DescriptionTruth and justice has been applauded as the way to move on from a violent past. Yet, some postconflict societies managed to do so without the presence, or effective presence, of truth commissions and/or human rights trials. The question is why and how. I approach the question by looking at the case of Maluku, Indonesia, where post- communal conflict reconciliation processes took the interdependence path. Looking into the various meanings that Malukans assign to the term rekonsiliasi, as well as at the sites where interdependence is practiced: (1) ceremonial, (2) neighborhood, (3) functional-quotidian, and (4) narrative, I argue that three conditions, combined, allowed Malukans to opt for interdependence instead of truth and justice: (1) provokator narratives, (2) the idea that everyone is complicit, and (3) memories of peace, of being basudara. I also argue that interdependence work through three mechanisms: (1) emphasizing on social roles rather than religious identity, (2) providing space to symbolically display apologies and forgiveness and (3) creating focal points for peace.