Balkan Tragedy: A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide in Bangladesh

Yahya Khan`s Epitaph:

In his attempt to save his country, he wound up destroying it.

Omar`s Response to posts thru #123

when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

Pakistan Army War Crime 1971

I have all the reasons to believe Muneezae Alam Khan is also a victim and continue to have sympathy for her. She was a two year old innocent and beautiful little angel in 1971. Her father certainly could not recognize the divinity in her when he participated in the worst atrocities in the history of mankind. Children are the worse victim of parent`s crime. Muneezae`s sentiment, emotion and arguments on the issue reflect that she is extremely traumatized. Maybe her mother is equally traumatized and I have no foubt about her intent to return looted milk as pious and God fearing Muslim.

When Pakistan was created it is the Muslims of Bengal voted fo it, Muslims of Punjab did not, Muslims of Sindh did not, Muslims of Baluchistan did not, Muslims of NWFP did not. During 1965 war it is the blood of Bengali boys of East Bengal Regiment of Pakistan Army saved Lahore from falling in to Indian occupation.

Please do not spawn hate against people who gave you a motherland Pakistan in 1947 and saved you from humiliation of surrendering to India in 1965. Perhaps rewards we have been given in 1971 for doing those good turns even out maneuvered Mir Zafar Ali Khan (Mir Z A Khan) did to his mentor Nawab Sirajudoulla in 1757.

It is not going to get easier for Muneezae as time passes and she needs to understand that she still has a better chance to trust Bengalis to uphold the dignity and honour of her country with this issue of war crime in 1971.

Regardless of the verbal gymnastics and semantic games being played by some revisionists refusing to acknowledge the pepertration of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity in Bangladesh, I offer for their edification the following UN Convention entered into force since 1951. We have been hearing ``threats`` of impending law suits and I frankly welcome such actions. Finally we, Bangladeshis, will get the justice we have been clamoring for. Our own past governments have failed to bring about this day of justice, and I hope we concerned citizens of Bangladesh can finally bring forth the day of reckoning. As Judge Joe Brown says: Let`s get it on.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, entered into force Jan. 12, 1951.

Ratification Information

The Contracting Parties,

Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946

that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized

world,

Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and

Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,

Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law

which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,

ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally

responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article 5

The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to

the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other

acts enumerated in article III.

Article 6

Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the

territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting

Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article 7

Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.

The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Article 8

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United

Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article

III.

Article 9

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those

relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the

International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Article 10

The present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9

December 1948.

Article 11

The present Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for signature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any

nonmember State to which an invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly.

The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United

Nations.

After 1 January 1950, the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member

State which has received an invitation as aforesaid. Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United

Nations.

Article 12

Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of

the present Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.

Article 13

On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shall draw up a

proces-verbal and transmit a copy thereof to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in

article 11.

The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or

accession.

Any ratification or accession effected, subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the

instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 14

The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force.

It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such Contracting Parties as have not denounced it at least six

months before the expiration of the current period.

Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 15

If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall

cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations shall become effective. Article 16

A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in

writing addressed to the Secretary-General.

The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.

Article 17

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the non-member States contemplated in

article XI of the following:

(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with article 11;

(b) Notifications received in accordance with article 12;

(c) The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with article 13;

(d) Denunciations received in accordance with article 14;

(e) The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with article 15;

(f) Notifications received in accordance with article 16.

Article 18

The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.

A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States

contemplated in article XI.

Article 19

The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the date of its coming into force.

FYI:

Century of Genocide

Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views

Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons + Israel W. Charny (editors)

Garland 1997

A book review by Danny Yee (danny@cs.usyd.edu.au), Copyright © 1997

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/

--

Excerpts:

Century of Genocide is a survey of genocide in the twentieth century. It contains fourteen chapters, by specialists, on a broad range of events, including some not usually labelled as genocide (some chapters in fact avoid the term completely). The introduction examines how the strength of our responses to atrocity vary with our distance from the victims, and canvasses the practical problem of how to prevent future genocides. It refrains from abstract theorising about definitions and the chapters mostly follow suit, making Century of Genocide refreshingly free from academic jargon.

---

Excerpt:

Still less familiar to most will be the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, notable for the systematic use of mass rape as an instrument of war and the deliberate targeting of educational and cultural elites for destruction.

---

%T Century of Genocide

%S Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views

%E Samuel Totten

%E William S. Parsons

%E Israel W. Charny

%I Garland

%C New York

%D 1997

%O paperback, references, index

%G ISBN 0-8153-2353-0

%P xxxix,488pp

%K history, politics, crime

Ms. Khan you wrote:

``We the innocent girls of 28 years ago, are the wise women of Pakistan today. Aware of the fact,
that East Pakistan was a part of Pakistan and not occupied by Pakistan. Bengalis, past and present,
have always acted as the aggrieved party seeking justice after causing the initial trouble. After all what else can you expect from the descendents of Mir Jafer.``

I would hate to comment on what the ``wise women`` of Pakistan are thinking these days but I hope that you can elaborate on why the Bengalis should
not have felt aggrieved especially when people
in what was West Pakistan had opinions like
you have explained below:

``The Pakistani Generals were not joking, the 65 million Bengalis prostrated themselves and sold their souls to Indra Gandhi and the 600 million Indians for ever. Yet they blame West Pakistanis for all their woes.``

I was there young lady when Pakistanis were forcing these people into Indira Gandhi`s lap.
Bengalis by the way like the rest of us ``Martials``
also choose to prostrate to the One God Allah.
Their basic demand was for mutual respect which
the following is not an example of as you wrote:


``The epitaph will read ``man sleeping comfortably in this place told the whole truth `never trust a
Bengali```.`` (Muneezae Alam Khan.)

I am sure that similar words have been said for Pathans, Sindhis, Balochis and the so called ``Mohajis``. And now one can wonder what these people are saying.
I will admit that atrocities were committed by all sides but the actions of the Pakistan army cannot be but the worst. And the problem still lies in the fact that nobody amongst them wants to try
and explain to ``ill informed`` people like myself
or Jamal Hasan WHY they had to resort to such actions?
Anyway I do not want to get too personal because
I am sure some people in Pakistan choose to think
along similar lines, but I do not agree with you.
And I am one person who was a firm believer in Quaid-e-Azam`s Pakistan. I still want to know why
his country was destroyed in such a way? And why
Pakistanis choose to ignore this subject and the issue of the ``Biharis``. Why hide behind false ``Martial`` egos and not let the truth out?

Ras

This article was published in today’s NFB. Prof. Ahmed Ziauddin is a legal scholar and an expert on genocide from the perspective of international law. The defenders of Brigadier Z.A. Khan and other Pakistani army officers of 1971 should read this article very carefully to understand the seriousness of the crime they have committed in occupied Bangladesh. Have a good reading!

Mr. Omar and Ms. Muneezae Alam Khan may learn a thing or two reading this article. In addition, they should not lose their sleep over the issue. Because, it was not they but Brigadier Z.A. Khan and a host of other Pakistani officers and foot soldiers who committed the Bangladesh Genocide. Let the alleged perpetrators of genocide respond directly to the articles written by Bengalis, preferably in the International Court in The Hague, The Netherlands. Let me see if one single of them are courageous enough to take the stand. All this ‘saber rattling’ by Mr. Omar or Ms. Muneezae Khan is just a sideshow.

Mr. Omar, seek the help of a law scholar to figure out whether the US federal courts will entertain your preposterous idea of suing Bengali authors who are saying that the good old Brigadier was a part of a genocidal army. Can a Pakistani legal scholar (preferably a Law scholar from a reputed International University) come forward and rebut Professor Ahmed Ziauddin? The issues are larger than life. Let the court in The Hague decides the fate of those generals, officers, and soldiers. This Bangladesh Genocide issue is gaining momentum in Bangladesh. Yes, after all these years. The movement is surely taking a life of its own. I would be really worried for my father or uncle, if I learn that they had served in Pakistan’s army in occupied Bangladesh during the 9 month period in 1971.

Sincerely,

M. Nawaz Khan



News From Bangladesh

April 22, 1999

Commentary

WHO IS A WAR CRIMINAL?

A CHALLENGE TO THE DEFENDERS OF WAR CRIMINALS

By: Ahmed Ziauddin

Kosovo’s man-made tragedy has touched peoples around the world. President Slobodan Milosevic, over last ten years, had been waging war against his own people, one after another in Yugoslavia’s constituent republics, Bosnia, Croatia and now in Kosovo. His Kosovo mission started with annulling autonomy the Kosovan’s were and still are entitled to under Yugoslav’s constitution. He then deliberately re-interpreted the events of six hundred years back, only to ensure his support based, and used it for keeping him in power.

Milosevic then focussed his attention on Kosovo-Albanian’s, whom he considers as the “other” people, different and therefore, expendable. He put in place elaborate plans to exterminate the Kosovo-Albanians, and over some years, had been systematically driving them off from Kosovo. The West, considering volcanic nature of Balkan, on occasions negotiated with him and at other times, threatening with roars.

Milosevic, who need conflicts to stay in Belgrade’s presidential palace, faced numerous attempts to democratize the society, which he stubbornly refused. He began negotiation drama, as Kosovo-Albanians took-up arms with the aim to liberate Kosovo from Milosevic’s clutch, with Western nations and then finally declined to agree to a political settlement.

NATO, the military alliance of the West, intervened with air strikes, to teach Milosevic a lesson. Milosevic out witted the NATO by speeding up his extermination mechanism, which was already active, and within three weeks, succeeded in deporting from Kosovo over half a million Kosvo-Albanian to neighboring countries. NATO estimates, over 1.2 million Kosovo-Albanian have been made home less, hundreds of villages have been set alight.

Milosevic expelled all foreign journalists and aid workers from Kosovo and deployed forty thousand troops and three hundred tanks, enough to empty Kosovo. The deportees speak consistently about Milosevic’s methodology; troops, para-military or local Serbian collaborators to knock doors, take the young men away, give minutes to others to leave. They rob all valuables and identity papers.

NATO now believes, Milosevic’s forces have carried out mass killings and widespread rapes. Each deportee is the evidence of Milosevic’s brutality and victim of ethnic cleansing.

The conflict, though is taking place in Europe, has touched raw nerve of the people of Bangladesh. It has brought memories of 1971 back to those who experienced similar atrocities at the hand of Pakistanis. In 1971, Pakistanis perfected ethnic cleansing and executed a total genocide in Bangladesh. What Milosevic is doing to the people of Kosovo-Albanian, Yahya Khan did it to the people of Bangladesh a quarter of a century back.

The government of Bangladesh too has supported Kosovo-Albanian demands to return, under security, back to Kosovo. Even it has offered a small donation.

Bangladesh and Kosovo:

Miseries cannot be compared, nor should be. But then, to the people of Bangladesh, sum total of Milochevic’s brutalities inflicted on the Kosovo-Albanian thus far, appears just a fraction of what the Pakistanis inflicted. Figures are mind-boggling, let alone the gory details.

In 1971, Pakistanis forcibly deported 10 million people, out of Bangladesh to India, cleansed virtually all the Hindu population, killed 3 million and raped between two to three hundred thousand women. Another 20 million people were internally displaced, 15 million houses were set on fire, and Five hundred sixty seven bridges were damaged.

In Bosnia, Serbs raped about twenty thousand women, which give some kinds of perspective to what happened to their sisters in Bangladesh. According to genocide scholars, in Bangladesh, rape was used as a weapon of war in a scale never seen before. Facts are yet to come out of Kosovo of extent of rape, execution, torture, mass killings, to draw a final conclusion.

In more that one ways, Bangladesh and Kosovo situation, have got similarities. Autonomy was denied both to Kosovo-Albanian and Bangladesh. Before the beginning of genocide, all foreign newsmen were thrown out. The Para-military forces and civilian thugs, the collaborators, assisted the army. They knocked each door as death-devil, looted valuables, beat up innocent civilians, men, women and children. Young men were specially targeted. CNN just flashed news about Milosevic forces compelling Kosovo-Albanians to bury their compatriot, exactly what Pakistani soldiers did.

The difference however, between Milosevic and Yahya Khan has been that the former wants to get rid of the entire population, ethnic Kosovo-Albanians, which, as the conflict progresses, will be achieved soon. Yahya tried hard and partially succeeded, but not to the same extent. The other difference is international response. NATO, led by USA has intervened militarily, with all its might, while, USA was strongly supporting genocidal Pakistani junta. No NATO humanitarian relief efforts were available in 1971, it was largely Indian generosity which helped the deported millions to survive.

The ordinary people organized resistance in Bangladesh, while essentially NATO has taken up the job of the Kosovo-Albanians.

What is happening in Kosovo, ethnic cleansing, mass killing, rape, execution, torture, burning of villages, looting etc, has all the ingredients of war crimes and genocide, full extent of which only will be revealed as the conflict ends.

Controversy:

To an expatriate Bangladeshi, the Balkan tragedy appeared to him to be a re-enactment of 1971 genocide in Bangladesh. Mr.Jamal Hasan, in his commentary, posted on News From Bangladesh on 5 April 1999, echoed the sentiments of the people of Bangladesh. He found “an eerie resemblance between what is happening in Kosovo in 1999 and what happened in East Pakistan after March 1971.” He compared in greater details common features and differences between Kosovo and Bangladesh.

In conclusion, Mr,Hasan demanded justice, justice for Kosovo and justice for what happened in 1971. He quoted British Foreign Secretary who paraphrased the position of international law: “Anyone who carried out atrocities against the civilian population, anyone who gives orders for them to carry it out, or is complicity in those orders being given, and anyone who fails to prevent such orders or to prevent those orders being carried out-anyone in those categories is liable to face indictment before the international war crimes tribunal.” The commentary named a number of top Pakistani army officials, who, he said, “fit the profiles of war criminals”, those to be brought to trial.

He named, amongst others, Brigadier Z.A.Khan, a ranking Pakistani military official, who, according to his own memoirs, serialized recently in Pakistan Defence Journal, “The way it was”, provided graphic details of his and others involvement in occupied Bangladesh.

Following the posting of Mr.Hasan’s commentary, Ms.Muneezae Khan, daughter of Brigadier Z.A.Khan, posted a letter. In it, she addressed Mr.Hasan and said, “Like most emotional yet ignorant people you have very ardently made use of words to cover up your lack of information.” She went on, “I do hope you are aware of the fact that calling a person some thing like a war criminal surmounts to slander and defamation.” Then she warned, “I hope you can substantiate your claim with some legal proof. Otherwise you will soon be talking to some lawyers and finding out what it really means to make unfounded accusations.”

Bangladesh genocide:

In case of Bangladesh, the International Commission of Jurists conducted a legal study, following the genocide in 1971 and produced a report in 1972. The Commission applied rather strict definitions of various international crimes for the study. ICJ found the following targets of genocide:

1. All Bengalis, especially pro-autonomy people and members of the Awami League;

2. Hindus, who marked out because the Pakistani regime considered them to be ‘Indian agents’ who had subverted the Muslims of East Pakistan;

3. The Bengali military and police were hunted because they represented the only trained groups which could offer resistance to the Army;

4. The students;

5. Bengali intellectuals such as professors, doctors and other professionals, the overriding purpose being to deprive Bangladesh, once it came into existence, of the minds that could guide it.

The Commission concluded that from March to December 1971, massive violations of human rights occurred in East Pakistan (later Bangladesh). These were committed by the Pakistani army and auxiliary forces against Bengalis, and in particular against members of the Awami League, students and Hindus.

These violations, the Commission said, involved the indiscriminate killing of civilians, including women and children; the attempt to exterminate or drive out of the country a large part of Hindu population of appropriately 10 million people; the arrest, torture and killing without trial of suspects; raping of women; the destruction of villages and towns; and the looting of property.

The Commission concluded, in addition to criminal offences under domestic law, that “there is a strong prima facie case that criminal offences were committed in international law, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity under the law relating to armed conflict, breaches of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions 1949, and acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention 1949.”

The Commission considered a number of international instruments, in force at the time, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Genocide Convention 1949 and customary law of international law.

The Commission then gave its opinion, “Persons who have committed or were responsible for such crimes are liable to be tried under international law by an international court. If, as has been reported, the Bangladesh government are to put on trial senior Pakistani officers and civilians, they should set up an international court for the purpose with a majority of judges from neutral countries.”

Individual responsibility:

What is an individual’s responsibility? The question whether and the extent of which individual persons are subject to international law, has become much clear now, as British Foreign Secretary’s statement indicates. In the field of human rights, individual persons are bound by international law.

The Nuremberg Principles explicitly state that ‘any person who commits an act which constitute a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment’ (Principle I), that ‘crimes against peace’, ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ are ‘punishable as crimes under international law’ (Principle VI), and that complicity in the commission of these crimes is itself a crime under international law (Principle VII).

Moreover, ‘the fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law’ (Principle III), and ‘the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was possible to him’ (Principle IV).

Furthermore, ‘the fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under internal law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law’ (Principle II).

The effect of these principles, re-stated in the Statute of International Criminal Court, is that the individual officers and soldiers who carried out ‘kill and burn’ missions and other crimes under international law are liable to be prosecuted and punished unless there was no moral choice open to them. Equally, those who passed on the orders or who, knowing of these crimes or the orders for them, failed to prevent their being carried out when they had the opportunity to do so, are themselves guilty of ‘complicity’ in the commission of the crimes.

Under international law, war crimes cases do not require proof of ‘command responsibility’, but in cases of crimes against humanity and genocide, what is needed is proof of conspiracy.

Recently, British House of Lords in Pinochet’s extradition case, has re-affirmed this principle of international law. In his decision, Authority to Proceed (ATP) the extradition case, British Home Secretary Jack Straw found alleged offences committed by Pinochet, torture, execution, disappearance etc, extraditable crimes and crimes under international law. He rejected Pinochet’s argument of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. He also did not accept that passage of time would render such extradition unjust or oppressive.

Profile of a war criminal:

Who is a war criminal in the context of Bangladesh genocide in 1971? From the brief analysis of facts and legal position of events in 1971 in Bangladesh, it already has been conclusively concluded by the prestigious institution, International Commission of Jurists, that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were perpetrated by the Pakistani military.

Under international law, thus, every Pakistani soldier, who was on the soil of Bangladesh as an occupying force between March and December 1971 and acted in furtherance of these international crimes, is a potential war criminal. Each of the soldiers was individually responsible under the general principles of international law, unless he could prove that he did try against it but failed.

Higher the rank, higher the responsibility. Now, its Ms.Muzneeaze Khan’s turn to see whether Brigadier Z.A.Khan ‘fits the profile of a war criminal’. International law is against him. People of Bangladesh, a large part of Pakistanis, members of the international community, all have concluded about Bangladesh genocide and of its perpetrators.

Ms.Khan has to sue an awful lot of people.



The writer teaches law at Brussels Catholic University. His e-mail is: Zia@kubrussel.ac.be

Re: Omar

Very smart indeed. If you want to defend against the charge of 3 million dead do it on reasonable grounds. There was no indian propaganda about it. So don`t blame india. Even if there were such a propaganda, if it was all that false, it would not be accepted by anyone today, let alone the Bengalis.

If the Bengalis believe this , then give them the right facts, don`t put the blame on Indian propaganda. That only adds more pointers to your intelligence while looking at this issue with your shakespearean glass.

p.s : And you are even threatening Chowk for libel. Wonder why they still let you post here ?

iconoclast

It is important for us to understand that such an important subject desreve a very caring,sensitive & palliative response.IT does`nt warrant a flippant treatment to trivialise it.

Although the the discussion came as a spin-off of the real subject matter,nevertheless some very pleasantly brave responses were posted.

I sincerely believe that this issue be resolved in the manner of a TRUTH COMMISION.Never should the matter given into the farangi instituition`s clutches.

Some suggestions:1)A time period be given to the parties on both sides to resolve the matter mutually or through common friends.Both the sides are by now victims(one being the oppressed ones & the other wrecked by their conscience--if so)

2)EVery effort be made to create an atmosphere of

forgiving & forgetting and this should become a compulsory subject matter to be taught in our history lessons.

3)On a country level,Pakistan must do its best to assuage the hitherto unhealed wounds of its muslim brethren in Bangladesh.

(Please read this genders inclusive)

4)To start with Exchange programmes be established immediately so that the healing and nursing process begins.Early cure will actually be the best way we can let our sincerety speak for itself.

Don`t we regret the day we let the farangis set up shop in our sonar Bengal.Let`s exorcise the farangi nightmare from our midst for ever.

P.S:My Bangladeshi brother!Please forgive me that I happened to be living at the time when all this

happened.I`ll do my bit to lifi off some shame for the rest of my life.May Allah give me the courage.

`and anyone who fails to prevent such orders or to prevent those orders being carried out ...`

Robin Cook may have said this, but Robin Cook, despite being the Foreign Minister of Great Britain cannot create a new definition of what constitutes, `a war criminal` anymore than Jamal Hasan can. Nor begging Jamal`s pardon will any court listen to the mere speeches of a politician as evidence of what constitutes, `the profile of a war criminal.`

Jamal sahib. Get a lawyer. You may need one soon. Being a humanitarian, will not er, give you immunity from a lawsuit for libel.:)

I just finished reading the latest comments posted by Muneezae Alam Khan. While it has been said that the victors write history, it is apparent to me that Pakistan has been writing its own version of revisionist history that has kept a significant fraction of Pakistanis ignorant as to what transpired during the days of 1971 that eventually led to the independence of Bangladesh.

The disenchantment and resentment of the Bengalis to the ruling West Pakistani Military/Political Oligarchy has many sources: colonialist domination, political hegemony, economic exploitaition, and last but not least a disgusting racist attitudes towards Bengali. The last is very obvious from her statement ending ``never trust a Benagli``. It is difficult to engage in rational discourse with people who maintain such bigoted views, because in their clouded and narrow weltanschauung, no amount of hard facts or evidences will ever cause them to perceive and comprehend the facts as they actually are.

Muneezae asserts that the Bengalis were rebels and hence were treated like rebels. Here are some incontrovertial facts. Sheikh Mujib and the Awami League was elected with an overhwhelming mandate to become the Prime Minister of United Pakistan. The 6 point program under which the AL won the elections did not call for independence. They were quite willing to work within the united Pakistan framework while ensuring some degree of autonomy so as to prevent the repetation of the exploitation of the East by the West since the birth of Pakistan. It was the ruling hegemony of West Pakistan fearing their loss of power that decided to make every attempt to nullify the results of a democratic elections. While Sheikh Mujib was still negotiating in good faith to be the Prime Minister of United Pakistan, West Pakistani troops were being flown in. The negotiations were used as a stalling tactics until the military had enough troops to undertake an orgy of murder and mayhem with the goal of making sure the Bengalis never are able to assert themselves again. It was only after the blood-bath perpetrated on the night of March 15 that Pakistan as existed before were dead. So if we wish to debate semantics, it was the Pakistani army who ``rebelled`` against a democratically elected leader.

Here is an excerpt from the London Times:

(London, 6/13/71). The Sunday Times.

The Government`s policy for East Bengal was spelled out to me in the Eastern Command headquarters at Dacca. It has three elements:

1.The Bengalis have proved themselves unreliable and must be ruled by West Pakistanis;

2.The Bengalis will have to be re-educated along proper Islamic lines. The -Islamization of the masses - this is the official jargon - is intended to eliminate secessionist tendencies and provide a strong religious bond with West Pakistan;



3.When the Hindus have been eliminated by death and fight, their property will be used as a golden carrot to win over the under privileged Muslim middle-class. This will provide the base for erecting administrative and political structures in the future.

The aim and intentions of the Pakistani Army is evidently clear here. It wasn`t just matter of fighting a ``rebellion``. It was a deliberately planned attempt to subjugate the ``secessionist`` Bengalis by ruthlessly engaging in genocide. How else does one define the deaths of between 1-3 millions civilians?

Least you doubt the veracity of any of these statistics and data please do point your browser to http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/bd_history.html

There is a significant collection of independent reports that provide incontrovertial evidence of the genocide perpetrated upon the Bengali civilian population. As an example: Newseek on 3/2/72 put forth a figure of 1.5 million. The National Geographic September 1972 issue puts the number at 3 million.

Are you actually going to sit there and condone these acts of the Pakistani Army as justifiable in any context?

Yes, there will be an accounting for these crimes.

Remember Nuremberg.

Remember what the British Prime minster recently said with respect to the Kosovo situation: ``There is no statute of limitaions on genocide``.

- Zunaid Kazi

Brahmanbaria: Time to Wake up from Slumber

By Mijanur Rahman

Whither Bangladesh? I hail from Brahmanbaria, and there was a time (not in the remote past; only ten years back)when these fanatic anti-liberation forces would even hesitate to holda public meetings for fear of backlash from the pro-liberation forces. Their political meetings and discussions used to be held clandestinely or in the parlour of their own houses. But within ten years they have been able to foil a program organised to celebrate our historic Victory Day. Are we going to lose our sovereignty in the near future?

The sacred soil of Brahmanbaria is soaked with the blood of many martyrs. It was Brahmanbaria which had to endure the first onslaught of Pak army`s air attack on Babgladesh`s liberated areas in mid April, 1971. Brahmanbaria had had a heavy concentration of freedom fighters even before the liberation war effectively got organised. Valiant freedom fighters like Khaled Mosarraf, Haider were then stationed at or near Brahmanbaria with their own contingent of Bengali troops and freedom fighters who had already joined them. The memory of those days is still vivid in my mind. It was possibly mid April. The Pak army in heavy formation was advancing towards Brahmanbaria from Comilla Cantonment. At Uzani Shahar(Uzani Shahar, eight miles south of Brahmanbaria, became famous through the publicity it got during the liberation war over Shwadhin Bangla Betar Kendra) where there is a long bridge over the river Titas on Chittagong-Sylhet highway, the advancing Pak army faced first resistance after advancing about forty miles out of Comilla Cantonment. Overrunning the ill-equipped freedom fighters the Pak army continued advancing toward Brahmanbaria. While the freedom fighters were engaged in front-fighting at Uzani Shahar, some four sabre jets from Pakistan Air Force strafed Brahmanbaria to facilitate Pak army`s advance into Brahmanbaria town. Bombing was conducted in a number of sorties. There were a few civilian casualties from the bombings. Entering the town, the Pak army resorted to indiscriminate killings, looting, arson and rape. I myself nurtured to consciousness many raped victims. The whole town was set ablaze, and smoke bellowing out of the burned houses and buildings could be seen even twenty miles from the town. This way the people of Brahmanbaria made solid contribution to the War of Independence at the very nascent stage of our liberation war.

During the war many local intellectuals were kidnapped by the Pak army and their helping cohorts -- Razakars. They were massacred at Kuruliar Khal, which is another Rayer Bazaar where many intellectuals were killed. During the war Brahmanbaria lost its own history and entity. The Pakistani administration renamed it Rahman Baria to Islamise it (Brahmanbaria is a Hindu name).

As Brahmanbaria borders on India, its whole border-belt from Salada Nadi (also became famous for its being a bloody battlefield during the war; at Kullapathar, near Shalda Nadi there is a war cemetery where many unknown freedom fighters are in eternal sleep) to Telia Para (another famous battlefield) turned into an active battle front during the whole period of the war. Innumerable freedom fighters, civilians and freedom-loving people laid down their lives. Besides, as it was a battle front, the people of Brahmanbaria had to live under constant threat and endure the trauma of the war.

At the fag end of the war in early December Brahmanbaria had to bear the brunt of a full-scale war. Akhaura, only 10 miles from Brahmanbaria town, was the main battle ground where the Pak army fought the allied army and the Muktibahini. The defeated Pak army retreated through Brahmanbaria Town, and before retreating they caused colossal damage to life, property and infrastructure. The retreating Pak army abandoned two of their tanks at Brahmanbaria; one of them is preserved at the local Niaz Park as a memento to the sacrifice the people of Brahmanbaria made during the war. Besides, a war memorial in memory of the martyred freedom fighters of Brahmanbaria has been erected at Niaz Park. The memorial, situated at the scenic and serene Niaz Park, symbolises the sacrifice the people of Brahmanbaria made for our freedom.

This is Brahmanbaria that reverberates with the heroic saga of our freedom struggle. But it is ironic that before the blood of our valiant martyrs dries up, the long hands of killers have outstretched their claws to tarnish its history. I fear that day may not be far when the fanatic forces will lay their ominous hand on the whole of Bangladesh. Wake up, our freedom-loving people. It is time to rise up from our slumber to resist those killers.

MRAH3@MFS04.cc.monash.edu.au

Re: sigalph235

Thank you for your comments. Your efforts were sincerely appreciated and your illumination of the topic was very helpful.

I hope you were not angered by my comments, but as a Pakistani I am tired of continually carrying all the historic baggage associated with our sub-continental history. If this article and the discussion which ensued from it is any indication, we are so tied to our past that we seem incapable of moving forward. An ancient Greek once said that, ``the past is prologue`` and with that in mind, we have to clarify the mistakes of our past, because unless we do so, we will still be caught up in a mean spirited cycle of blame, vengence, resentment and a propensity towards retribution.

I have nothing against the people of Bangladesh revisting their, and our, history to reconcile the past and close a painful chapter in their lives whose lessons are still vivid today. As this debate, on the scale and nature of a gencoide in East Pakistan, unfolds it is going to be a discussion highly charged with emotional content on both sides of the argument.

With this in mind, I would like to suggest, to all those interested in learning the truth, that an effort has to be made to establish what the actual facts were. Just from reading the InterActs, it is clear that there is no consensus on the facts (i.e. the number of people killed etc.). Unless a basic determination of the facts is made, any debate on the topic will be based on a subjective perspective. This topic, of a genocide, is too important to be relegated to allegations and counter allegations which only help to make the situation opaque instead of resolving any mutual disagreements. There has to be a strict accountabilty of facts and the verdict of history, if it is rendered, should be based on the facts of what really happened and not on some intution of an historic memory.

This issue, of what happened in 1971, has to be approached with all the tenacity of a crime scene investigation. Evidence has to be collected; the crime scene re-constructed and facts presented which support and prove that a crime was indeed committed and by whom. Otherwise, without actually showing facts to back up the asserations of a crime, this debate will rapidily degenerate into a series of accusations and rebuttals, which would only further antongize the participants without shedding any light on the issue being discussed.

To all engaged in this debate, all I can say is that you have, both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, more in common than you realize. You both need to dertermine what the facts were and only through this recourse will you be able to prove your points. Without the basis of facts supporting either viewpoint, this will merely be an academic debate which will remain inconclusive in its final findings. Actual facts, ladies and gentlemen, will resolve this debate and not emotionally charged rhetorical speeches on the issue.

This issue must be settled expediously, because the potential of our common future should not be held hostage to the mistakes of our past. At stake in this debate is not the scope or the extent of guilt, but rather the unjust condemnation of the future generations. Indians, Pakistanis or Bangladeshis we all have a moral obligation to lay down our historic burdens so that others may not have to carry them.

The question we all have to ask is how much longer are we willing to shackle and bind our future generations to the yoke of our historic memeories! For their benefit and not ours, this question must be answered and it can only be answered if we have the facts to answer this question and as answer we must!

Sincerely.

Re: Omar

Do you really think that people take the pain to go through your shakespearean fantasy . ? Cut the bull and talk on the facts will ya . ? Mujib was elected to lead united pakistan and when this will of the majority was rejected, the Bengalis realized that they can never have their say in United Pakistan (much as how the Pakistanis felt in United British India ) and they opted out. Atrocities were committed by both sides. In fact, the Bengalis freedom fighters probably were more brazen in committing the atrocities since they are not paid for their acts and their acts are bound purely by passion and anger (right or wrong ) very much similar to the atrocities committed by the kashmiri fighters in India (butchering innocent marriage parties in cold blood which no government can do). India manipulated the whole affair just like pakistan is doing today with kashmir. The only differences are.

1 ) kashmir rebellion is only on a communal religious angle, while the bengalis fought for their self respect .

2 ) If the bengalis were treated equals they would not have opted out. Even though the kashmiris are being treated more than equal, they want to opt out because atleast the rebels want a muslim nation.

3 ) Both the Bengali issue and the kashmir issue are creations of pakistan. In the Bengali issue , india played the part of an opportunistic while in the kashmiri issue it is the victim. in the bengali issue , pakistan played the part of the cause and the oppressor, while in the kashmir issue it plays the part of the cause and the opportunistic facilitator.

4 ) War crimes were committed by both sides in the Bengali issue. But then it is easier to blame the others for our mistakes and if nothing works blame the outsider (india ).

5 ) Probably Z A Khan indeed was an honourable office who was not guilty of war crimes. If the bengalis want to disprove this, they should provide concrete evidence against him. And in this Omar is indeed right. Show the facts before you shoot the breeze my bengali friends.

-- Blame india if it makes you guys free of your errors. India is huge and so diverse that no one is really going to put up a defense . They are easy scapegoats, indeed. Atleast you guys can rest easy .

iconoclast

RE: Sigalph 235

``A nation deserves a state. Bengalis, no matter

where they live, deserve the whole Bangladesh

that was cheated out of them by Mountbatten,

Nehru and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah.``

Of Course one cannot blame the millions of muslim

banglabandhus who voted for the muslim league

and, by all accounts, formed the largest

constituency in favor of Pakistan! How are they

to be blamed for breaking up the one inviolate

``Bangladesh``?

Regarding creating a bengali nation over ``rivers

of blood``, please do remember that it was you who

partitioned bengal, and that the rivers of blood

that flowed in 1947 were those of your hindu

bengali ``brothers``, and it was your hands which

were bloody.

If you were so eager for partition then, then why

is it now that you suddenly discover your real

nationality? If your lover spurns you, please do

not expect that your wife will be waiting with

open arms to take you back. Not even in the

subcontinent.

Continuing from my previous post :

And all this killing is claimed to be within a period of under 9 months! What about the disposal of some many bodies. The Pakistan army as i stated earlier did not build crematoriums, so where are the mass graves? Do you people even know how much time it would have taken to dig the graves alone for the Pakistani soldiers? I haven`t heard any allegations that Bengalis were forced to dig the mass graves that surely must house these victims of genocide. Where are they? Come on lets hear it.