In the given debate topic of 'Is ethnic conflict inevitable? ' both authors have explained their perspectives with an example of historical events in particular society. I would like to explain the summary of both the sides and then I would express my point of view as under. Sudhir Kakar – a social researcher in India has taken the psychological perspective to explain the inevitable causes of ethnic conflicts. Taking Indian community as a whole, he differentiates the understanding of everybody with the concepts of splitting and projective identification for each other whether conscious, pre-conscious, or unconscious!
The Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs, for example, have been fighting with each other to prove the dominance of population over the other in very different ways. The self-esteem level transcends into high ego level very rapidly as and when there is a discussion of cultural values in these communities. He mentions certain examples of Bad Spirits or BHUTA or demon spirits in his research and according to him right education at school level directing future citizens towards creating a global community can certainly make a difference.
Through the article 'the manipulation of ethnicity: from ethnic cooperation to violence and war in Yogoslavia', Anthony Oberschall has presented four different views of ethnicity and ethnic conflict; 'primordial', 'instrumentalist', 'constructionist', and the 'state breakdown'. From 'primordial' perspective, former Yogoslavia did have pretended friendship between Muslims and Serbs but they were poured by mistrust, hatred, fear of survival and aggressive behavior. Though this was not fully supported by evidences and eyewitness!
From 'instrumentalist' perspective, politicians and those in power manipulate ethnic feelings and identities in order to make political gains. The central focus was to create new state - Greater Serbia. Accordingly the average Bosnians and Serbs were surveyed to display a sentiment that was not supportive of secession, and that many Serbs in fact avoided military service which would show an unwillingness to die for this cause or fight for it at the least. The 'Constructionist' view explanations point to the very real existence of ethnicity but that in rdinary times ethnicity is just one of a few identifying characteristics important to people.
Oberschall finds this lacks any explanation of there existed two frames in Yugoslavia. One was a frame of normal peacetime relations that was most prevalent under the rule of Tito. This frame suppressed the other, crisis frame. Oberschall argues that the crisis frame was brought out in a manipulative way by nationalists how the nationalist and ethnic identities were constructed and then broken down by a heavy handed propaganda campaign and political mobilization.
The breakdown of the state and the lack of security therein was the fourth existing explanation of ethnic conflict. Oberschall finds this lacking any explanation as to why there was so much violence without state breakdown. Oberschall then seeks to show that it there was a strong sense of nationalism that was lying just beneath the surface of peoples psyche and that it was the leadership that brought those feelings out.
The fears and insecurity that followed was the product of media dishonesty and heavy propaganda. He uses the cognitive frames’ ideas to explain some of the shortcomings as described above. There existed two frames in Yugoslavia. One was a frame of normal peacetime relations that was most prevalent under the rule of Tito. This frame suppressed the other, crisis frame. Oberschall argues that the crisis frame was brought out in a manipulative way by nationalists