OP310: Doing / undoing conflict

Foregrounded on anthropological readings and using an interpretive approach to public debates this paper analyzes how the right-wing agenda uses populist rhetoric in law reforms as a site where articulations of anti-minority ideologies are fostered for political support.

Paper Abstract:

This paper examines the subversion of law reforms by a right-wing agenda to challenge the personal laws of a minority ethic group in a plural legal setting. The rhetoric to mobilize legal reforms is framed within the discourse on rights, yet it can also be seen as populist rhetoric that appeals to the emotions and concerns of Sri Lanka’s fragmented polity. Sri Lanka’s multiple traditions of laws have existed to facilitate the co-existence of pre-colonial customary laws with the modern legal system introduced by the Dutch and British colonial administrations. The parallel systems include personal laws of specific communities alongside general laws that apply to everyone in other instances. This paper discusses the attempts being made to abolish the Muslim personal laws which are being promoted through the parliament to repeal the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) and also through the “One Country One Law” campaign. Although Muslim women activists have been advocating reforms to the discriminatory MMDA for many years, the indecision within the community has enabled the anti-Muslim politics to invoke reforms rhetoric to overhaul the customary laws that are guaranteed by the Sri Lankan constitution. Conceptually foregrounded on anthropological readings of legal pluralism and right-wing populism and using an interpretive approach to analyze public debates on customary laws, MMDA and “One Country One Law” policy, this paper analyzes how law reforms are being politicized as a site where articulations and dynamics of anti-minority ideologies are fostered to construct a sense of belonging among right-wing political supporters.

Deconstructing ‘Detention Camps’ of a Postcolonial Frontier State: Assam, through the Lens of the ‘detained other’

Mamoon Bhuyan (Brunel University London)

Paper Short Abstract:

This paper critically examines the emergence of detention camps in the northeast Indian state of Assam and the impact of detention based on the lived experiences of detainees.

Paper Abstract:

Since the nineteenth century, colonial establishments have utilized camps as facilities for the mass confinement of individuals whose freedom raised concerns, including prisoners of war and civilians. European and North American colonial administrations started employing detention camps to house civilian populations in the Global South, where they were actively involved in suppressing dissent, protests and ‘insurgencies.’ Since then, detention camps have become a significant tool for social and political control worldwide. In this context, postcolonial northeast Indian state of Assam's detention camps also serve the purpose of containing and segregating individuals considered ‘undesirable’ due to socio-cultural factors, specifically those labelled as the ‘Bangladeshi Other.’ At present, six district prisons in the state function as detention camps, housing thousands of suspected ‘illegal immigrants’ from Bangladesh, including children. Among these prisons, the Kokrajhar district prison is the sole facility designated for women and children. Despite the inauguration of a new "transit camp" in Goalpara district by the Assam government in January 2023, the six district prisons continue to detain suspected immigrants from Bangladesh. This paper critically examines the emergence of detention camps in the northeast Indian state of Assam and the impact of detention based on the lived experiences of detainees. In doing so, this paper brings in postcolonial concepts such as bare life, necropolitics, and carceral state.

Negative Value and the Religious Otherness

John Dulin (Utah Valley University)

Paper Short Abstract:

In this paper, I argue that the concept of negative value can be useful for theorizing patterns of interreligious relations Gondar, Ethiopia. I explore value neutrality, value difference, value conflict, and social conflict as moments in the process of relations across religious boundaries.

Paper Abstract:

In this paper, I argue that the concept of negative value can be useful for theorizing patterns of interreligious relations in Gondar, Ethiopia. I explore value neutrality, value difference, value conflict, and social conflict as distinct moments in the process of relations across religious boundaries. To understand movement between these moments, it is useful to examine how values (positive and negative) become visible in the sometimes convoluted semiotics of social interaction. Using ethnographic examples, I will argue that value difference defines relations when distinct emblems of value are vividly juxtaposed (mosque/church, cross/hijab, prayer call/ liturgy), while value neutrality is common when signs of sameness overshadow value difference (arguably the most common pattern). Value conflict becomes salient when value signs articulate in a way that suggests potential subversion of one value by the other. Finally, value conflict can become a social conflict when actors publicly perform a value subversion (that is, perform actions widely interpreted as realizing your own values and subverting the values of the other). Performances, of course, transform contexts and frames of interaction. Performed value subversion can transform the positive values of one group into a threateningly negative value to another group. This analysis shows that value difference does not necessarily create conflict, but under certain conditions, it can play a role in patterns of conflict and coexistence in religiously plural social environments.

Panel Video visible to paid-up delegates