IN recent decades, peace and conflict studies have begun to take roots as a significant interdisciplinary site of teaching and research. It has proliferated globally in its various rubric ranging from peace research, peace studies, conflict resolution, conflict management and conflict transformation among others. In South Asia too, the academic programmes that teach and research on peace are rapidly gaining a foothold. Increasing number of universities and colleges in the region have set up independent departments and Centres dedicated to peace studies. It is a befitting recognition to the perennially growing template enriched by scholars and philosophers across cultures.

However, the fledgling field of peace and conflict studies is beset with a range of contestations and criticisms. There are issues about its overwhelming and often schematized research agenda, the domination of positivists and heavily quantified methodology, uncritical stance towards terminology and the disconnection between research and action. One of the lingering challenges of teaching or researching peace and conflict in South Asia has been the enduring shadow of western perspectives, which tend to relegate indigenous discourses and frameworks. In fact, most of the pedagogic approaches in the region have imitated, evolved and intersected around western perspectives often reflecting their conceptual trajectories as well as faultlines (Upadhyaya 2013). There are, of course, some notable countercurrents and alternative perspectives in South Asian scholarship, which have critiqued the western-inspired notions of peace, often with a post-colonial bent.

Peace and conflict studies are proliferating across disciplines in growing number of institutions and locations in South Asia, like elsewhere in the world. New interdisciplinary centres and departments have emerged which teach and research peace and conflict studies in its varied rubrics. This is in addition to the rising numbers of research institutes and think tanks dedicated to conflict analysis and peacebuilding. The subject matter of peace and conflict traditionally a preserve of international relations is drawing ever more on other disciplines like political science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, religious and cultural studies and many others. Its scope is further widened by the inclusion of human security and non-traditional security concerns in the peacebuilding agenda. This is indeed a welcome development. The complex matrix of peace and conflict issues especially in South Asia certainly warrants deeper probe on a much wider template.

However, the budding field of peace and conflict resolution in South Asia is facing a crisis of relevance. Like in other areas of social sciences, it is caused by the unbridled sway of western pedagogies. With the exception of an uncritical delineation of Gandhian vision, there are not many indigenous approaches and critical insights, which inform the curriculum or methodology in this area. Notwithstanding a few counter currents posed by post-colonial and critical peace scholarship, the existing field of peace and conflict resolution is taught and disseminated in the region around western perspectives. This is not as much due to the paucity of knowledge and research on the subject, but more to the fact that the epistemological constitution of the disciplinary parameters that hardly allows voices from the marginalized southern hemisphere. The positivist and secular sway in the realm of conflict resolution, for instance, would not reckon with religion-based ideas and actors. The South Asian academic institutions too lag behind their northern counterparts in drawing indigenous pedagogies and analytical tools. All this has led to a significant epistemological and discursive deficit inpedagogies and research framework of peace and conflict in South Asia.

Introduction

While religious differences are readily seen as a cause or pretext for violence, we are yet to recognize religion as a potent force in peaceful resolution of conflicts. The peace and conflict resolution studies have lately shown greater inclination to do so. The growing recognition of religion and faith-based actors in peacework has been a much-needed course correction. Not long ago, scholars regarded religion either as an instigator of conflict or ignored it altogether. The positivist and secular sway would not like to admit religion-based ideas and actors within conflict resolution framework (Bercovitch and Orellana 2009).

Undoubtedly, the religious communities have a pervasive appeal. They are trusted institutions with vast human resource network, which could readily inspire peace and understanding within and across their communities. They can provide social cohesion and spiritual support to alleviate the pain and suffering ushering in forgiveness and reconciliation. Thus, if religion plays a part in conflict, it may also become a part of its resolution. No wonder the pedagogies of religious pluralism and spirituality are now assuming greater attention in peace studies discourses (Kazanjian and Laurence 2000, Lin and Brantmeier 2010).

While the post-9/11 transferences marked a surge of violence motivated by religious claims, it also witnessed a corresponding increase in peace work inspired by the religious actors. Increasing number of religious communities are able to harness their resources for building peace, often challenging structures of direct and indirect violence. In many instances, religious actors have engaged in mediation and trauma healing and providing valuable humanitarian and relief services in war-torn areas (Abu Nimer and Orellana 2005). New and creative forms of interfaith dialogue are being practised to promote communal peacebuilding (USIP 2000, Smock 2002).