M.MAS 1/12/17 Interviewees’ analysis Interviewees consistently stressed the fact that people wanted to avoid conflict. They recognised the negative impact it would have and that nobody would benefit: “The main reason [why people came to the meeting] was that they didn’t want the conflict to happen. If this conflict really occurred, it wouldn’t be good for anyone and nobody would be safe.” 22 There was also a feeling that it was better to communicate through face-to-face dialogue than to let the situation escalate, a dynamic that was probably reinforced by the already-existing close relationships and regular interactions between people of different faiths in the area. One person explained, “whether or not this information [about the stockpiling of weapons] was true, it would be better to engage in dialogue face to face. So we negotiated with youths and we brought them [religious leaders] together.” 23 It is important to note that a desire to resolve the growing tensions around the rumour or the regular interactions that facilitated the dialogue did not necessarily mean that relationships between the communities were friendly. As one youth activist explained, “People would like to keep their relationship [with Muslims] but inside their heart, there is still hatred. They don’t want to have conflict because if there were a conflict, it wouldn’t be good for everyone. So instead they just stick together [with their own kind].”24 These seemingly contradictory dynamics and their implications will be explored further in the conclusion. Interviewees also noted the importance of civil society groups from all different types of backgrounds (not just explicitly interfaith groups) taking the lead in bringing people together. One interviewee thought that the role of youth had been particularly important, as it is easier for youth to come together and talk because of their relative lack of other responsibilities.25 Everyone participated in solving the problem – a wide range of people were involved in the meeting and the subsequent announcement, including Christian leaders as well as Buddhists and Muslims. Including phone numbers of those who signed the announcement was thought to be particularly effective, as it added credibility to the statement. In addition to that, civil society leaders approached religious leaders who would be able to promote understanding, rather than foster divides. One Buddhist man noted, “For Muslim and Christian leaders, they are good at negotiations… they are very gentle when they talk.” 26 As noted above, people believed that an important contributing factor to the resolution of this issue was the existing strong relationships between religious communities in the area. People of different religions have been living together in the area for years and take pride in this aspect of their region. Interviewees drew upon this to explain why they were able to work together to combat the threat of violence. For example, businesses from different religious groups have been working together for years and many religious groups invite people of different faiths to their religious celebrations. One interviewee illustrated this by pointing to an area where the main water well is in a monastery compound. This means that Muslims and people of other religions interact closely and regularly with the Buddhist community, and people felt that they could easily contact each other to discuss how to address the situation. As one interviewee put it, “this area’s tradition [of inter-religious cooperation] is stronger than individuals’ religious beliefs. ‘We are the residents of this area’ is stronger than their religion.” 27 22 Male, 35 years old, Buddhist, local CSO leader. Male, 30 years old, Muslim, local CSO leader. 24 Male, 25 years old, Muslim, youth activist. 25 Male, 30 years old, Buddhist. 26 Male, 35 years old, Buddhist, local CSO leader. 27 Male, 35 years old, local CSO leader, Buddhist. 23 7/24