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

My request to CHOWK is to keep this article alive
for a much longer period of time and to once again
bring it back upto the middle/top of the page.
And this is not because it has broken the all
time interactivity record of ``Sex Everywhere`` but
that CHOWK and Jamal Hasan have made history
here by awakening a dark chapter of our past.
After 28 years, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are
actually talking about this man made disaster.
It is painful and embarrassing at times but
we have to do this.
No malice is intended towards any party or people.
Some Pakistanis still happen to love Bangladesh and its people and would like to make amends for
the past. And some Bangladeshis would like old wounds to heal and deserve an explanation.

Ras

I have been following this tangled thread with interest for the last few days, an interesting collection of contrasting views, opinions, emotions and facts.

Despite being a Pakistani I do realize that many innocent people died in 1971 in East Pakistan and, I don`t know if this helps, but I apologize for deaths caused by my country. I am not here to debate this issue.

Another major issue under discussion is that of Brig. Z.A. Khan. Here`s what strikes me as odd. The list of names mentioned in Mr. Jamal Hasans article contained 4 generals of the time and one colonel. The generals I assume get named because they were the top ranking officers involved, but the inclusion of the colonel`s (Z.A. Khan) name implies that he was in some way more responsible than the brigadiers or other colonels in East Pakistan at the time. I haven`t seen, in this discussion thread or anywhere else, any evidence of that. It seems to me that the only reason the ``infamous colonel`` is included in the list is because he was the one who arrested Mujib.

I feel that the above mentioned action alone does not make someone a war criminal and that the inclusion of his name in the list is not justified.

I wonder if I too will now be labeled a ``defender of the Brigadier``, if I am, I won`t mind.

I cannot but say with distinct amusement that NOW, after all this has gone on for so long, that Herr Diogenes has discovered TRUTH! LoL

Begging to differ with the luminous lights of Mr. FerozK, I strongly feel that mere unsubstantiated accounts and information posted anonymously on the internet does NOT constitute grounds for calling someone a `war criminal`, for if that were the standard of judical scrutiny, i could call an awful lot of people an awful lot of things without any factual basis, after doing exactly the same thing.

As for KoKhan`s comments on what i said regarding justice, my comments apply to these politically motivated accusations like, `war criminal` (not the ordinary course of justice, for let us be clear, war crimes are an extraordinary thing to be accused of, not your every day criminal stands accused of this), rooted in Bengali nationalism and shared national myth-identity creation.



Now just who is a war criminal? Frankly I think its clear to any sane human being that the conduct described below fits both the definition of simple treason and common murder.

Excerpt from ‘The Way it Was’

Amongst the cantonments of East Pakistan the largest number of East Pakistani troops were located in Chittagong. Apparently Brigadier Mazumdar as the senior Bengali officer in East Pakistan was to command the Bengali forces in East

Pakistan but when he was called away to Dacca Major Zia ur Rehman, later President of Bangladesh, assumed the command of the Bengali troops. On the night 25/26 March, he woke up his commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Janjua, took him to the offices of 8 East Bengal in his night clothes, made him sit in the commanding officer’s chair and made the colonel’s batman shoot him dead. From this moment there was no turning back for Major Zia ur Rehman

Attention Mr. KoKhan

I think that you should have read my remarks in CONTEXT, when i say you people should, `forget about it`, i meant only that the emotional drama and outpourings of this dispute will solve nothing for you, nor will the conviction of anyone

even if it were to happen say for example to Niazi or Tikka Khan. You will not get anything out of it. I did not mean to imply that we will forget Jamal Hasan and Chowk!

During the course of this debate i have felt the pain and suffering, and personal anguish of Bengalis come out. I do not wish to belittle the tragedy of 1971 but i still don`t think that Brig. Z.A Khan is a person who fits the profile of a war criminal, that is to say, a Pakistani version of Arkan.

You may want your pound of flesh, but you`re not going to get if from Z.A Khan in a war crimes

trial. The others, against whom prima facie evidence may, only may, indeed exist, that is an open question. But i think you are mistaken about the question of how the people of Pakistan view their army as a whole today. Yes, one version which you presented certainly (and I agree with you here if we look only superficially at the conflict) finds the generals at fault for non-restoration of democracy. But to say that as a whole they were only interested in power and pelf is a simplistic rendition of history best left for you to incorporate into the Metric Exams of Bengali students. Why then did the army, Yahya Khan, allow free elections in 1970? I think these simple characters painted of good and evil men need to be set aside, as I had stated earlier, if we are ever to really gain a true and complete understanding of what happened and the reasons for it. I recognize it may be well nigh impossible

given the emotions attached to interpreting this particular piece of history, which Bengalis view as one of oppression from 1947 on, conveniently forgetting that 2 Pakistani Prime Ministers were Bengalis among other things. My point, and i`ve stated this clearly enough, is that the straight historical linear progression of events leading to `liberation` is really just too neat and simplistic. East Pakistan was not ruled by force from 1947-71, anymore than West pakistan was. And when the army ruled, there was no widespread resistence. Don`t try to make this out solely as an issue of `the people` Vs. `the army,` there would have been no grounds for secession if it were that simple. Bengali officers were moving up in the ranks of the Pakistan army, given time they would have ruled ALL Pakistan if Martial law was imposed if its the Bengali share of the national pie that concerns you. Frankly, considering Bangladesh`s dictatorial history AFTER 1971, and `Mukti rule`, you don`t really have a SEPERATE cause for complaint from W.Pakis. Things continued in Bangladesh as they had been when it was known as East Pakistan. Nothing much changed politically, the masses continued to be oppressed, but were now fed the self serving fodder of Bengali nationalism (by Bengali army officers who didn`t want to wait for promotions to get to the top of the Pak Army hierarchy, so they decided they needed their own hierarchy and thus began the struggle for power which led to the dismemberment of Pakistan, the old saying `a house divided against itself cannot stand` applies, Bengali offiers were simply greedy for power and pelf that they saw W.Pakistani officers enjoying by virtue of seniority- this is based on your interpretation of the motives of the Pakistan army) the class struggle for the masses continued, but they were temporaily waylaid by cheap nationalist slogans after `liberation` was proclaimed. This does not provide adequate grounds for the breakup of the state which you view as `inevitable` as does Jama Hasan. History is never that clear cut. Details that don`t support a particular intended point of view/conclusion, that confuse, or that cannot be explained clearly in the context of the particular fairly tale`s construction (national myth making) which are being built up in the thesis become more difficult to explain and are hence ignored. National myth making incorporates these simplified historical versions of `truth` and is used to create a unity via a common identity for the nation. Every nation in the world does it, just like the Serbs claim they were universally oppressed by the Turks for 500 years, the Bengalis now find it convenient to claim they were oppressed universally since 1947!

Not entirely true whatsoever. In the case of the Turks, there was a general tolerance of the Christian people, which will never find its way into Serbian national myth making, why? Because its inconvenient to do anything but DEMONIZE the enemy. Pakistan and India have done the same thing with Kashmir. Bangladesh has done the same thing with Mujib, and the events leading upto and including 1971. Everything is black and white. Simple to understand for the masses. That is the core of nationalism. Being an ardent student of both history and political sciene i understand this very clearly.

Therefore I say Bangladeshis were not victims, but PARTISANS in a conflict. PARTISANS who wish to impose a Victor`s peace want history to record their judgement against a defeated foe. The Nuremberg trials are a classic example. I think its safe to say that THE GERMAN PEOPLE SUPPORTED THE WAR. And, it is equally safe to say that THE PAKISTANI PEOPLE SUPPORTED ALL ACTIONS TAKEN TO SUPPRESS THE INSURRECTION in EAST PAKISTAN IN 1971 by their valient army against who intended to divvy the nation, place themselves atop the new hierarchy of power and enjoy the spoils. The Pak army represented THE WILL OF THE NATION. Pakistanis and Germans viewpoints today

are less relevant than they were at the time the events occured. Therefore these `Show trials` you propose are meaningless. True, you may feel some moral triumph. I cannot deny that, but essentially

the army represented the will of the people, there is no other explanation why after 28 years Mujib is still reviled as a `ghaddar` in Pakistan

today by the people at large. But, again, Pakistan is also just as guilty of national myth making, and painting things in black and white. As an objective historian i see it clearly enough. I also know it starts at an early school going age.

This is my objective view of the situation. I need also remind you again, that NO ONE IN THE PAKISTAN ARMY HAS EVER BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING A `WAR CRIME` IN 1971. Now, its possible that IF that were to happen, history would be reevaluated by certain segments of society in Pakistan, who may well be unaware, but frankly, after examing the numbers of casualties claimed by Bengalis, i think Indian and Bengali propaganda has prevailed.

3 million dead, 10 million refugess

-I addressed this earlier, no one managed to explain how each (on average) of the 90,000 Pakistani troops managed to kill 33 Bengalis each, or displace 99. I find the figures are highly suspect. The real numbers were buried under an emotional wave of Bengali sentiments, and calculated Indian deceit, fed to visting dignitaries and foreign journalists in an uneending stream, leading to the creation of the national myth which you now so ardently believe in. And most Pakistanis when confronted by a detailed analysis of media behavior during the crisis and other accounts that exist would find that is in fact the `version` of the truth they find most plausible. But don`t worry, this discussion has not been entirely futile, it will be debated further in various drawing rooms in Pakistan and 1971 will be rehashed. No one is really happy about how things turned out. Doesn`t however translate into a willingness to hang everyone involved, or turn them over for so called `war crimes`(trials), over a dead issue. Nor does any particular Pakistani government on the horizon wish to offend the army, or reexamine what is for most people in Pakistan, like yourself in Bangladesh in terms of historical interpretation; a settled question. There are few in Pakistan who would support your cause openly without finding themselves taking an unexpected swim in the Arabian sea, with bricks tied to their feet if it ever came to that, which it won`t.:) That at least is my suspicion and personal opinion.

To FerozK (post 228):

I am not sure why my post got truncated.

It has happened to me before. Here I try again:

I apologize if I have indeed misunderstood FerozK`s post. I have no problem with it as long as he acknowledges the enormity of the crimes of Hitler and Yahya Khan. I don`t think these were merely two more human tragedies in a series of human tragedies. Pointing that out in no way diminishes any other tragedy. Any such claim is specious, at best.

It had seemed to me that FerozK was indirectly questioning the comparison of the Kosovo tragedy with the Bangladesh tragedy by author Jamal Hasan. I didn`t think that was fair. Mr. Jamal Hasan very clearly laid out the criterion for his
comparison. Mr. Hasan had merely pointed out that the scale of killing was different. No where did Mr. Jamal Hasan ``diminish`` the sufferings of Kosovars. I strongly felt that FerozK`s comment was unwarranted. Mr. Jamal Hasan wrote nothin to
deserve it.

Reply to Rishi (post 226)

Rishi`s example of Muslim mobs in Lahore is not quite an example of the type of mass murder and rapes that was carried out by the soldiers of the Pakistan army in the full knowledge of its Generals, Brigadiers, Colonels and Lt. Colonels. The genocide in Bangladesh, like the one in Hitler`s Germany, was an institutionalized crime carried out under the orders of the senior-most officials of the state against innocent men, women and children.

Veteran journalist, Z.A.Suleri, was reminded of the ``banality of crimes`` in mid-June of 1971 when he was shocked to hear Pak Army Officers nonchalantly joking of the rapes in East Pakistan as a service to the nation to improve the genes of Bengalis!

The systematic atrocities in Bangladesh and Nazi Germany are often a class apart from the ones committed by a faceless lynch mob. The latter happens not necessarily because of the people in
power or the laws of the land but in spite of them.

Rishi also stated, ``Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the burden of proof has to be
provided by the Bangladeshis. So if they accuse the colonel of war crimes they need to provide concrete evidence . And till now, this has not come out. So atleast in my view, there seems no evidence of war crimes on the colonel`s part based on these discussions.``

I am not sure what Rishi is trying to say.Whether the Lt. Colonel is actually a war criminal or not can only be decided in a court of law. But very specific allegations have been made against the Lt. Colonel (murder of Mr. Samsuddin, the project engineer of Wapda, and the loot and destruction of a shop owned by a Bengali in the cantonment area by soldiers under his command.) Furthermore, posts have reported the atrocities by soldiers in areas under his command in places like Comilla and Chittagong. I think enough has been said to convince readers that author Jamal Hasan had cause to allege that the Lt. Colonel fits the profile of a war criminal.

Dr. Tanveer Saleh has posted information that points to the murderer of Mr. Samsuddin. But the Lt. Colonel need not personally pull the trigger to be culpable for the crimes. General Pinochet is not in trouble because he personally killed anyone.

The systematic rape and murder of Bengalis has been well documented. These were committed under the illegal orders of the hiighest ranking military officers of the land. Lt. Colonel would be culpable if he failed to resist the illegal orders from above or turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed by the soldiers under his command.

For example, it would be quite relevant to find out if the Lt. Colonel ever took action against any of the soldiers who had looted and destroyed the shop owned by a retired Bengali subedar in the cantonment area. The Lt. Colonel has clearly admitted in his book that he was aware of the crime at the time it happened or soon after. But there is nothing in the book to suggest that he took any action against any of the soldiers for the crime.

reply to post #218 by OMAR1974:

OMAR1974 wrote: ``You people want to fulfill some notion of justice? I’ll give you an idea of what justice is. Justice is the discretion of the powerful and the mighty. Nothing more. Take my word for it. What kind of justice do you think you’ll get? Putting old men on trial for what? As for name calling, ‘war criminal’ is name calling too.``

RESPONSE: Nazis continue to be put on trial even 44 years after the end of WWII. The current crop of defendants are all ``old men.`` Nevertheless, they are being dragged to court. Why should it be any different for an old war criminal in Pakistan?

Mr. O.Mirza claims to have had some legal training. To be fair, he has admitted that he still hasn`t cleared the Bar Exam. And understandably so. Anyone who claims, ``Justice is the discretion of the powerful and the mighty. Nothing more. Take my word for it.`` is singularly lacking in probity and in the legal training that is necessary to function as a lawyer in a democracy like America.

To FerozK (post #228):

To FerozK (post #228):

I agree with your analysis Rishi; the cause should be considered. I also think that you`re a lot closer to what I was trying to say about Shoah and yes, our Bangladeshi friends do not seem to grasp that distinction between the Shaoh and the events of 1971, but my point was what is there to be gained by comparing different examples of genocide? Why can not we just let the infamy of one genocide stand on its own? Does comparing it to another makes it any worse?

Re: Khokan #203

Sir, you seem to be twisting my words! I never denied the existence of Shoah nor minimized its severity. I think that Rishi understood quite clearly what I meant and he said it better than I could. What I was attempting to suggest was that the acts of the Pakistani Army, against the people of Bangladesh, were awful in themselves and they do not need to be vaildated by being compared to another genocide.

For what ever reasons which only you can understand best, you seem to be suggesting that I am fudging history by denying the crimes of Hilter and Yahya Khan. I have done neither. To deny Shoah is to live in a fool`s paradise and as far as the Bangladeshi crimes are concerned, I have, on the record in this forum, stated that I would like to see the truth emerge and that Pakistani actions, in 1971, were wrong and that we Pakistanis owe the people of Bangladesh an explanation and an apology for our actions. That in itself should imply, to you, that I realize that injustice was done in 1971 and amends should be made to ask forgiveness from the victims. As a Pakistani I am not particularly proud of what happened and even though I was just a child, I still bear guilt associated with those dark days.

To be perfectly honest with you, sir, your comments dismayed me greatly. Yes, my standards of defining a genocidal crime is perhaps more stringent and requires a higher burden of evidence. In the posts so far, there has been enough evidence presented to allege war crimes were indeed committed. I am not denying that crimes were committed as you seem to suggest and i fail you just where or how you could transmutate my post to suggest that inference.

As I have said on many occassions in these InterActs, this is a highly emotional topic and it needs to be discussed with a level headed maturity. You are more than welcome to vilfy my character if that pleases you, but the question still remains; how does that help your cause? Personal vilification will not help you or your cause and it will only engender bitterness and hostility for you personally. Please bear in mind that on this issue I am on your side of the fence! Furthermore, because I am on your side does not suggest that I have given up my rights to question and have an independent opinion, from yours, on this topic. As a personal habit, I do not and I have never followed the party line unquestioningly.

I have no personal animinity towards you and either do I condsider your post # 203 to be truly indicative of you. That post was more an emotional knee jerk reaction and than an intellectual argument to my post. My last and final comment to you, sir, would that there are many Pakistanis who support you and it would do your cause and you ill good to vilfy their characters and twist their words, because though they agree you with, they do not see eye to eye with you on all aspects of this issue. Personally I have no grievence against you and I would suggest, most humbly and respectfully, not emotionalize this issue and demonize those who seem to agree with you, but not a 100 percent of the time and not on all aspects of this issue. It is unbecoming you as a decent human being and it is unbecoming the cause which you care about.

To FerozK (post #228):

Re: All

Atrocities were committed on both sides of the border during partition. It is irrelevant to compare who suffered the most. And even if such a comparison is indeed made, the results are debatable. However let me add that My family too suffered a very sad phase during those times. Murders, lootings, and rapes were committed in my family too by Muslims who were neighbours and friends of my family till the other day. Muslim neighbours and servants who had carried the daughters of the household on their shoulders till the other day, raped them and murdered them when the frenzy became high. Remember Lahore was a Hindu majority city till then. Those Muslim mobs probably felt that their religion condoned their behavior. However, It is just plain stupid if i hold the grudge against another muslim just because he belongs to the same faith as those who committed the rape and murder. Heck, such rape and murder are being committed on all grounds, religion, sects, money, power, politics and what not. Sunnis do it against Shias, Iranians did that with the Iraqis, the Iraqis did that with the kuwaitis, the Serbs do that with the Albanians, the Pakistanis did that with the Bengalis and almost every sect of people appear to be guilty of these acts. Look at how the taliban treats its own citizen even in todays world. Whom will these innocent women in Afghanistan hold a grudge against. ? I don`t want to be a part of the lunacy which is sometimes being perpetuated as an eye for an eye. I do not think it makes sense in dreaming of taking revenge and drinking blood of all the people belonging to a different religion at all. If so, who would take revenge for all those massacre ever perpetuated till date.

Having said that, while it is difficult to label a whole group of people as guilty of genocide just because one of them was indeed guilty, it need not apply the same way when one person is accused of the same guilt.

Hence, one can point a finger at an army officer and accuse him of war crimes. However one cannot point a finger at all pakistanis and blame them of war crimes . That would be simply untenable.

And my understanding is that all the Bangladeshis posting in these columns, do not accuse all the Pakistanis guilty of crime, even when some of the participants accused all the Bangladeshi`s as unworthy, untrustable and traitors and criminals.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the burden of proof has to be provided by the Bangladeshis. So if they accuse the colonel of war crimes they need to provide concrete evidence . And till now, this has not come out. So atleast in my view, there seems no evidence of war crimes on the colonel`s part based on these discussions.

But then, talking of lopping off the heads of all the sikhs for some unpardonable crimes committed by a few of them in the past is downright ridiculous. And saying that one is capable of lopping off the heads of all the sikhs is chestbeating at its wildest imagination. What else can i say ?

Rishi

In post # 218, OMAR1974 wrote:

``Forget about it. Move on with your lives. Or grant me my wish. The choice is yours. Trust me, I am not an adversary you EVER want to see pitted against you, Changez Khan had not my passion, in either battle or in a court of law or any other endeavor in life. I take no prisoners. Not even so called holocaust victims.``

RESPONSE: Why does Mr. O.Mirza continue to rant and rave? He has already been granted his wish. He had threatened Mr. Jamal Hasan/Chowk with a quarter million dollar suit unless the article was withdrawn and an apology offered to the so-called defamation victim, the infamous Z.A.Khan. Mr. O. Mirza boasts that Changez Khan had not his passion in a court of law. He boasts that he`ll take no prisoner.

But Mr. Jamal Hasan/Chowk has remained unmoved. They have thrown down the gauntlet. The ball is now in the Brigadier`s court. Mr. Jamal Hasan/Chowk has essentially told the nephew, Mr. Omar Mirza, ``Go to court, be my guest, make my day.``

Hopefully, Mr. Omar Mirza will soon realize that such bravado was as imprudent as it was unwarranted for a unworthy cause like that of Lt. Colonel Z.A.Khan. The nephew`s time will be better spent studying for the Bar Exam. And believe me, the uncle will heave a big sigh of relief. A day in court is the last thing that the uncle is looking forward to, and for very good reasons.

Re: mnkhan58 A Trial!:)

Why was Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan sacked in June 1971? Also, why did the military authorities in Dhaka ship the Lt. Colonel so hurriedly to West Pakistan?

Reply: I thought you had read the book. The entire book i mean. I also know what your assumption is, you spelled it out before. But your inference is unjustified as related to any allegations made against him. The details are in the book, if you care to figure out why by reading carefully. I think its obvious from the entire book, taken as a whole, that Z.A Khan was an outspoken man, who never shied from confrontation if he felt his superiors were behaving like asses and jeopardizing the lives of his men unnecessarily just to get their faces in the newspaper. Unfortunately for you, this only goes to show that he was an honorable man, a man of principles, as do a number of other incidents described within it that have nothing to do with his time in East Pakistan at all. Any other inference you may care to draw is wholly based on your overactive imagination and without basis.



regards,

(grin)

OMAR1974 wrote in posts # 215 & 216

``The truth is that Mujib was BOTH, `a liberator` and `a Traitor`. And you can apply this analogy to all the Pakistani Generals as well, in the same manner. And they can all be BOTH things simultaneously, as I explained in my prior post. It’s a question of perspective. And which jaundiced eye one is taught to view history from. For Bengalis they are `war criminals,` because they are on the `wrong side` of history, for Pakistanis they are `heroic defenders of the fatherland.` That is all there is to it. Holier than thou`s be forewarned, I am your worst nightmare, no matter which side you`re on.

In any event, a thoroughly enjoyable discussion for me.``

RESPONSE: This is quite a come-down for the avenger O. Mirza who had threatened Mr. Jamal Hasan/Chowk with law suit unless they issued immediate retraction and apology for the article. He had used his half-baked legalese in ample measure to sound convincing. Mr. O.Mirza had been strutting and posturing on Chowk. He had assured the readers that Brigadier Z.A.Khan has an able lawyer in his nephew O.Mirza who will extract a quarter million dollar from Mr. Jamal Hasan for defamation and slander.

Well, the bottom line is that Mr. Jamal Hasan/Chowk has not bothered to respond to the threats. They haven`t retracted a thing. And they haven`t apologized. In other words, they have called Mr. O.Mirza`s bluff. Essentially Mr. Jamal Hasan is telling Mr. Mirza, ``Go ahead, go to court and make my day.`` Mr. O.Mirza has now been reduced to wailing that the detractors have little to gain by calling Brigadier Z.A.Khan a war criminal or dragging that old man to court.

He is peading that Brigadier Z.A.Khan may be a traitor to Bengalis but he should be seen as a liberator by the Pakistanis.

I have no doubt that Mr. O.Mirza is quite capable of seeing both a liberator and a traitor in Adolph Hitler. That is indeed his prerogative. But he cannot expect others to see the world through his eyes. Adolph Hitler is a monster in the eyes of most people. There is little that Mr. O.Mirza can do to change that perception.

Furthermore, Mr. O.Mirza is wrong to say that the Pak Generals may have been traitors in the eyes of Bengalis but that they were patriots and liberators in the eyes of the Pakistanis. That is rubbish. The generals are traitors in the eyes of all Pakistanis. It was their ambition, greed and thievery that led to the 1971 genocide. The Pakistani army officers had a vested interest to portray the tragedy as a struggle against Hindus and India. And when that strategy failed, the army officers went on to portray it as a struggle against Bengalis who were painted as ``bad Miuslims,`` ``ghaddars,`` ``descendants of Mir Jafa`` and so on.

The nephew (O. Mirza) and the daughter (Muneezae Alam Khan) have continued to mouth those invectives in a dishonest bid to prove that the Pak army was fighting the East Pakistanis on behalf of the West Pakistanis. The army officers were fighting for themselves. They were fighting to maintain their grip on power and on their ill-gotten wealth. They were fighting to make sure that a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth continue to be funneled into the coffers of the army.

The Awami League had won a majority in the National Assembly much to the consternation of the top brass in the army. The Awami League was the enemy because it was bound by its election promises to stop issuing blank checks to the thugs in the army. The Awami League was the enemy because with the help of parties like the NAP, it was in a position sent the generals back to the barracks where they belonged.

The Pak generals were an evil lot. They were willing to go to any length, even genocide, to preserve their power and privileges. It was downright dishonest and devious that these generals claimed that they were fighting for West Pakistanis against East Pakistanis in the hope that the people of West Pakistan would wink at their heinous crimes.

Mr. O.Mirza is continuing with the same tradition of subterfuge when he claims that the generals are liberators in the eyes of Pakistanis. Nothing can be further from truth. The Generals, Brigadiers and Lt. Colonels who perpetrated the crimes in East pakistan were traitors, period. They did it for feathering their own nest. They did it at a heavy cost to the country. It was the ambition, the greed and the thievery of the army officers that led to the genocide.

The army hasn`t changed much in the last 27 years.

Honesty and integrity in a Pakistani military officer continues to be the exception rather than the rule. They continue to rule the roost with an iron hand.

It is to Pakistan`s interest to make sure that the war criminals do not escape punishment. Otherwise, every Pakistani, be he a Sindhi or a Baloch, a Ahmadiyya or a Zikri, will continue to run the risk of the same fate that befell the Bengalis in 1971. The war criminals do not represent the ordinary Pakistanis. War crime trials are necessary, not for revenge, but for justice and for the good of all Pakistanis.

Re: The Anonymous PPP Party functionary

Sue me! :)

I`ll enjoy that one. As for Statements against the PPPs leadership, these are amply corraborated by the actions of Pakistani courts rectly, and also by the N.Y Times in the not so distant past, as well as by Mrs.Bhutto`s own statements incriminating herself in the National Assembly during her second term in office.

I think Mrs. Bhutto should start worrying about whether interpol will be picking her up soon or not at her residence in England.

Omar Mirza