SRI LANKA:

July ’83: Chandrika Kumaratunga’s apology

President Kumaratunga in her words and actions has the advantage of being completely free of any sense of embarrassment or shame. Many who experienced Black July 1983 at the receiving end are either dead or, if alive, still find it so terrible that they are unwilling to verbalise to others. On the other hand, the guilty or the complicit either still gloat, minimise (“It was that bad”) or blame the victims: “They asked for it.” It would be difficult to exaggerate the horrors of that day: human beings, including children, burnt alive while jeering groups danced gleefully around in “patriotic” and pious frenzy; women gang-raped, the eyes of at least one prisoner gouged out; bodies dragged and placed before a Buddha statue, as if the Compassionate One were an atavistic god who demanded human sacrifice. Now the President thinks the past can be wiped out and the present healed simply by saying sorry for those “incidents” (sic). She does not seem to realize that such an apology is an insult to the dead, and a painful affront to those who suffered directly or indirectly. Such an apology is much worse than silence, which at least can be variously interpreted. There is no declaration of an annual National Day of Reflection and Sorrow; no mention of an independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission; no mention of prosecution or compensation. Simply waving the magic wand of “Sorry” brings about a wonderful change of scene and situation. If only life were so simple, and rectification so easy. She blurs and confuses matters by mentioning those who send children as suicide bombers. While not condoning such actions, one must point out that these unfortunate developments are both after and, more importantly, because of 1983. (At that time, the number of those active in the LTTE is estimated to have been between fifteen and twenty-five. The Tigers are the creation of chauvinism, and of the intolerance and violence that flow from it.)
But to return to the President’s utter lack of morality and, therefore, of any sense of shame, she exploits the issuing of an apology to reflect credit on herself. By implication, she says, I have the “courage” and offer “the right leadership”. At root, it is not an apology so much as preening self-praise: See how honest, courageous and just I am. And one asks, “What took you so long, Madam? Being late, why so little?” Is the apology to be seen as one of the “great achievements” (of the President) that the nation can be “proud of”? It might seem boorish of me to cavil at an apology, but (a) the nature and (b) the motives of this verbal gesture need to be recognised, exposed and condemned.