M.MAS 1/12/17 turned into wider violence, regardless of religious identity. In each case, they had compelling recent examples to draw on, of the other destructive instances of inter-religious conflict in Myanmar’s recent history. Drawing attention to the potential effects of a riot was also a way of making people conscious of the power they held to escalate tensions further or not. In Case Study 2, for example, the squatters’ advocate made a strong case that, if riots occurred as a result of the mother taking up the monk’s offer to seek revenge, she and her family would likely be held responsible, if not legally, then at least within the community or the wider area. She also emphasized how poor squatters were particularly vulnerable, being affected by lack of trade and communication, but also living in conditions that would be especially susceptible to destruction by fires set during a riot. Or, in the words of one interviewee from Case Study 3: “No one has a comfortable life. There are no rich people, no businesspeople… If conflict were to occur, everybody’s livelihoods would be affected.”51 Second, interviewees emphasized alternative pathways for resolving the disputes at hand, particularly intervention via state authorities. In Case Study 2, for example, the core approach of the squatters’ advocate was to pair her emphasis on the negative impacts of calling for revenge with using the law for punishing the man who killed the woman’s son. At the same time, the delicacy of such an approach was emphasized to us when the squatters’ advocate entreated us not to contact the mother lest we disrupt a precarious calm. The murder case was not resolved; a potential call for revenge could still be made. Third, people drew on past experiences of solidarity, inter-dependence, or peaceful coexistence with neighbours of other religions. In Case Study 3, people were able to draw on the experience of collective suffering during a destructive weather event and the relief activities that followed as a way of reminding others of a point of commonality. Those who intervened were also able to invoke another important event in the past, of the time when a fire threatened the monasteries in the town. At the time, large numbers of Muslim youth had helped to put out a fire and saved materials from the monasteries and the monks themselves. Recalling this event in the midst of tense negotiations over cattle slaughtering was a way of reminding Buddhists that, despite different religious practices, Muslims considered themselves to be members of the community, contributing to the collective welfare. Interviewees in Case Study 1, meanwhile, repeatedly mentioned the power of their collective local civic identity, which they believed was an important factor in overcoming inter-religious tensions, not only in the context of the rumour described in the case, but throughout a time period when the area saw aggressive anti-Muslim organizing, especially among monks. Throughout, those who sought to intervene to calm tensions noted the interdependence of the religious communities in a number of different aspects, despite whatever conflicts might arise between them. Varshney would categorize these aspects of interdependence as “everyday”, which he argued is less resilient during times of tension and conflict because it is less institutionalized. 52 We do not dispute his claim about the importance of institutionalized webs of communal solidarity—but these cases illustrate ways in which “everyday” experiences of interdependence and solidarity can also be leveraged to promote peace even at difficult moments. 53 Finally, interviewees emphasized that the tense situation and apparent potential for conflict was the effect of political machinations. This argument viewed inter-religious tension as having been orchestrated by 51 Male, 38 years old, Buddhist, local CSO leader. Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life, 9. 53 Connecting the first and third arguments in this section, although it is beyond the scope of this paper, it would be valuable to conduct further study of the effectiveness of this argument regarding mutual suffering, in relation to varying levels of socio-economic interdependence within different communities. Another important consideration is whether what Varshney’s categories of “everyday” vs “institutionalised” do not effectively capture dynamics of exchange and relationality in Myanmar, where, in large part due to decades of state repression, informal structures and arrangements might be more meaningful and influential in people’s lives. This is a question that warrants further examination. 52 19/24