Truth, Justice and Reparations
( March 5, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Gehan Gunatilleke in this study on truth, memory and justice challenges the notion of a unique ‘Sri Lankan approach’ to transitional justice that may be applied in the post-war context.
The findings of the study are based on the views of interviewees who have experienced loss as a result of the many instances of communal and ethnic violence in Sri Lanka since 1983. The incidents explored in the study include the communal riots of 1983, the Southern insurrection in the late 1980s, the ethnic war that ended in 2009, and the Aluthgama riots of 2014. In an empirical assessment, the author challenges the idea that a uniform approach to coping with grief and loss exists among Sri Lankans. This is largely in response to claims made by sections of the Sri Lankan state that the scheme of reconciliation most appropriate to Sri Lanka is one of ‘restorative justice’. This scheme of reconciliation is based on the virtues of tolerance, forgiveness and leniency that is said to essentially reflect the cultural and religious ethos of the people of Sri Lanka as a whole. The author, through an exploration of the several contexts of loss, the group’s views on truth telling, the importance of memorialising loss, and their views on justice in the aftermath of loss, challenges the notion of a ‘one Sri Lankan approach’ to truth, memory and justice. He points to the multiplicity of views and preferences expressed by those who have suffered loss, and concludes that the most appropriate approach to transitional justice in Sri Lanka is one that can sincerely accommodate such multiplicity.
Key findings that emerge from participants’ recollections in this study:
Three important findings emerge from the participants’ recollections, observations and opinions.
- Heterogeneity and the Reductive Narrative
This relates to the extraordinary heterogeneity detectable in the views of participants. Following the conclusion of the war, certain quarters within the Sri Lankan government attempted to construct a ‘Sri Lankan approach’ to justice. This line of reasoning sought to define the concept of restorative justice as closely related to notions of ‘forgiveness’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘leniency’ which was said to represent Sri Lankan religious traditions. Thus it was argued that ‘Sri Lankan approach’ was not to seek punitive measures.
The so-called Sri Lankan approach is normatively problematic because it promotes a limited understanding of restorative justice. At least three normative concerns might be raised in this regard.
