Forgiveness, foundation for reconciliation

By Lynn Ockersz

It is quite some time since the term ‘reconciliation’ came to be used frequently in public discussion in Sri Lanka. This has been particularly so since May 2009, when the Sri Lankan state’s war against the LTTE came to an end. It was widely believed that the time to ‘reconcile’ the communities of Sri Lanka had arrived since the neutralization of the LTTE militarily had been accomplished.

Indeed, the Sri Lankan government at the time, through a joint statement it inked with the UN, committed itself to bring peace to the country through a political process that would address the legitimate needs of the communities of the land. For example, the joint statement issued by the UN Secretary General at the time, Ban Ki-moon, and then President of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapaksa, among other things, stated as follows: ‘President Rajapaksa and the UN Secretary General agreed that addressing the aspirations and grievances of all communities and working towards a lasting political solution was fundamental to ensuring long-term socio-economic development.’

As political developments since the conclusion of the war have shown, neither the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration nor those governments which succeeded it have done anything notable and concrete to follow up on the above pledges. ‘Ethnic peace’ remains a more or less dead phrase in Sri Lanka’s public discourse. However, eloquent lip-service is being paid by governments and other public quarters to ‘peace and reconciliation’ in this country.

Besides, on and off the need for a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ (TRC) has been voiced in state circles. Even the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime bandied this concept around in the wake of the war’s end. It went so far as to establish a ‘TRC’, which was basically tasked with the responsibility of establishing a blue print to bring about lasting reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka.

Following a couple or so years of work, which involved sounding out views on ethnic peace all over the country, besides allied activities, the Commission brought out a comprehensive document titled, ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report’, which is of considerable importance, but its findings have never been acted upon.

The issue of reconciliation in Sri Lanka is being kept somewhat alive by the UN Human Rights Council but it is falling short of bringing consistent pressure on the Sri Lankan state to initiate and take to its logical conclusion a credible reconciliation exercise. Furthermore, the UNHRC too is guilty of lacking in clarity when it uses the term ‘reconciliation’. The need is great to define the term clearly by all concerned but this has not materialized to date.

Sri Lanka’s current administration too is making some sounds on launching a TRC, purportedly to resolve the country’s ethnic issue. Such initiatives could be welcomed by peace-loving and sensible sections in Sri Lanka, as long as they are pursued in earnest by the government. While awaiting proof of the sincerity of purpose of the government on this score, peace watchers would do well to call on the government to kick-off its TRC venture by first clarifying what exactly it conceptualizes as ‘reconciliation’. This is of the utmost importance because the state’s TRC effort would stand or fall on how insightfully and judiciously it defines ‘reconciliation’.

In South Africa, where the first and historic TRC was established and

successfully implemented in the decade of the nineties to the

satisfaction of all concerned, those who committed atrocities during

the apartheid years were enabled to receive a pardon or amnesty for

their offences provided they revealed the whole truth about the

crimes committed by them before the TRC.

This process brought emotional relief to both parties; the offender and the victim. In short, truth-telling helped in realizing a measure of reconciliation between the main parties figuring in the crime. In other words, the offender’s readiness to own to his crimes contritely and say, ‘I am sorry’, won for him a pardon from the victim or his relatives and the TRC. On the other hand, the victim and his relatives learned the truth about the crime concerned through this exercise. For example, if a person went missing, his relatives were in a position to learn how it all came about.

Needless to say, efforts to launch a TRC on the South African model would pose immense challenges for Sri Lanka, where ‘war crimes’ are seen as a veritable ‘no go’ zone by the state and most law-enforcers. Considering the latter sections’ general tendency to shun any earnest probes into ‘war crimes’ it is highly doubtful whether a Sri Lankan TRC would yield the desired positive results.

Moreover, Sri Lanka would need to be clear in its mind as to how reconciliation should be conceived, since this is the cornerstone of a successful TRC process. If someone is to be reconciled with one’s neighbour or fellow human, then, he should be able to forgive his neighbour’s trespasses or faults. Do most Sri Lankans have it in them to practise the virtue of forgiveness? Do they easily overlook each other’s faults or wrong-doings? Do they easily own to their mistakes? If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, a TRC on the South African model would be successful in Sri Lanka. If not it would fail.

Accordingly, prior to a TRC being initiated in Sri Lanka, the value of forgiveness needs to be inculcated in the hearts of Sri Lankans. Forgiveness or the ability to say ‘I am sorry’ along with the ideal of loving one’s fellow humans to the extent to which one loves oneself, need to be ingrained in the consciousness of Sri Lankans, if a TRC process is to prove successful.

Put simply, it is to the extent to which Sri Lankans are receptive to the principal teachings of Jesus Christ that a TRC initiative would get off the ground. This is the plain truth. We need to begin by forgiving those who sin against us and we need to do this not just once or twice but ‘seventy times seven’.