Why do the Germans feel so much pain and embarrassment in dealing with the legacy of Hitler? Can those involved in the Vietnam War heal from the wounds of war and be friends? Can the Palestinians and Israelis forgive each other’s misdeeds and work together for a shared future? We know that generations pass and time heals. But is it possible for a nation to atone for atrocities it committed in the recent past?

In literature and on celluloid, atonement originates from pangs of remorse felt by an individual. When misguided and selfish actions are motivated by the obsession to conquer the object of “love”, or when desire for gain and power leads to evil acts, the settings for a great tragedy are laid. This consuming tragedy brings immense suffering to all parties concerned. Yet, some principal agents of tragedy survive though often perpetually haunted by remorse to set about seeking atonement.

In addition to the inner sanctum of the human psyche, atonement or at-one-ment can be seen as happening on the social scene. On the social scene, we have in the last few years seen leaders of nations apologize for the horrors (usually during war) caused by their predecessors. If this apology aims at reconciliation with a large group then an apology represents a symbolic gesture whereby the wrongdoer voluntarily lowers his own status as a person like West German Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling at the Jewish victim’s memorial at Warsaw Ghetto in 1970. Quite often other attempts at such atonement are often mere words like the ubiquitous “sorry,” which means nothing.

History is always written by the victors of wars. By winning wars, the victorious groups raise itself above the loser and they thus are in no hurry to humble themselves voluntarily for the sake of atonement even if they have committed horrendous atrocities to gain victory. Winners usually get haughty, and arrogance prevents them from seeking any reconciliation with the vanquished except in rare cases. There is only one case in entire recorded history of a king having a genuine change of heart, after winning a battle. Appalled by the wanton violence and rivers of blood he caused, Ashoka (304-232 BC), the Maurya emperor of India, embraced non-violence and actively advocated atonement.

In various forums on the Internet many individuals are demanding two strong and extremely arrogant Western leaders to be tried as war criminals for two ongoing wars. But, these are individual sentiments not shared by the majority of voters. Political leaders hardly ever take responsibility for the consequences of their actions unless they are forced to by consistent and organised pressure from masses of their own constituents. Do many people in Belgium feel a burning need to atone because their king Leopold II sent about ten million people in Congo to horrible deaths for his personal gain?

In all the religious and spiritual traditions of humanity personal atonement is possible, in fact, a prerequisite for spiritual growth. But, collective atonement is a vision held up by religions originating in the Levant (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) but not in the Eastern, Native American, South American, African or Aboriginal traditions. The Levant religions, with a personal God, all have this vision that people of that group alone will be redeemed (after atonement) at a certain point in chronological time through the establishment of a supernaturally endowed “perfect” society or through a cataclysmic event of the judgement day. The “others” will of course perish by fire and brimstone during this event. But for the non-Levant traditions redemption takes place inside the psyche of the individual in a dimension transcending time and space. Levant religions also require a division of us -vs- them, “us” being the chosen group. The others, according to these religions are not the chosen people and shall not be redeemed. So why bother even thinking of group atonement, just say “sorry” if you really must?

If we would take snapshots of the world stage at different points of human history and compare it with our moment on the stage of history, we would notice that we are engaged in the same acts of war, depravation, violence, rape and pillage which people have done throughout. In spite of all the advances in technology, and liberalisation in the fields of social, political, and economic systems, our leaders today can still justify these atrocities with the willing support of majorities. The current political scene with constant blows and counter-strikes hardly makes a unilateral disarmament and turning the other cheek, seem a very viable option to belligerent partners across battle lines.

We can of course conclude that our leaders are no better than those of earlier times, but we shouldn’t forget that if we didn’t want our nations to wage wars to prevent vested interests we would need to make sacrifices e.g., in a lowering of living standards. Many of the powerful nations engaged in bloody wars might not survive in the battle for markets and resources if coercion would be impossible and the rules of the game would be fair play all the way.

If we are asking for atonement on a national scale for the sins of our fathers (or mothers for that matter) or if we are to stop using war as a means to secure ends, are we prepared for atonement in the form of higher prices for fewer goods, the huddled poor of ravaged shores moving in to share our spacious homes and clean cities? Shall we pedal our way on bicycles through wet and snowy streets to longer hours at work? Shall we agree to consume less when the hapless children of the teeming masses in impoverished countries with an abundance of natural resources claim the right to live as wastefully as we or our children?