Abstract
At the local level, violent conflict and peace are part of ordinary people’s everyday life. During a conflict, local people are faced with everyday challenges that constantly require making choices and taking action, some of which have to do with how to interact with armed groups and other political actors. In other words, in one way or another, local people make political choices. Exploring how local people experience, make sense of, and respond to violent conflict is the objective of this thesis. Possible responses to violent conflict might involve participating in the violence, but also resisting it and engaging in efforts to construct peace at the local level.
The question of local people’s agency in violent conflict has been investigated through a study conducted in rural villages in the area known as Junglemahal, in the Indian state of West Bengal where, between 2008 and 2012, a widespread resistance movement turned into a violent conflict with the involvement of Maoist cadres, state forces and other paramilitary groups. In this area, I have conducted 90 in-depth interviews with local inhabits, activists, members and former members of a Maoist party, and state representatives active at the local level. The data collected has been analysed through a Critical Discourse Analysis approach, which highlighted different dimensions of meaning in local people’s discourses.
The findings of this analysis show that the local people engaged in a wide range of actions during the conflict, including cooperating with armed groups, attempting to influence their behaviour, resisting them, leading nonviolent resistance strategies, organising informal networks of community support and information sharing, and more. Local people’s actions and strategies were very diverse, similarly to their experiences of direct and structural violence. This analysis found that people also had different views regarding what kind of peace and change ought to be implemented, and these views were key drivers to everyday action and social engagement. Local people’s discourses often contradicted those of the state, and showed how the dominant discourse of peace and development legitimised everyday forms of violence. In summary, the local people emerged from this analysis as relevant political actors who sought to influence the dynamics and outcomes of the conflict.