The _shalish_ system, while retaining a patriarchal character, has shown itself capable of a measure of flexibility and increased inclusiveness. NGO credit programmes, and efforts to organise women for social action - such as within reforming versions of the _shalish_ - have created both limited progress and some local resistance, which perhaps indicates potentially positive change (Lewis and Hossain, 2004: 20).

Although it had a reputation for unjust treatment of the poor and for closing its door to women, the _shalish_ has potential as a powerful instrument for local justice (Islam, 2002: 99) _This evolution of the shalish could well be related to multiple dispute resolution systems that can often co-exist at the village level._ Essentially a forum for mediation, a shalish it appears can be called by a range of actors and institutions in the village. Any powerful institution like a mosque committee or a school management committee can call a shalish. In that sense there could be a multiplicity of shalish ―providers‖. In Dinajpur, poor men during focus groups described dispute resolution through a mosque committee in each jamat/samaj (para). The jamat is composed of about 80/90 households. The mosque dispute resolution committee consists of 11 members. The chairman of the mosque is also the chairman of this committee. A complainant has to file a case (verbally) with the chairman of this dispute resolution committee. Justice seekers from among this focus group referred to the decision of the mosque (dispute resolution) committee as ―bichar‖ (literally ―contemplation‖ or ―views/decision‖). In yet another case, school boys described a shalish called by the School Management Committee in a complaint that involved harassment of a female student by a male student.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when they have the choice, villagers can ―shop‖ for the best shalish and this perhaps enhances its role as an honest adjudicator. Conversely, it is likely that in those areas where only a single type of (traditional) shalish operates and there is no competition among informal dispute resolution systems, there is also greater likelihood of elite capture. In our own focus groups we found a plethora of examples of shalish from groups in Dinajpur and Mymensingh, relatively fewer from Satkhira and very few examples from Sunamgonj. Focus groups of women too were much more vocal on shalish in the former two sites than they were in the latter two. While it is difficult to judge adequacy of services without an indication of demand, our data on conflict seem to indicate that there is roughly similar level of demand for mediation across regions.

_NGO facilitated shalish:_ Longstanding efforts spearheaded by NGOs and supported by multiple international donors focus on strengthening and reforming these systems to make them more equitable for women and the poorest. Bangladesh civil society‘s innovation in community-level ADR is held up as an international example. The reformed ADR forums include an equal number of women as shalishkars, and often address violations of women‘s rights such as violence, dowry demands, abandonment and maintenance. The NGOs also assist parties in accessing the formal system when shalish is either not appropriate or not satisfactory. The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Centre (BRAC) probably runs one of the largest ADR systems in the world. The activities of BRAC and legal aid organizations (Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust, Ain-o-Shalish Kendro and Nagorik Uddyong) which also run the ―reformed shalish‖ are laid out in a table in Annex 3. The example in box 5 shows the evolution of the shalish facilitated by an NGO in Satkhira district. The reach of the reformed ADR is speculative 12