John Paul Lederach describes Reconciliation as “a meeting ground where truth and mercy have met, and where justice and peace have kissed.” Derived from Psalms 81:10, it suggests an ongoing process which involves all four virtues. The interplay between truth, mercy, justice and peace needs to take place simultaneously. Essentially, the process is about bringing people together, enabling them to engage and encounter each other through dialogue that will empower them to grow beyond the past and to re-establish a just and trusting future.
The Reconciliation process is a difficult, demanding and deliberate process and would be erroneous to assume it is realized in short time. In fact Lederach points out that it usually takes just as long to get out of conflict as it takes to get into one. Very often one assumes that the virtues of truth, mercy, justice and peace are contradictory energies, voiced by different people. They are perceived as being pitted against one another and those who cry out for Truth and Justice are assumed as adversaries of those who plead for Mercy and Peace. Lederach however clarifies that the vision of the Psalmist is quite different.
Reconciliation, he says is possible only to the degree that each of these virtues sees the place and need for the other. It suggests they are incomplete without the other. In other words, they become complete only in the presence of the other. It is a process where people must feel safe to allow truth to come out and the diverse voices speak out while others actively listen, and for people to collectively stand in solidarity and take responsibility for the hurts caused by demonstrating compassion and restorative justice. Reconciliation is an inclusive process of restoring and healing the web of relationship that has been torn.
A common phenomenon which occurs in Reconciliation process is that while most conflicting parties may agree on the essentials for reconciliation, there could be differences of opinion on how it should be realized. Political astuteness and will is fundamental towards overcoming this dilemma. The distinction between agreeing to reconcile and disagreeing on a proposed approach and method towards it, is crucial, and one which needs to be made. And the sooner this distinction is made, the easier it is to first get the broader principled commitment of the parties to reconcile and then secondly to initiate a framework whereby a method can be negotiated and mutually agreed upon. Failure to distinguish between these two similar and yet very different commitments has been the fundamental reason for stalling Reconciliation processes.
For years now, Nagas have been toiling for Reconciliation, which tragically continues to remain distant and illusive. While it has been most convenient to put the blame on one political group or the other for its failure, this approach has proved more damaging. It adds to the cycle of violence and prevents a genuine evaluation to identify where the initiative has gone wrong. The question of evaluation is problematic since there is a tendency to personalize it. Lack of evaluation implies increased possibilities of mistakes being repeated again. Sadly, history says that people don’t learn from history.
If Nagas agree with Lederach that Reconciliation is the meeting place of truth, mercy, justice and peace, it becomes essential that the approach must be process-oriented, and not outcome-oriented. Empirical history states an outcome is located in the process itself. It is critical that Nagas need to emphasize in laying a process – the journey to Reconciliation. The task of evolving a process is challenging given the trend that decision-making is confined to few individuals, with the assumption that people will follow. This top-down approach of Reconciliation has proved unsustainable.
For people to take ownership of the process, it is fundamental that their participation need to start before the forming of the process and their voices and aspiration embodied into it. This democratic character is primary. A participatory process demands a bottom-up grassroots approach in which Reconciliation is more than the healing of relationships; and leads to transformative structures which allows people to be self-determining.
Al Mubarak al-Mili says “History is the mirror of the past and the ladder by which one rises to the present. It is the proof of the existence of a peoples, the place for the resurrection of consciousness, the way of their union, the springboard for their progress.” Hence those leading the Reconciliation process cannot ignore historical forces and must educate to enable people to locate themselves in the relentless movement to reclaim their humanity and the realization of their values.
Posterity will judge whether present Nagas had the courage to create the political space for truth, mercy, justice and peace to meet together for Reconciliation to emerge out of it. Hopefully, the present generation will not have to borrow the future of their children!
