|
The Politics of Apology
Kalam Nishan
Singh
 Of
and on, we keep hearing demands that the Indian Government, or the
Indian Parliament, or the Congress Party should apologise for the
1984 genocide of the Sikhs. The Sikhs see no hope anytime soon for
such a consideration from the Indian rulers who have run roughshod
with brute power and sinister agendas to muffle, muzzle and browbeat
the brave Sikh community because it refuses to buckle before the
hegemonic brahamanical forces. But what is this idea of a political
apology, or the meta-narrative of the apologia?
Any apology
depends on how one has narrated the sequence to oneself about which
the apology is to be sought. There has been significant work on
“narratology” of this kind. Each side’s narrative is both an account
of the injury, and an allocation of blame; ideal and reality,
exoneration and fault, are all woven together, and forgiveness can
be seen as in part an attempt to harmonize the narratives, so that
the story comes to an end in a new beginning.
| |
In the real world, some things will always remain unforgiven,
and that forgiveness must be distinguished from forgetting,
condoning or turning away in defeat. |
Is this
something that has happened as far as Operation Bluestar or
October/November Genocide of Sikhs is concerned? Has the Congress
actually made any sincere effort at marrying, or even contrasting,
the two highly different narratives? The injury and the action of
seeking an apology is as important as the final forgiveness. Any
view that the forgiveness is simply a gift is a negation of the idea
of reconciliation through such a phenomenon.
Sonia Gandhi
saying some reconciliatory words about Operation Bluestar or PM
Manmohan Singh
uttering some touching words about anti-Sikh pogrom are examples of
classic Indian political “apologies”, uttered into the void and
side-stepping responsibility rather than assuming it and seeking
forgiveness. Missing are the acts of penitence.
The Sikhs must
understand that such vacuous apologies or resolutions in Parliament,
or demands for a two-minute silence for 1984 pogrom victims are no
replacement for the much more serious task of setting the record
straight and executing justice.
 The
University of Alabama offered apology in 2004 for its exploitation
of slaves in the nineteenth century. Robert McNamara, the former US
Secretary of Defense, had apologized for the debacle in Vietnam.
Were these forgiven?
In the real
world, some things will always remain unforgiven, and that
forgiveness must be distinguished from forgetting, condoning or
turning away in defeat.
The language of
forgiveness too often softens and sentimentalizes the issue.
Forgetfulness of a wrong cannot be tagged as an apology and peddled
as a political bargain chip. Then, it will only be a guilt-edged
political security. And it is difficult to forgive anything edged
with guilt. That is why 1984 pogrom will live on. And it will
outlive all the Sajjan Kumars and Jagdish Tytlers. It will even
outlive Congress.
New Delhi
should shudder to think that there is a possibility that it may even
outlive the idea of
India.
4
November 2009
|
Read Also