Confronting the Complexity of Loss

esult of the events they experienced. The loss of dignity, however, undergirds much of
the personal recollections offered by the participants.
The first set of questions dealt with the contextual backdrop to the participants’
experiences. Sinhala-Tamil ethnic tensions and the rise of Tamil militancy provided the
contextual backdrop to the July 1983 pogrom. The context surrounding disappearances
during the second JVP insurrection was the government’s use of military and paramilitary
groups to eliminate the insurgents and their sympathisers. The LTTE’s antipathy towards
the Muslim community along with its campaign to homogenise the North undergirded the
mass expulsion of Muslims in 1990. A similar context applied to the LTTE’s attacks on
Sinhalese border villages. Its struggle for a separate state also provided the contextual
backdrop for its indiscriminate attacks on civilians throughout the war. Moreover, the war
between the government security forces and the LTTE provided the general context of
the casualties suffered on both sides and the disappearances of persons during the
military occupation of the North and East. The government’s subsequent crackdown of
dissenting voices after the war underscored the occurrence of post-war human rights
violations including extra-judicial killings and enforced and involuntary disappearances.
Finally, increased tensions between the Sinhalese and Muslim community and the
political mainstreaming of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism formed the contextual backdrop
to the Aluthgama riots of 2014.
Those who suffered loss during the JVP insurrection and the post-war era were
unanimous in their condemnation of the overall context of their loss. In the case of the
JVP insurrection, no participant viewed the government’s crackdown on alleged JVP
members and sympathisers as ‘necessary’ or ‘inevitable’. These participants held the
view that their loss was not in any way or form justifiable within the prevailing political
context of the time. Similarly, participants whose family members disappeared soon after
the war also felt that such violations could not be understood within any justifiable
context. These sentiments underscored their attitudes towards both their loss and those
responsible for that loss.
The responses of participants who lost family members due to the war were radically
divergent. Three types of sentiments emerged.
First, some participants stated that the war was necessary to bring about peace. One such
participant observed: ‘Earlier we couldn’t go anywhere freely; we lived in fear, but now
it is not so.’ Another participant—a former member of the Civil Defence Force—stated:
In those days, when we went to cultivate our lands, we carried T56 guns. We
always kept watch—we looked this side and that side and worked in fear, for we
didn’t know when [the LTTE] would appear. At night, we couldn’t come out of
our houses even for an urgent matter. Now we don’t have any such problem.
Some participants whose sons were killed in action stated that they constantly reminded
themselves and those around them that their sons were brave soldiers. One participant
from Gampaha, whose son was killed in action, stated: ‘I always tell [my] grandson about
the bravery of his uncle, for I consider it to be very important.’
35