In “The Years We Lived in Danger,” the first chapter of How Difficult it is to be God, Carlos Iván Degregori demonstrates how two groups in conflict with one another can each be wrong at the same time. Degregori states that:
“During 1980–82, Shining Path expanded vertiginously in the rural zones of Ayacucho. In response, the civilian government of Fernando Belaúnde (1980–85) entrusted the counter insurgency fight to the armed forces. In 1983–84, the military unleashed a brutal counter offensive that resulted in about one-third of the victims killed in the entire conflict, most of them civilian” (22).
In a world where people ignore factual information that discredits their own arguments, I appreciated Degregori’s honesty about the tragedies committed by both Shining Path and the Peruvian government. The Peruvian government was not automatically right in its actions just because it was fighting people involved in killing; after all, its own actions ended up hurting and terrifying even more people. Based on my limited knowledge on Shining Path, it appears as if there was no right answer to dealing with this issue. No matter what, it seems as if innocent people would have gotten hurt regardless of the course of action given.
In the second chapter of his book, “How Social Sciences Failed?” Degregori speaks of a lack of general research on Shining Path in Peru and elsewhere (37). He says that:
“ In my opinion, this lack of research, which led to speculations and misinterpretations regarding Sendero’s armed violence and the counter insurgency response by the government, was related to various factors, including surprise, fragmentation, post colonial distancing, and fear” (37).
I believe that when Degregori speaks of various factors, (particularly fear), he suggests that the revelations of the Peruvian government’s own wrongs will become more prevalent amongst the study of Shining Path itself. As the Peruvian government’s actions during this period are intrinsically tied to the suffering many people have gone through at the time, it is only natural that more information will be dug up about it if more attention is put into the topic of Shining Path in general. I believe that, perhaps, there is fear surrounding what could be uncovered for everyone involved. When we visited the LUM, there was little talk if any about the Peruvian government. This is proof that there still exists some hesitance to speak of one’s own wrongdoings through publicly funded projects, and why these projects might not dig even deeper in general. My question is: what do we lose when suggesting that two groups in conflict can both be wrong, or both be right? Does the possibility for that even exist?
3 replies on “Shining Path and Peru: Contradictory Groups with the Same Answer”
“When we visited the LUM, there was little talk if any about the Peruvian government.” What I remember is that in some images, almost at the end of the tour, they sought to justify the violence exercised towards the population by the Government with the speech of the few “bad apples” that did not affect the official position. But beyond that, self-criticism is absent even within the museum’s own organization. I agree with you: Degregori’s book is essential to start the conversation about Sendero Luminoso.
“I believe that, perhaps, there is fear surrounding what could be uncovered for everyone involved. When we visited the LUM, there was little talk if any about the Peruvian government. This is proof that there still exists some hesitance to speak of one’s own wrongdoings through publicly funded projects”
This is such a good point! It is important to look to the motivations for researching (and not looking to or covering up) political conflicts. And it is always difficult to admit wrongdoing. Especially at that scale.
-Adam