Confronting the Complexity of Loss

participants rationalised the deaths of their relatives as acts of bravery, and appeared to be
disinterested in the prosecution of those responsible for the death of their relatives.
The views of participants point to a correlation between the perceived legitimacy of the
context of loss and the expectations of justice. Given the small size of the sample used in
the present study, this hypothesis ought to be explored further. Bearing this limitation in
mind, the responses of the participants appear to suggest that those who considered the
context of their loss as ‘unjustified’ were more likely to demand some form of justice.
The possible correlation, though unsurprising, is important to acknowledge, as the
converse helps us understand the reductive narrative discussed in the preceding section.
This hypothesis contains two corresponding limbs. First, those who deny the contextual
legitimacy of their loss tend to demand accountability. Second, those who accept the
context as legitimate tend not to show a strong interest in accountability. Thus there
appears to be a tendency for individuals who accept the legitimacy of a particular context
to be less interested in indentifying and prosecuting perpetrators. If the tendency is
widespread, it is possible to mistake it for evidence of a ‘Sri Lankan approach’ to justice
i.e. an approach that features leniency of punishment. Therefore, a high concentration of
Sri Lankans accepting the legitimacy of military operations against the LTTE may
ostensibly translate into a narrative on how Sri Lankans wish to deal with wartime
atrocities. Their views on contextual legitimacy could shape their expectations of justice
in terms of their own loss—particularly with respect to relatives killed or missing in
action. A lack of interest in the accountability of those responsible for such loss could be
mistaken for a dominant trend in ‘tolerance’, ‘forgiveness’ and ‘leniency’.
At the root of this hypothesis is the idea that the demand for justice stems from an
acknowledgement or recognition of injustice. Participants who preferred to see those who
caused the deaths of their relatives rehabilitated rather than prosecuted also accepted the
overall legitimacy of the war; they saw their own loss as part of that legitimate context.
They perceived no ‘injustice’ that could prompt a corresponding demand for ‘justice’.
This rationalisation of personal loss should not be interpreted as a dominant attitude to
justice. Instead, questions of justice must be asked of victims and survivors who
genuinely believe that the circumstances of their loss were ‘unjust’. Participants who
recognised the unjust nature of the circumstances surrounding their loss were the only
ones who were actually grappling with questions of justice. The so-called ‘Sri Lankan
approach’ to justice must therefore be located amongst these participants; and as
explained in the preceding section, a singular attitude to justice simply does not exist
amongst such victims and survivors.
2.2 Self reflection
In some cases, a participant’s tendency to apportion blame on herself appeared to
influence her views—particularly with respect to truth telling and justice. Participants
who apportioned part of the blame for their loss on themselves often took up the position
that they must accept their loss, as they had in some way contributed to it. This sense of
63