There are two
ways to acknowledge and express one’s remorse, one is ‘seeking forgiveness’ and
the other is ‘seeking apology’. This may take place between a person to person,
group to group, locality to locality, nation to nation, state to state and even
internationally at large and so forth. Such matter becomes a focus of
international attention and concern when it involves a population or a state at
large generating sensation and reaction beyond the boundary concern. But both
of them usually relate to the commission of serious type of crimes against
humanity, genocide and holocaust.
Literally and in
common parlance ‘apology’ and ‘forgiveness’ transmit almost the same
connotation implying written or spoken expression of regret, remorse or sorrow
for having insulted, injured or victimized
another. Differences between forgiveness and apology reside by and large
in the nature and degree of remorse felt and expressed coupled with pragmatic
initiatives to stand by the victims of various natures and folds. Apology is
not a lip service that can be used whimsically without taking note of reality,
cause and effect. Apology is proactive and a sign of strength by nature and
carries a kind of healing power, which is far-reaching and profound for the
parties concerned. Use of words, sentences and paragraphs (if any) in an
apology is very important. Its further standard is measured by its way of
expression. From this standpoint, forgiveness may play a role of apology if the
other side accedes to it. Even sometimes the overall standing and acceptability
of the person or organization seeking apology may be a factor. Democratic
environment or culture is more convenient for such practices. Therefore, the
question is what is the best way to apologize? Plain reply is it is up to the
apology-seeker to devise or choose the ways and means to reach and touch the
very heart of the person/organization/group/nation to which it is sought.
To suit the purposes, attempts are on to devise
and present various modes of approaches, frames and paradigms. Some of them
work very well and some succeed partially while others failed initially. Few
may be cited here for one’s easy and quick understanding, digestion, bearing and
presentation off and often.
Barrister Harun
ur Rashid in his book ‘Bangladesh Foreign Policy: Realities, Priorities and
Challenges’ said that the essential elements that an apology should contain are
(a) first the acknowledgement of crimes committed (b) second feeling and expressing
remorse for crimes and (c) third doing something to restore that was manifestly
wrong and harmful’ He further noted ‘The expression ‘regret’ or ‘forgive’ does
not equate to apology because self-acknowledgement and corrective acts by
perpetrator-country are missing in these expressions’.
Going one step
forward, Dr. Cat In his reserve ‘Helping Handbook: A Compassionate Guide for
Being Human’ noted that a true apology should contain four principles namely (a)
Acknowledgement of the nature and extent of the victims’ suffering; (b) Taking
100% responsibility for causing the suffering (c) Asking for forgiveness
without expectation or demand (d) Offering to make amends and follow on this
commitment. This is so far considered the best acceptable and accommodative
model.
Hence, the
apologies of Germany to the
Jews for their holocaust and Japan
to China and South Korea for
war crimes may be illustrative in this regard.
In case of
East Germany Speaker Sabine Bergmann Pohl in a televised session of Parliament on
12 April 1990 read that "East Germany's first freely elected Parliament
admits joint responsibility on behalf of the people for the humiliation,
expulsion and murder of Jewish women, men and children," and apologized
for East Germany's role in the Soviet-led invasion that crushed reforms in
Czechoslovakia in 1968.
He also said ‘East Germany is prepared to make reparations to
Nazi victims and urged establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel’.
Parliament
approved a declaration saying: "Jews in all the world and the people of Israel are
asked to forgive us for the wrongs they experienced. Persecuted Jews should be
granted asylum in the future in East
Germany." This now considered as a
model for apology. Before that, West
Germany has apologized for Nazi atrocities
and has paid reparations to Jews
The
matter was more fascinating for West German because in December 1970, West
German chancellor Willy Brandt for striking a diplomatic normalization pact
went to Poland
and there he visited to a memorial to show respect to Polish Jews assassinated by
the Nazis. Brandt knelt there in a gesticulation of defeat. When even
progressive media like Der Spiegel criticized Brandt's accomplishment, calmly
he voiced what it should not be treated as a dishonorable act. Fairly, Brandt
said, he did what people do whilst their words fail to yield positive feedback
and virtually become ineffective and added that he felt weighed down by Germany's
modern history.
The picture of Brandt, kneeling in front of the memorial on that cold
rainy day without even an umbrella, tearfully regretting his country's past carnage,
was televised live and enthused the hearts of the Polish people. The Polish
prime minister embraced Brandt in his official motor vehicle and shed tears. West Germany
also paid reparations
to Jews. It is told that after Brandt's apology,
Germany was reborn, and,
effectively enough, the people of Poland
built a plaza in Warsaw
named after him.
The case of Japan is a recurring thorny issue in Asian region because even
after the lapse of long 65 years of her defeat in the World War II, there is
perhaps hardly a country in the planet that
feels Japan has strictly repented for its past invasions and atrocities. It’s a
Hobson’s choice for Japan
to seek apology until it can convince its regional neighbors of its genuineness.
During the visit to China in
1972 Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said "The Japanese side is
keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in
the past to the Chinese people through times of war, and deeply reproaches
itself." Japan's
prime ministers or emperors have made more than 20 apologies to China since
then. But China rejected all these terming insufficient, Use of ‘Owabi, not Shaza’
in Japan’s apology is another objection raised by Washington Coalition
for Comfort Women despite the fact researches show that both owabi and Shaza
are commonly used as official and formal apologetic expression and neither was
considered weaker than the other. It is believed that if Japan
repeatedly fails to move the hearts of the people it colonized then the endless
stream of empty apologies must continue
Japan’s
apology to South Korea
appears to be not so negative in line with China,
even though on 14 August 2012 South Korean President Lee Myung Bak pointedly
voiced ‘Emperor Akihito must apologize for Japan's
colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula if he wants to visit South Korea. A recent study shows that as of
2010, 24% of South Koreans still
feel that Japan has never apologized for its colonial rule, while another 58%
believe Japan has not apologized sufficiently
While dealing
with the case of Pakistan’s apology to Bangladesh we find that with regard to
the trial of Pakistani war of prisoners for alleged crimes against humanity,
genocide and war crimes, paragraph 15 of the Trilateral Agreement of 9 April
1974 in Delhi signed by the Foreign Ministers of three courtiers Dr. Kamal
Hossain of Bangladesh Swaran Singh of India and Aziz Ahmed of Pakistan
contained, among others: ‘Having regard to the appeal of the Prime Minister of
Pakistan to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past the ‘Foreign Minister
of Bangladesh stated that the government of Bangladesh had decided not to
proceed with the trial as acts of clemency. It was agreed that the 195
prisoners of war may be repatriated to Pakistan along with the other prisoners
of war now in the process of repatriation under the Delhi Agreement of 25th
August 1973’.It is well understood that the matter might have been decided when
Prime Minister Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of the nation, went to
Pakistan at the invitation of Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto d Pakistan. Later,
Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto made an unofficial visit to Bangladesh in June the same year and also visited
National
Martyrs' Memorial (Jatiyo Smriti Soudho) at Savar, which was seriously reacted in Pakistan. But neither
of them touched the delicate issue of apology further at all.
Now the question
is what does this 15 paragraph actually convey in its entirety since there are
chronic demands from Bangladesh
that Pakistan should seek
apology to Bangladesh
for the crimes committed here during the war of liberation from 26 March to 16
December 1971? Let there be true focuses by various shade of think-tanks,
political parties, organizations and associations on it in the light of time,
space and dimension.
No comments:
Post a Comment