushed through and the need to examine this agenda in terms of preventing conflict.
The need for civil society to work at base/grass-roots levels was stressed while noting that the failure to do so has been caused by the “NGOization” of civil society.  This resulting void was viewed as having created the opportunity and huge success of fundamentalist forces today.  Thus, strong opinions were expressed on the undermining of the real strength and capacity of civil society by the NGOization that has taken place. This has compromised both the autonomy of civil society as well as its bases, one based on a popular agenda, and in turn, its ability to interact with the state and fundamentalist forces at that level.
Discussions also centered around definitional issues, of civil society, state and market.  A great deal of attention was given to questions of whether civil society is NGOs or social movements, and the fact that we should not homogenize civil society but look at it as a “space” in which many actors operate, hence getting away from an “anti-state/market” type discourses.  There was an acknowledgment however, that civil society has to work with the state as well as the market particularly in situations of major communal conflict. It was noted that it is important to look at the dynamics within civil society, and the relationship between civil society, state and market as one that complements and challenges each other as opposed to the binary (anti-state/anti-market) approach. 
Some of the significant points that emerged from the two panel discussions were important in terms of questions for further consideration.  Whether NGOs have the kind of autonomy that is necessary to regenerate from below; should civil society concentrate on trying to influence the state or should their role be to change the consciousness of the people to regain the state and change the orientation of the state; are there civil society network mechanisms that can address the question of ethnic reconciliation, justice and co-existence?
The next panel focused on case studies, civil society work experiences in each participant/speakers particular country, how their civil service network mechanisms have been able to cope with ethnic conflict/violence, thus to ground the session more in terms of practical experiences on the ground.  Case studies were presented on South Korea, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Naga movement in North-East India.
The focus of the speakers was on problems of local successes and initiatives on how to build links and alliances across like-minded organizations, across localities in countries and regions or whether it is a form of engagement in a political sphere.  They also focused on how to influence, inform and engage with agendas of political parties in the areas of changing mindsets, introducing new organizations, innovations, trying to mobilize people using new language/new technologies.  South Korea’s case study emphasized the significance of internet media as an important tool with which to mobilize the youth in utilizing civil society movements.  The Pakistan study brought out the significance of the state as extra powerful, looking at how the state can be absolved of its responsibility and of its social contract obligations.  Indonesia’s civil society efforts focused on community based reconciliation efforts, interfaith coalition building and voicing transformative agendas.  Thus emphasis was on the need to build on these areas.
A significant point that emerged here is the view that civil society initiatives have been micro and marginal in the larger scheme of things so far, that there must be a linking between micro and macro level interventions on the ground, and that a common strategizing should occur.  Also the importance of alliances among like-minded people at local, national and regional levels was stressed.  The need to look at and develop regional initiatives which can help locate issues and strategies collectively, thereby build bridges not only between communities but across borders as well.  Another point of emphasis was the need to design campaigns and movements within the paradigm of the vision to stop violence.  That the question of communal peace and identity conflict cannot be addressed within any one nation-state was accepted, therefore it was stated that we need to move beyond the restrictions of the nation-state framework in looking for solutions and invent better methods of proceedings.

Day 4 -  Conference Session 3

The fourth day’s session agenda was aimed at identifying the role of culture in the realm of diversity and co-existence as well intellectual frameworks to help us understand its importance in the context of co-existence.  The plenary session was chaired by Professor Gananath Obeysekere. 
Purushottam Agrawal delivered the keynote speech on “Culture, Ethnicity and Peaceful Co-existence in Asia.”  One of the issues he raised was cultural diversity in the context of globalization and the perceptions and attitudes toward cultural homogenization processes.  He cautioned against extreme responses noting that current emphasis given to diversity and difference stems from a political imagination challenging the euro-centric model.  This is viewed as an authoritarian imposition of alien values on cultures in question.  He pointed out however, that cultural tyranny also stems from within cultures and not only from external sources.
            Agrawal warned against cultural symbolism and the manipulations of symbols which he sees as a “sweet camoflague” of conflicting interests and power contests, and a mechanism of controlling resources.  Hence he is wary of the notion of peaceful co-existence which can be subjected to the manipulations of cultural symbolism He views cultural symbolism as oppressive structures of tradition, used by the modern state as well.  Meaningful cultural diversity to him can only stem from a dialogue between cultures that contribute to a universality of values, linked to the notion of justice.
Valentine Daniel, Thanh Phan and Dharini Senanayake-Rajasingham participated in the panel discussion on cultural dimensions of diversity and co-existence.
            Professor Daniel raised the question of how we can bring about a culture of “negotium” as opposed to “pleasing” when one thinks about broad notions of culture.  Dharini pointed out the need to critically evaluate notions of multiculturalism making the distinction between those of the Asian context and European.   She emphasized the significance of the hybridity of cultures in the Asian regions and the erasure of this dynamism of cultural diversity through nation building efforts and the nation state monopoly on the movement of peoples.
            Discussing the situation of minority groups in Viet Nam, Than Phan outlined some proposals and solutions to bring about the co-existence of culturally diverse groups from a pragmatic standpoint.
The next panel began with a keynote speech delivered by Johan Saravanamuttu who provided his perspective on the topic of  “Problems of Multiculturalism-A Southeast Asian Perspective.”  This was followed by a panel discussion by participants, Amara Ponsapich, Imtiaz Ahmed and Pradeep Jeganathan.
Saravanamuttu examined the liberal debate on multiculturalism including the non-liberal model of consociationalism that exists in Malaysia.  While focusing on actual situations in various parts of Southeast Asia through case studies, he revealed the existence of a crisis in multicultural practice, the lack of an explicit policy or formal practice of multiculturalism.  This has resulted in various forms of internecine ethnic conflicts in the region.  A point of significance he notes is that the politics of recognition suggests that ontological differences stemming from culture and religion are often deeply incompatible especially when survival of a culture is at stake.
Focusing on civil society issues in Thailand, Ponsapich highlighted the significance and importance of social movements as a resistance movements and civil disobedience as weapons of the weak, hence resistance as the characteristic of the new social movement.
Jeganathan pointed to the existence of territorial nationalisms in Sri Lanka, noting the tensions in relationships of power and equality between dominant and subordinate nationalisms.  Thus the concept of ethnicity became an analytical category of this tension, in liberal scholarly circles in Sri Lanka. 
            In the context of diversity and co-existence, he also touched on the discourse of
social suffering, and pointed to the constitution of ones identity in terms of taking on moral responsibility for ourselves and for the suffering caused to others.
Imtiaz Ahmed focused on three issues in the context of ethnicity and identity in Bangladesh.  1. The notion that diversity cannot be celebrated without a critique of conformity.  2. Globalization which brings about homogeneity and diversity and reverse globalization and 3. Subaltern globalization, in the form of smugglers, terrorists, arms dealers etc.

Day 5 – Final Conference Session

The final session was initiated by Mark Robinson who outlined categories for future follow up work.  Sushma Raman of Ford Foundation presented a summary of the conference presentations, discussions and working group outputs. Pradeep Jeganathan outlined gaps in relation to research implications particularly in terms of its significance to ICES.  Francis Loh discussed some personal insights for specific action and engagement. 
These presentations were made for purposes of stimulating debate and drawing out suggestions and insights, concentrating on practical steps for follow up with the view towards taking this work forward.  The discussions that followed highlighted themes and possibilities for further focus in terms of future work.  Finally Sushma Raman outlined the operational structure of Ford Foundation and the potential for future follow up work at country and regional level in Asia.  The conference concluded after Mark Robinson highlighted what we had achieved from the conference and outlined some gaps in areas that may need further consideration.

Sri Lanka Briefing
During the conference a briefing session on the current Sri Lankan peace process was held with contributions by the Sri Lankan participants.  Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Pradeep Jeganathan, Dharini Senanayake-Rajasingham and Neloufer de Mel gave their perspectives on the situation and its progress.

Traditional Dance Performance

A traditional Sri Lankan dance performance was organized in keeping with the theme of diversity and co-existence by attempting to portray indigenous cultural diversity through the different and varying dances items and drum rhythms.

Insights from summary of discussions around research, civil society & future work possibilities:

• A preoccupation with and/or emphasis on conflict as opposed to peaceful co-

Existence.

• A need to better understand why violence occurs in some places and not in

Others.

• A need to focus on local level communities not only political elites.

• A better understanding of associational life, the potentials and limitations in this area.

The practical elements that emerged from research in the area of civil society are:

• How we combine action research with activism.

• Ways in which we can link researchers from different countries and create linkages and exchange opportunities between researchers and activists.

• The scope for internships, training, research and writing for activists.

• How we can create opportunities for training, research and exchange to extend beyond the elite.

Gaps identified in current work:

• The need to address community level initiatives in terms of conciliatory action within multi-ethnic/poly-ethnic local communities.

• Additional attention to formal political arrangements and its consequences in terms of diversity and co-existence.

• Focus more on issues of hybridity/hybrid identities in countries of concern.

• Additional work in the area of religion, religious tradition as a realm of contestation.

Publication and dissemination of the papers presented at the conference
Even though following papers were selected for the conference volume due to minimal response from the paper writers regarding revising their papers for publication the editor in consultation with ICES directors it was decided to publish two background papers by Mark Robinson and Sonali Moonesinghe along with Rubina Saigol’s and the literature review. We are hoping that this publication will be quite useful as background reference material.

• Religious and Ethnic Co-existence in Asia: Frameworks for Analysis and Intervention by Mark Robinson

• Intellectual Discourses and Frameworks on Understanding Ethnicity and Diversity in South Asia by Sonali Moonesinghe

• Can Indian Secularism meet the Challenge of Militant Hindu Nationalism? By Rajeev Bhargava

• Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society by Ashutosh Varshney

• Economic Dimensions of ethnic conflict by Sonali Deraniyagala

• Understanding Ethnicity Intellectual Frameworks for the Politics of Difference by Rubina Saigol

• Bibliography

In keeping up with our suggestion in our last report to find an international publisher for this conference volume, Sage Publications in India had shown interest in publishing.   Please find the final manuscript is attached to this report.

Dissemination of Conference concepts- Conference follow up activity

The concept of ethnicity has animated ICES work for two decades now.  How does the category stand up 22 years later? How has that category developed and what are its limitations?  Should we re-conceptualise ethnicity or are there other categories that better capture the experience of diversity, pluralism and coexistence.  Does the focus on ethnicity that has guided ICES work for last two decades erase other experiences that are important today such as class, caste or religion?  What does all this mean in an era of globalisation?  These discussions have often been articulated by scholars close to ICES.  In this context we have invited a small group of scholars in December 2004, between 16-19th for a retreat to discuss these conceptual issues, take a stock of the work that had been done during last two decades under ethnicity, review the papers of the conference volume and to prepare an Agenda of research and action for the next few years. Also these scholars will evaluate the recommendations made at the end of the Asia wide conference to will is expected to suggest future follow up. The agenda for research into ethnicity will be the framework for the programmatic development of the ICES division on Ethnicity and Identity and will guide the formulation of research and action projects in that area.

Following are the scholars who are invited for the December meeting:

• Prof. Val Daniel, Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University and Director of Columbia University’s Southern Asian Institute

• Prof. S J. Tambiah, former Professor of Anthropology, Harvard University

• Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy, Director, ICES and Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission

• Dr. R. Cheran, Dept. of Sociology, York University, Canada

• Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan, Senior Research Fellow, ICES

• Mr. Sunil Bastian, Additional Director – Research, ICES

• Prof. Gananath Obyesekera, Professor of Anthropology (Tentative)

We would like to year mark this event and close the project at this point.