You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Politics » Violent Ethnic Conflicts

Cookie Information

Privacy Information

Free Essays - Politics Essays

Violent Ethnic Conflicts

Introduction

As the number of violent ethnic conflicts around the world continues to increase, many scholars are considering the factors contributing to the development of ethnic violence. Since its inception, India has been plagued with much ethnic violence, and little conclusive evidence has been uncovered as to its causes. In his article, “Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society in India”, Ashutosh Varshey’s methodology enables him to explore the connection between civil society and the occurrence of ethnic violence effectively.

This paper will analyze the methodology used by Ashutosh Varshey in his examination of Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society in India. It will be argued here that the methodology used by Varshney was appropriate and contributed to the success of his study. In order to reach this conclusion, a general discussion of methodology will first be presented. Second Varshney’s study will be discussed in detail, followed by an analysis of his methodology. Fourth, there will be particular attention paid to the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology Varshney uses in his work. Lastly, I will conclude that by using subnational comparisons and small-n analysis in combination, Varshney presents a solid case for his claims.

Methodologies

Before turning our attention to Varshney’s particular use of methodology, it is first important to examine methodologies that might have been used, and their effectiveness in making comparisons.

Analysts have a broad range of methodologies that they can use in their studies. While some scholars will consistently prefer one methodology, comparativists will often select a methodology that helps to support their particular claim. Different methodologies can be used to highlight similarities or differences between cases. Each has its advantages in terms of making accurate comparisons.

Paired cross national comparisons, or comparisons between countries, can be useful in drawing parallels in order to shed light on possible conclusions. However, there are several drawbacks to these comparisons. First, this methodology often neglects context and context is not always shared between the countries in question. Context can be influential and therefore it might be argued that comparisons of contexts are important in and of themselves.

However, even when a shared background does exist, this does not necessarily lead to the emergence of a similar pattern in a society. Second, these comparisons can be quite selective in what they choose to examine; this biased sample of what is analyzed can have the effect of making the conclusions less accurate.

While cross national comparisons can be useful, sub-national comparisons are also important in drawing conclusions about the occurrence of a political event. In a cross national comparison, there can be many variables that make it hard to study a given phenomenon. No two political situations are the same, and different countries will have different factors leading to what could be a similar result.

Analyzing the different elements of a given society can sometimes reveal more than looking at similar situations in different contexts. For example, one might look at the development of a large city and question how it developed. Looking at the specific conditions surrounding a case like this might give more insight than looking at the development of a similar large city in another part of the world.

Sub-national comparisons look at the diversity within a country rather than looking at a country in broader terms. Because the different areas that are being compared using this method share a national context, it allows for more control on variables, and therefore can produce more valid conclusions. This methodology is, perhaps, the most rigorous form of comparative politics as far as qualitative small “n” methodology in comparative politics is concerned.

There are several advantages to sub-national comparisons. First, this type of comparison generally covers a wide range of qualitative elements. Second, the careful analysis of cases brings the researcher closer to the different elements to be explained. Third, this methodology explains the differences between cases involved in a given comparison, avoiding generalizations about entire countries and ignoring internal diversity. These advantages make sub-national comparisons very useful in analyzing individual or disparate countries.

It is also useful to examine the advantages and disadvantages of using small-N and large-N approaches. Small-N qualitative analysis tends “to develop complex or multidimensional concepts and theories that are well-suited for description and for making inferences about simple causation on a small scale or in few cases.” (Coppedge, 465) However, scholars using small-N methodology can often run into difficulties when they attempt to “provide broader generalizations than the cases under analysis.” (Mahony, 36)

Variables in large-N quantitative analysis tend to be defined more narrowly. It is therefore easier to gather data from a large number of cases and to support generalizations. (Coppedge, 468) Scholars using large-N methods can be criticized for relying on “reductionist or simplistic concepts and theories” in their research. (Coppedge, 465) Both methods of research can be useful when used appropriately, but both have obvious drawbacks. Often the two methods, both small-N and large-N, can be used to counterbalance one another. Each has methodological advantages than can help to fill in the holes of the other.

Case studies are also worth exploring in a discussion of methodologies. “For methodological purposes, a case study is best defined as an in-depth study of a single unit where the scholar’s aim is to elucidate features of a larger class of similar phenomena.” (Gerring, 341) The comparing of cases in a sub-national comparison is particularly useful because cases are more likely to be comparable. (Gerring, 348) Cases can help to shed light on a particular phenomenon that might otherwise be hard to describe. However, when using case studies, there is the danger that scholars might select cases based on the known outcome (a problem known as selection bias). Authors of small-N studies are particularly vulnerable to this. (Bennett, Elman, 460-61)

Varshney's Study

In his article “Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society in India”, Ashutosh Varshney makes a successful case for the connection between civil society and ethnic conflict. Varshney argues that “there is an integral link between the structure of civic life in a multiethnic society, on the one hand, and the presence or absence of ethnic violence, on the other.” (Varshney, 2001: 362-363)

Before delving into the details of his argument, Varshney defines his terms. He uses Horowitz’s definition for the term “Ethnic”, which refers to “ascriptive group identities – race, language, religion, tribe or caste” (Varshney, 364) This definition is more inclusive than definitions used in other cases that might only include racial or linguistic cases. Varshney goes to great lengths to define the concept of “ethnic conflict” and how it differs from “ethnic violence”.

He writes that “if ethnic protest takes an institutionalized form – in parliament, in assemblies, in bureaucratic corridors, and as nonviolent mobilization on the streets – it is conflict but not violence.” (Varshney, 366) He distinguishes this from a situation of “ethnic violence” where “protest takes violent forms, rioting breaks out on the streets, and in its most extreme form civil war ensues or pogroms are initiated.” (Varshney, 366) Perhaps, Varshey’s definition of civil society is most pertinent here. Varshney defines civil society as the space that “exists between the family and the state, makes interconnections between individuals or families possible and is independent of the state” (Varshney, 366)

The concept of civil society is vital in understanding Varshey’s claim. He purports that civil society must be broken down into interethnic and intraethnic civic networks, making the claim that interethnic networks build bridges and manage tensions and are therefore motivators for peace. This in contrast with communities organized along intraethnic lines, where ethnic violence is more likely. (Varshney 363)

Varshney also distinguishes between two types of civic networks: associational (or organized) forms of engagement, and everyday (or quotidian) forms of engagement. He includes in associational civic networks business associations, professional organizations, reading clubs, film clubs, sports clubs, NGOs, trade unions, and cadre-based political parties.

Everyday forms of engagement, in Varshney’s study refer to simple, routine interactions of life, such as whether families from different communities visit each other, eat together regularly, participate in festivals or allow their children to play together. (Varshney, 363) Varshney argues that while “both of these forms of engagements promote peace…associational forms turn out to be sturdier than everyday engagement.” (Varshney, 363)

Varshney’s research question focuses on the role of civic organizations in the times of ethnic tensions. His study enables him to conclude that in India, “preexisting local networks of civic engagement between the two communities stand out as the single most important proximate explanation for the difference between peace and violence. Where such networks of engagement exist, tensions and conflicts are regulated and managed; where they are missing, communal identities lead to endemic and ghastly violence.” (Varshney, 2001: 375)

He makes this connection by arguing that civil society’s influence on ethnic conflict stems from the different community organizations, religious groups, and civic networks that exist. If different ethnic groups work together regularly, they are less likely to be violent with one another. In contrast, in communities where different ethnic populations remained segregated, tension was likely to be higher.

For Varshney, what matters “for ethnic violence is not whether ethnic life or social capital exists but whether social and civic ties cut across ethnic groups. Stated differently, trust based on interethnic, not intraethnic, networks is critical.” (Varshey, 392) Another conclusion that Varshney draws from his research is that while “everyday interethnic engagement may be enough to maintain peace on a small scale (villages or small towns), it is no substitute for interethnic associations in larger settings (cities and metropolises). Size reduces the efficacy of informal interactions, privileging formal associations. (Varshney, 392)

Varshney's Use Of Methodology

In order to examine the validity of Varshney’s conclusions, namely that there is a direct link between civil society and ethnic conflict, it follows logically that his methodology should be examined. Varshney uses large-N analysis to select his cases and to direct his study and small-n methods for the rest of the work.

In his analysis, Varshney considered all reported Hindu-Muslim riots in the country between 1950 and 1995. He found two results that were vital in identifying common trends (Varshney, 2001: 371): First, Varshney found that only a small number of communal riots occurred in villages as the majority of Hindu-Muslim violence takes place in urban centres; (Varshney, 2001: 371) second, he found that, even within these cities in India, Hindu-Muslim riots are centralized as eight cities account for a disproportionate share of communal violence in the India. (Varshney, 2001: 371)

Varshney’s use of large-N methodology in this instance allows him to identify that the town/city is the important unit of analysis because “India’s Hindu-Muslim violence is city specific, not state specific, with state (and national) politics providing the context within which the local mechanisms linked with violence are activated.” (Varshney, 2001: 371) It is to these ‘local mechanisms’ that Varshney turns his attention.

In this study, Varshney identifies and places into pairs six cities (three violent and three peaceful). Each pair “had a city where communal violence is endemic and a city where it is rare or entirely absent.” (Varshney, 2001: 373) He ensured that each city had similar Hindu-Muslim percentages in populations. This was the ‘minimum control’ that he used in his comparisons. This was a logical control because both extremes of the political spectrum (Muslim and Hindu) rely on demography for their explanations of why violent conflict exists.

The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) make the claim that the demographic distribution of Muslims makes them critical to the electoral outcomes. Therefore appeasement of Muslims based on their large numbers in a democracy is the cause of communal conflict and violence in India. (Varshney, 373) On the other hadn, Leading Muslim politicians make a reversed demographic claim that the higher the numbers of Muslims in a town the greater the political threat felt by the leaders of the Hindu community, causing them to react with hostility. (Varshney, 374).

While demographics provided the minimum control for the study, each pair of cities examined had an added variable. The first pair (Aligarh and Calicut) was selected only be demographic similarities; the second pair (Hyderabad and Lucknow) were selected because they both had a history of Muslim rule and reasonably similar cultures; the third pair (Ahmedabad and Surat) came from the same state of Gujarat, sharing history, language and culture. (Varshney, 373) This allowed for Varshney to test different variables, keeping the demographic proportions as the constant between pairs.

Eventually, Varshney was able to identify that the “preexisting local networks of civic engagement between the two communities stand out as the single most important proximate explanation for the difference between peace and violence. Where such networks of engagement exist, tensions and conflicts are regulated and managed; where they are missing, communal identities lead to endemic and ghastly violence.” (Varshney, 2001: 375)

He makes this connection by arguing that civil society’s influence on ethnic conflict stems from the different community organizations, religious groups, and civic networks that exist. If different ethnic groups work together regularly, they are less likely to be violent with one another. In contrast, in communities where different ethnic populations remained segregated, tension was likely to be higher.

In his study, Varshney then examined the effect of size or population of an area on the link between civic engagement and ethnic conflict. In doing this he observes that moving from villages to towns and from “towns to cities, we need many more links to connect people than the increase in population. Cities tend naturally to be less interconnected; some degree of anonymity is inevitable.” (Varshney, 2001: 376)

Varshney’s methodology involved establishing causality by examining different pairs of cities within India. In each pair of cities, similar stimuli were identified that led to different outcomes in the two cities, and then mechanisms by which the same trigger produced divergent outcomes were identified. (Varshney, 2001: 380) This is how Varshney arrived at the conclusion that civil society was a causal factor and that it was these “civic links between the two communities, combined with the use of such links by local administrations, [that] kept tensions from escalating into riots.” (Varshney, 2001: 380)

Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses

Varshney’s methodological approach to the study of ethnic conflict has several strengths. First, by studying different cases within a shared context (India), and with similar demographic proportions, Varshney was able to identify variables that act as triggers for ethnic violence. Second, by studying both peaceful and violent cities, Varshney was able to demonstrate what intercommunal civic links can do. (Varshney, 2001: 380)

Third, Varshney used different variable such as size and location to identify the effects of certain variables. By doing this, he was able to establish that violence is more prevalent in urban centres rather than in rural areas. Fourth, Varshney was able to clearly distinguish between associational and everyday forms of civic engagement, indicating that the former would be more effective in maintaining peace.

Varshney’s work explores “why and how some conflict is contained and some is not. He sees the answer in what he calls “civic life”, more particularly, whether there are intercommunal associations, such as business organizations, trade unions, political parties and professional societies. (Dushkin, 992) His use of a combination of both large-N and small-N analysis proves to be very effective in laying out a well laid out argument.

Varshney uses large-N analysis to demonstrate that riots are concentrated in certain cities in India, and are therefore best studied at that level. He then uses small-N analysis (through interviews, collection of oral histories, and archival research) to provide an explanation for both riot-prone and peace-prone cities. (Jenkins, 467) His study, specifically his use of both empirical and qualitative research is brings legitimacy to his conclusions.

There are also several weaknesses in Varshney’s methodology. Without examining similar cases in different contexts, conclusions drawn can be limited to India and cannot travel elsewhere. This is a problem that is inherent in sub-national small-n comparisons in that they miss things because they are country-specific. The usefulness of this study is therefore somewhat restricted. Second, Varshney’s work could be criticized for its lack of quantitative methods. It can be argued that quantitative methods provide more accurate conclusions to be drawn. While Varshney used large-N analysis to select his cases for further research, it might have been useful if he had used empirical research techniques in his examination of his cases.

However, in this case, the use of subnational comparisons offers the most comprehensive qualitative methodology possible. Third, Varshney’s work could be criticized for its lack of historical depth, as little is dedicated to the history of patterns of violence in the regions being compared. This might indicate results that are reflective of a given time rather than an overall pattern of societal behaviour. Fourth, Varshey does not pay attention to the role of key elements of society. He does not take into account the influence of elites or ideology, nor does he consider demographic changes.

Paul Brass outlines three distinct problems generally associated with the method of paired comparisons and causal theorizing, specifically in Varshney’s work. First he writes that it may lead to downplaying the significance of collective violence in those places where it does occur. Second, is that while such comparisons reveal why riots have occurred, they do not tell us how they happen. Third, the method of paired comparison suffers from a flaw of misidentification of the sites of collective violence. The locations which Varshney refers to are too broad (city as opposed to by street or exact location). (Brass, 28)

Lastly, it would be of value for Varshney to break down his typology further, dividing his category of “associational” civil society into economic versus other types of associations. (Jenkins, 469)

Conclusion

Ashutosh Varshney uses sub-national comparisons and both large-n and small-n analysis in order to thoroughly examine the connection between ethnic conflict and civil society. He succeeds in shedding light on these connections by using this effective qualitative methodology to determine that violence occurs where civil society is weak. However, Varshney’s conclusions may be criticized legitimately for offering unclear prescriptions.

Even if one accepts Varshney’s analysis with respect to India, it is not evident that this same analysis would apply to any other country, particularly one that lacks the Hindu-Muslim division in India, one with a British (or at least common law) tradition, or one of a particular level of economic development. While there are drawbacks to any methodology used in comparative politics, Varshney’s use of sub-national comparisons proves to be effective in his study.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: