Rihai Manch, a forum for getting justice to the falsely implicated youth in the cases of acts of terror has currently (June 2013), a protest Dharna (sit in) to demand the arrest of police and IB officials responsible for the death of Maulana Khalid Mujahid, to implement the R.D. Nimesh Commission report and to release the innocent Muslim youth implicated in acts of terror. This campaign is getting broader support from more human rights groups and affected community. This is the major effort by a civic society group to democratically protest against the insensitive and biased state machinery, to pressurize it to come to the path of justice.

The Samajvadi Party, Akhilesh Yadav Government in UP, had earlier claimed to be the major champion of the cause of Muslims, to the extent that the main leader of this party Mulayam Singh Yadav was derogatorily called Mulla Mulayam. But as he came to power last time also during his regime many a communal episodes, violence, took place under the very nose of the Government. Currently also Akhilesh Yadav‘s regime is marked by over 27 episodes of major riots. On the top of that this Government in its election promise had said that the innocents, implicated in the acts of terror will be released. On the contrary, the death of Maulana Khalid Mujahid in the police custody has raised sufficient doubts about the intentions of the Government. Even R.D. Nimesh Commission report was kept in the cold storage from last one year, and now when it has been released finally, the government is refraining from taking action, hiding behind the argument that it will be discussed in future Assembly session before action is taken on the report. As such Government has full prerogative to take action at Cabinet level. People fear that this commission report may also face the same fate as the other commission reports, which are generally put on the backburner or put in the cold storage.

Ashsish Khaitan, one of the journalists with dogged determination, sensitivity and honesty, has floated a portal, Gulail (Slingshot) to highlight the investigative reports related to the framing of innocents by authorities. Many an officers have falsely implicated innocents, despite knowing the truth, to enhance their own career prospects or to due to the biases which have gripped the large sections of the law enforcement agencies. These agencies regard that only youth from one religious community are responsible for the acts of terror. Khiatan also opines that putting forward the truth of such cases is also not of much use; as in such cases reports of honest investigations are overshadowed by the biased reporting and opinions in the print, T.V. and social media. He is pinning his hopes on judiciary and the people’s campaigns for getting justice. The ongoing dharna in UP is drawing the attention of the social groups and is being sustained for over two weeks by the social activists and the pained and anguished community, whose young ones’ are being incarcerated and have to suffer not only the future career prospects but have also to get the blame, which ostracize them from social life. In this direction various efforts have been undertaken in the past but after temporary response and restraint the investigation agencies lapse in to their usual prejudiced actions.

Not only can this be seen in the case of UP, but overall one sees the wide gulf between the promises and actual actions of the so called ‘secular parties’. While in Maharashtra the Congress coalition came to power with the promise of implementing Shrikrishna Commission report of 92-93 riots, after coming to power on this promise it put forward the usual excuses and the guilty police officers and political leadership continued to be in their positions of power despite sufficient proof of their involvement in instigating and participating in the riots., As for as justice to the victims and action against the guilty is concerned Samajvadi Party seems to be no different. The R.D. Nimesh Commission has given the full truth based on which it can proceed to punish the guilty police officers, but that’s what is being avoided. The credentials of so called secular parties are more are less similar, be it the Congress or be it the Samajvadi Party, they have very opportunistic attitude as far as the justice to minorities is concerned. While communal parties are out to do away with the rights of minorities and deny them justice through and through, these so called secular parties have dual character. They promise and are unable to deliver as their calculations are built around the vote bank politics.

This is due to multiple factors. One is that these supposedly secular parties are also being trapped by the considerations other than the values of secularism. So, controlling of communal violence, which is possible if there is adequate determination to do so, is not being done effectively. The second reason is the communalized state machinery, the investigating agencies, police and bureaucracy. How to investigate the cases, how to frame the innocents is an easy enough job, which the authorities do and their Khaki uniform empowers them to do it with ease. It is precisely due to this that the fate of inquiry commission reports has not been significant one. Starting from Madon Commission of inquiry into Bhiwandi riots, to Shrikrishna Commission and Liberhan Commission reports, the outcome, taking action based on the report, is close to zero as the implementing authorities, political leadership is opportunist and lacks the strength to stick to principles.

So where do we go from here. While the communal forces are out to proactively browbeat the religious minorities, the secular formations do not have the spine to ensure justice and equity. Its’ here, that the social activism which has prominently come up during last two decades in particular, needs to be strengthened. The activist groups have taken up these issues seriously and the initiatives by social activists is a major landmark in this direction. One wonders, why are the left parties, which should be principally secular to the core are shunning these efforts. Their joining these efforts to get equity and justice to minorities will put pressure on the parties like Congress and Samajvadi to try to become sincere in their efforts.

The intensification of efforts through judiciary and popular protests has to be intensified. The rot set in our democratic polity due to the infiltration of communalism through different mechanisms has been a very dangerous one to the values of our Constitution. It is time that we as a nation introspect and get over the biases and prejudiced behaviors towards weaker sections of our society. The path to social progress is paved through amity and justice. Professional attitude in investigation of acts of violence, communal amity and justice for all are the prerequisites of social progress, progress of society in the real sense.    

Issues in Secular Politics; III June 2013

www.pluralindia.com <http://www.pluralindia.com/>

થોડા દિવસ પહેલાં શુભ પ્રસંગે એક કુટુંબ મેળામાં હાજર રહેવાનું બન્યું. ત્યાં અમારા એક પરિચિત કુટુંબીનો ભેટો થઈ ગયો. પરિવારનાં વડીલ દાદીમા મુકતાબહેન તેમના પુત્ર વિમલ, પુત્રવધૂ દક્ષા, પૌત્ર ક્રાંતિ અને પૌત્રી શાંતિ સાથે આવેલ અને તેમાં એ સંતાનોની નાનીમા રમાબહેન અને નાનાજી ગુણવંતભાઈનો સંગાથ પણ ભળ્યો (પાત્રોનાં નામ કાલ્પનિક છે, જે નોંધવા વિનંતી). એ પ્રસંગની અને બીજી અલક મલકની વાતોને અંતે હંમેશ બને છે તેમ ‘આ જુઓને નવી પેઢી …. નથી કરતી’ એવા મુકતાબહેનના ઉદ્દગારો પર વાત આવીને ઊભી રહી, એટલે મને પણ ચાનક ચડી, અને મેં તાજેતરમાં પ્રસિદ્ધ થયેલ ‘ગેલપ’ સર્વેક્ષણના તારણના સમાચાર વિષે વાત છેડી.

વિશ્વની ધાર્મિકતા અને નાસ્તિકતા વિષે કરેલ અભ્યાસ મુજબ જાણવા મળે છે કે ભારતમાં ૨૦૦૫માં ૮૭% લોકો ભગવાનમાં શ્રદ્ધા ધરાવતા હતા જેનો આંક હવે ૮૧% પર ઉતર્યો છે. સમગ્ર વિશ્વમાં ધાર્મિકતાનું પ્રમાણ ૯% ઘટ્યું, જ્યારે નાસ્તિકતામાં ૩%નો વધારો થયો છે. પાકિસ્તાનમાં ધર્મ પ્રત્યેની રુચિ ૬% જેટલી વધી છે, એ રસપ્રદ હકીકત છે. સહેજે ચર્ચા જગાવે એવા આ સમાચાર જાણતાં જ નીચે મુજબનો સંવાદ થયો તે વાચકો સમક્ષ રજૂ કરું છું.

મુકતાબહેન : આ તે કેવો જમાનો આવ્યો ? માણસ હવે ‘હું ભગવાનમાં નથી માનતો, ધરમમાં નથી માનતો’ એમ કહેતાં શરમાતો ય નથી !

દક્ષા : બા, સાવ એવું નથી. નવી પેઢી હવે મંદિરે ન જાય, ઘરમાં પૂજા ન કરે એટલે સાવ નાસ્તિક છે, એમ ન કહેવાય.

ગુણવંતભાઈ : હવે રહેવા દો, પૂજા ન કરે તે ઠીક, પણ પ્રાર્થના બોલતાં શું મોઢામાં કાંટા વાગે છે ? આજનાં છોકરા છોકરીઓને એક પણ શ્લોક કે ધૂન આવડતી હોય તો આશ્ચર્ય થાય.

રમાબહેન : એટલું જ નહીં, કોઈ પ્રસંગે સાડી કે લેંઘો ઝભ્ભો તો ન પહેરે અને ‘ઇન્ડિયન આઉટફીટ’ પણ ન પહેરે ‘ને વળી સાવ બ્લુ કે કાળું જીન્સ પહેરીને આવે. રેસ્ટોરાંમાં અંગ્રેજી મિત્રો સાથે જાય ત્યારે પરોઠા શાક ખાય અને ખવડાવે, પણ આપણા પ્રસંગે ‘મને ઇન્ડિયન ફૂડ બહુ ન ભાવે’ કહીને ચકલીની જેમ ચણીને ઊભા થઈ જાય. 

વિમલ : આ બધી વાતને ધર્મ કે ભગવાનમાં ન માનવા સાથે શું લેવા દેવા છે ?

આ સંવેદનશીલ મુદ્દા વિષે મારે યુવાનોનો અભિપ્રાય જાણવો હતો કેમ કે ધર્મથી વિમુખ થઈ જવાનો આરોપ તેમના પર છે એટલે મેં પેલાં બંને ભાઈ-બહેનને આ ચર્ચામાં જોડવા માટે તેમને પૂછ્યું, ‘તમે અને તમારા મિત્રો ખરેખર પોતપોતાના ધર્મમાં શ્રદ્ધા ધરાવો છો ?’

ક્રાંતિ : જો ભગવાન માત્ર મંદિરમાં રહેતો હોય તો ના, કેમ કે હું મંદિર ખાસ જતો નથી, પ્રાર્થના-પૂજા જાણું છું પણ જાતે કદી કરી નથી. પણ દાદીમા તો કહેતાં હતાં કે ભગવાન તો ઘટ ઘટમાં વસે છે અને જો એ સાચું હોય તો હા હું ભગવાનના અસ્તિત્વમાં શ્રદ્ધા ધરાવું છું.

વિમલ : સાચું છે બેટા, મારું પણ માનવું છે કે ધર્મ કોને કહેવો ? મંદિરોમાં જઈને કે ઘેર પૂજા-પાઠ કરવામાં અને તહેવારો તથા પ્રસંગોની ઉજવણી જાતજાતના ક્રિયાકાન્ડોમાં સીમિત થઈ છે, એ ખરો હિંદુ ધર્મ છે કે ઉચ્ચ કક્ષાના ધાર્મિક પુસ્તકોનું વાચન કરવું કે જે આપણને નીતિમત્તાના પથનું નિદર્શન કરે છે અને તમામ માનવ જાતને સમાવિષ્ટ કરે તેવા શ્લોક, ભજન, ધૂનનું સમયાનુસાર પઠન કરવું એ યોગ્ય છે ?

ગુણવંતભાઈ : હું અહીં એક વાતનું ધ્યાન દોરવા માગું છું. દરેક ધર્મના મૂળ ધાર્મિક પુસ્તકો મૂળભૂત સિદ્ધાંતો અને સનાતન સત્યોનું પ્રતિપાદન કરે છે તથા ઉત્તમ સાહિત્ય પૂરું પાડે છે, તેથી એ ખસૂસ વાંચવું અને નવી પેઢીને પણ વાંચતા કરવા. બાકી કેટલુંક ધાર્મિક સાહિત્ય પોતાના ધર્મની બડાઈ હાંકે, બીજાના ધર્મની વગોવણી કરે એવું હોવાથી વાડાબંધી અને કોમવાદને પોષનારું હોય છે, જેનાથી ચેતતા રહેવા જેવું છે.

મુકતાબહેન : મારી જોડે કથામાં આવતાં આપણાં પાડોશી દંપતી યાત્રાએ જવાના છે પણ તેમના બે પૌત્ર કહે, ‘અમે તો ધરમ, કથા, ભગવાન કશામાં નથી માનતા તો પછી એવા પૈસાનો વ્યય કરવા શા માટે આવીએ ? લો કરો વાત !

દક્ષા : ખરેખર તો હવેનાં બાળકોને યાત્રાના સ્થળો ચોખ્ખાઈ અને વ્યવસ્થા જાળવે છે કે નહીં, તે ખાતરી કરીને જ લઈ જવાં જોઈએ. ખરું જોતાં આપણા ઉત્સવો અને તહેવારોની ઉજવણી તથા ધર્મસ્થાનોની અને યાત્રાસ્થળની મુલાકાતથી સંગીત-નૃત્ય જેવી કલાઓની જાળવણી થતી, લોકો એકબીજા સાથે હળીમળીને કામ કરતાં તેથી સહિષ્ણુતા કેળવાતી, જુદા જુદા નાત-જાતના લોકો વચ્ચે સુમેળ રહેતો, પ્રવાસ ખેડવાનું એક કારણ મળી રહેતું, સાહસ કરવાની તક મળતી અને એ રીતે પૂરા દેશની ભાવનાત્મક એકતા અખંડ રહેવા પામતી એ વાત નવી પેઢીને સમજાવવી જરૂરી છે. આ વાત જો એમને ગળે ઉતરે તો મને ખાતરી છે કે તેઓ પ્રવાસી તરીકે નવાં નવાં સ્થળો જોવા જાય ત્યારે શિલ્પ-સ્થાપત્ય અને ચિત્રકલાના અદ્દભુત નમૂનાઓ જોવા જરૂર યાત્રાધામમાં પણ આવશે.

શાંતિ : મમ્મી, તમે ભૂલી ગયાં આપણે એક વખત વાંચેલું કે મોટા મોટા મંદિરો, ચર્ચ અને ગુરુદ્વારાઓમાં લોકો પુષ્કળ ભેટ ચડાવે છે જે એ ધર્મસ્થાનોની તિજોરીમાં પડી રહે છે. કોઈ કોઈ ધર્મસ્થાનોના ટ્રસ્ટીઓ તેનો સ્વાર્થે દુરુપયોગ પણ કરે છે. ભોળા ભક્તજનો પોતે ઈચ્છેલી વસ્તુ મળે કે મેળવવા માટે માનતા માનીને ખુશ થઈને કે પ્રાર્થના રૂપે મોંઘી મોંઘી વસ્તુઓ ભેટ ધરે ત્યારે એ ‘સર્વ શક્તિમાન ભગવાનને’ પહોંચે છે એમ માને અને ખરું જોતાં પેલા ધર્માધિકારીઓ પોતાના એશઆરામી જીવન પાછળ વેડફી નાખે છે એના જેવું બીજું મોટું પાપ કયું? અને એ કરવા દેવા આપણા જેવા લોકોએ સાથ ન આપવો જોઇએ અને બીજાને પણ રોકવા જોઇએ. દાદીમા, મને ભગવાનમાં શ્રદ્ધા છે એટલે જો ગરીબ બાળકોને દૂધ પહોંચાડવાનું કામ હોય તો કહેજો, કરીશ, બાકી મંદિરમાં શિવલીંગને દૂધથી નવડાવવાનું કામ મારું નહીં.

ક્રાંતિ : બહેન, તું તો મંદિરોની માલ-મિલ્કતની વાત કરે છે. બાકી કેથલિક ચર્ચના પાદરીઓ, કાર્ડીનલ અને પોપ સુધ્ધાં બાળકો અને શ્રદ્ધાળુઓનાં જાતીય શોષણ કરવાના આરોપસર ભારે નામોશીનો ભોગ બન્યા છે, એ વાત જાણે છે ? હું તો માનું છું કે મુલ્લાઓ અને ધર્મગુરુઓના સંતાનોની સંખ્યા પણ ઓછી નહીં હોય. ભારતના પ્રખ્યાત મંદિરોમાં પોતાની પુત્રીને ‘દેવદાસી’ બનાવી દેવાથી તેની કેવી દુર્દશા થતી એ પણ જાણીએ છીએ. જો દુનિયાનો કોઈ ધર્મ આવું પાપાચરણ કરવાનું ન શીખવતો હોય તો જાહેર છે કે ધર્મ સંસ્થાનો જ આવો સડો ફેલાવે છે. હું તે એ કારણસર પ્રખ્યાત ધર્મસ્થાનોની મુલાકાત લેવાનું ટાળું.

વિમલ : હાસ્તો વળી. જે ધર્મ તેના અનુયાયીઓને કુદરતી વૃત્તિઓને અમર્યાદિત રીતે ભોગવવાને બદલે તેનું શમન કરવાની રીત બતાવે છે તે માનવીને ઉત્કૃષ્ટ કક્ષા પર લઈ જાય છે અને જે ધર્મ તેના ધર્માધિકારીઓ અને અનુયાયીઓ પાસે વૃત્તિઓના દમનની અપેક્ષા રાખે છે તેમની વૃત્તિઓમાં વિકૃતિ આવવાથી આવું અનિષ્ટ પરિણામ આવે. 

દક્ષા : આ પુરોહિતો, કહેવાતા બાપુઓ, સાધુ-સંતો અને ફકીરોની ચુંગાલમાંથી છૂટવું મુશ્કેલ જણાય છે. આમ જુઓ તો ઈશ્વરે આપણને પેદા કર્યા, તો આપણે એની સાથે સીધી વાત કરી શકીએ, પ્રાર્થના કરી શકીએ. મા-બાપ સાથે વાત કરવા બાળકને કોઈ મધ્યસ્થીની જરૂર પડે છે ? સમય જતાં કેટલીક ધાર્મિક ક્રિયાઓ જડ બની અને રુઢિઓનું પાલન કરવા રિવાજો પ્રચલિત થયા. સંસ્કૃતના શ્લોક હું ન જાણું, કોઈ સંસ્કારની વિધિ ન જાણું તેથી પુરોહિતને બોલાવું. લોકોના અજ્ઞાનનો ગેરલાભ લઈને તેઓ પ્રજાને ભોળવે, ભરમાવે અને પૈસા પડાવે. હજુ એ ઓછું હોય તેમ સ્ત્રીઓની લાચાર સ્થિતિનો ગેરલાભ લઈને તેના શીલ અને ચારિત્ર્યને પણ લૂંટે અને આ બધું જ પાછું આપણા ‘મહાન ધર્મ’ને નામે થાય ! હરિ હરિ.  

ગુણવંતભાઈ : એક બાજુ જુવાનિયાઓ ‘અમે આધુનિક છીએ, ભગવાન કે ધર્મમાં નથી માનતા’ એમ કહીને પોતાના જ કુટુંબના સારા વિધિ-વિધાનોથી દૂર ભાગે છે તો બીજી બાજુ વિવિધ તરેહના દેવ-દેવીઓના સ્થાપના કરવા, મૂર્તિઓ શણગારીને યાત્રાઓ કાઢવી અને નાના-મોટા અનેક દેવી-દેવતા, ગુરુઓ અને સાધુઓની જયંતીઓ ઉજવવાને નામે ઘોંઘાટ વધારનારા ભજનો, મોંઘીદાટ વેશભૂષા અને ખાણીપીણીના અતિરેક પાછળ પૈસાનો ધુમાડો કરવાની પ્રથા જોર પકડતી જાય છે. 

રમાબહેન : કોઈ ધર્મ ન પાળતી હવે પછીની પેઢી કોણ જાણે કેવો ય સમાજ રચશે ?

વિમલ : એમ સાવ નિરાશ ન થાઓ. આજની ભણેલી પ્રજાને ધર્મને નામે ચાલતા પાખંડ અને શોષણની નફરત છે, ધર્મના મૂળ શિક્ષણ સામે નહીં. આપણે પાખંડ અને શોષણને તડીપાર કરવા જોઇએ. ધાર્મિક સંસ્થાઓના નેજા નીચે ચાલતી ગેરરીતિઓ સામે તેમનો આક્રોશ છે, તેમના દ્વારા થતી સામાજિક પ્રવૃત્તિઓ સામે નહીં. તો એ ગેરરીતિઓ બંધ કરાવવી જોઇએ. ભગવાનને રાજી રાખવા માટે કરાતા બુદ્ધિહીન ક્રિયાકાંડોમાં તેમને દિલચસ્પી નથી, તેની સાથે પોષાતા કળા અને સંસ્કૃિતનું તેમને ઘણું મૂલ્ય છે. તો એ બુદ્ધિહીન ક્રિયાકાંડોને સદંતર દેશવટો આપવો રહ્યો. ધર્મને નામે અંતિમવાદી વિચારધારાઓના પ્રચાર અને આતંકવાદના પ્રસારનો તેમને ભય છે, બોધક અને નીતિપ્રેરક કથાઓ નવી પેઢીને પણ આકર્ષે છે. તો રાજકીય કે વ્યક્તિગત સ્વાર્થ સાધવા માટે આતંકવાદના આચરણ માટે ધર્મનું ઓઠું લેવાનો નિષેધ ફરમાવવો જોઇએ. મને તો આશા છે કે ભવિષ્યમાં દરેક ધર્મ એક નવલું રૂપ ધારણ કરીને વધુ સ્વસ્થ સમાજને ઘડશે. જરૂર છે ધર્મની વ્યાખ્યા સમજવાની અને સમજાવવાની. નવા આકાર પામેલ ધર્મનું પાલન કેવી રીતે થાય, ઈશ્વર ક્યાં છે અને તેને કેમ મેળવી શકાય, સંસ્કૃિત કોને કહેવી અને તે શાને આધારે ટકી રહે એનો વિચાર કરવાનો સમય પાકી ગયો છે.

આ વિધાન સાથે ત્રણેય પેઢીના સભ્યો જાણ્યે અજાણ્યે કબૂલ થયાં અને બરાબર તેવે સમયે મુકતાબહેન, ‘હે ભગવાન, તારું ભલું થાજો!’ કહેતાં ઊભાં થતાં આ વાર્તાલાપ પર પૂર્ણવિરામ આવ્યો. 

e.mail : 71abuch@gmail.com

Introduction :

Scott Appleby, who has done extensive research on religion and politics, concludes that a new form of conflict transformation – religious peace building – is taking shape on the ground, in and across local communities plagued by violence..[1] Since the end of the Cold War, there has been growing co-operation between nations and peoples in the Western hemisphere, and increasing number of apologies and acts of forgiveness throughout the world. This has prompted scholars of conflict resolution to shift their focus from conflict resolution to concepts such as reconcilation and forgiveness, concepts that reflect more correctly the spirit and practice of the new age. The power of forgiveness as a means of conflict resolution or transformation was emphasized by thinkers like Hannah Arendt as it allows human beings to come to terms with their undesirable past, thereby changing the rule that governs the power relationship between the former victimizer and his or her victim. The application of ideas and beliefs that are relevant in the personal and religious realm into politics is however a project that many political realists would find difficult to agree. Forgiveness, in short, seems to represent the personal, the private, the spiritual. Torpey says that the influence of holocaust consciousness is a factor contributing to the forgiveness discourse.[2] One can also see the direct influence of restorative justice practices such as criminal justice innovations and victim-offender mediation, often drawing on aboriginal justice. However, it is the encouraging results from the experience of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the revival of the Christian idea of forgiveness that also finds reflection in most religions in one form or the other, which made the concept popular in recent years. Some even see this as a sort of opportunity for national self-reflexivity and social healing. In other words, forgiveness, once dismissed as irrelevant in the field of conflict resolution during its technical phase of rational problem solving, has now become a theme of considerable import.

Conflict resolution deals with how people resolve their disagreements, often emanating from mutually incompatible goals. Such disagreements entail not only fights, but also negative emotions that persist. The resolution of conflicts through various rational strategies such as negotiations, mediation and facilitation might yield positive outcomes. But conflict resolution focused on the issues that give rise to conflict cannot often address the rupture in human relations that takes place. Failure to deal with this rupture might increase the likelihood of future conflict. Hence forgiveness can play a role in conflict resolution when the parties accept that the conflict is a relational phenomenon and is the result of failed interaction, that both sides have a role in reconstructing the relationships, and in so doing, reconstructing their identities, which results in the restoration of humanity of both.[3] At an interpersonal level forgiveness is seen as a very useful virtue and it has led to the resolution of conflicts between those in intimate relationships such as married couples. But many would have reservations when this idea is applied to address group conflict.

In this paper I shall look at forgiveness and related concepts like apology as means to or key ingredients in conflict resolution, particularly in conflicts that have been characterized by genocidal acts involving communities. As the world becomes almost like a global village, the importance of apologies and forgiveness for addressing past wrongs and resolving conflicts is greater than at any point in time.

Towards Forgiveness

Early post-Second World War peace models were more often built around visionary schemes, which did not seek to revive memories of an ugly past. Instead they started from the present and imagined about the future. The future was focused and the present was seen only in terms of a tool to move forward to a future. While forgiveness focuses on the future, it connects itself equally with the past and the present. The literature on conflict resolution also is largely focused on the ways by which settlement of conflicts could be reached without laying much stress on restoration of ruptured relationships. Memories of past wounds are presumed to disappear once the underlying issues are resolved. It is now widely recognized that communities that have experienced violence of serious proportions either from different identity groups or from an ethnicised state cannot achieve sustainable peace without a process of social healing.

Joseph Montville says that "healing and reconciliation in violent ethnic and religious conflicts depend on a process of transactional contrition and forgiveness between aggressor and victims".[4] Psychological research also supports the role of forgiveness in trauma recovery and social healing. Montville adds that 'even the most brilliant negotiator can at best make a temporary deal between adversaries, unless he or she advances a genuine process of healing the wounds of history.[5]

Although it is not easy to let the past behind us, human beings have the capacity to do so. Andrew Rigby says that it is this capacity to let go of the past, to forego the quest for revenge, which is at the heart of forgiveness.[6] Hatred and the search for vengeance can consume people and unless people manage to forsake their determination to get  even, there can be no new beginning, no transformation of relationships, no possibility for a shared future.

Donald Shriver thinks that process of asking for and giving forgiveness presupposes the recognition of commission of an evil act by one agent against another, the willingness of offenders to acknowledge their offenses, continued memory of immorality, the hope of relation repair, forbearance, a step back from revenge and some degree of empathy with the one who has committed the wrong.[7] Many nations have difficulty in coming to terms with the traumatic loss that they have experienced in history. Montville thinks that, It is these losses, these wounds that constitute the burdens of history and the enduring sense of injustice that makes peace building so difficult for traditional diplomats and political leaders.[8]

Centrality of Relationships in Conflict Resolution

A focus on restoration of ruptured relationships has been a lesser consideration in conflict resolution given its obsession with reaching seemingly win-win agreements. John Paul Lederach says:

In my estimation the starting point for understanding and supporting reconciliation process is a reorientation toward the centrality of relationships. It is in the ebb and low, the quality of interdependence of relationships that we find the birthplace and home of reconciliation. This is quite different than a focus on issues, the shaping of substantive agreements, or cognitive and rational analytic-based approaches to conflict resolution. In these latter approaches attention is placed on the external, often symptomatic expressions of how the relationship is negotiated. But they often remain just that, external and symptomatic. To enter reconciliation process is to enter the domain of the internal world, the inner understandings, fears and hopes, perceptions and interpretations of the relationship itself.[9]

Relationships remain central to peace building because it provides the template in which cycles of violence happen and the means to transcend them, for it brings people into the pregnant moments of the moral imagination: the space of recognition that ultimately the quality of our life is dependent on the quality of life of others.[10] Lederach also thinks that humility as a quality of practice. For him the balance that we achieve between goals such as truth (past), justice (present) and the future (mercy and peace) is particularly crucial. This balance cannot be achieved in technical conflict resolution.

A New Form of Justice

Although punishment for past wrongs may not take place, the acknowledgement of guilt, naming and shaming the culprits who abused their fellow beings contains a form of justice. Every wronged person or community's initial reaction is that the offender should be punished for the offence. Here justice traditionally understood in a retributive sense may have to give way to the creation of an atmosphere for the rebuilding of community peace, as Mahmood Mamdani suggests.[11] It is in this context that the role of restorative justice as a means to address the problem through measures such as truth recovery, reparation, restitution and so on becomes important. At the same time it creates a space within which the perpetrators of crimes might rejoin the community; they can be helped to regain something of their lost humanity and re-establish their connectedness. In allowing victims to come forward without fear of retribution to tell the often grim details of  how various family members have disappeared, raped or murdered, for example, the pattern of abuses from community to community becomes apparent and this allows a process of social introspection, mourning  and healing to take place. The testimony of perpetrators allows us to have a clearer picture of the events even as their actions are exposed. By bringing these events out into the open, the power of the perpetrators over their victims is finally severed.

Forgive and Forget?

One of the themes in the discourse on forgiveness relates to whether one should adopt the attitude of forgive and forget as in Eastern Europe or incorporate memory as a key element of forgiveness. It is said that only those who remember can forgive and that memory and not forgetting is the necessary condition of forgiveness. A forgetful person cannot forgive because he or she cannot remember. Without remembering, forgiveness as a conscious act is impossible. The slogan, therefore, is no longer forgive and forget, but remember and forgive. Collective turning from the past does not mean ignoring or forgetting the misdeed, but recognizing the humanity of the commissioning agent. Forgiveness is on when that comes from the victim. Whether forgiveness or apology is genuine is also a matter of importance. President Nelson Mandela said, South African people must remember their dreadful past in order to be able to deal with it, to forgive when it is necessary, but never to forget. In the same vein, Archbishop Desmond Tutu asserted: There is no future without forgiveness, but to forgive, one must know what happened. In order not to repeat what happened to others, we must remember.[12]

Genuine forgiveness is voluntary and unconditional as Gopin concludes since it is not motivated by pressure from a third party, nor is it dependent on the apology or recognition of wrongdoing on the part of the offender.[13] Such unilateral measures, which have a strong Gandhian tenor about them, are based on a deep belief in the goodness of human beings and a notion of self that embraces the other. It is more through an internal process that the forgiver is transformed, so also the forgiven, if he or she is able to receive the gift of forgiveness. The philosopher Trudy Govier has suggested, no-one is absolutely unforgivable, whatever he or she may have done in the world, because to deem unforgivable the perpetrator even of heinous and repeated atrocity is to ignore his human capacity for moral choice and change, which is the very foundation of human worth and dignity.[14]

Separating Doers from Deeds

In Forgiveness and Revenge Trudy Govier argues, We do not forgive deeds; we forgive people who have committed deeds. When we forgive, it is another person we forgive. From Goviers perspective, it is unnecessary to talk about forgiving deeds as such, because only persons can be forgiven. In support of this position, she argues that No deed ever expressed remorse, apologized, asked for forgiveness or faced the challenge of moral transformation… it is persons who are the subjects and objects of forgiveness; persons who forgive or do not forgive[15]. According to Govier, because people are capable of a moral transformation that distances them from their deeds, doers and deeds are separable in a significant way. Forgiveness acknowledges this separation. Here also it works like Gandhian non-violence and the general principles of conflict resolution theory.

Forgiveness is emphasised as needing greater courage, one that empowers the victims and sets into motion a dynamics similar to non-violent action. It also provides an opportunity to the offender to overcome the guilt. Hannah Arendt says: "Forgiving, in other words, is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and unexpectedly, unconditioned by the act which provoked it. …Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever…"[16]

Studies on trust conducted in Northern Ireland showed that interaction with peers from the out-group had led to higher trust in that outgroup and a greater willingness to forgive it for any past misdeeds[17]. Such willingness to forgive a perpetrator rests on a belief that the perpetrator will reciprocate positively and will not exploit such a move as a sign of weakness. Hence increasing the opportunity for intense contact between members of conflicting groups paves the way for ideas like forgiveness to take root. In a study of intergroup forgiveness among Bosnian Muslims and Serbs, it was found that Given the beneficial effects of intergroup contact via empathy and trust, one way of restoring intergroup relations by promoting forgiveness would be increasing the opportunity for engaged, structured and good quality contact between members of conflicting groups.”[18]

Relational World View

Despite its described shortcomings, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) opened the floor to victims of each side and gave them a chance to tell their story in the hope that the very process of talking would somehow alleviate the sufferings endured in silence for so long. In this case the victims' Christian upbringing converged with the already existing tendency toward compassion and harmony that was found in the African ubuntu weltanschauung, a point repeatedly emphasized by Bishop Tutu. This cultural-religious infrastructure has, arguably, played a significant role in the prevention of bloodshed and vengeance following the ascendance to power of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994.

Forgiveness and Conflict Resolution

We now have several examples to show that forgiveness can play a crucial role in conflict resolution… when it is placed in the context of individual cultures. When the sides to the conflict share similar attitudes regarding the value, importance, shape, and contents of forgiveness, they are ready to embark on the long and difficult journey toward forgiveness that culminates in reconciliation. The greater the cultural-religious gap between the groups, the smaller their chances to reach this goal according to Gopin. Despite such caveats, one can say that the timing of the act of forgiveness or apology-seeking, the intention and will of the parties offering or seeking it and the extent to which a personal touch has been brought into the whole process can have positive implications for conflict resolution and reconciliation. Offering and seeking forgiveness can take place on the part of individuals as well as collectivities. For example, the statement of forgiveness by archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Cahal Daly former Archbishop of Armagh, Northern Ireland, played a key role in the reconciliation process in Northern Ireland.

Forgiveness is often a sub process of conflict resolution and reconciliation and should and can be intentionally integrated into the resolution process of deep-rooted conflicts. It is not a one shot process or act. It could be part of an ongoing process or the culmination of a process of previous attempts at reconciliation. Its value to break the cycle of violence, hate and despair is particularly pronounced in protracted conflicts.

Forgiveness can work not only towards conflict resolution, but also for post-settlement peace building. It plays a connecting role in transforming transitional societies emerging from conflict. Resentment is also one way of recovering one's own self-respect. Tutu says Forgiving means abandoning your right to pay back the perpetrator in his own coin, but it is a loss that liberates the victim." The plea for forgiveness may be perceived as an act of humiliation and subsequently hurt the pleading party’s status. On the other hand, the victim who is asked to grant forgiveness may feel that "to forgive is to relinquish the victim role and the rewards that go with it" such as "the power to induce guilt, to demand apologies and reparations or to seek punishment of the perpetrator." [19]

Often, however, victims and their families are forced to carry on with the tasks of everyday living without benefit of reflection on the past. These people may consciously remember nothing of past events, because the daily trauma they continue to experience may simply have become normalized; or else they have made a conscious decision to reject the truth surrounding the past, as witnessed in denial and revisionism. I understand from recent research that most people who experienced the partition riots in the Indian subcontinent often wanted not to revive memories of such trauma and created a form of forgetfulness as a defensive strategy.

Conclusion

The ultimate purpose of forgiveness is restoration of relationships and the reestablishment of connections with the community. Public apologies and seeking and granting of forgiveness create a new dimension to repairing fractured relationships. In places like Gujarat where the communal passions have been raised for political advantage, and past violence of genocide proportions have ruptured communal relations, it is only through a process of collective contrition that reconciliation will be possible. It would be appropriate for a person like Narendra Modi, who is now on a politically strong position, to apologise for the state-directed violence that took place in 2002. More recently, there was widespread condemnation of the Sri Lankan Government on the excesses committed by it on the civilian Tamil population in its final battle against the Tigers, one that legitimately demanded an apology. Apologies when carried out at the appropriate time are useful. The sincerity of such apologies also should be felt by the victims. Forgiveness remains the only hope in situations where traditional conflict resolution ideas mainly built on rational choice assumptions are insufficient guides to reconciliation. We need to stir the conscience of the people through reviving their stories and go through a process of social healing.

In sum, the centering of a politics of memory, regret, apology, forgiveness, and reparation has deeper implications for conflict resolution and post-conflict peace building. This does not mean that forgiveness and acts of contrition in themselves can serve as substitutes for real negotiations or dialogue. Instead, they can provide an ideal setting in which negotiations can take place devoid of power considerations, devoid of bargaining, where the power of reason is supplemented by the power of heart or compassion. The manner in which these less utilized human faculties are allowed to exercise in individual cultural contexts may certainly vary. I would like to end by saying that a culture of forgiveness or the development of habits of heart should also constitute an essential element of a culture of peace and one of the goals of peace education. The recent shift in emphasis from conflict resolution to conflict transformation is certainly a welcome development in that it seeks to incorporate forgiveness and apology as key elements of reconciliation. However, forgiveness and associated values cannot be foisted on societies from elsewhere. As Lederach says, “understanding conflict and developing appropriate models of handling it will necessarily be rooted in, and must respect and draw from, the cultural knowledge of a people”[20]

Notes and References:

1. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation (Lanham. MD.: Rowman and Littlefield 2000), p.7

2. See John C Torpey, “Introduction: Politics and the Past” in John C Topey (ed.) Politics and the Past: On Repairing Historical Injustices( Lanham, MD.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), pp. 1-36.

3. Donna Hicks “The Role of Identity Reconstruction in Promoting Reconciliation”, in Raymond G. Helmick and Rodney L Peterson (eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy and Conflict (Radnor PA.: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002), p. 143.

4. Joseph V Montville. "The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution.", in  Dennis J. D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe, eds Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice Integration and Application (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993.), p. 112.

5. Joseph V. Montville, “Justice and the Burdens of History” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer (ed.) Reconciliation, Justice and Co-existence: Theory and Practice (Lanham, MD.:Lexington Books, 2001), p. 142.

6. Andrew Rigby, “Forgiving the Past: Paths Towards a Culture of reconciliation” n.d., Centre for Forgiveness and Reconciliation, Coventry University, http://faculty.human.mieu.ac.jp/~peace/ipra_papers/rigby.doc accessed on12 January 2008.

7. See Donald W Shriver, An Ethics for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics, ( New York : Oxford University Press, 1995).

8. Montville, “Justice and the Burdens of History”, p. 131.

9. J. P. Lederach, “Five Qualities of Practice in support of Reconciliation Processes” in Raymond G. Helmick and Rodney L Peterson (eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy and Conflict ( Radnor PA.: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002), p. 195.

10. J. P Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (Oxford: OUP, 2005), p. 35

11. Mahmood Mamdani “From Justice to Reconciliation: Making Sense of the African Experience” in Crises and Reconstruction – African Perspectives (Uppsala: Nordic African Institute, Discussion paper 8, 1997).

12. Desmond Tutu , No Future without Forgiveness(London: Rider, 1999)

13. Marc Gopin "Forgiveness as an element of conflict resolution in religious cultures: Walking the tightrope of reconciliation and justice." In Mohammed Abu-Nimer ed.(), op. cit., 2001, pp. 87-99.

14. Tudy Govier, “Forgiveness and the Unforgivable”, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, January 1999, pp. 59-75.

15. Trudy Govier, Forgiveness and Revenge (London; Routledge, 2002), p. 109.

16. See Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition ( Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp.240-1

17. See for eg. M Hewstone, E Cairns,  A Voci, F McLernon, U Niens, & M Noor, “ Intergroup forgiveness and guilt in Northern Ireland: Social psychological dimensions of ‘The Troubles’”. In N. R. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 2004). pp. 193–215.

18. Sabina Cehajic, Rupert Brown & Emanuele Castano, “Forgive and Forget? Antecedents and Consequences of Intergroup Forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Political Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2008, p. 363.

19. Desmond Tutu, No Future without Forgiveness(London: Rider, 1999) [20]. Â J. P. Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures (Syracuse, NY.: Syracuse University Press, 1996), p. 10.

Source : Contemporary Perspectives on Peace and Non-violence, 2010

John Moolakkattu is Gandhi-Luthuli Chair Professor in Peace Studies, University of Kwazulu- Natal, Durban, South Africa; Editor Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and visiting Professor, Institute of Gandhian Studies, Wardha. Email: moolajohn@yahoo.com

http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/forgiveness.html