During a Commonwealth Day debate, a British MP Steven Bonnar called for Britain to apologise to India for colonial atrocities such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, a sentiment that has been echoed in previous years by both Indians such as Shashi Tharoor and members of the British government like the Labour’s Emily Thornberry. This has sparked a debate on a long-controversial topic: what, if any at all, is the value of apologising for historic misdeeds?
One of the most common arguments offered against apologies was voiced by Canada’s Pierre Trudeau who believed a government’s purpose was not to rewrite history or to right the past. This was a stance former Australian Prime Minister John Howard took when asked to deliver an apology to Aboriginal peoples, stating that today’s generation cannot and should not be held accountable for the behaviour of their predecessors. Indeed the sons should not suffer for the sins of the father, but this argument loses its meaning when we consider the process and implications of an apology in greater depth.
First, let us investigate who exactly is making the apology. Asking individuals to make an apology is problematic, since the individual had no part to play in the misdeed itself, and there is no guarantee they benefited from it. Instead, we must acknowledge that while the present generation may have done no wrong, their state did. This is where collective or sovereign apologies come into play. Political leaders as the representatives of the state must offer a collective and official apology to communities that the state oppressed.
However, many oppose apologies because they feel a “sorry” offers nothing of value to the recipient. After all, isn’t a public apology nothing more than a tool used by politicians to appease the aggrieved, through which they escape having to actually do something tangible to remedy the problem?
The reality of the situation is a bit more nuanced. It is important to note that countries who refuse to apologise are also countries who would prefer the world forget they ever committed such grave actions. To take the example of Germany and Japan in World War II, we see both nations committed mass atrocities. But after the war, Germany spared no effort in apologising for the Holocaust, and has ensured the victims of the war are remembered through memorials and continuing reparations.
On the flip side, Japan marks every anniversary of the war with a refusal to apologise and parallelly denies its crimes and leaves them out of its history books. By apologising, a country is forced to confront the misdeeds of its past and acknowledge what they did was wrong. Apologies thus ensure public accountability and guarantee the state cannot simply erase its transgressions. This in turn holds great symbolic value for the members of the harmed community.
But that’s not all. Apologies hold great importance for oppressed communities because of their material benefits. This is because apologies are the first step to compensation. Like in the case of Germany, apologies are often followed by reparations. However, even if this is not the case, apologies by challenging the status quo highlight minorities and open the forum for discussion, thus taking the first step towards social change.
Historic misdeeds are not confined to the realm of the past. Inter-generational trauma and structural violence still affect communities today. Unless a state acknowledges its past practices, it can never hope for reconciliation and will always remain trapped, unable to heal or to move forward. Apologies are a powerful tool, capable of real change in the lives of these still-oppressed minorities and this function makes them an infinitely valuable device in the hands of today’s leaders: the only question that remains- will they choose to use it?
Written by: Devi Sankhla
.jpeg)
0 Comments