**7. Conflict resolutions models and the case of CHTs**

Till date scientists from multiple background and many political analysts contributed notably on developing number of general and case specific tools and instruments on conflict resolution. The famous Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974) is applicable to two basic dimensions viz., assertiveness and cooperativeness. This model proved effective in five different conflicting modes like, competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborative and compromising. Johan Galtung's seminal thinking on the relationship between conflict, violence and peace which is popularly known as Galtung's model of conflict, violence and peace. Galtung's Conflict triangle works on the assumption that the best way to define peace is to define violence, and its antithesis i.e., this model is effective on both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts (Galtung, 1969, 1996). Ramsbotham and woodhouse's Hourglass model of political conflict resolution combined Galtung model along with escalation (narrowing political space) and de-escalation (widening political space) approaches. Among the other conflict resolution models, Gail Bingham's Environmental Dispute Settlement Process (Bingham, 1986), coercive and non-coercive third party intervention model, Interest-Based Relational Approach, Lederach's model (Lederach, 1997), multi-track conflict resolution model of Ramsbotham et al. (2005), etc. are well known conflict resolution models.

Although theoretically all the models seem sound and effective, practical application is case sensitive because of the multiple magnitudes of conflicts. If we consider the conflict resolution approach of in the CHTs that finally came up with a Peace Accord, it can be said that a combination of the said approaches and models has been applied. But the participation of all possible social actors, all aggrieved parties, political drivers and international bodies were not involved properly here. Therefore, some of the actors for their socio-political interests can not support the accord. Moreover, some sensitive issues like land settlement, forest use and cultural coherence are not truly perceived in the problem solving process; therefore, the implementation of the accord has not advanced duly. Reviewing the conflict resolution theories and models and applying our studied knowledge (based on interview and focus group discussion) on the CHTs, following model has been proposed in order to conflict resolution in the CHTs (Fig. 4).

According to this model both indigenous people and migrated population have been focused with equal attention. Treaty or agreement, whatever is made, should be done based on the mutual trust and consciousness of all aggrieved sides. The Peace Accord of 1997 was an agreement between the military wing of the indigenous people of the CHTs and Government of Bangladesh lacking of consciousness and agreement of the mass indigenous people and migrated people in the CHTs. According to this model, all the relevant parties will sit together through iterative meetings and discussion to bring out a final agreement. Therefore, it will reduce the chance of any group or political party to stand against the agreement or implementation in future. The Peace Accord of 1997 could not make any provision for a third party monitoring and evaluation which is essential in such political discourse resolution process. Our proposed model keeps provision for local, national and international level monitoring and evaluation. As forest, land and military administration are the main issues in the CHTs; therefore, appropriate representatives from these three Departments need to give more chance for discussion and consultation in order to find mutually agreed ways of solution to land and forest. Proper application of this model may help solving the problems of the indigenous people bringing sustainability to the forest management and forest use in this region of Bangladesh.

Fig. 4. Proposed model for conflict resolution in CHTs
