Confronting the Complexity of Loss

There should be mutual understanding among the people. They will have to have
a state of mind that allows them to help another person. Every individual must
understand the effect of racial violence. They have to understand that others have
the same rights as they do.
Some participants who were expelled from the North adopted a nuanced view on nonrecurrence.
These participants contended that conflict stemmed from the lack of sound
values within society. One such participant presented the following views on future
prevention:
Everyone should follow the ways of their religion. The people should develop
their sense of humanity, mutual understanding and humility. Rivalry should not
be promoted among the people or their children. A basic sense of humanity in
children must be cultivated. When a religious character is developed, the animal
instinct will be restrained. There should also be a change in the minds of the
people of the majority. We should move from a sense of “I” to a sense of “we”.
There should be a sense of belonging to the family, home, village, district,
province and the nation. We can only reduce problems if we start thinking of it as
our country.
Not all participants felt that ensuring rights and mutual understanding was vital to the
‘maintenance of peace’. This distinction is evident in the following views expressed by a
participant from Mannar who had lost her husband following his surrender to security
forces in May 2009:
We are now under the government. If we monitor our children’s goings and
comings, and as long as we make sure they do not start another war, it is fine. If a
war is started, it is our responsibility to ensure that our children do not participate
in it…There is no need for more wars…what we faced was more than enough.
This participant held the view that compliance with the law and submission to the state
were sufficient conditions for peace. Meanwhile, a number of participants considered the
LTTE to have been the main barrier to peace, and claimed that its defeat had given the
country a genuine opportunity to avoid conflict in the future. One participant from
Ambalangoda, who had lost her husband to an LTTE bombing, argued that the defeat of
the LTTE created the space for people to ‘live in harmony’ and prevent violence in the
future. These views were echoed by certain other participants, including those who had
not been personally affected by LTTE attacks. One participant from Alawathugoda
stated: ‘such problems would not be created if law was implemented properly
and…people are controlled well.’
Thus the question of how to prevent the recurrence of violence and conflict was
approached from two perspectives. According to the first perspective, conflict emerged
from the breakdown of law and order and was a political construct of those vying for
power. Participants who analysed conflict from this perspective often used the language
of ‘terrorism’ to describe a ‘cause’ rather than an ‘effect’. Hence LTTE bombings was an
effect of ‘terrorism’, which was the cause of violence, as opposed to an effect of some
other grievance. This basic understanding of conflict shaped the manner in which these
54