Page 360 - Proceedings book

mqrdúoHd fomd¾;fïka;=j

and national lines, the museum indirectly supports broader ideals of reconciliation,

even without directly mediating between contemporary communities.

In stark contrast, the PVMWM centers its narrative on military triumph and national
pride, reinforcing a version of collective memory that valorizes the state and its

military, while offering minimal space for the critical reflections necessary for

reconciliation. Although the PVMWM operates functionally as a museum, it is
curated by the Sri Lankan military and does not fall under the purview of the

Department of Archaeology or recognized cultural heritage authorities. This
institutional positioning frames the museum primarily as a site of nationalistic

commemoration rather than neutral historical preservation, influencing its narrative
framing and distancing it from international museum standards. Its portrayal of

battlefield victories, with limited acknowledgment of the broader human costs or

complexities of the conflict, consolidates a singular, triumphalist memory of the civil
war. While such a narrative may affirm national pride among some visitors, it risks

excluding marginalized groups, particularly Tamil civilians, whose experiences of
loss and trauma remain largely unaddressed.

Visitor observations further suggest that the PVMWM emphasizes military heroism
without sufficiently recognizing the grievances or victimization of Tamil civilians and

combatants. This absence perpetuates a binary “us-versus-them” narrative that inhibits
the reconciliation processes central to transitional justice. Healing in post-conflict

societies requires more than valorization; it demands acknowledgment of all victims'
suffering, recognition of historical injustices, and the fostering of a shared, inclusive

understanding of the past. A museum committed to genuine transitional justice would

need to interrogate dominant narratives, amplify marginalized voices, and embrace
historical complexity over political simplification. Without this, the collective

imagination fostered by the PVMWM remains constrained, serving more to entrench
divisions than to heal them.

Ultimately, the comparison between the USHMM and the PVMWM highlights the
profound ethical responsibility museums bear in shaping collective memory. The

USHMM builds memory structures that teach vigilance, empathy, and a commitment
to human rights, oriented toward preventing future atrocities. In contrast, the

PVMWM nurtures a collective imagination centered on national victory, potentially

339