Would a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) work in South Asia? A Sri Lankan and an Indian discuss whether Sri Lanka and Kashmir/India are ready for truth, whether forgiveness trumps justice and whether their countries will ever accept that all must accept responsibility if they are to move on from entrenched conflicts.
The idea for such a body was born from the percieved success of the TCR used in post-apartheid South Africa and designed to help people get on with their lives after years of violence. Controversially, an amnesty was offered to perpetrators of violence in exchange for an open confession and apology to their victims. Since then many countries emerging from bitter conflicts have set up such TRC’s – with varying degrees of success.
Would such a TRC work in the context of Kashmir and in that of Sri Lanka?
In August of this year, 2700 bodies in unmarked graves were discovered in Kashmir prompting a call from the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, for a TRC. But Kashmiri activists say that it would just be another excuse for a cover up of human rights abuses perpetrated by government forces there.
And Sri Lanka is just emerging from a bloody 27 year war. And in 2009, when the government staged a final push against the Tamil Tiger stronghold in the north of the country, thousands of civilians were killed and injured. Both warring parties were blamed for the loss: the Tigers for using civilians as human shields and government forces for targeting them. So to discuss what a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would mean in these two places, and if its even a possibility right now, I initiated a cross border debate.
You can listen to the debate or read the transcript below.
DS: Would a TRC heal old wounds or would it rub salt in them?
SH: That depends on how you define a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We have for the past year or so the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commissision – a mechanism set up by the government but it’s nowhere near what the TRC of South Africa was.
The LLRC hasn’t really pushed the type of reconciliation I’d like to see, linked to the exploration of human rights violations, catharsis and closure for victims of the war. Instead it’s become political and doesn’t reassure anyone that the perpetrators of the violence especially in the last weeks of the war would be held accountable.
DS: Gautam, would a TRC in Kashmir also run the danger of becoming overtly political?
GP: Absolutely – and at least Sri Lanka has made a small step in that direction – it may not be the right direction, but we in India don’t have anything like it. In Kashmir, the problems are not just political. In a place like Kashmir, that ostensibly has a rule of law in place and yet abuse on this scale, people are going to see any form of TRC as a “get out of jail free” card.
DS: Would a TRC just be another form of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act because it would just continue a long running form of immunity?
GP: a TRC has to be a consensus between all parties – beyond that you can’t move ahead.
DS: But isn’t forgiveness essential if you want to move on?
GP: I’m not sure that you can reconcile forgiveness and justice. For example, the Gujerat racial riots of 2002 – is it going to be easy to forgive and forget?
SH: In Sri Lanka, we see an ethnic division that’s predated the war, that gave rise to the war, that was exacerbated on account of the war, and that seems to be as wide today as it was during the war. And the LLRC is doing nothing to bring these entities together.
DS: Does it come down to a choice that people will have to make – do they want truth about what happened in the past or do they want justice which means retribution and punishment for the perpetrators?
GP: People want justice – not just the truth because everyone’s version of the events is his own truth.
SH: I think it’s a combination of closure as well as catharsis. You may not need at the end of the day a mega reconciliation.
It may be a myriad of local level, grassroots processes that make victims comfortable in expressing their stories. They’ve gone through so much trauma that they may just need to tell someone about it in order to move on. But one thing is sure it’s not the LLRC.
DS: People will not come out and confess to their crimes unless they’re guaranteed immunity…
GP: that’s the most serious part of the whole thing. There has to be a built in assurance and that’s the thing that’s most often misconstrued. Both sides here have been accused of excesses and I think that’s equally true of the Sri Lankan/LTTE as it is of Kashmir or Gujerat or anywhere else.
SH: That’s very true. And also we should look at the role of the mainstream media: in both our countries, they’ve been, how shall I put it…
GP: thoroughly irresponsible?
SH: (laughs) well they haven’t been very helpful in promoting the kind of reconciliation that you and I would agree is possibly needed. What we have instead is the government media supporting the LLRC, the other media bashing the LLRC and very little nuanced fine journalism. The best journalism in Tamil, Singhala and English is actually in the alternative press and on the web.
GP: That’s interesting but I can’t say that’s true of India. But here’s the other thing – what’s in it for the local populace. Why should they do this? Are they being assured of what they were promised all those decades ago? (A reference to the UN Resolution of 1948 when it was decided that Kashmiris would have control over their own fate by a plebescite – something that still hasn’t happened) Is that ever going to happen?
DS: People are uncomfortable with hidden history, people want to know what happened to their loved ones so they can lay them at rest.
GP: Closure?
DS: Closure yes.
GP: with the assurance that a) it will not happen again, b) with a public statement of regret and c) that in exchange for immunity they’ll get an assurance that that which was promised to them politically and constitutionally will actually come to pass. Nobody is doing that.
SH: that’s a fair point – and just to bring in Sri Lanka here, part of the challenge of carrying on this process of reconciliation, is that in terms of mainstream politics, the identity conflict is still there. And it’s not just unacknowledged - it’s the Singhala majority-ism that’s dominating the rhetoric that’s coming out of government. For example, until very recently, it was actually openly said that there was a zero civilian casualty rate during the war. It’s a laughing matter for those on this programme but it has great violence for those who saw what happened on the ground. Leave aside a statement of regret – it’s not even being acknowleged that this occurred by the government.
GP: But also – isn’t a TRC necessarily a one way, unilateral, perpetrator-to-victim kind of paradigm? What we’re looking at here is something that’s required to work in both directions, because you do have civilians and armed forces officers who are also victims.
SH: Just on that point Gautam, I think it’s also eternal. In Sri Lanka, we had a 27 year old war and I think all of us, not just victims or perpetrators – are both. And I think it’s that realization that’s the hardest to accept. About a year and a half ago, I asked on Groundviews if people would countenance killing 50,000 people in the most concentrated field of conflict at the time to end the war as opposed to a prolonged conflict. And people said “yes”, they would countenance it because they were sick and tired of the war dragging on. What Sri Lanka has to go through requires us to look ourselves in the mirror – all of us, myself included and realize that we are both perpetrator and victim. That’s a really hard one.
GP: That’s right. Perpetrator, victim and even bystanders – all three would have to participate, that’s not how its being viewed here at all.
SH: I’ve not seen that either Gautam, in fact I’m seeing the antithesis of it. I’m seeing zero, and I mean zero traction. And I don’t see it coming in the near term either.
DS: I’m going to end it there – and say thanks to my guests, Gautam Patel in Mumbai, and Sanjana Hattotuwa in Colombo.
To read the related blog click here.
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
50 k killed in Libya another 200 k being starved to capture Gaddafi. Do you care?
Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah on Tuesday denied the existence of "mass graves" in the state, saying these were only unmarked graves. Delivering a long speech in the assembly, Abdullah said: "It is important to set the record straight. I want to make it clear these are not mass graves. Nobody has furnished any proof about a mass grave existing in the state
"If anybody has information about so-called mass graves, let him give the information to the state human rights commission.
"What we are talking about is unmarked graves. When we talk about mass graves, it has international connotations. People buried in unmarked graves have been buried with due religious rites. I want to make it clear with authority that all the disappeared persons are not buried in these graves.
"Some of the disappeared persons are driving taxis or have set up some businesses across the Line of Control (LOC)," he said, referring to the part of Kashmir with Pakistan.
"For their return we have created a provision through the rehabilitation policy. So far 800-900 applications have been received from families of those who want to return. A hundred such applications have already been approved by us.
"When such persons return with their family and children instead of guns, the propaganda of our neighbouring country would be exposed.
"Another thing I want to make absolutely clear is whether anyone can with authority say that all those buried in the unmarked graves were killed by the security forces?
"I can say with authority that some of the persons buried in these unmarked graves were killed by the militants.
"Why are the security forces treated as guilty unless they prove themselves to be innocent? Why does not this perception hold good for the militants?
"In an encounter in the Gurez, 14 foreign militants were killed and buried under Islamic rites after maintaining the records of all of them properly."
Abdullah took a dig at Pakistan, saying Islamabad did not even recognise its own regular soldiers who took part in the 1999 Kargil conflict with India.
"Can anyone say with authority that during the last 22 years not a single person died in the training camps across the LOC?
"In villages is it not the practice to mark graves after the dead are buried here.
"(A total of) 2,090 foreign militants killed during the lats 22 years in Poonch and Rajouri districts are buried there.
"If specific instances are brought to our notice, we are ready to go for DNA matching of the buried persons with those who fear their dear ones could be buried in these graves."
The chief minister then took on Britain.
"Now Britain gives us a lecture on human rights. They must set their house in order (first).
"People were lifted from Iraq and Afghanistan. What happened to them in Guantanamo Bay?"
Talking about his proposal for a truth and reconciliation commission, Abdullah said: "(A total of) 17,000 civilians were killed during militancy. People want to know why they were killed? The truth and reconciliation commission cannot function unless it is facilitated by the authorities across the LOC."
From Hindustantimes.com
And Dheera, read the statement of Omar Abdullah given in the J&K assembly regarding the unmarked graves. It is there in the papers today.You should give the latest and accurate facts when reporting on such issues, and not what some media person publishes.
Shame on GP, he hasn't acknowledged the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and excesses done on them,and their refugee status in their own country, but mentions Gujarat riots and plebiscite. How fair is he in his assessment by focusing on one community only? Let him reply.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.