Dialogue Is the Only Way to Defuse Conflict

It was just a small access road yet a dispute over that road, Billal Hossain, 24-year-old cost his life. His death also brought the normal life of an entire family to a sudden halt. His wife and two children now face an uncertain future. Billal’s death is a painful reminder of how an apparently minor dispute can turn into a lifelong tragedy for those left behind.

Billal Hossain lived in Sreepur village under Sreepur Union in Chauddagram Upazila of Cumilla. He earned his living by driving a CNG-run auto-rickshaw and supported his family with that income. For a long time, his family had been involved in a dispute with the family of their neighbour, Mozammel Hossain, over an access road to their home.

On 24 July, amid the ongoing dispute, Mozammel Hossain’s family erected a bamboo fence across the road. A short while later, Billal and some of his relatives went to remove the fence carrying locally made weapons. A clash broke out between the two families, and Billal was critically injured with a sharp weapon. His family rushed him to a hospital in Cumilla, where he died on 4 August while undergoing treatment.

A small dispute had ended in the loss of a young life. Billal’s wife and two children depended on his earnings. Who will now provide for them? Even if justice is eventually delivered through the courts, can any legal verdict fill the emptiness his death has left in their lives?

Following the attack, Mozammel Hossain, the prime accused in the case, was arrested in Chattogram in a joint operation by the police and the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and produced before a court. The court denied him bail and sent him to prison. Perhaps the legal process will eventually allow him to walk free on bail. But Billal Hossain, the young CNG auto-rickshaw driver, will never return. His wife and two children will continue to live with the weight of that loss.

Billal’s death therefore leaves us with a question that reaches far beyond one family or one village: could this dispute not have been resolved through dialogue?

Though, conflict can begin almost anywhere. A disagreement over land, money lent or borrowed, a family dispute, an institutional disagreement, or competition over natural resources can escalate into confrontation. From families and communities to states and international relations, conflicts arise for countless reasons. Some claim lives. Some drive people from their homes. Others leave wounds that are carried from one generation to the next.

Against conflict, dialogue remains perhaps our most humane response. Human rights activists, educators and researchers have repeatedly emphasised that mutual discussion, understanding and compromise are indispensable to resolving disagreements. At a time of profound social, cultural and political change across the world, dialogue offers a way to bridge differences without turning those differences into hostility.

Islam also places importance on dialogue and reasoned discussion. Rather than responding to disagreement with raised voices or force, it teaches the value of reason, patience, tolerance and mutual understanding. Prophet Muhammad engaged in dialogue with the polytheists of Makkah as well as Jews, Christians and hypocrites. From family life and the workplace to politics and international relations, dialogue remains essential to resolving problems and reducing tension.

Yet the space for dialogue in our society appears to be shrinking. Intolerance, rigid attitudes, disregard for opposing views, and the tendency to label someone “wrong” or even an “enemy” over a simple disagreement are becoming increasingly visible. Social media makes this particularly clear. A minor difference of opinion can quickly descend into personal attacks and abusive language. Suspicion, intolerance and a lack of justice gradually weaken the relationships on which a healthy society depends.

What we need, therefore, is a culture of dialogue. From our families and educational institutions to workplaces, social organisations and the state itself, we must learn not to treat disagreement as hostility. Differences should be discussed, questioned and resolved through conversation. The more thoughtful and respectful our dialogue becomes, the greater our capacity for mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence.

For this, every year, 19 August is observed as World Humanitarian Day. On 19 August 2003, 22 humanitarian workers were killed in a bombing at the United Nations’ Canal Hotel in Baghdad. In their memory, the United Nations General Assembly designated 19 August as World Humanitarian Day in 2008. The day reminds the world of the importance of protecting the lives, dignity and well-being of people affected by crises, while also safeguarding those who risk their own lives to provide humanitarian assistance.

Human rights provide the moral and international foundation for protecting human dignity and fundamental freedoms. Humanitarian assistance gives those principles practical meaning during war, conflict, disaster, displacement and other emergencies. If we are serious about reducing conflict and preventing humanitarian catastrophe, dialogue must work alongside law, justice and compassion.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948 in the aftermath of the horrors of the Second World War, recognised fundamental rights including life, liberty, personal security, equality before the law, freedom from torture, access to justice, freedom of expression, education, work, social security and a life of dignity. Yet if the pursuit of rights itself becomes a justification for hatred, revenge or violence, the very purpose of human rights is undermined. Rights cannot be sustainably protected through cycles of retaliation. Their lasting foundation must be dialogue, law, justice, compassion and mutual respect.

The scale of today’s humanitarian crises makes this need even more urgent. According to United Nations data for 2026, by the end of May more than 252 million people worldwide were in need of urgent humanitarian assistance and protection, around 13 million more than estimated at the beginning of the year. Humanitarian response plans required approximately US$33.66 billion, but by the end of May only US$8.21 billion had been received, roughly 24.4 per cent of what was needed.

These are not merely figures on a spreadsheet. Behind every number is a human being, a family, or an entire community forced into uncertainty. In one place, war destroys homes. Somewhere else, families struggle to find food and clean water. Hospitals and schools come under attack. Elsewhere, people cross borders and leave everything familiar behind simply because staying home is no longer safe.

According to a 2026 message from the United Nations Population Fund, nearly 1,000 health workers have been killed over the past three years, while 350 humanitarian workers were killed in 2025. In conflict zones, women and girls face heightened risks of sexual violence, lack of access to healthcare and profound insecurity.

An attack on a humanitarian worker, doctor, midwife, ambulance driver or rescue worker is therefore never an attack on one person alone. It is an attack on the lifeline of countless people who depend on them. Respect for international humanitarian law and protection for medical and humanitarian facilities are not optional. They are essential.

The consequences of conflict are no less devastating at the local level. Mozammel Hossain, a victim of conflict, commented: “From the family level to the international level, any conflict can be prevented and resolved through dialogue. Through dialogue, people or their representatives can recognise their mistakes. It creates a culture of acceptance. In that sense, dialogue can be far more powerful than any physical weapon.”

Human rights activist Md. Abdus Sattar said: “To prevent conflict, we must address poverty, inequality and injustice in society. Instead of creating opponents through attacks and confrontation, problems ranging from family disputes to wider global conflicts can be addressed through dialogue.”

Upazila Executive Magistrate Shahadat Hossain put it simply: “Dialogue is an effective method of resolving any problem. If meaningful dialogue begins at the very start of a dispute, lives need not be lost.”

Member of Parliament Dr Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher has said at various meetings and public gatherings, “Dialogue among stakeholders or the parties concerned plays an effective role in maintaining peace, promoting development, protecting human rights, and preventing and resolving conflicts. Both national and international problems can be resolved through dialogue. In the future too, dialogue will remain a key means of preventing and resolving any form of conflict.”

The death of Billal Hossain reminds us that major conflicts often begin with a very small dispute. If such disagreements are brought to the table for discussion in time, a life may be saved and a family may be spared from falling apart. For a peaceful society, therefore, dialogue is not merely a strategy. It is a responsibility we owe to one another.

Dialogue before conflict, understanding before retaliation, and humanity before violence can make our society safer and more peaceful. In an increasingly unsettled world, dialogue is therefore not merely a reflection of civility, but an essential condition for the survival of human civilisation.

Md. Emdad Ullah: Author is a Journalist.