Confronting the Complexity of Loss

Part 3: Conclusion
This study attempts to capture the views of individuals who have suffered personal loss
during the past three decades in Sri Lanka. The events recollected by these participants
are documented in various journalistic and academic accounts of Sri Lanka’s recent
history. Yet this study is perhaps the first—albeit modest—attempt to present a collection
of perspectives and experiences across these events. The study therefore attempts to
uncover the convergences and divergences in the views held by victims and survivors of
violence and conflict in Sri Lanka. It also presents a unique juxtaposition of these
experiences: from the despair of not knowing the whereabouts of a relative abducted
during the 1987-89 JVP insurrection to similar despair faced during the post-war period
in 2009; from the indignity of losing one’s home during the July 1983 pogrom to similar
indignities endured during the 1990 Muslim expulsion and the 2014 Aluthgama riots.
Three important findings emerge from the participants’ recollections, observations and
opinions. The first relates to the extraordinary heterogeneity detectable in the views of
participants. The second points to certain factors that appear to shape the views of
participants. The third finding relates to the question of remedies. It confronts the
question of how international standards on truth, justice and reparations might find
meaning within the plethora of preferences and priorities found amongst victims and
survivors in Sri Lanka.
1. Heterogeneity and the Reductive Narrative
Following the conclusion of the war, certain quarters within the Sri Lankan government
attempted to construct a ‘Sri Lankan approach’ to justice. 121 State officials including then
Minister of External Affairs, G.L. Peiris articulated the position that the ‘Sri Lankan
approach’ was not to emphasise on retribution or punishment, but rather on restorative
justice. 122 This line of reasoning sought to define the concept of restorative justice as
closely related to notions of ‘forgiveness’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘leniency’. Former Attorney-
General and advisor to the Cabinet, Mohan Peiris reiterated this position in a speech titled
‘Sri Lanka’s Approach: Restorative Justice vs. Retributive Justice’ delivered at the
Inaugural National Conference on Reconciliation in November 2011. 123 Peiris in fact
claimed that the philosophy of transitional justice ‘[f]avours restorative justice rather than
retributive justice’. He also claimed that the restorative justice approach resonates with
121 At the time of writing (April 2015), the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mangala Samaraweera deviated from
the state’s original position and pledged to develop ‘a credible local mechanism to investigate…alleged
crimes’. This deviation, however, may be insufficient to indicate a long-term policy shift, given the interim
nature of the present government. See ‘New Sri Lankan Foreign Minister: Our Tilt Towards China needs a
Course Correction’, swarajyamag.com, at http://swarajyamag.com/world/new-sri-lankan-foreign-ministerour-tilt-towards-china-needs-a-course-correction.
122 See speech by Prof. G.L. Peiris, then Minister of External Affairs at the 9 th IISS Asia Security Summit,
The Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore on 6 June 2010, at
http://www.mea.gov.lk/index.php/en/media/ministers-speeches?start=15.
123 See Mohan Peiris, Sri Lanka’s Approach: Restorative Justice vs. Retributive Justice, 24 November
2011, at http://www.kadirgamarinstitute.lk/events/video.htm.
57