 they happily that, in fact, we have somewhat restored that. And to understand conflict resolutions, et cetera, there couldn't be a better resource person than Uma Ramanathan, a train mediator, as well as now a train, a trainer herself. As they say that journey from being trained and to train is always a journey which one enjoys, especially to make people understand how to get the conflicts resolved or there can be conflict, mediation, et cetera, where there are conflicts or it can be resolved, how to resolve those issues which are boggling in the minds of a common man, especially when we normally speak that if one is referred to a mediation, the lawyer especially would be saying that you may participate but it's your whims and fancies whether you may toe to those lines or you may not toe to the lines. Since we are dying the session at the late night hours, I will just, we will have a short session so that we can have the insights from none other than Uma Ramanathan, who is not only an erudite speaker but carries that impact on the social media, not only on YouTube, LinkedIn, et cetera. And in the morning only I requested her and as usual, I've known her personally. She assails wherever there's knowledge sharing and she says that is the only mind to which she doesn't mind that she has to share her knowledge. What do you ma'am? Thank you, Vikas. Of course, you forgot to say that you have been reminding me for some time and I have not got back to you. So that also happens because I was also traveling and not in Chennai. Thank you for this opportunity because I always think that when we have these interactions I benefit a lot because I get to know different perspectives also. So without much ado, because the topic itself we chose today is conflict management. Generally, of course, I don't want to go into the definition of conflict and all that but when we hear the word itself, conflict. So con itself is a sort of a, has an impact which says that there's something that you have to stand back and look at or something like that. So when we look at conflict, what we see is that there is something that is opposing something which is putting a pressure or something which is asking us to look at it. So when we see conflict as something which is different or which is visible, then do we say that conflict is something which is only visible or is there something more to it? So when you look at conflict, most of the times it may just be under the surface. It may not have come to above the surface to manifest in some way. So there could be a latent conflict, there could be a patent conflict or something which is totally manifest in the sense that it shows in the attitude or behavior or some action. Like today, the Russian-Ukrainian war is something which is obvious. So, I mean, what is there, what is the reason behind it is a different matter. So on a very broad perspective, when we look at conflict it appears as if it is a different perception of goals or it is an action based on one's perceptions. So if we look at that, then we go to the other end of the spectrum, which is a solution for this conflict or management of the conflict. It is very interesting that even Einstein has commented on it saying, I mean, of course, he handled a different kind of a problem, but he says that problems cannot be solved with the same kind of awareness that created it. So that awareness is what? Awareness comes because I have certain expectations, I believe I have certain rights or I'm looking at it in a particular way. So my awareness itself is based on me, my thoughts, my ideas, my rights. And so he says it cannot be handled with the same kind of awareness it created it. So obviously, you'll have to take a step back or you will have to move away from that to look at it objectively. And I also like this statement by John Nash, who was a very famous mathematician and had a psychological problem. So when his wife asked him, when he realized that he had this problem and his wife asked him, how are you going to handle it? As a true mathematician, he said, every problem has a solution. I only need to find the solution. So I think in any management or any handling of a conflict, what we have to understand is first recognizing the conflict and then recognizing the need to solve it. So when we say recognizing the conflict, because it is, as I said, based on the self or based more on the image of the self that I have, I have a certain status in society. I am so-and-so in this hierarchy or I am placed so-and-so in this particular organization or in the relationship because of which I expect certain things. So what happens is my first eye is my image of myself. The next coating over that is what are my, how do I react to others or how do I react to how people perceive me? When I have a perception about my image, obviously the other person also has a perception of my image or I have an understanding about how others perceive me. So what happens is I'm already ready to react. I'm not looking forward to understanding that perception but I'm here ready to attack because it's a natural, it's part of our biological setup, the DNA itself to protect our space. So even between spouses, I'm sure all of us have realized as soon as someone said, I'm sure you didn't shut the door, then we say, oh, you're always like this, you're finding fault, as simple as that. So immediately we bounce back to have a reaction based on how we think the other person perceives. And more than that, we want to correct the narrative because our image and the narrative that we have for that particular incident becomes very important for us to establish. So when we are talking about my image or I have a right or I demand that this must be met, then I'm also saying that why is my entitlement not understood by the other person? Why is this person not engaging with me? Or why is this person unable to understand that this is justice? But we fail to understand that there could be a different perspective, as I said. So in the whole conflict arena, what we see is a mutual action and interaction. So if we break it up into why, I mean, the reason for the conflict, because unless we understand the reason for the conflict, we will not be able to move forward. Now, generally, the root causes of conflict, I'm sure all of us know we've talked about goals, about relationships, about values, about data and all that. Those are all the things that are lying around which we may have to be layer by layer. But I would like to break it down into three main features which support all that. Any conflict, I think, is framed by three or these three factors. The first one being personality. Now, what do I mean by personality? Of course, the psychologists have a narcissism aggressive and so many other kinds. They have the big five inventory they call. But even, I mean, without even going into that, what I would say is with my concept of my self-image, when I'm looking at a situation or when I hear something, the first attack is to my dignity. The second attack is to my way of thinking. So there is a conditioning that is involved. There is a dignity or status that is involved and my personality is defined by how I find this as a threat and that perspective will define my behavior. So the first pillar that supports or frames any conflict, I think, is the personality of the person. Unless I understand the personality of the person. What if that person says, yeah, this is how it is done? Say in a workplace, the superior is always in the habit of giving the work to be done at five o'clock in the evening when people generally leave and say, I want it to be done and I have to send it off by tonight because the working hours in the other country is at the time and I want it to be sent off. And this person has already promised his son maybe to come to the cricket match, of course, during COVID, not so, but earlier or has promised his wife to take her out or there's a function that he has to attend. And he feels, no, why is this person always doing it? But because of the hierarchy, he cannot challenge it also and he's feeling so frustrated and the superior will not be able to understand that he cannot do this every time. But I'm coming from him, it looks as if we feel I am the boss here. So I can dictate how and when the work is given. So what happens is there is a wrapping around this image of what I am and image of the other people in this process. And so there is an upfront to dignity and there is a challenge to the way my belief system is. So the first thing I think that we have to understand in a conflict is the personality. And because of the personality, to get more understanding about that, we have to understand the perspective of this person. Now, I would say these are the three P's actually, personality, perspective and positioning. Now, perspectives, why do I say perspectives? Because as soon as I see a threat, my emotions come out because my thoughts go back to my memory or this man has always been like that or I know these fellows who are in the higher positions always do that they don't understand what we have a life also. So many other things are there because of which my feelings, my anger or my frustration or my inability creates so many kinds of emotions. And the emotions are turned into feelings which impact the way that this person thinks. So I have a sort of a filtered perception only because of this. Now, because of this filtered perception, my mind state is also like that. Either I feel that I can leave the work half done or I would do something to sabotage the other person's reputation or I would do something so that, I mean, I would even pass some remarks which would be hurting to the other person. So my mind state is also dependent on my personality or it adds to another factor in conflict. And the third as I said is positions. And positions is because as I said, due to expectations, it could also be the moral landscape. See about 20 years back, if somebody had spoken about an LGBT relationship or about person living together and not in a marriage and claiming certain rights, I'm sure everyone around would have looked down at them and said, oh, what is it they're talking about? But today that's not the situation. So but there is a moral landscape or there is a moral reasoning where Jonathan Hyde calls as the elephant and rider. He says the rider would, if he would like the elephant to turn to the left, the elephant has a mind of its own and it will turn to the right. And the rider has to go only to the right because he can't jump off the elephant, he has to ride the elephant. And I think that's a very good analogy. And this moral landscape becomes like that. And these are the kind of frames that get into this capturing of the conflict. Of course, if you see personality, perspectives and positions, now what do you think can be the kind of communication that will happen at that time? The communication is oppositional. Or even if the communication is like an avoidance like silence or the thing, yes, yes, yes, but not really meaning that. Again, there is some sort of opposition in an indirect way. It may be passive aggressive also. So the communication could be either directly confrontational or the oppositional intensity could be such. No, how can you do this? Or just turn like this and say, ha, I don't believe this. That's enough. And that again relies on the personality or the perspectives also. So communication becomes an integral, a part of framing of the conflict also. Although it looks as if it is a situation, I mean, it is a factor that arises out of this or these three factors, but it becomes an inherent part of the personality or the perspectives in a way that memory also instantly tends to pigeonhole. And in that, there is a sort of image reasoning that happens, which could also lead to communication problems. So in any personality understanding of a personality trait or conflict space, what we have to understand is that when this kind of personality reactions or perspectives happen, they directly impact in three areas. One is with relation to the task. The other is with relation to the relationship. And the third is with the relationship to the process. So if I have no, let's take the third part of it. If I have no chance to have a feedback or an appraisal, sometimes what happens is the process becomes so rigid because of which it could contribute to the escalation of the conflict also. In the perception of the conflict, we have to see how the relationship is seen. Whether it is something that is necessary, whether there is a future, there's actually a very good definition by a person, a German who of negotiation. He says, negotiation is a dialogue between disputants to decide on the future of the relationship. And I think that is what is relevant in management also because unless there is a dialogue, unless there is a constructive dialogue to understand and there is an ethical communication also to get perspectives on the table, there cannot be an understanding of whether there can be a negotiation or whether there's a need to solve the problem. So this relationship has to be something. See, it's a one-off relationship. A person just goes into the shop, buys something, it is defective. Or today, let's take the example of an online transaction. You order something and it comes defective. Of course you can return it, but sometimes you don't get the money back and sometimes the money is so small you don't feel like fighting with them. Of course, you send some messages. After some time, you don't think it is worth it to keep this conversation going. But if it was something where this relationship was important, like I said, the superior and the subordinate, then to continue in the same working space, they may need to resolve it by talking about if they were dependent on the kind of services that each one was offering. It would become necessary for both of them to sort out their relationship. So we will have to understand the relationship is not just the situation which caused, I mean, which gave rise to this conflict, but also relationship, which could mean something in the future. So when we talk about conflict management, we also have to think about whether there is a future in this relationship, whether they want to do anything about the relationship, especially in matrimonial cases. If you see, they would be out to get at each other. The husband would like to say he doesn't have anything. The wife would like to say that he is the richest man on earth, and so she would like to get something. But if they have children and there's a question of custody also, we also look at that factor to see ultimately, you're going to remain as parents of these children. So what would you like to do to be on the same page as far as their learning is concerned or to be there for them in important events or to share invocations and all that. So that kind of relationship focus helps us also to understand what kind of relationship they have and to nudge them towards some kind of a solution towards that. A task is something which is not just action-based in terms of a commercial transaction or in a workplace. It is also with respect to who will do what. Sometimes there'll be siblings who have to take care of their elders in the family, their parents. And sometimes the dispute about who will take property or who is going to be in the family house or who will take care of these parents will have to determine tasks also. Even in the case of custody, sometimes they may be living in like in parallel streets and they would like to share on who will pick up the child or who will drop the child in a particular class and all that. So task relationship and process, once they are identified, after we understand the personality, the perspectives and the positions and the communication comes down to a constructive dialogue, it'll become easy to handle the task relationship and process. And as I said, it is not just action that we are talking about, we are talking about something more. In a, I don't know whether any one of you have read this book by Arun Shorri called Two Saints. He talks about Ramana Maharishi and about, I mean, of course he goes into the psychosis part and all that. But he talks about two things when there is a perception. He says there is an observation inflation and there is an imagination inflation and everything. So this perception is also about how much of the narrative has something about what they have really observed. And sometimes it is also about how much is it imagined. And then we talk about parties stating their narratives. It is also the mediator who brings something to the table. The mediator also automatically evaluates and sometimes we can't help forming a narrative of our own. And somewhere our imagination, our observation could also inflate the situation. And although we talk about neutrality or being unbiased, I think it is this narrative building that is automatic in the brain that sometimes derails the whole conversation. And so that handling that is also part of the conflict management. Because we ought not to add to whatever is the narrative there or whatever is the understanding there. I think it was David Hoffman who had a mediation matrix. And he said, of course, he identifies the psychological issues as the first issue. He says how the people look at certain things. See, generally we say that we ought not to advise parties or to suggest to parties, but when we find that they have some sort of inability in the sense that they are not able to come to decisions. Of course, we say that whoever is a decision maker or somebody who can help them could also come. But sometimes they are in the, their mindset is in the area where they are not able to make a decision because they've never made a decision in their life or there is some psychological impact because of which they will not be able to make a positive decision on anything. So he says sometimes the understanding of the situation, unless we are able to change the understanding of the situation. I remember a long time back, there was a custody case where the father used to hold on to this child, like this, hold close to the neck and grab the child and say, look, show me those videos and say, look how my child enjoys. Actually, the child would be struggling because he'd be struggling for breath, but he never could understand that. He had a psychological issue, which he didn't want to address. And apparently the wife had taken him to psychiatrists, but she said that was what she was afraid of. And so I had to talk to him to say, why was it necessary for him to see the child? Like it would be better if, because he did not approve of the school that the child was going to and all that. So I said, why don't you just leave her to handle the child? Because you don't have the general day-to-day problems of handling the child and then just have him visit sometimes with your mother, that kind of a thing, indirectly. So once that was done, he was able to come to a decision because until then he felt, because he had been a child who had been put down by the father. So sometimes when we go back into the history, we find there have been certain issues. Like for example, there was a property issue in which the sister told me, father was a very famous person and he wanted his son also to do well. And so when the son failed in his exams, in his 10th exams, apparently the father took the whole family by car and chased the paper and paid the person who was valuing the paper, gave him money and the son, of course, cleared the exam. So his sister told me, Madam, I wouldn't even say that what my father did was wrong to the extent that he chased the paper. But I would say taking the son along was totally wrong because then my brother knew that my father would always buy him out of situations and he could do anything. That's why today he's a drug addict and we can't rely on him to take care of the properties. So somewhere along, there'll be psychological issues. And digging further, we'll find that it could be because of some childhood trauma, because the way they were treated, there's so many things that go into it. And sometimes we may not be able to completely analyze but we have to understand that there is a psychological issue. For example, when a 14-year-old boy, which was the one which really impacted me was being sexually harassed by his father. Of course, we couldn't settle it, but the mother came and said, thank you, Oma, for listening to both me and my son because he'll now know we believed it. And then she said, I feel sorry for him because his mother was busy at work and she would leave him with a tuition teacher who had harassed him. And he felt it was okay to do this. And so he was harassing my son and his friends also and realized what was happening and I had to walk out of the house. So what happens is sometimes we have to dig deeper. So we have to understand the psychological issues in this. The second, of course, he refers to communication. As I told you, it could be totally oppositional or there could be an intensity in the communication because of which it could give rise to a conflict, which the mediator has to address. All of us know that body language is also very, very important. So we have to understand the body language, the gender difference and more than anything else, I think we have to understand the values and beliefs of those persons. So unless in mediation and handling conflict, whether in mediation or not, even in a workplace when somebody is handling a particular partner, say a HR manager, I think has to understand the values and beliefs of these people because everybody comes from a particular background and they think it is okay. So even if a man was saying that it was okay to hit his wife or his wife should have weigh him and I would be aghast at such a statement, but I can't show it or I can't justify it or I can't tell him that it is okay to hold that opinion or to say, how can you do this? I would have, oh, so you seem to think that your wife deserve this kind of treatment. So do you think she was okay with it? So go into a conversation which is more, helps him to reflect on what could be done differently. So handling those values and values is a whole set of issues because values come from different, your ideologies, the way you're brought up, there are so many things. And when we talk about values, there is culture also. So he says in a mediation matrix, all these matters are more than goals and the negotiation dynamics. All these things are very, very important. And so when we talk about conflict and management, we are talking primarily about self-image. We are talking about how I perceive the other person is reacting to it, how I'm communicating it, how my intentions are communicated and how my intentions are appreciated by the other person. So when I was reading something the other day, I found the word quantum, a quantum physics we have heard about. Quantum is something which they say is the area or an appraisal of whatever is available. And there was some reference to quantum cognition. So in the context of quantum cognition in conflict management, what we see is there is a contextuality to everything. We can't always say this is absolutely true. Say for example, if a person's, say, in some corporate hospital, the wife is admitted and the doctor says, you have to get this injection immediately, it has to be given in half an hour and the husband runs out to the pharmacy and the pharmacy says, yes, this injection is available but it's for two lakhs and this man doesn't have two lakhs to give immediately. He tries to plead with him and the man says, no. So when he's serving some other customer, he just grabs that injection and goes off. When we look at that, we would ordinarily say he ought not to have done that. He can't take it away without paying for it. But then if this man had gone and the statement was done and she came back alive and then he came back and said, see, I was in such a hurry, I couldn't wait for all the explanation. So I just took it and I've been able to, in my bank, I have some 50,000 or something. I'll give you on tomorrow morning, I'll come and repay something. And when he's explained to it, maybe the other person will also understand. So the contextuality is something where we can't look at it with a lens with which we are ordinarily conditioned to see. We have been told what is right and wrong, what is harmful. So we generally tend to look at it from that perspective, but in conflict management or assessing a conflict or to manage a conflict, what we have to understand is that first we have to understand the contextuality. I understand that psychologists often say that when there is an event, they ask them what was the thought that immediately surfaced. And then when the thought is said, they go back to what was the emotion that you felt. And when they go back to the emotion, they talk about that emotion, the person feels validated, then they are able to move out of whatever was the intensity of the emotion and then the thought slowly changes. So I think somewhere that is also important, understanding the contextuality of the situation. The second thing I would say is superimpositions or understanding the narrative in the proper form. As we usually say, it's like an onion, we have to peel all those layers to find out. But as I said, it could be beliefs, it could be values, it could be gender, it could be communication. If what if some person just sits quiet, doesn't open his mouth or her mouth at all through what is happening? Does it mean that they are exceeding to whatever or accepting whatever is said? No, there may be some simmering frustration. There may be some anger which are unable to exhibit also. Like in this case of this 14 year old boy who had gone through it for about seven or eight years. And when I asked him, why did you keep quiet? He said, I was made to believe by my father that if I spoke about this to anyone else, my mother would die. And I was shown about how she would die and all that and I was scared and I didn't talk to anyone. That was just a 14 year old boy. I mean, a seven year old or eight year old when he was told that, so he believed it. But even as adults, we tend to believe or we tend to put certain protective coverings to cover a narrative which is embarrassing to us or which is painful to us. And we think we should change the narrative. So generally it is said that, I think Ken Clark said this that there is a true narrative but always we try to say a narrative which we think others will believe and a narrative that we want to believe. And so the superimposition or what is it the protective layers that they have put over that? Unless that is understood or unless we are able to remove that management is not possible. The other factor that I would say in this quantum cognition is interference also. I don't know about other states but here I have found that certain political parties, I mean, people from political affiliations have a tendency to impact the thinking of people. So it's not just for the sake of their affiliation to the party, but because they are there in the village or in that place and they say they would help them, they tend to listen to them and start litigation which they have never really thought of us or what they would want to do. But the narrative becomes like this that you have to stand up for your right or you have to do it to get it. And so when they start that we making a complaint, say I remember there was a police officer who had married it twice and there was a problem between the first wife's children and the second wife's children and all that and apparently this political person had told the second wife to file a complaint and so he was suspended. And challenging the suspension and the red petition was referred actually. When I started talking to them and I found that it was really this political person who had come to know about the lands that he owned in the village and instigated her to file this complaint. And she didn't have an aorta of evidence about where the property was or what was the value but she was saying, a bhaiya mujhe help her in it. So that kind of an attitude, she didn't know anything. And so she would not have got the benefit even if she had got something. But ultimately the elder children were able to say, no, we will pay for the education of this because he is my father's children after all but we won't give anything to her. So that kind of an understanding came only when the, what shall I say? The noise created by other people were removed. So sometimes this quantum cognition and conflict management also needs to understand what are the peripheral cues there? What are the peripheral pressures there? That is also very, very important. And most important is the compatibility or what shall I say? The reason for them to connect. What is it that is making them still, even to fight they need to some sort of a connect even to hurl abuses against each other and they need some sort of a connect. So that is also very, very important. So to sort of summarize whatever I have said, I think in any management, what the parties have to understand is important. First the recognition of the conflict and in the importance of finding a solution. They need to recognize that they have to find the solution. This recognition also comes over the recognition of need for change. Not just recognize, oh, they are difficult people. Oh, these people will also talk like that. It's not just enough for that. Saying, yeah, I think things have to change around here. Or we have to do something to make it better for everyone. So this recognition and what shall I say? The importance of the situation. Once there is an objective appraisal of both, then there is a shift in the attitude because of which people understand what they are capable of giving. See, all of us have experiences of walking on the road and seeing a beggar on the road asking for something. At the first instance, when we see somebody, you know, even small children coming and asking for one, maybe you do this, why don't you go to school or why don't you work or something like that. You're not inclined to give. But when we see a person who has a problem in walking or some sort of disability, then naturally we feel that we have to do something even if we are taught of just giving 10 rupees, maybe we will end up by giving something more. So that is because we understand the capacity or the need in the situation. So sometimes we also find that if this person has a conflict, like in this case, I said when I was telling the brother, look, you have studied and gone to work, but whereas his boy is in college and your father is not paying the fees, now what do you think can we do? So he said, I won't give property, but I will pay his fees. So that self-efficacy, building the self-efficacy becomes very, very important in conflict management. When we have spoken about all this, of course we have to talk about behavior also. So behavior is when we talk about conflict, there is an intention to say certain things or take a certain perspective. But when we talk about management, there must be a reason for them to change. For example, if a person is supplying a part to a particular industry, and then suddenly because there's a defective part or whatever was supplied, the quantity was less, the contract is canceled, naturally the person who has come to rely on the supply may feel that he would like to rework the contract or find out hope that the issue could be addressed. So the behavior or the change in the behavior can happen only when there is an intention to change and that intention also alters the behavior of the person. Sometimes when some people do something good, the others also accept it. See for example, I always like to quote this where there were two friends who had come up from school and they had started the business and the one was a chartered accountant and the other was an engineer. So they built up a factory and they were doing well. Until this engineer got his, he didn't have children, he brought his nephew in and gave him a 10% share. And so the other person felt that the accounts were fudged and there was problems and all that. Both of them were in their 80s at that time. And one day accidentally when we were talking, I came to know that the nephew's father, the elder brother of the other person was actually a maths teacher in school who had helped both of them in their maths and because of which both of them had gone to study further also. So when this man conveyed this to me, so I said, oh great, so he's your Guru's son. Now, what would you, have you given Guru Dakshina or what would you like to give? So this is something which is a part of, I think our cultural heritage, when you said Guru Dakshina, immediately this man said, yeah, I know he's my Guru's son and I really couldn't afford to do anything for my Guru at that time. So let him quote what he can give me. But even before that he said, I know that he's going to find it difficult to carry it on and my son is also not in this business, but I would like to help him as a consultant and whether he's able to pay or not. I brought in this situation because my wife needs some medical treatment and I don't have the money and so I would like him to pay something. So let him pay something immediately and then tell me what he can pay in installments but I am prepared to do consultation work for him. So the change in dynamics happened because once they were able to reflect or there was a communication queue that I caught on to because of which there was a reflection. That's what is called today is reflective dialogue also. There was a reflection because of which instead of the reaction, I got a response and once that response happened, it changed from what shall I say, anger or fear about what was happening to a space where he thought that he could communicate. And so what is normally said is that there is a bias. There is always in any perception, there is a bias and this bias is because we don't want to take responsibility and we select certain information which will tag on to the conditioning and to our memory to justify our stand. So any of these attributions can change only when this quantum communication is done and the process of information can change. Today, there's a lot of talk about emotional intelligence because all of you would have known about Daniel Goldman and I'm sure many webinars, we also talk about all this. But the other day I was listening to a video by one Theodor Rick, he calls it listening with the third year. And he says there are four factors which are very, very important in any conflict management. And he says first factor is identification. By the word identification, he says it is the ability to focus, it is the ability to relate, the ability to find some common ground. So identification is not just my identity and your identity, it is something that is able to relate to each other and to say, okay, I see something in you or I understand the need in you and so I want to do something. So he says empathy can happen only when there is an identification. And the next is he's saying, we are ordinarily say standing in the other person's shoes. The other day when I was doing a training when I was the first thing the people said, yeah, empathy means standing in the other person's shoes. So I said, okay, I'll give my shoes and if you stand on it, what will happen? So they had a good laugh about it. So I said, it's not just standing on the shoes, being able to understand what that person is going through. So it is the feelings that the situation has given a rise to or this person is feeling, which I'm able to not only catch on to but I'm able to, I won't feel it completely but I'm able to imbibe it in a certain way. So that he calls as incorporation. So the first thing he says is identification. The second thing he calls as incorporation and only when I am able to feel it there is a sort of a resonance, there is a reverberation. And I'm able to look at it, say, look, for example, in this particular training that I was talking to a woman had come from Kerala and that morning when we were to start the program she came in crying and she said, my daughter apparently has been hospitalized for an emergency surgery because she has a severe stomach ache and OB is able to find out what it is. So she started hyperventilating naturally. She was far away and she was worried about her daughter. And instead of just telling her, no, no, no, it is okay. We made her sit. We made arrangements for her to get a transport to go back and I was telling her, because she came from Palga and I know a particular temple to which they pray to. I said, why don't you pray to this particular goddess and sure your daughter will become all right. And immediately, she was able to relate to that. So somewhere this resonance, I mean, you may know certain things you may not know, but ultimately if you're able to understand that feeling or why they are exhibiting such kind of a behavior, if you're able to resonate with that and then and still stand a little away to help them in a manner that would be useful for them. So he says, this is what is listening with the third year. And at the same time being totally, I mean not connected in the sense that I won't say disconnect, but I would say that you're able to rationalize and be dispassionate. And that he calls his detachment. So listening to the third year, he says is identification, incorporation, reverberation and detachment. And that is what is most important. So when we talk about all this management and all that, what are the challenges that is most important? You have to understand what are the challenges in all this. And I'm sure everybody would have guessed. The first thing is the situation and the situation is because of our perception of rights and duties of the other person, my rights and duties of the other person. So what happens is we have a pattern of rights and duties because of which we set a pattern to it. And that is the first challenge overcoming that. Second is the conditioning. And because of these perceived rights and obligations that we expect from the other person, it hijacks our thought process. So positionings happen because of this conditioning and the hijacking of the thought process. And the next step is the actions which happen. And more than that is the social proof that we generally look out for in all these situations. So the challenges also have to be understood. And unless we understand the challenges, we will not be able to manage the conflict. So I think on a summary of all this, what we understand is that conflict can be task-related, conflict can be relationship-related, cause it can be process-related. It can be because of personality, it could be because of perspectives, it could be because of positions. But all these are based on our understanding of rights and duties and what our beliefs that have come out of conditioning or our memory or our understanding of the situation. So there is a selective perception of not only the information, but selective understanding of the intentions of communication and because of which we need quantum cognition and we need to listen with a third ear. And for that, there must be a willingness. See, they say, volition itself is unless I have an understanding of the facts that are available, but what are the possibilities? And I have a desire to move out of it. It is not free will. So there must be volition. There must be objectivity. There must be a calm appraisal. And there must be an ability to reflect and ultimately make a choice for which this person takes responsibility. And I think from respect to responsibility, that is a spectrum within which conflict to management happens. And I think with this brief talk, I have given you an insight about what could be conflict management? Because it's much more, but any questions that you would like to ask on this, I would be happy to answer. First of all, ma'am, I would like to say, in Hindi, it is said that we have become rich by listening to you. Thank you. Because so detailed, so much detailed, I can even, I can't imagine that somebody can be so detailed in the subject. You're so thorough. And the only thing which, now after listening so much of detail, that when we are going through mediation, we hardly have so much of time to understand all this. Neither the parties have so much of time to allow us to interfere and tell them so many suggestions. So I don't know what is your experience, but I would certainly like to know what is your experience at how you manage? Very true, sir. For example, I was doing a partition suit, actually, where these people at Marwadi settled here. They had different business partnerships, plus land, which was in the partnership, in the individual names and all that. And one particular branch was claiming it on the basis of an oral partition. The others were denying there was an oral partition between the elders in the family. So according to him, that happened in the 90s. So nobody has any information or all that. And many of the properties have been told also. Similarly, there was another where we have this Chettiar community who are all merchants. So again, there were problems in family business, hotels and all that. In all this I found, whether it was a defense of oral partition or father making a settlement and then canceling the settlement and that kind of a thing. It was always the lawyers who had complicated the whole thing and were not giving them the true perspective also. See, that is why I always feel them, look, whatever we are talking here is only for the sake of mediation. So you can advise your clients to look at the perspective. If they don't want to take it, they can go away. I mean, when they go back to litigation, they have their defenses. But if they are able to settle it, understanding what are the strengths and weaknesses, it will help them. But unfortunately, even our judges don't know. I have, even how I get references from the court saying you have to finish it in three sittings. How will I do it when I have 15 parties? Imagine. So it's not, you know, also we have not made it a, what shall I say, dispute and friendly atmosphere in courts. However much we have made it better, of course. But still it's hard to, that kind of, I remember when we were putting up our mediation center in the High Court, one of the architects, because it's ours is a heritage building and we had this architect and she told us, Uma, we have water and this temple and all that at the entrance because when you dip your foot in your water, it cools you down and it makes you amenable. So you should have water at the entrance. Where can I get water at the entrance in the High Court? So I thought of getting a fountain. But of course, our committee threw the idea down. Although we did look out for fountains and all that. You know, all the sportable fountains that you can have at the entrance. So I think somewhere along the line, they also, I hope, I mean, even with this mediation bill you'd have seen eminent persons. Who are these eminent persons? So today, it's not just a question of being trained once in mediation and then being off to do it also. We need to learn more. We need to look into psychology, sociology, so many things. See, for example, I was recently doing restorative justice for Maharashtra National Law School students. And that time I came to learn a lot about sociology. So sometimes, you know, all those, because you get into these programs you start reading, you learn. Sometimes out of interest, you learn. But then I think those are areas that also have to be taught to students in law schools. Because it's not, you know, they are very computer savvy, much more than what I am. I'm definitely very bad. But what I'm saying is that's not enough just to Google and find information. They have to internalize and only then they can support their clients. Today, most of the matrimonial disputes are. See, for example, the father will have visitation rights and take the child. Say he's from out of town and he comes and takes the child. I have an example where he took the child to a Marriott Hotel here through the day he had to have because he came from US. And in the evening when he returned the child, apparently the child was wearing a different panty, three-year-old daughter. And the mother immediately made a claim that he had inappropriately touched her. Whereas the child had fallen into the bathtub and he had to change her clothes. All the entire clothes he had changed. She only pointed out to the panties, nothing else. And I think that is very wrong because if the child comes to know about it then she grows up. So I think as lawyers, we also have some responsibility but unfortunately, today it's the marketplace where you have to survive. And clients also look for people who can promise something. So I won't blame the lawyers alone. There are a lot of things. Yes, a successful lawyer doesn't have time. One, and media is not a good psychologist. That also happens. In fact, if you're in the morning, when we were talking about what I was saying that we can do something like how to understand the psychology. And some of the law colleges, now they've started speaking on those aspects. How to understand the psychology, not only of the client, but individual. So that actually you don't create an impasse, you don't hammer around the point which is not worth mentioning it. So you can narrow down your all thought processes. Because even for a lawyer to practice in court, I think he has to know, he or she has to understand psychology. In fact, one of the vice chancellor was sharing with me. He was the dean of law department at one point of time, Mr. Rajkumar. He was sharing with me that wherever he has gone, he has introduced us a bit, not only in law, but other professional courses also. So that you understand, you don't harp upon an issue which is not made out or you cannot, I would say, told that person to the offline but at least you can bring to him to a logical conclusion. Once you understand the psychology, you can make him understand what could be the advantage. Things are only that, that's what we do in not only in law, but otherwise also the facet of communication, why it is very material. Mediation, lawyer, in the society at large, your expressions of word, your verbal communication, your expression of communication, they all speak it and they make or change the mindset of a working. And like what Atul was sharing with us, all of us on this platform, that the session was spot on. I can just add, it was Sagar Meghagar and, so we all learn and at some point of time, like what you did in the national law, we can take some session, something on psychology, impact of communication. There are a team number of sessions and like you was rightly saying, when mediation started its journey way back in 2008, 2009, the thought process of the community at large and society at large, including the lawyers, professionals, judges was different and now we are taking things in a different prison. I can say that the journey has actually taken off in a rightful manner and it has traveled much better than what we all expected. Very true because even before, I think that's because they do internship and all that, these students who are still in law school. Most competition. And they say we would like to take up mediation, even at that stage, when they are finishing law, they are saying we would like to take up mediation as a profession. So I think to some extent children have also started focusing on this as an alternative profession. And unless we are able to substantiate the training in a better way for people to handle, see, cultures are different. For example, when I have been training in different parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala itself, I'll just give them an example of a boy and girl deciding to get married and the parents opposing it, which happens everywhere. And only the brother of the girl is supporting and they go to an elder for the mediation of this. And you won't believe the kind of answers I've got. In some places in Kerala, they will say, okay, whatever was a property or we will find out whether he's educated. Some will say, okay, whatever was a property that we were supposed to give, we will not give if she wants, let her go away, but we won't give the property. Some of them will say, no, we will pay only till she finish because if she's a student, if we pay till her education is over, but after that we won't take any responsibility. So depending on the kind of culture from which those people have been you, I mean, the social norms and all that, I have found that the responses have been totally different and that itself between these two states, I have found a lot of differences. And so doing it in different parts of India, of course there are more. And what I'm trying to say is that even within Tamil Nadu, if you see, people in different regions have different approaches. Like my senior, when I came to practice, it was in 1980. He used to say, people in Kanyakumari, the land is very little. So they will fight for every inch of it. And I used to laugh at him. But subsequently when I have handled cases, I've understood that for them, because they bury their family also in their own backyard. And it's very important for them to hold on to the land. And so it's their approach to everything with respect to property is totally different unlike other places. In some places, it's just the land. Like for example, some of the matters that I have done, ordinary agriculturists. But then today, because it's abutting a highway and for highway expansion, they are paying, suddenly they start fighting against each other and they want a piece of the pie. And so as I said, some political party or somebody would have a hand in it also. So I think those cultural aspects, yeah, how much we'll be able to really understand if the parties are prepared to share with us some information. Yes, those cues will help us to understand that, sir. There's a lot of learning to be done, yes. That's true. Each day, we learn something or the other. And that's true not only the conflict management but other aspects we all love to learn. And thank you, ma'am. In the morning, we requested you when it was a quite fascinating session. It was quite stimulating to the mind. And on Sunday, we have a session on substantive and procedural aspects, commercial suits with civil suit. So everyone knows him. That is why Mr. Amarjeet Chandiyogh, he can speak on every aspect. And I thought that they wouldn't be a better person to speak on this aspect. Yeah. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Stay safe. Thank you.