Getting the Right people for a Dialogue

52. As battles rage, bringing the right people together for negotiations itself is an achievement. Now, who are the right people? It is not likely that the frontline fighters will come to talk. Their skills lie in another direction. It is not likely either that the war hawks will deign to sit for dialogue. They have a vested interest in keeping the fires burning. I would describe the people who matter in a peace-dialogue as “socially important people”: people who are respected in society; groups whose opinions have wide acceptability among both radicals and moderates, like thinkers, writers, speakers and people who stir society with their charismatic leadership or prophetic utterances.

53. Their “importance” is not to be measured by their rank in the social hierarchy, the size of their purse, or the number of thugs they command. The people who really matter in the fighting federation are those who think, provide a philosophy for action, develop strategies, keep public contacts, and control publicity.

54. Do not be bewildered by these qualification. Very often the ‘big’ man is a small man. He may not be a graduate. He may even be illiterate. He may be a humble, soft-spoken person, a stocky and stunted figure. But he is a perceptive person, and has the ear of the militant ‘boss’ and his confederates.  Plato thought that we would have the ideal society if it was ruled by philosophers. I do not want to discuss the merit of this view, but merely want to say that it is not the thinkers that often rule.

55. Even in political or militant movements the same is true. The doer is not always the thinker. He acts fast, but does not always reflect. So, after organizing a few agitations, he is exhausted; or after killing a few harmless people and causing severe injury on the other party, he runs short of ideas, and the entire movement fizzles out. It is the thinker that interprets history, constructs a theory, visualizes a future in order to sustain the movement. I am not referring necessarily to just one person. There may be many at different levels of the hierarchy scattered in the various units.

56. It is not likely that you will easily persuade the key-thinkers of a militant organization to come to the negotiation-table. The next best thing to do is to draw those who are close to them; and the next best thing again is to get those who are close to those who are close to them. In other words, we may have to work through mediators, or at least such people as, we think, have some influence on the guiding-group in the organization. Though we have such comprehensive plans, those who really come for dialogue may be persons totally remote from the frontlines. But at least they should be respected persons in their own society. Even if ultimately those who turn up are people who are known to be peaceable, as long as they have the confidence of their own societies, the message will ultimately reach intended circles.

57. A last advice is this: it is not sufficient to send a routine letter of invitation to the participants in the parleys. The peacemaker may have to do a certain amount of personal canvassing (directly or through respected representatives) to make sure that key people will not be missing. Or else, she may be greatly disappointed with the turn- up.