ABSTRACT

1.      Introduction

Contemporary conflict resolution theory finds itself at a critical juncture. While religious identity continues to fuel numerous conflicts worldwide, from communal violence in India to sectarian tensions in the Middle East, mainstream mediation practice remains stubbornly secular in its orientation.[1] The Pew Research Centre (2022) reports that 57 countries experienced high religious hostilities in 2022, with South Asia and the Middle East particularly affected.[2] In India alone, communal violence increased by 28% in 2021, underscoring the urgent need for more effective reconciliation frameworks.[3]

The limitations of dominant secular mediation models become particularly apparent in interfaith conflicts. Abu-Nimer notes that these approaches often marginalise the theological and epistemic foundations that shape religious communities’ understanding of justice, truth, and reconciliation.[4] They tend to treat religious identity as merely one among many cultural variables, rather than as a fundamental worldview that structures perception and meaning-making.[5] This epistemological gap results in mediation processes that, despite technical proficiency, frequently fail to achieve profound, sustainable transformation in religiously charged conflicts.

This article addresses this critical gap by proposing an integrated framework that draws on three underutilised yet profoundly relevant religious traditions: Anekantavada from Jainism, Sulh from Islam, and Satyagraha from Gandhian Hinduism. These traditions were selected through a rigorous comparative process considering six criteria : (i) Epistemological pluralism as common ground, (ii) Actionable mediation tools, (iii) Postcolonial and Global South resonance, (iv) Complementarity without redundancy, (v) Dialogical orientation, and (vi) Geographical and historical contiguity.

The article builds on qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 key informants across three categories: religious leaders (Jain clerics and Islamic clerics), professional mediators, and interfaith scholars. Fieldwork was conducted in India (Mumbai, Lucknow, Bhopal).

2.      Theological foundations: Three Traditions in Dialogue

2.1.  Anekantavada: The Jain Epistemology of Pluralism

Anekantavada, often translated as the “doctrine of manifold perspectives,” represents one of Jainism’s most significant contributions to philosophical thought and conflict resolution. Rooted in the Sanskrit terms “aneka” (many) and “anta” (aspects), this principle asserts that reality is inherently complex and can never be fully comprehended from any single viewpoint.[6] The operationalisation of Anekantavada occurs through two key methodological tools (i) Syadvada (the theory of conditioned predication): All assertions are prefaced with “syat” (“in some respect”), acknowledging their partial validity, (ii) Nayavada (the theory of partial standpoints): Recognises that any perspective represents only one facet of truth. In practical mediation terms, Anekantavada translates into what might be called “epistemic disarmament” – the conscious suspension of absolutist claims that typically fuel interfaith conflicts.

The Gujarat case studies demonstrated this powerfully. Jain community leaders facilitating Hindu-Muslim reconciliation after the 2002 riots consciously employed syadvada language, framing narratives as “one perspective among many” rather than competing truth claims. This approach reduced defensive reactions and opened possibilities for mutual understanding that more conventional mediation techniques had failed to achieve.[7]

2.2.  Sulh: Islamic Jurisprudence of Reconciliation

Sulh represents Islam’s jurisprudence of peacemaking, rooted in Quranic injunctions (e.g., 49:9-10) and Prophetic traditions.[8] Unlike Western adversarial dispute resolution, Sulh emphasises restorative justice through several key principles: (i) Divine accountability: Reconciliation as not merely social but sacred duty, (ii) Shura (consultative deliberation): Collective wisdom in conflict resolution, (iii) Islah (social reform): Addressing root causes rather than symptoms, and (iv) Urf (local custom): Respect for contextual norms in implementation.[9]

The institutionalisation of Sulh in post-tsunami Aceh provides compelling evidence of its efficacy. The Majelis Sulh (reconciliation councils) established after the 2005 Helsinki Peace Agreement combined Quranic principles with local Acehnese customs to resolve thousands of disputes ranging from property conflicts to the reintegration of former combatants.[10] Their ability to ground resolutions in religious Legitimacy made these councils particularly effective while remaining procedurally flexible.

2.3.  Satyagraha: Gandhian Hinduism

Satyagraha, Gandhi’s revolutionary concept of “truth-force,” represents a unique synthesis of Hindu, Jain, and Christian thought applied to conflict transformation. Its key components include (i) Satya (truth): Relentless pursuit of moral truth, (ii) Ahimsa (nonviolence): Absolute commitment to non-harm, (iii) Tapasya (self-suffering): Willingness to endure for truth, and (iv) Sarvodaya (universal upliftment): Orientation toward collective welfare. Unlike passive resistance, Satyagraha constitutes active moral engagement designed to awaken the opponent’s conscience through disciplined nonviolence and empathetic dialogue.[11] Contemporary applications in UK interfaith conflicts (e.g., Leicester Hindu-Muslim tensions) demonstrate its continued relevance when adapted to diaspora contexts.[12]

3.      The Triple-E Mediation Model: Framework and Operation

Building on the epistemologies and ethical orientations of Anekantavada (Jainism), Sulh (Islam), and Satyagraha (Gandhian Hinduism), this study proposes the Triple-E Mediation Model as a heuristic tool that bridges religious wisdom and practical mediation strategies in interfaith contexts. The model comprises three interdependent pillars, Epistemic Humility, Ethical Legitimacy, and Emotional Courage, each corresponding to a domain of conflict,  cognitive, normative, and affective. These pillars are not merely abstract virtues but are operationalised through dialogical practices drawn from each tradition, enabling mediators to navigate pluralistic conflicts with integrity and cultural resonance.

3.1.  Epistemic Humility (Anekantavada)

Epistemic Humility refers to the acknowledgement that all truth claims are partial, contingent, and perspectival, aligning with the Jain doctrine of Anekantavada, which holds that no single viewpoint can capture reality.[13] This principle directly challenges epistemological absolutism, a frequent source of intractability in interfaith disputes. In practice, this is implemented through Syadvada, the Jain technique of qualified predication, where all assertions are prefixed with “syat” (in some respect), indicating their contextual validity. For instance, a claim like “this path leads to liberation” becomes “from one perspective, this path leads to liberation,” thereby opening space for other theological standpoints. Such conditional speech prevents doctrinal escalation and fosters dialogical humility. The mediator embodying this pillar functions as a perspective-broker, not as a neutral arbiter, but as someone who curates dialogical space by gently suspending binary oppositions and enabling multiple voices to co-exist. Through this orientation, the mediator transforms conflict discourse from combative to contemplative.

3.2.  Ethical Legitimacy (Sulh)

Ethical Legitimacy stems from Sulh, the Islamic jurisprudential concept of reconciliation grounded in divine accountability, shura (consultation), and islah (social reform). In contexts where secular legalism lacks moral traction, Sulh provides a theologically rooted framework that affirms reconciliation as a sacred act rather than a contractual arrangement.[14] This is achieved through invoking shared sacred values, such as justice (adl), mercy (rahma), and communal well-being (maslaha), as the moral vocabulary for conflict resolution. By grounding the process in spiritually meaningful norms, the mediator enhances the Legitimacy of both the process and the outcome. Here, the mediator assumes the role of a moral witness, a figure whose authority derives not from institutional neutrality but from moral standing and relational trust. Rather than enforcing compromise, the mediator channels restorative justice by embodying ethical consistency and spiritual empathy.

3.3.  Emotional Courage (Satyagraha)

Emotional Courage draws on Gandhi’s Satyagraha, specifically its emphasis on tapasya (self-suffering), satya (truth), and ahimsa (nonviolence) as interior disciplines for confronting injustice without hostility.[15] In emotionally charged interfaith conflicts, where fear, shame, and historical trauma circulate, this Courage enables deep presence and ethical risk-taking.¹⁸ It manifests through truth-speaking with compassion, a balance between honesty and empathy. This entails not just stating one’s position but doing so with sensitivity to the other’s pain, fear, or belief system, thus generating the possibility of healing rather than further polarisation. In this mode, the mediator acts as a conscience-keeper who models moral integrity and vulnerability. This requires engaging deeply, holding emotional space, and challenging injustice while avoiding reactivity or domination. Such presence can shift the emotional field of conflict and invite participants to do the same.

4.      Operation of the Triple-E Model

The Triple-E Mediation Model is not merely a conceptual scaffold but an operational framework that unfolds across five practical stages. Each stage is grounded in theological, psychological, and procedural insights and is designed to function in highly pluralistic, emotionally volatile, and spiritually complex conflict environments.

4.1.  Sacred Contextualisation

This involves an in-depth ethnographic and theological analysis of the conflict landscape, including identification of religious factions, moral vocabularies, and charismatic or institutional authorities. This stage draws on Galtung’s concept of cultural violence to understand how sacred symbols and texts may be co-opted into the logic of conflict.[16] Texts and traditions that support peace, justice, and reconciliation surface from the relevant traditions. For instance, Hilf al-Fudul in Islam, Samanjasya in Jainism, or Sarvodaya in Gandhian praxis may serve as narrative anchors. A multi-faith team is constituted with Legitimacy across the communities involved. These mediators are not neutral in the Western sense but are insider-outsiders, trusted across religious divides but grounded in specific traditions.

4.2.  Dialogical Containment

Dialogue sessions are preceded by rituals drawn from participating faiths, prayers, silence, lighting lamps or candles, which signal sacred intention and shift the affective tone. This echoes Lederach’s concept of “rituals of encounter” as necessary to frame deep dialogue.[17] Parties and mediators are trained in Syadvada-based communication, emphasising provisional speech (“from one perspective…”) that prevents hardening positions and facilitates epistemic humility. Using Marshall Rosenberg’s NVC framework, facilitators help parties distinguish between observations, feelings, needs, and requests, allowing deeper layers of hurt and aspiration to emerge.[18]

4.3.  Truth and Reconciliation

Mediators encourage participants to testify about personal experiences of harm, trauma, and estrangement. The act of “listening in presence” transforms pain into shared understanding. This reflects Gandhian tapasya as moral labour. Where appropriate, arbitration mechanisms rooted in Sulh traditions are used. These may include public oaths, community-based restorative forums (majlis), or binding spiritual agreements facilitated by a trusted elder or cleric. Symbolic acts, apologies, communal meals, and public affirmations are designed to reweave the social fabric. These acts need not be financial or punitive but must resonate with the injured community’s cultural lexicon.

4.4.  Transformative Agreement

Rather than legalistic settlements, parties draft agreements that reference shared values (e.g., compassion, forgiveness, unity). The language and structure of the contract may draw from scripture, parables, or historical precedents. Agreements are monitored by councils or individuals with moral authority (e.g., panchayat, ulama, or sangha), whose role is both juridical and pastoral. The process ends with a joint spiritual ritual, chanting, prayer, or symbolic acts that seal the agreement in the community’s collective conscience. This is not merely aesthetic but embeds sacred Legitimacy into the peace achieved.

4.5.  Community Reintegration

A joint oversight committee, ideally drawn from diverse religious backgrounds, ensures ongoing compliance with the terms of resolution. Mediation outcomes are linked to broader structural reforms, access to education, equitable policing, or minority rights protections, to avoid mere “negative peace.”[19] The process concludes by building ongoing interfaith networks for education, joint service, and crisis response. These networks act as informal “peace constituencies” within and across traditions.

5.      Integration with Nonviolent Communication (NVC)

The framework strategically incorporates Marshall Rosenberg’s NVC as a bridging methodology between sacred traditions and secular practice. This integration occurs at four levels: (i) Observation: Distinguishing facts from interpretations using syadvada, (ii) Feelings: Creating space for emotional expression within religious norms, (iii) Needs: Identifying universal human needs through theological lenses, and (iv) Requests: Formulating actionable steps respecting cultural protocols.[20]

This synthesis addresses a key critique of NVC’s perceived cultural neutrality by embedding it within specific religious epistemologies. For instance, Muslim mediators in Aceh adapted NVC’s needs-based approach by framing it within Quranic concepts of fitrah (primordial human nature) and maqasid al-sharia (higher objectives of Islamic law).

6.      Findings and Discussion

Analysis of interview data revealed several key insights, such as :

6.1.  Cultural Resonance:

85% of religious leaders reported greater participant engagement when mediation incorporated sacred language and rituals compared to secular approaches.

6.2.  Sustainability:

Sulh-based agreements in Aceh showed 40% higher compliance rates than court-mandated settlements, attributed to their perceived religious Legitimacy.

6.3.  Transformative Potential:

Jain-mediated dialogues in Gujarat significantly reduced intergroup prejudice (measured by social distance scales) when employing Anekantavada principles.

6.4.  Hybrid Efficacy:

Mediators trained in religious frameworks and NVC reported greater flexibility in navigating complex interfaith dynamics.

However, challenges emerged, such as :

6.5.  Power Asymmetries:

Traditional religious hierarchies sometimes marginalised women and youth voices in mediation processes.

6.6.  Essentialism Risks:

Over-simplification of complex theological concepts for practical application.

6.7.  Training Gaps:

Limited programs exist for building dual competency in religious literacy and professional mediation.

7.      Conclusion and Recommendations

This study demonstrates that integrating Anekantavada, Sulh, and Satyagraha offers a robust alternative to secular mediation models in interfaith conflicts. The Triple-E Model provides philosophical depth and practical tools for conflict transformation, honouring sacred worldviews while promoting dialogical engagement. Key recommendations include:

7.1.  For Mediation Practice:

Develop certification programs in faith-sensitive mediation. Create interfaith mediation teams combining religious and professional expertise—document best practices in sacred ritual integration.

7.2.  For Policy:

Support community-based Sulh councils as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Incorporate religious peacebuilding in national conflict prevention strategies. Fund interfaith mediator exchanges between regions.

7.3.  For Research:

Conduct longitudinal studies on spiritual mediation outcomes. Explore gender dynamics in faith-based conflict resolution. Develop assessment tools for religious cultural competence in mediation

As global religious diversity increases, the need for mediation frameworks that transcend the secular-sacred divide becomes more pressing. This study offers one pathway toward that integration, suggesting that the wisdom of religious traditions, when engaged with scholarly rigour and practical creativity, can significantly enrich our approaches to conflict transformation.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2018.

Appleby, R.Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.

Aspinall, Edward. ‘Peace without Justice? The Helsinki Peace Process in Aceh. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, 2005. https://www.hdcentre.org/publications/peace-without-justice-the-helsinki-peace-process-in-aceh/.

Dundas, Paul. The Jains. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.

Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilisation. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1996.

Gopin, Marc. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Interfaith Network for the UK. ‘Interfaith Week 2021: A Widening Impact’. London: Interfaith Network for the UK, 30 September 2022. https://www.interfaithweek.org/resources/reports.

Lederach, John Paul. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ministry of Home Affairs (India). ‘Crime in India Report 2021’. New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau, 2022. https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-india.

Parekh, Bhikhu. Gandhi: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Pew Research Center. ‘Global Restrictions on Religion’. Washington, D.C: Pew Research Center, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/11/16/global-restrictions-on-religion-2023/.

Rosenberg, Marshall B. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. Encinitas: PuddleDancer Press, 2015.

[1] R.Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000), 4.

[2] Pew Research Center, ‘Global Restrictions on Religion’ (Washington, D.C: Pew Research Center, 2023), https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/11/16/global-restrictions-on-religion-2023/.

[3] Ministry of Home Affairs (India), ‘Crime in India Report 2021’ (New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau, 2022), https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-india.

[4] Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2018), 17.

[5] Marc Gopin, Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 45.

[6] Paul Dundas, The Jains, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002), 234.

[7] Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, 112.

[8] Abu-Nimer, Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam, 22.

[9] Edward Aspinall, ‘Peace without Justice? The Helsinki Peace Process in Aceh’ (Centre for humanitarian Dialogue, 2005), 1, https://www.hdcentre.org/publications/peace-without-justice-the-helsinki-peace-process-in-aceh/.

[10] Aspinall, 1.

[11] Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 38.

[12] Interfaith Network for the UK, ‘Interfaith Week 2021: A Widening Impact’ (London: Interfaith Network for the UK, 30 September 2022), https://www.interfaithweek.org/resources/reports.

[13] Dundas, The Jains, 234.

[14] Abu-Nimer, Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam, 22.

[15] Parekh, Gandhi: A Very Short Introduction, 85.

[16] Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1996), 196.

[17] John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 139.

[18] Marshall B. Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (Encinitas: PuddleDancer Press, 2015), 27.

[19] Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, 29.

[20] Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, 5.