Scope of theoretical research on aspects of reconciliation

Natasha Palansuriya

Today we feature an interview with Natasha Palansuriya, an independent researcher whose PhD thesis focuses on the Sri Lankan Tamil transnational engagement in the post-war context of Sri Lanka. She has a Masters in International Politics and Human Rights from City, University of London, where her dissertation explored the reconciliation process of Sri Lanka. Natasha also has a First Class Honours Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Media from Coventry University, and won the Broadcast Journalism Training Council (BJTC) awards for Best Radio Documentary and Student Journalist of the Year in 2012.

In this interview with the Harmony Page of Weekend FT, Natasha focuses on the significance of academic, theoretical as well as qualitative research and public surveys especially in relation to concepts such as reconciliation in societies. Below are the excerpts of the interview.

 Q: You are an independent researcher who was affiliated recently with a research on Sri Lanka to measure the concept of reconciliation in how people see it in different scenarios. First of all, what does the word reconciliation mean to you?

A: For me personally, the basis of reconciliation is restoring relationships and trust between all communities so that we won’t be haunted by our past, but also ensuring that we transform our war-torn society for better – for all people and communities to live with dignity, without fear and with equality.

My academic research also gives me a macro level view of reconciliation. It is clear that violence and conflict take place in cycles, and that it has the ability to manifest itself in different forms if the root causes are left unaddressed. So, in that sense, reconciliation is the destination we need to get to as a nation to free ourselves from cycles of violence and move forward into a state of positive peace.

 Q: Could you explain your academic backdrop and your exposure to theoretical research and the scale of themes you have covered?

A: I lived in the UK for almost 10 years completing my higher education. I started off with an undergraduate degree in Journalism and Media from Coventry University and wanted to specialise in political correspondence/analysis as a journalist. So, I did my Masters in International Politics at City, University of London. This was from 2012-2013 when Sri Lanka started paying more attention to ‘reconciliation’ as a process and a concept. So, for my master’s dissertation I studied the beginnings of the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka during the time when the LLRC report was published. Towards the end of my masters, I fell more in love with academic research and wanted to study more about the post-war context in Sri Lanka. 

At the same time, while living in London I met many Tamils who had a very different outlook about the country, very strong and interesting opinions, and viewed the conflict from a different lens. This pushed me to think of doing further research, and so I applied to do a PhD from the same university studying the transitional justice process and why and how the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora (or as I prefer to term it, the Tamil transnational community) engages in the post-war justice process of the homeland. I am currently in the correction stage of my PhD in International Politics from City, University of London, after having successfully defended my thesis last December.

I moved home amidst my PhD studies in 2019 because I wanted to work and do research on post-war contexts in Sri Lanka. It didn’t make sense for me to talk about what is happening in Sri Lanka while living outside Sri Lanka. Since then, I worked at the Centre for Poverty Analysis where I led the Social Cohesion and Reconciliation research thematic. I have focused my work on understanding the post-war pulse in Sri Lanka and the intricacies around the transitional justice and reconciliation process. Additionally, I have built expertise in political sciences, international relations, governance, and democracy. Currently I work as an independent researcher.

 Q: How can peacebuilding research be made to be meaningful and as tools of practical social change, and where young research students can be authentic, and impartial change-makers. 

A: I believe that theory has to be translated into practice – but when translated into practice we don’t see immediate tangible results. But also, it may not be as linear to say that theory is not changing the world for the better. I think there are many theoretical concepts from the Kantian philosophies from centuries ago, to Johan Galtung’s contribution to peace research from five decades ago that has translated into development practice, and some of these concepts underpin the peacebuilding work we see today. There are also other examples of newer research that have informed peacebuilding too. We don’t see it as “contributing to change” because it may not have a clear causal relationship, or it’s not as easy to attribute change directly to research.

But on the other hand, I agree that we need more localised research to translate into policy and practice. Someone once commented that we see the same recommendations made repeatedly in policy briefs that have been produced out of research. The reason for this is that we have to keep making the same recommendations, if they are valid and relevant, until we see that change. So ultimately, we must keep in mind that peacebuilding is a long game – we have to keep at it to see tangible results.

As for young researchers to feel as if their work is meaningful and creating change – what has helped me keep going is to remember that we’re all small pieces of a puzzle, the work we do may be contributing to the grander scheme. Sometimes we may not see the impact our work makes immediately, but it could be contributing to changing discourses and making smaller changes that add up to bigger.

 Q: Could you speak of the latest research work you have been part of in Sri Lanka in the peacebuilding field?

A: Currently the main research I am involved in is the Sri Lanka Barometer Consortium that explores Sri Lankans understanding of reconciliation, their needs and priorities in the post-war context, and their opinions about progress of reconciliation that is informed by 8 areas that have been identified as crucial for reconciliation. We will be conducting a bi-annual survey, smaller snapshot survey to understand immediate contextual changes and its impact on society, and also complementary qualitative research and outreach work.

The strength of the SLB survey is that it gives evidence of what Sri Lankans think of issues pertaining to reconciliation, and through this we’re able to show that actually what we want as a nation is quite similar. For example, across all communities there is a relatively high demand for reconciliation. All main ethnic communities – Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim – recognise the importance of addressing the past to move forward. This really shows that at the core of it, we all want peace, security, and equal opportunities to live and prosper – we fundamentally desire similar things although our lived experiences have been different, and our views about the ‘other’ is coloured by political rhetoric. So being able to show this with hard evidence really is key to changing how we perceive each other from different communities, and to really join hands to build a better nation for us to coexist in. 

Opinion polls in general can give an idea of what citizens think about certain issues, or what they need from certain authorities or processes. While in Sri Lanka there are quite a few opinion polls, what SLB does is to really dive deep into what people expect from reconciliation as a process or as a goal for the country. Because SLB has defined reconciliation broadly to include key areas that citizens place importance on (such as accountable governance, security and wellbeing, equality of opportunity, dealing with the past, identity and belonging, and justice, trust, and active citizenship) policy makers could use the data to inform decision making in an array of areas. 

And because the survey will be conducted biannually, policy makers are also able to study the emerging trends and prioritise areas that need most attention. For the media, it really is an opportunity to use the data as hooks, combined with human stories to give perspective to various issues and stimulate public discourse with solid, credible research.

 Q: Who were the people and institutions involved in the SLB research and what were the key findings?

A: The SLB is implemented by a consortium consisting of three partners: the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in South Africa, which leads the quantitative research component; the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA), which leads the qualitative research component; and the Strengthening Social Cohesion and Peace in Sri Lanka (SCOPE) programme, which leads the communication and outreach component and is responsible for overall coordination. SCOPE is co-funded by the EU and the German Federal Foreign Office and implemented by GIZ in partnership with the Government of Sri Lanka. SLB is looking forward to including more local organisations and university partners in the consortium. 

Whilst the key findings from the 2021 main survey showed that Sri Lankan from across all ethnic communities have a high demand for reconciliation, at the same time recognise that there has been limited progress towards reconciling the nation. The 2022 Snapshot Survey looked at the impact of the crisis on social cohesion revealed that a majority of Sri Lankans believed that ethnic relationships were unaffected, but a third of the population believed that relationships between ethnic groups actually improved as a result of the crisis.

Q: How can globally funded research benefit humanity by tapping into fast eroding traditional knowledge that is eminently relevant to peacebuilding?

A: I think whether we like it or not, or choose it or not, we live in a time governed by the liberal world order, and we have to try and adapt to it, and introduce more traditional ideas or ideas from the global south within this framework. There is politics of funding in research – but without such funding we may not be able to do the research or the work we do. I think as researchers we should be strategic enough or find ways of building in traditional knowledge or showing its relevance and benefits within the scope of popular global research or discourses.

One initiative that I have worked with in the past, the Southern Voice Network, dedicates most of its work to giving a voice and space for research from the Global South. Some Think Tanks in Sri Lanka too are part of this network, so we definitely have the opportunity to introduce unique concepts that are relevant to our local contexts through such initiatives.

There is also a focus now from donors on participatory methods of research with marginalised and indigenous communities that also creates space for us to talk about such traditional knowledge that may not have been given prominence before.