Moloy Bora
(Moloy Bora is a retired IAS officer working as Electricity Ombudsman, Assam, and can be reached at moloybora@gmail.com.)
Ethnic conflict remains a persistent challenge in many parts of the world,
including India, often leading to prolonged violence, social division, and political instability. We have seen examples of this in Baster religion, in Assam and Gujrat, among several others, and most recently in Manipur in the context of India. Civil society organizations (CSOs) have emerged as critical actors in promoting peace, reconciliation, and social cohesion in these conflicts. These organizations typically are supposed to operate independently from the state and are rooted in community initiatives, faith-based groups, advocacy networks, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While CSOs can play a constructive role in mitigating ethnic conflict, their effectiveness varies widely and is dependent on local context, political environment, and structural constraints. It is in this light we can attempt to look into the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in mitigating conflict. One of the most significant contributions of civil society organizations is their ability to facilitate dialogue and build bridges across ethnic divides. In Northern Ireland, the Community Relations Council (CRC) supported numerous grassroots initiatives that fostered communication between Protestant and Catholic communities during and after the sectarian violence known as the Troubles. These efforts contributed to the peace-building process and helped lay the foundation for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The CRC continues its role of conflict resolution even to date. The CSOs play the vital role in advocacy, as seen in the activities of civil society groups like Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and others who played instrumental roles during the anti-apartheid movement and in the transitional period that followed. These organizations helped reframe national conversations around race, justice, and reconciliation, influencing key processes such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This has resulted in lasting peace in South Africa. CSOs are also pivotal in providing early warning and conflict prevention mechanisms. For instance, in Kenya, the Uwiano Platform for Peace worked alongside government institutions during the 2013 elections to prevent a recurrence of the 2007–08 ethnic violence. Through community reporting systems, media monitoring, and rapid response initiatives, civil society helped defuse tensions and prevent escalation. Moreover, CSOs often engage in service delivery and grassroots inclusion, especially in post-conflict zones. In Sri Lanka, the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, a Buddhist-inspired community development organisation, promoted cooperation between Sinhalese and Tamil communities, particularly through rural development and peace education programmes. Such initiatives helped build trust and emphasised shared needs over ethnic differences. CSOs support marginalised and vulnerable populations affected by ethnic conflict. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the 1995 Dayton Accords, many CSOs focused on youth, displaced persons, and women across ethnic lines. These groups created spaces for multi-ethnic collaboration and identity reconstruction in a society fragmented by war. Closer to home, the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) operates across both the Hindu & Muslim communities in building trust in post-riot Gujarat and in women empowerment. Another organisation, Aman Biradari, has shown a significant positive role in promoting communal harmony in post-riot Gujarat. In the North East we can mention the Naga Mother’s Association and others which have mediated for ethnic harmony and ceasefire in trouble-torn Nagaland and Manipur. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), however, are not without any limitation. Despite these successes, civil society organizations also face significant limitations.
One common challenge is limited reach and representation. In post-2003 Iraq, many CSOs were based in urban centres and relied heavily on international funding, which alienated them from grassroots communities, particularly in rural Sunni and Kurdish areas. As a result, they struggled to gain trust and legitimacy in those regions. Another issue is the dependency on foreign donors, including funds specifically meant to promote certain ideals, which can undermine the sustainability and authenticity of civil society efforts. In Rwanda, while numerous CSOs emerged to promote reconciliation after the 1994 genocide, many were heavily dependent on Western funding. This led to criticisms that organizations focused more on donor priorities than genuine local needs. Civil society organizations can also be subject to politicisation and co-optation by the state.
In Russia, particularly in Chechnya and other conflict-prone areas, many CSOs that attempted to promote ethnic tolerance or human rights were either shut down or absorbed into state-controlled structures. In such environments, CSOs lose their independence and become vehicles for state propaganda rather than peace initiatives. In some cases, civil society itself may contribute to divisions by reinforcing ethnic boundaries. In Lebanon, for example, many CSOs are aligned along sectarian lines—Sunni, Shia, and Christian—which can entrench identity-based politics rather than overcoming them. This fragmentation can hinder collective efforts to promote national unity or inter-ethnic cooperation. Finally, in authoritarian or conflict-ridden settings, CSOs face security risks and operational constraints. In Myanmar, after the 2021 military coup, many civil society actors advocating for Rohingya rights or broader ethnic peace were arrested or forced to shut down. Limited access to conflict zones and state repression severely restricted their ability to operate effectively. Closer to home we have seen many CSOs taking political, ethnic or religious overtones. Civil society organizations can be powerful agents for peace and reconciliation in ethnically divided societies. By promoting dialogue, advocating inclusive policies, and supporting marginalized voices, they help bridge divides that formal political institutions often fail to address. However, their success is far from guaranteed. Issues such as limited grassroots connection, donor dependency, political interference, and institutional fragility can hinder their impact or even exacerbate existing tensions. To maximize their positive influence, civil society organizations must be locally rooted, transparent, and inclusive. They should aim for long-term engagement, focusing on trust-building rather than short-term crisis response. Ultimately, while CSOs are not a panacea for ethnic conflict, they are an essential component of comprehensive peace-building.