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

Re: # 297
If this Bihari soldier ( Ziaur...) was so brave then, why Niazi has to surrender to Lt. Arora? All these brave Bangladeshi soldiers arrived after Indian Army left BD. The greatest mistake comitted by Mrs. Indira Gandhi was to create BD. She had better option in her hand. Exchange moslems from India and push more Biharis in East Pakistan and take away non-moslems from that area. Pakistan would have agreed to that. It would have been permanent problem for Pakistan and India would have been spared in J & K.

Jamal Hasan,

I offer my sincere condolences for all lives lost in Bangladesh during the 1971 war.

With an erupting and continuing war, there are no winners on either side of the fence. And humanity loses, in the end, the drive to persist evolution.

I hope the tragedy of death from wars will one day end. And humans will one day learn to propagate the politics of peace and subjugate the politics of war.

Inna Lilla Hi Wa Inna Ileihi Ra`ji uun.

Peace!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Title: The Trial of Henry Kissinger (English)

Author: Christopher Hitchens

Review: This books describes how US and then Foreign Secretary Henry Kissinger were involved in supporting Pakistan in the massacre of 3.6 million Bengalis during the Bangladesh liberation war. Also they were involved in coup of Bangladesh which killed Shiekh Hasina`s entire family.

With the detention of Augusto Pinochet, and intense international pressure for the arrest of Slobodan Milosovic, the possibility of international law acting against tyrants around the world is emerging as a reality. In this incendiary book, Hitchens takes the floor as prosecuting counsel and mounts a devastating indictment of a man whose ambitions and ruthlessness have directly resulted in both individual murders and widespread, indiscriminate slaughter. He investigates and reveals Kissingers` involvement in: the deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina; the deliberate collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh; the personal suborning and planning of a murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation that the USA was not war with - Chile; the incitement and enabling of a mass genocide in East Timor; and the personal involvement in the kidnap and murder of a journalist living in Washinton DC.

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html

Cover story

THE TIMES, UK



A state of war



BY TREVOR FISHLOCK



The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?



Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”

India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.

Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.

In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.

It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.

Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.

The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.

Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.

Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.

The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.

At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.

Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.

India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.

India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.

Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.

Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.

Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.

Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.

The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.

Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.

In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.

Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.

It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.

It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.

In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.

People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.

Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.

Here are some of the Websites

Here are some ..........

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

http://www.bangladeshonline.com/liberationwar/genocide.htm

http://www.hrcbm.org/forums/HRCBM_Human_Rights_Discussion_/posts/11.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/8182/inda5.htm

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM

http://kothon.org/holo.htm

http://www.bangladesh.net/muktijuddha/index2.html

http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/rafiqul_islam.html

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/joan_baez_and_our_liberation_war.htm

http://www.msstate.edu/org/ba/focus_march.html



http://www.liberationmuseum.org/killhold.html



http://www.liberationmuseum.org/

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/7297/

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?jhasan_apr0799

A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide in Bangladesh

Replies http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?jhasan_apr0799

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

Another Link - http://www.bangladesh.cc/history/hamid1.shtml

Books

Genocide in East Pakistan/Bangladesh: A Horror Story.

By Bhattacharyya, S. K.

Published by A Ghosh (Jul 1, 1988)

ISBN: 0961161434 Original list price: $16.50

Publisher`s reported availability: Apply Direct

Binding: Paperback

The following paragraphs are quite graphic yet painful to read. This gives an overview of Pakistani army`s atrocity in nine months of 1971 in Bangladesh under occupation:

THOSE SISTERS OF OURS.

WHOM WE COULD NOT SAVE, DID NOT MOURN AND NEVER REMEMBERED.

I was in the S.F. Canteen of Rajarbag Police Line when the Pak-Army attacked on 25th March 1971.....Our brave Police force could not stand in front of their mortars on the 26th morning. In the morning they put fire around the S.F line and brought the Bangalee Polices out with bayonet, baton and kicking. They brought me also on gun-point, kicked me on the ground and burst into laughter like dogs while raping me one after another. When I was almost dyeing I cried and pleaded to them not to kill me because I was a sweeper, if I was killed there would be nobody to clean the toilet and drains....Then they said I would be spared but I had to be always present there and would not go out.........While I was cleaning the drain I saw many girls and women were brought in the barrack. Many were taken upstairs, some were kept in the balcony. Some of them had books in their hands, some were with some ornaments and they were weeping........the Punjabi soldiers entered in groups and kicked them on the ground, took their cloths off and started raping them. Some started raping in standing condition. I was seeing.........they not only raped them, they were biting their breasts, chicks.....flesh was coming out, blood flew throughout their breasts, shoulders, back....whoever tried to resist them, they dragged them by their hair, cut off their breasts and inserted the gun in their bodies from the front and the back and tore their bodies into pieces. Some, after rape, tore their blood-stained bodies of some girls in

two pieces by pulling their legs in opposite direction......I saw it all.......not only the common soldiers, but also the officers were busy raping them one after another after being drunk. No girl, no woman was spared for a moment. Many young girls breathed their last breath in deep cry of pain.....next day they cut their bodies in small pieces right in front of other women/girls and took out in bags. they became more scared and did not resist anything.........Some women cooperated them just to keep alive but even they were not spared.... officers used to gang-rape them and cut off their breasts, backs, and insert sharp knives in their bodies from front and back, thus killing them in their burst of laughter.

After that these women/girls were kicked and whipped like animals and kept

standing naked in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors of the barrack. Many were kept hanging with their hairs tied with the iron rods. Everyday the Punjabis used to pass them by, bitting them with baton like a hysteric, some used to cut their breasts off, some used to laugh while inserting rods in their bodies, some used to enjoy cutting their back very slowly, some used to stand on chairs and bite-off their breasts and laugh loud.......if anyone tried to scream, she was immediately killed by pushing rods in their bodies.All the women/girls had their hands tied back.......many a times the soldiers used to bit those naked hanging women/girls continuously. Due to such nonstop bitting everyday, their

bodies were flooded with blood, none of them had any teeth left in the front, their lips were torn by biting, all their flingers, palms were broken to mince........they were never untied even to go to toilets......I used to clean their stool and urine.........Many many women died due to nonstop rape in hanging condition in front of my eyes........I was there day and night for cleaning those blood and dirts.......from the upper floors they used to remove the distorted dead bodies of women/girls ........used to bring new ones, hang them and start raping them immediately.......Always there was armed guard and no Bangalee even no other sweeper was allowed to go there.......I could not save them inspite of their heart-breaking cry. In a very early morning of April 1 was cleaning the urine and stool of the hanging women, then I was very much moved for a college-girl named Ranu of 139 Siddheshwary. I covered her with the cloths of a sweeper and somehow took her outside the Police-Line. I never saw her again.......When in December the Freedom Fighters and Indian soldiers entered Dhaka, the Punjabis killed all the women/girls with bayonet in

front of our eyes. .......In all the rooms of upstairs of Rajarbag Police Line, there was so much clotted blood of these women/girls..........

Thumb-signature:- Rabeya Khatun

18-2-74.

Taken from:- Pages 53-56, ``Muktijudhhher Itihash`` vol-8

http://www.kothon.org/ Bangladesh genocide

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/BC21Df03.

Caught between here, there, and nowhere

By Tabibul Islam

DHAKA - It`s not a shortage of eligible grooms, but an acute accommodation problem that`s the reason behind a large number of women remaining single in the cramped refugee camps for Pakistani nationals in Bangladesh.

Hard pressed to raise money to build even an extra room, refugee parents are in a bind. There are some 20,000 unmarried girls in the 65 camps spread across the country. These were set up to shelter Pakistanis who remained after the creation of Bangladesh in December 1971.

``Where shall I live with my wife if I marry right now?`` asks a 30-year-old man, pointing to the tiny one room in which he lives with his parents, and eight siblings and cousins in a camp at Mohammadpur.

Sheikh Md Jalaluddin owns a small semi-permanent room in the camp. His two daughters are of marriageable age, but he cannot afford to build two rooms for them. Each would cost about $700. ``Where can I get so much money from?`` he laments.

These refugees, who are called Biharis since they are originally from Bihar, India - having migrated to what was then East Pakistan in 1947 - have been interred in refugee camps in the hope of being repatriated to Pakistan. But successive governments in Islamabad have stalled on the issue, unwilling to risk a backlash against a fresh flux of outsiders in Sindh province where a majority of refugees from India had settled following the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Nor are the Urdu-speaking Biharis are welcome in Bangladesh. Though the majority of refugees in the camps were born after 1971, they are still seen as having sided with the Pakistani army during the country`s liberation war. Over the last two decades they have tried all possible ways to draw international attention to their plight, taking to the streets, holding demonstrations and hunger protests. ``Our life is hell, the animals are better than us,`` says a very bitter Jalaluddin, a refugee.

Tanvir Adnan, a young Bihari thinks there`s no future for young people like him in the camps. It`s worse for the girls, he says. There`s every chance of their going ``astray``, he adds. Another refugee said young women in the camps are targetted by sex-traffickers and pimps. There is a hint that sometimes the girls leave willingly because of the bleakness of life in the camps.

Ejaj Ahmed Siddiqui, chairman of the one of the groups representing the refugees, says his organization offers monetary assistance for the marriage of poor Bihari girls. ``But our capacity to help is limited,`` he adds.

The Bihari refugee camps are squalid. Piles of garbage lie unclaimed, everywhere. Sanitation is deplorable and water supply is scarce. Residents have to queue up for hours to use the toilets. Tempers run high, and fights and scuffles are common sights as people hurriedly try to get ready for work. Many of the younger people have found jobs in the garment and sari-weaving factories, handicraft units and other small establishments. But many more are involved in the illicit liquor trade, and in petty crime.

Older refugees blame Pakistan for the mess they are in. After four rounds of repatriation of some 175,000 Biharis between 1974 and 1992, the rest have been left to languish in camps, they say.

Refugees under 35 years are increasingly reluctant to share their parents` hopes of migrating to Pakistan. Born in Bangladesh, they want to become Bangladeshi citizens.

A 40-year-old Bihari with two children said two generations of his people have led ``sub-human`` lives in refugee camps awaiting repatriation. ``Our children are now studying in Bangladeshi schools and speak Bangla. Bangladeshi culture is now our culture. We have no intention to go to Pakistan if the Bangladesh government gives us citizenship, voting rights and other facilities,`` he says determinedly.

Some refugee leaders are now publicly making this demand. Addressing a press conference at the National Press Club, Dhaka, on March 5, Sadakat Khan, president of a refugee youth organization, said they would ``prefer`` to stay. ``We prefer to rehabilitate and settle ourselves in Bangladesh deviating from the earlier stand of repatriation which seems a closed chapter with no prospect at all.``

Urging the government to accept them as nationals, he said Pakistan has betrayed them. He said that while Pakistan provided food and shelter, and even arms, to some 4 million Afghan refugees during the communist-rule in Kabul, it ignored the Biharis in Bangladesh.

``Pakistan is testing nuclear bombs and weapons and also providing help to Kashmiris fighting against India. But it is a matter of shame to say that Pakistan cannot afford the burden of its own citizens stranded in Bangladesh,`` said Khan.

http://sg.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/afp/article.html?s=singapore/headlines/000326/asia/afp/Victim_of_1971_Bangladeshi_war_finds__great_joy__in_the_truth.html

Sunday, March 26 12:59 PM SGT

Victim of 1971 Bangladeshi war finds `great joy` in the truth

DHAKA, March 26 (AFP) -

As Bangladesh celebrated the 29th anniversary of its independence on Sunday, the first woman to go public about the torture she suffered at the hands of the Pakistani army says she has found ``great joy`` in facing the truth.

``There is a great joy in coming to terms with the truth, but the pain and sorrow would never go away,`` Ferdousy Priyabhashini, a celebrated sculptor who was among the at least 250,000 women raped during the war, told AFP in an interview on Saturday.

Priyabhashini explained she had reconciled herself to the fact she was a ``victim of circumstance`` and needed to tell a new generation about the bad months.

Collaborators and Islamic fundamentalists who helped the Pakistani army now want to downplay those events, she said.

``I want to be alone when the melancholic winds of March (the month of independence) start blowing, which at one time made me romantic and now takes me back to those horrific days of pain and anguish,`` she said.

``I can only say I was trapped to my fate.``

Priyabhashini, a mother of six, said that when she decided to go public in Bangladesh`s conservative Muslim society she told her husband she was ``responsible for everything and I have nothing to lose whether the society accepts or rejects me.``

A mere 22-years-old in 1971, she went public in November 10, 1999, when her story was published in ``Tormenting `71,`` a book by prominent anti-fundamentalist Ekkaturer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee.

At least three million Bengalis were killed in Bangladesh`s 1971 independence war against Pakistan, and 250,000 women were raped during those nine months, according to official estimates.

Priyabhashini, then a divorced mother of three, fell into a trap set by Urdu-speaking Pakistani collaborators in May of that year after failing to run away and returning to her job at the privately owned Crescent Jute Mills in southwestern Khulna district.

She was alone as the Pakistani army launched its military crackdown code-named ``Operation Searchlight`` to silence the independence movement.

``I can never say or give the real picture of my horrific days in captivity and the killings I saw at that time,`` she said, suddenly becoming silent.

Priyabhashini came face-to-face with her first horror as soon as she stepped into the place she thought would be her ``shelter`` -- the home of her Urdu-speaking boss.

She fell victim to the man, who she said once treated her as a younger sister, immediately on entering the house. Between May and Bangladesh`s Victory Day on December 16 she was tortured and raped by Pakistani army officers based in Khulna and Jessore.

``In that house, owned by the jute mill owners, I saw whisky on the table and I still wondered why was this man who I saw always as my elder brother behaving like that with me ... I was so naive I did not even understand that a war of such great magnitude had broken out,`` she said.

``My boss made me a prisoner and before going to inform his military officers he told me `don`t go anywhere, army officers will come here`,`` she said, still seething with bitterness.

``I was supposed to be killed and often wonder why I am alive. Maybe I feared death and learned to survive during those tormenting days.

``I saw truckloads of Bengalis being brought to the mill and beheaded by a machine at the factory before being thrown into the adjacent river.``

Asked about her experiences after going public, Priyabhashini said ``it was my life`s greatest gift when my fried, and now my husband, accepted me along with my children despite my tragedy.``

``I never want any sympathy from anyone.``

Her husband Ahsan Ullah Ahmed, employed in a private company, said his wife`s decision to publicize her case ``has not changed our life.``

``I think how helpless one can be in her own country and I could not help her, besides there are so many more women who even suffered more than my wife,`` he said.

Bangladesh relives the horror of 1971 war after mass grave find

DHAKA, Aug 15 (AFP) - Nearly three decades after its independence war, Bangladesh has been given a grisly reminder of a massacre of its people carried out by Pakistani troops and their

Bangladeshi collaborators.

Since the discovery of a previously unknown mass grave on July 27, hordes of people, including writers, television and film stars, students and relatives of the dead, have crowded the muddy site

in Mirpur.

Bangladesh`s leading poet Shamsur Rahman said after visiting the grave: ``These people who committed the murders did not have a heart nor any humanity in them.

``I think some of the killers are still here and if found and pressed, a lot can emerge about the atrocities carried out in this area.``

Home Minister Mohammad Nasim, speaking to local residents Friday, said ``they (Pakistanis) and their local collaborators surpassed all records of brutality.

``The killers of 1971 must be tried,`` he declared, echoing a popular demand by war veterans, victims` families and cultural groups.

Bangladesh, then known as East Pakistan, became independent after a nine-month war in 1971.

After the latest find, a fact-finding committee led by M.A. Hassan, a doctor and war veteran, contacted the International Court of Justice in the Hague and prepared a draft case.

``I don`t want a trial of the Pakistanis as they are not here, but of those, the collaborators ... who helped in the genocide,`` local resident Mithun said.

The discovery of more mass graves dating from the war was likely, sources said.

Witnesses to mass executions have guided investigators to possible sites of further graves, but most were scared to go public, possibly because the area was still dominated by Urdu-speaking Biharis, officials said.

Biharis migrated to the area after the 1947 partition of the Indian sub-continent. They were against Bangladesh`s independence and refused to accept Bangladeshi citizenship.

Hasan said a forensic study of remains found in the grave showed some were beheaded or chopped to pieces, while others were tortured and shot.

Witness Fakir Shahabuddin said he identified at least seven ``large`` mass graves in Mirpur soon after independence.

``Bengalis have collected 1,000 scattered skulls from some parts of Mirpur and gave them to the government,`` he said.

The Museum and a War Crimes Fact-finding Committee led by Hasan have appealed to witnesses to come forward and a map was being prepared on the basis of eyewitness reports.

Army Chief Lieutenant General M. Mustafizur Rahman, a decorated war veteran, sent in his troops last week to help in the digging.

``It is our first such experience,`` said one trooper, as he worked along with labourers in the muddy 15-foot deep grave, with monsoon rains making conditions difficult.

``More remains are almost a certain after we go deeper ... the area around the well was a swamp, which was filled up later,`` one official said.

By Friday, parts of weapons and ammunitions from the dig marked POF or ``Pakistan Ordinance Factory`` had been found at the site, along with six skulls and some 800 bones -- the remains of 20 people.

The grave, a deep sealed well, came to light after workers building an extension to a mosque discovered skulls and bones. The Museum declared it a war grave more than a week ago.

The Mirpur and Mohammadpur areas were under the control of Pakistani collaborators until the end of January, 1972 -- 45 days after the war ended on December 16, 1971.

A number of mass graves have been found in Mirpur and the surrounding area since. Three million people died in the nine-month war.

THE FOLLOWING ESSAY IS REPRODUCED FOR WIDER

CIRCULATION:



The News

Tuesday, July 20, 1999

Rabi-us-Sani 06, 1420 A.H.

Evenings in Dhaka

By Anees Jillani

I had always wanted to visit East Pakistan. There was a time at school when I was even learning Bengali but the whole programme got scrapped

after General Niazi surrendered on December 16, 1971. I remember my father weeping after hearing of the surrender on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); Radio Pakistan till then was still working on the hypothesis that the Indian forces were on the verge of surrendering in Calcutta.

My father for a while, like many other Pakistanis, went through a metamorphosis: he switched from Gold Leaf to K2; began wearing khaddar and started a regular programme on television trying to raise people`s spirits. However, things soon returned to their old pattern and life was back to normal.

I was, therefore, excited when India`s General Meneakshaw`s daughter, Maja, invited me, along with some other very distinguished Pakistani

friends, to attend a meeting in Dhaka. I was surprised to find out that one needed a visa for going to our former wing but a friend in the

Bangladesh High Commission issued the visa in record time and free of charge. Then came my Biman flight from Karachi to Dhaka. I unfortunately chose a smoking seat and so ended up sleeping at the end. It was literally sitting in an inter-city bus in Bangladesh with passengers fighting with the stewardesses and water being served in a

strange looking jug. I am unsure till now if the water was filtered.

However, the first shock I got after landing was to find out that the Bangladeshi taka was stronger than our rupee: there are 48 takas to a dollar as opposed to 53 rupees in case of Pakistan. I had always assumed that Bangladesh would be an extremely congested and poor place. But as one of my teachers had once said that one should never assume because the break up of the word is `ass-u-me`.

Dhaka is Bangladesh`s biggest city with a population of around ten million. The only thing which strikes a visitor is the phenomenal number of cycle rickshaws. I was told that there are more than one million in Dhaka alone. As a result, the Dhaka population refuses to walk and prefers to use this mode of transportation even for short

distances. And the traffic, as a result, is totally chaotic. It moves at a snail`s pace following the pedalled rickshaws.

However, the economy is moving at a better pace. Bangladesh`s foreign exchange reserves at around two billion dollars are double those of Pakistan and its population growth rate stands at 1.73 per cent as opposed to 2.7 per cent in the case of Pakistan. Its literacy rate is 52 per cent while ours is only known to our able education minister but is probably somewhere in the thirties. About 97 per cent of the people have access to safe drinking water while only 79 per cent have this

facility in Pakistan. So, is Bangladesh better off being independent?

There are no two opinions about this in the country. I was in Dhaka for only three days as the fourth day was taken care of by a nationwide

strike called by the former Premier Khaleda Zia. However, I found time during those three days to visit Saddarghat in old Dhaka where you can see the river and the famous ferryboats constantly docking and leaving for other cities. Ferryboats are a popular and cheap mode of transportation and one can only find out the extent of the calamity

after looking at their size if any of them sinks. I was taking photographs at the dock surrounded by a small crowd which, of course, one should get used to in South Asia when suddenly a 40-plus person asked me where I was from. Upon hearing the magic word Pakistan, he instantly shouted at the peak of his voice that ZA Bhutto was corrupt and that he had destroyed the country. I kept quiet but he continued shouting and insisted upon telling me that he was a freedom fighter and what atrocities my country`s military had committed in East Pakistan. I was in Saddarghat with an Indian who had just returned to India after finishing his PhD from Harvard. Frankly, I was totally relaxed despite the belligerent attitude of the fellow because I always felt at home in Dhaka but my Indian friend, Vikram, was getting nervous with the swelling crowd. In order to ease Vikram`s fears, since he was lecturing both of us, I told the fellow that this guy is not from Pakistan but

from Delhi and that he helped you with your liberation. The fellow, who found time at the end of his shouting spree to inform us that he was

now a banker, however, was undeterred and kept yelling at Vikram while I took photographs.

Vikram was not amused. He took a boat ride while I just walked on the dock. Another person asked me where I was from and upon my telling him Islamabad, he nostalgically told me that he had served with the Pakistan military in Kharian and Jhelum cantonments. Another crowd gathered and now people wanted to discuss Kargil and Kashmir. By that time, Vikram had returned and I jokingly told them that he is the bad guy who has taken away Kashmir from us. Upon hearing that he was from

India, one of the guys swayed his hand in front of his neck gesturing the chopping of one`s neck and uttered the word India. Vikram was now really nervous and rushed out asking me why were they anti-India when ``we had helped them`` with their liberation?

Bengal has always been a politically volatile region and the present Bangladesh society is no exception. The whole nation appears to be polarised between pro-India and pro-Pakistan factions. Wherever I went, people sympathised with me for Pakistan losing the final of the World

Cup 1999. Some even stoned vehicles after the defeat. As opposed to them, there are others like the banker we met who are extremely bitter about the brutalities committed by Pakistanis.

I spent the evenings at the Dhaka Club where the locals reminisced for hours about the inhuman acts committed by the Pakistanis from March to December 1971. People are still pained by those memories and I was at a loss to explain that how could we have killed tens of thousands of our own countrymen and yet not bothered to hold a single person accountable for those actions.

I also visited the Muktijuddha Jadughar Liberation Museum which is a private museum containing artifacts relating to the liberation struggle. One thing that instantly struck me was the fact that their heroes are our villains. They have pictures of their brave freedom fighters who killed some government official or a prominent politician

when we still hold the latter in greater esteem. Bangladesh traces its liberation struggle to Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah`s speech in

East Pakistan where he declared Urdu to be the sole and exclusive language of Pakistan. This policy eventually led to the Language Movement of 1952 in which several Bengalis were killed and which agitation is now commemorated by a memorial in Dhaka.

East Pakistan is now history and the mistakes we committed there cannot be undone. What struck me while visiting the liberation sites of Bangladesh was the irony that we still are making exactly the same miscalculations and our attitude and approach towards several of our ethnic communities is no different. It is still not too late in the day

to stop and act with a more open and positive attitude. And one of the steps that we could undertake not to repeat the past blunders is to

make the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report public and hold the peoplewho led to Pakistan`s dismemberment accountable.

Kudos to JR:

JR did a splendid job by posting Col. Afridi`s letter in this thread. This letter diminishes Brig. Z. A. Khan`s credibility to a good extent.

This debate sparked a resurrection of the spirit of 1971 in some young minds. Although the debate is almost moribund now, it will definitely be a milestone in projecting the Bengali victims` consciousness. The involvement of Z. A. Khan`s nephew and his daughter gave not only a new dimension to the debate, that was also a major factor to attract so many writers. In a sense Omar Mirza`s continuance of dialogue helped to keep the debate a record long.

The new generation of Bengalis will break the status quo prevailing in the arena of 1971`s spirit. It is a shame the older generation of Bengalis failed the spirit of the 3 million martyrs.

Mohammad Nawaz Khan

To

Editor,

Defence Journal,

Pathfinder Foundation,

Clifton,

Karachi.

Dear Sir,

Defence Journal October 1998, carries an article `The WAY IT WAS` by Brig (Retd) Z. A. Khan. The

account of 18 Division Operations is highly untrue and totally fabricated.

Briefly, 18 Division Operation Orders required one Infantry Brigade (206) with an Armoured Regiment (38

Cavalry) to capture and establish a firm base at Longanewala, a junction on the Indian road system and

another Infantry Brigade (51) with an Armoured Regiment (22 Cavalry) to operate beyond Longanewala to

capture Jaisalmir.

In accordance with the Division Orders for a night march, by dawn on December 4, 1971, 22 Cavalry

carrying three companies of an Infantry Battalion (38 Baluch) on the tanks had crossed the loose sandy desert

and had reached the Indian road running parallel to our border. In the early dawn, General Officer

Commanding (GOC), 18 Division arrived by helicopter and told Brigade Commander 51 Brigade that the

advance should be halted till the remaining force caught up. Due to Division failure in provision of transport,

the other Infantry Brigade was marching on foot along with the other Battalion of 51 Brigade. Other transport

carrying logistical supplies and even the artillery were finding the movement over the sand dunes very difficult.

The GOC said that 38 Cavalry command by Z. A. Khan was not operational. GOC said he was going to

push people forward and some essential demands placed on GHQ, including air support, had not been met

and he would get things expedited. During the next six or seven hours, except for some jeeps, no other troops

were able to cross the sandy desert to reach the road. The jeep borne elements of Reconnaissance and

Support Battalion (28 Baluch) were covering the flanks of the force. The enemy air was very active against the

tanks of 22 Cavalry and many were destroyed.

Towards evening since no troops had been able to reach the road, orders were received for 22 Cavalry to

move back to the green belt. 22 Cavalry tanks carried the 38 Baluch infantry back upto the point were the

infantry which was marching forward were met. 38 Baluch were dropped and, thereafter, 22 Cavalry was no

longer under command of 51 Brigade. The Infantry battalions of 206 and 51 Brigade deployed in a defensive

position and the Tactical HQ of both Brigades were located side by side. Attempts were being taken in hand

to deploy the force within range of own artillery.

We have now learnt from Lt. General Gul Hassan`s published MEMOIRS that, as Chief of General Staff at

GHQ he had no knowledge of this offensive and received the list of requirements after the operation had

actually started. He states, therefore, no support could be arranged.

Major General Abdul Hamid now assumed command of the Division. He ordered the Infantry Brigades to

leave a screen covering the approach they were guarding and the whole force to displace a few miles to the

North to cover the approaches to Rahim Yar Khan. He had been informed by GHQ that an enemy force,

located at Islamgarh, may advance against Rahim Yar Khan. As there was no North-South lateral at that time,

the force had to move back to the Green Belt and then move to the new deployment area. This manoeuvre

was completed within a few hours under cover of darkness. The force was deployed in defence till the end of

hostilities.

We have now learnt from Indian General D. K. Palit`s book `THE LIGHTING WAR`, that the Indians had

deployed, two Divisions against 18 Division front; one division opposite Chor and one Division at Islamgarh

for an advance against Rahim Yar Khan. General Palit says that the advance towards Chor went according to

plan but the advance from Islamgarh against Rahim Yar Khan was abandoned because of what he calls the

`Spoiling Attack` by 18 Division and, secondly, the `Loose Sand` that had been encountered.

38 Cavalry commanded by Z. A. Khan was never placed under command 51 Brigade. This is a matter of

record. The 51 Brigade Orders Group scene, described by Z. A. Khan, is totally imaginary and, therefore,

malicious. 51 Brigade Commander NEVER gave any orders to 38 Cavalry Commanding Officer or had any

dealings with this Officer at any time. 51 Brigade Commander held only one Orders Group prior to the night

advance and even that was attended by Second-in-Command 22 Cavalry. After 22 Cavalry was detached

from 51 Brigade on the first day, no Armoured unit was under command 51 Brigade. (Please see page 207,

18 Division Operations, `THE HISTORY OF PAK ARMY, 1966-71, Vol III, by Maj. General Shoukat

Riza).

18 Division campaign was subjected to a critical analysis by a series of teams sent out by the GHQ. These

operations were minutely examined by:-

a) Maj. General (Later Lt. General) Abdul Hamid who carried out a thorough post-mortem.

b) GHQ Team headed by Maj. General (Later Lt. General) A.B. Awan.

c) GHQ Team headed by Maj. General M. Akbar Khan (Later Lt. General, former Director

General, ISI).

d) Maj. General M. Iqbal Khan (Later General, Chairman, JCS and Governor).

Maj. General A.B. Awan, later, took over command of 18 Division. General Awan on leaving on promotion

to raise and command 5 Corps, selected 51 Brigade Commander Tariq Mir to be Corps Chief of Staff. Later

Tariq Mir also commanded another Brigade elsewhere. This would not have been possible had there been a

shred of truth in Z. A. Khan`s allegations.

It is true that Z.A. Khan carries a heavy burden because his regiment was not fit for war and he, thus, missed

the only opportunity of a life time of commanding troops in battle.

Old Z.A.`s biography, although, readable carries too many fabrications and his exploits will very likely be

placed in the category of those of Brig. General, the fictional hero created by Arthur Conan Doyle.

A prestigious journal, like the Defence Journal, dedicated to the promotion of high professional values, must

be careful that it is not used as a scandal sheet by being made to publish unsubstantiated allegations by persons

seeking personal vendetta. Please be gracious enough to publish the above account in full which will re-assure

us that you have no personal bias.

This has the full support and approval of Brig. (Retd) Tariq Mir who was astonished to read Z.A.`s account.

Lt. Col. (Retd) H.K. Afridi

No.17, St. 17, F-7/2

ISLAMABAD

As usual Desis find it hard to take anything to fruition. The `killer instinct`, the `finish` is lacking in every undertaking. Interests fade away and things are left hanging in the middle of nowhere. This is the truth with this discussion and this is the truth with the 1971 holocaust. How can justice ever be done?

New From Bangladesh

May 7, 1999

FEATURE

RAN BUT COULD NOT HIDE: QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAWONIUKS OF 1971

By: Ahmed Ziauddin

While the world`s attention had been focussed on Slobodan Milosevic`s mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, mass rape and genocide in Kosovo and in

response, NATO`s air strikes to cut him to size, the British High Court in London created an earthquake in legal history. The Court convicted a

78-year-old former British Rail employee for murdering two Jews in 1942 and ordered two life sentences. This is for the first time in Britain that the Court convicted for war crimes.

The judgement has far reaching consequences, not only in Britain but also in other countries. The judgement set out number of principles, significant for the tyrants like Pinochet and Milochevic. Pinochet is currently now in British custody for extradition proceedings.Milochevic`s fate has yet to be decided and perhaps soon. The law applied authorised the British court to try war criminals, perpetrators of genocide,

crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, even when the crimes were committed in a foreign country.

This case has established important precedents for the British Courts to follow in future. It also has reinforced principles of international law,

which courts in other jurisdiction could pursue.

Following this British case, which punished an aged war criminal, even after fifty-years of committing the crime, this essay, first will discuss the case in detail, analyse legal implications and then explore legal foundations for the perpetrators of Bangladesh genocide. It will examine facts, circumstances and legal principles of 1971 genocide. It will also try to

suggest, keeping in mind this British case, review the issues to bring to trial the perpetrators and collaborators of Bangladesh genocide.

Background:

The case came following one of the most expensive investigations spanning in different countries. This was not only the first British case to convict a war criminal, the case also created a number of other legal precedents. It was the first time a British jury had travelled abroad to see the scene of the crime. The jurors were taken to the scene of crime in Belarus. The accused became the first UK citizen accused of war crimes, and that the trial depended largely on the evidence of only one eyewitness.

The accused Anthony Sawoniuk, real name Andrei Andreeovich Sawoniuk alias Andrusha, was born on 7 March 1921 in Domachevo, in a remote area in Poland, which is now a part of Belarus. He never met his father, Yakub Pelageya, a schoolteacher. His mother, who died of cancer in 1939, worked as a maid in local Jewish families. His grandmother took him to her care. Fatherless, he survived because of the generosity of the wealthy Jewish families.

As a teenager, he begged for food or stole from gardens, and when there was no work in the town, he would travel long distance to find work and stay away for months. He lived in extreme poverty. His home was a sparse wooden bungalow, and he relied on the Jews for work.

In 1941, when Germany invaded Belarus and swept into his town, he quickly took up with the invading force. The Nazis within days of occupation killed 40 prominent Jews of his locality and herded 3,000 others into the ghetto,

where the Germans eventually killed them.

The Nazis also recruited a small force between 10 and 15 officers from the community. Sawoniuk was one of the first volunteers for the collaborating

police force. Eventually, he rose to the rank of senior officer before Germans withdrew three years later. It gave the penniless, restful youth

power of life or death over his Jewish former benefactors. According to prosecution, he displayed enthusiasm in dispensing his tasks of rounding up and murdering Jews trying to escape the massacre.

In July 1944, Sawoniuk left Domachevo to serve in a Belarussian Waffen SS Unit in Italy. Then in December, with the tide of the war turning against

the Germans, he went missing while serving in the crack SS Border Regiment. He had left to join Free Polish force, using his Polish birth certificate,

who were fighting alongside the British Army.

As the war ended, in mid-1945 he arrived in Britain in camps in Scotland and stayed there until well into 1946, when he was discharged. After leaving Scotland, he moved into Brighton, before finally settling in London in 1954

with his Irish wife, Anastasia. For the next seven years, he worked for the building department at St Francis Hospital, Dulwich. He joined British Rail

in 1961 and worked for them for the next 25 years. He even adopted British way of life including cockney accent.

Facts and the trial:

The prosecution claimed that he carried out the execution of Jews with ``enthusiasm``. He was a member of a ``search and kill`` team of policemen in

Demachevo. It was alleged that his job was to round up Jews who had fled to local forests after the German invasion and kill them.

The two men and two women, who, according to the British prosecutors, were killed by Sawoniuk, apparently escaped from the Jewish ghetto at Damachevo, where an estimated 3,000 Jews lost lives. Sawoniuk had plundered from the Jews, even having one of their houses rebuilt for him on his chosen site in the village. It still stands there

today. He carried out his police duties with sadistic fervor. Once, he discovered a young Jewish woman trying to smuggle a few potatoes into the ghetto and beat her savagely and put her into detention.

The Old Baily jury heard harrowing evidence from eyewitnesses. One man said he was forced to watch Sawoniuk command three Jews-two men one women-to

strip beside an open grave. He then shot them in the head and pushed their bodies into the grave with his knee. The witness, Alexander Baglay, who was 13 at the time then, forced to cover the pit with earth.

On the second count of murder, Fedor Zan said he saw Sawoniuk mow down 15 Jews with a submachine gun and push their bodies in an open grave. The

prosecution also used video footage and testimony from at least two elderly villagers still living in Domachevo.

The senior full-time London Magistrate Graham Parkinson heard evidence for six weeks and decided that there was a case to answer, although a fifth

charge relating to another Jew was discharged. The defendant was released on bail on condition that he remains living at his Bermondsey home.

During seven weeks hearing at the Criminal Court, the judge, Justice Potts, dismissed evidence related to two of the four cases. Sawoniuk said, he had fought partisans while in the police in Domachevo, but denied that the police killed any Jews.

The jury found him guilty by a majority of verdict of 10 to one. The judge said, he had been convicted on clear evidence, and sentenced to life for murdering the Jews.

Defense argued that he was too ill to stand trial. He has heart problems Sawoniuk was tried under the War Crimes Act 1991. United Kingdom did not have any war crimes legislation, following the post-war Nuremberg trials because politicians and civil servants insisted no war criminal had entered

UK. Finally, the Act was passed in 1991because extradition provisions failed to cover war crimes. It permitted prosecution of suspects who were not

British residents at the time of crimes not committed on British soil. Since the 1991 War Crimes Act came into force, a special police unit of the Metropolitan Police has investigated 376 cases. In nearly a third of these cases the suspects were already dead. In many more the accused were too old or too senile to be interviewed. Another 25 were clearly established as innocent.

The investigation:

The investigation that led to Sawoniuk`s arrest, trial and conviction began in 1946 by the Soviet secret police KGB. Since his disappearance from

Domachevo, the villagers who survived the brutality of German occupation did not forget him. The KGB started investigation and agents were sent to Domachevo as part of the Soviet Extra-ordinary Commission into war crimes. After interviewing villagers, the KGB opened an All Union Search File no 1065 on April 10, 1947, and made repeated attempts to find him.

A number of KGB agents were sent on covert operations into villages over the next 13 years. Some, like Agent 1 whose code name was Kopito, were ordered to glean information from his distant relatives and remaining friends. Others were given much tougher tasks. One had to live in the village for nine months pretending to be a peasant. Sawoniuk, however, did not make contact with anyone.

The KGB got its first hint from a man called Kolovsky, who had been in Domachevo`s Nazi-recruited police force, and had been a colleague of Sawoniuk`s. He told KGB agents he had seen Sawoniuk in Egypt and that he was heading for Scotland with a Polish Free Army regiment.

However, confirmed proof came into KGB`s hand in 1959. Sawoniuk wrote a letter and sent a parcel to his half-brother Nikolai, who had moved to a

village near the Polish border. Nikolai was also a member of the same police force, but he had left the village because he did not want to kill Jews.

That was the period when KGB routinely intercepted mails sent from the West. Sawoniuk`s letter was intercepted and added to his file. The letter with its London postmark was the first concrete proof of his whereabouts and persuaded the KGB to keep the inquiry ``alive``. The First Department of KGB

in Moscow tried to get his exact address, but failed.

Over these years, nobody in the west knew of Sawoniuk. Sawoniuk married for the third time after the war, a Dutch woman. During Nazi occupation, he married a Russian midwife. He married second time in 1944.

Sawoniuk`s luck ran out with the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev`s glasnost. In 1986, Sawoniuk`s name was one of 96 put on the so-called Russian embassy list of a definitive compendium of east European war crimes suspects.

In 1988, in the spirit of rapprochement, a copy was supplied by the Russian embassy in London to the war crimes inquiry conducted by Sir Thomas

Hetherington and William Chalmers. In fact, it was Hetherington/Chalmers report that led to the enactment of 1991 war crimes law in UK.

Scotland Yard began investigation in 1993. Sawoniuk`s luck ran out for the second time. The Russian spelling of his name had been translated with a V instead of a W, and all the initial searches of National Health Service and

Social Security database came to nothing, where first three letters of a name have to be correct for the searches to work.

However, as a historian reviewed the names, the mistake was realized. According to the British investigators, finding and identifying Sawoniuk

proved to be one of the easier tasks. When officers searched his flat in Bermondsey, they were amazed to discover he had kept documents which identified him, including an army number, 30008062.

The investigators submitted thousands of pages, which took officers to Belarus, Russia, Holland, and Israel to interview survivors. They faced

numerous obstacles; most of the 431 people interviewed were as old as Sawoniuk. Sawoniuk, who thought he has escaped from justice, was caught at

10.10am on March 21, 1996, when detectives knocked on his door.

BANGLADESH EXAMPLE:

As Sawoniuk`s case illustrates, he did not plan the Holocaust, nor was he very high in Nazi ranks, or on its senior command. He however readily joined the genocidal regime of Hitler, and carried out assignment with enthusiasm. He searched fleeing Jews and killed them. It appears his area of operation was localized, confined within certain precincts.

If this is the face of a war criminal, as has been found by the British High Court, then one just cannot finish counting heads of war criminals in

Bangladesh.

The occupying Pakistani army, with the aid of local collaborators primarily carried out Bangladesh genocide. Following was the hierarchy of Pakistani genocidal regime.

1. Martial Law Authority and the Central Government of Pakistan: At the apex, Yahya Khan and other senior military officials headed the military government. Yahya, as President of Pakistan, also headed the Central Government of Pakistan. The policy and the strategy were set at this level.

A number civilian also joined the military regime in drawing up the genocidal strategy, which included Peoples Party leader Bhutto.

2. Martial Law and Military Authority in Bangladesh: Bangladesh were by then occupied by Pakistani military, which remained under Martial Law. General Tikka and General Niazi, headed military authority at different times.

3. Civilian Government: Pakistani military regime appointed a puppet government in occupied Bangladesh, composed mostly of civilians. Dr.Malek, a dentist, headed the civilian government, with a 12-member cabinet. The

cabinet worked closely with the military in all aspects of genocide. It also tried to provide illusive normality of a gruesome genocide.

4. East Pakistan Civil Armed Force (EPCAF): Pakistani military hurriedly raised this force to lend helping hands to Pakistani military. EPCAF worked as an appendix to Pakistani Army.

5. Razakars: The military raised a new force in occupied Bangladesh, mainly from among the people who opposed autonomy or independence, members and

sympathizers Muslim Leagues and its various off-soot`s, Biharis. The East Pakistan Razakars Ordinance, 1971 established as an auxiliary force. A Ministry of Defence Gazette Notification No. 4852/583/PS-IY/3659/D-2A brought the Razakars under the axis of Pakistami military. Clause 2(b) of the Notification stated that the Officer of the Pakistani Army under whose command any members of Razakar is placed shall exercise the same powers in relation to that member as he is authorized to exercise under the said Act (Amy Act) in relation to a member of the Pakistani Army placed under his

command. Thus, the Razakars were appointed, trained and employed by the military. They also were led and commanded by them. Razakars being local people, had local knowledge, which helped military to carry out genocide. The Director of Razakar was A.S.M.Zohurul Haque. Razakars also joined Pakistani military in military operations.

6. Shanti Committee: The Yahya regime encouraged formation of Shanti (peace) Committee, and he did not experience difficulties to find enthusiastic

Pakistani politicians to provide leadership. Khaja Khairuddin, a Muslim League leader, led the Shanti Committee. Jammat leader Golam Azam was its important member. Shanti Committee welded enormous power, as they were the ears and eyes of Pakistani military. The Committee members routinely passed

information about local people to the military, and often themselves led to military`s target.

7. Al-Badar: The most vicious para-military shadowy organization, the Al-Badar, conducted its raids under the direction of a group of Pakistani

military officers. According to International Commission of Jurists investigation, all Al-Badar raids were conducted following the list approved

by the military. Members of Jammat-I-Islam and its student wing, Islami Chattra Shangha, formed the core of Al-Badar. Matiur Rahman Nizami and

Mohammad Quamruzzaman, were, amongst others, members of the Al-Badar.

8. Al-Shams: Largely composed of the volunteers from the student`s wing of Jammat-I-Islam, Al-Shams played similar role in military operations of Pakistan army.

Thus, for the efficient execution of its genocidal policies, the Pakistani regime established a widespread network of local collaborators all over the country. It set up para-military forces, such as Razakars, by law. As local men, Razakars, who were fanatical Muslims, had the task of maintaining control of the inner areas. On the other hand, Al-Badars, a Gestapo like

organization, prepared the list of their victims, mainly the intellectuals, advocates of independence and creation of a secular state, and carried out raids at night. The victims would be led away blindfolded at gunpoint, never

to return.

No war crimes commission:

Following defeat of the occupying Pakistani army and liberation of Bangladesh, the new government in Bangladesh failed to devise well thought

out strategy to deal with the perpetrators of genocide. This can be explained from the fact of non-existent confusion, of liberation of the

country, and genocide. The fact of genocide, which was uppermost in the mind during liberation war, did not feature prominently as the weeks passed by.

The government broadly apportioned the responsibilities, genocide and war crimes on the Pakistani military and those who helped Pakistani military as ``collaborators``. Such categorization was inherently flawed, legally untenable and at the end proved fatal. The government never explained this duality.

The post-liberation government rather promptly acted to provide legal basis to try the collaborators, and promulgated a law, Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972, on 24 January 1972, barely within six weeks

of liberation. But it could not come up with a coherent strategy to investigate and deal with the Pakistan military. Over a year and a half

later, the government enacted the first law. The International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 was passed by the Parliament on 20 July 1973. It should be noted, the government framed a whole new Constitution within less than a year, but failed to promulgate necessary laws to put the war criminals on trial.

The government did not set-up a National War Crimes Commission, as was done in Soviet Union or Germany, and thus, war criminals essentially were not identified. Thus, people like Golam Azam and his kinds, consider defamatory

when painted as war criminal.

However, the government did establish a committee, which found 195 major war criminals, against whom overwhelming evidence of genocide, war crimes,

crimes against humanity, breaches of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, murder, rape and arson was collected. The committee report was never

published.

Genocide put at back burner:

The new government concentrated more on reconstruction of war ravaged country, and failed to balance the need to do justice to the victims of genocide, who were portrayed as martyrs, a misnomer. The Collaborator Law did not produce the desired results, for number of reasons, which included built-in defects in the law, abuse of it and most importantly, lack of political will.

The government set up several Special Tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction to try the collaborators for offence punishable under the Bangladesh Collaborator Ordinance, but the judicial procedure was not prosecuted

vigorously. A number of alleged collaborators, however, were arrested.

The War Crimes Act, on the hand, was never applied, as there were no Pakistani military left to put on trial, as all were released and returned

to Pakistan.

As a matter of fact, the government had no clue how to approach the whole issue of genocide and collaboration. After Pakistani soldiers were allowed to go, even without facing an investigation commission, the collaborators

too were granted amnesty under certain condition. The collaborators did not have much difficulty in sneaking out through the net.

The government granted amnesty to the collaborators, and let the Pakistani

military go. In November 1973, the government decided to release with the

hope that the release of collaborators would contribute to national

reconciliation. The Prime Minister invited the collaborators to come forward

and engage in nation building.

Following the amnesty, about 35,000 alleged collaborators, who were under

judicial process, were liberated. Even the members of the government of

occupied Bangladesh, Governor Malek and his Cabinet, benefited from this

amnesty.

The government was insensitive to the feelings of millions of victims of

genocide. While they urged for justice, the government tried to buy the

collaborators off by granting them freedom. The collaborators should have

been punished for participating in genocide, arson, loot, rapes and for

prolonging the occupation of Pakistani military. Thus, the principle of rule

of law was sacrificed for short-term political convenience.

The collaborators were mostly religious bigots or fanatics, who quickly

developed networks to destroy ethos of independence, establishment of a

democratic, secular and just society, at the first possible opportunity.

Campaign against war criminals:

The issue of war criminals did not go away with the departure of Pakistani

military or with the amnesty award to their collaborators. Successive

governments cannibalized the Constitution. Secular provisions of the

Constitution were replaced, and one after another, religion was

incorporated. Also allowed was the use of religion for political purposes.

Despite concerted and systematic efforts to rehabilitate the alleged war

criminals and collaborators, the people of Bangladesh could not reconcile

with the genocide, war crimes and war criminals and collaborators. The

matter came to fore, when Golam Azam was appointed Jammat-I-Islam Ameer,

while still being a Pakistani citizen.

A spirited lady, mother of martyr son, Jahanara Imam could not take anymore

and began the movement against the collaborators. The movement demanded

trial of the killers and collaborators of 1971 genocide, for war crimes and

crimes against humanity. The campaign reached its climax when it

successfully held public trial of Golam Azam.

The movement had enormous educational value, as all most an entire

generation was about to become a lost generation, of its history, its past

and sacrifices made by their predecessors. However, the campaign could not

put a single war criminal on trial.

Trial still possible:

Bangladesh government has still remained resolutely unmoved to do justice to

the victims of genocide. The government is under obligation, both under its

national law and under international law, to bring to justice the

perpetrators and collaborators of genocide and war crimes.

The general amnesty, which was conditional, did not give any immunity from

prosecution of the alleged criminals. It was an executive order of doubtful

legal validity.

Equally, international community has a duty to see that war crimes and

crimes against humanity are investigated and the culprits brought to

justice. An attempt in this direction was made in 1995 following a British

television investigation to prosecute three alleged war criminals, one of

them dead since, in British court under its War Crimes Act. The file still

remains at War Crimes Unit of the Scotland Yard.

Conclusion:

In fact, Sawoniuk was not the first person to be prosecuted. First to be

prosecuted under 1990 War Crimes Act was Szymon Serafinowicz, 86. Three

charges of murder against him were dropped in January 1997 after a judge

decided he was unfit to face trial because of his mental health. He died

after seven months in 1998. He had been charged for murdering while working

as a senior policeman in Belarus between 1941 and 1942.

At last, the British have began to haunt the war criminals down for

prosecution, not for killing British citizens, but for crimes committed

elsewhere. It has sent Sawoniuk to begin two life sentences, one of the

oldest man ever to be convicted of murder in UK.

On the contrary, in Bangladesh, having been victims of genocide with three

million casualties, the issue is not even on the agenda.

The writer teaches law at Brussels Catholic University. His e-mail is:

Zia@kubrussel.ac.be

NEWS FLASH +++++++++

BBC News

Monday, May 10, 1999

Published at 18:49 GMT 19:49 UK

World: Africa

Rwanda wins battle for genocide suspect:

The UN pulled out after the killing of the Belgian peacekeepers

The Tanzanian authorities say they will allow an extradition claim from Rwanda for a key suspect in the Rwandan genocide, Bernard Ntuyahaga, who has

also been sought by Belgium.

The BBC`s Cathy Jenkins: ``It`s been something of a tug of war between Belgium and Rwanda``

``We have just decided to pursue the Rwandan application,`` Juxon Mlay, Tanzania`s director of public prosecution, said on Monday.

The application still must be approved by a judge, and a hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Mr Ntuyahaga, a former army officer, was wanted in Belgium for the killing of 10 Belgian soldiers guarding the Rwandan prime minister in the early

stages of the genocide, in 1994.

But the Belgian ambassador to Tanzania told the BBC he understood that Tanzanian prosecutors had decided in favour of the Rwandan request because

the crimes were committed on Rwandan soil.

Belgian and Rwandan officials had been meeting in recent weeks to settle the argument over who would try Mr Ntuyahaga.

Both nations believe he was a key player in the first killings of the genocide.

He was put on trial at the United Nations court set up in Tanzania to prosecute the architects of the genocide.

But the court judges ordered his release in March after prosecutors dropped all charges in a botched effort to have his case transferred to Belgian

authorities.

Hours after his release, Tanzanian police re-arrested him on charges that he violated its immigration laws.

Belgium requested his extradition and tried to persuade Rwanda to give up its claim, but failed.

Belgian regret:

Belgian officials said they were disappointed by Tanzania`s decision but would cooperate with Rwanda in building a case against him.

``We regret to some extent this decision because we have been insisting on an extradition to Belgium but we don`t want to make a new problem,`` said Peter Gijsels, a senior justice ministry official in Brussels.

``The most important thing of course is to have a prosecution. There has to be a trial.``

The genocide was halted when the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)rebel army seized power in July 1994, forcing tens of thousands of Hutu

extremists into exile.

WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE (MAY 9, 1999)



Non-Negotiable

War Criminals Belong in the Dock, Not at the Table

By Mark S. Ellis



Just a few weeks ago, I stood among a sea of 20,000 desperate people on a

dirt airfield outside Skopje, Macedonia, listening to one harrowing story

after another. I had come to the Stenkovec refugee camp to record those

stories and to help set up a system for documenting atrocities in Kosovo.

As I collected their accounts of rape, torture and executions at the hands

of Serbian troops, I was struck by the refugees` common yearning for

justice. They wanted those responsible for their suffering to be held

accountable. Their anger was not only directed at the people they had

watched committing such savagery, but at the political leaders--and Yugoslav

President Slobodan Milosevic in particular--who had orchestrated the misery

and continue to act with impunity.

The means exist to hold Milosevic and his underlings accountable. In recent

weeks, there have been calls from members of Congress for his indictment by

the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and

Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering has said that the United States is

gathering evidence that could lead to his indictment. And there is plenty of

evidence. In the Kosovo town of Djakovica, for example, residents carefully

documented the Serbian barbarity for investigators, recording the details of

each murder, each rape, each act of violence, before they fled the city. The

time has come to act on the testimony of these and other witnesses.

To do so, of course, flies in the face of last week`s much-ballyhooed

optimism about reaching a negotiated settlement with Milosevic. However

eager the Clinton administration might be to reach a political and

diplomatic solution, we should remember that those who have recently

suffered under Serbian attacks reject outright the notion that justice must

sometimes be forfeited for the sake of diplomatic expediency. During the

Bosnian conflict, accountability was sacrificed on the dubious premise that

negotiating with someone who is widely regarded as a war criminal is a

legitimate exercise in peace-making. We shouldn`t make that mistake a second

time around. Milosevic`s broken promises still echo among the charred ruins

and forsaken mass grave sites that defile the landscape of Bosnia.

If Milosevic had been indicted for the mass killings and summary executions

that the Bosnian Serbs--with backing from Serbia--are accused of carrying

out, would he have acted so brazenly to ``cleanse`` Kosovo of its ethnic

Albanians? Nobody knows. At the very least an indictment would probably have

deterred him; an apprehension and a trial would have stopped him. But there

should be no uncertainty about what occurs when Milosevic is allowed to act

unencumbered. The time has come for the international war crimes tribunal to

help put an end to that.

Inaugurated by the United Nations on May 25, 1993, and based in The Hague,

the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal has, to date, tried just 16 defendants.

With a staff of more than 750 and an annual budget of more than $94 million,

it has the resources--and the authority--to indict Milosevic. Indeed,

failure to indict would reveal the tribunal`s impotence in the face of

political controversy, and prove that this institution of international law

and justice is merely an expensive and irrelevant relic.

How difficult would it be to indict Milosevic? Not difficult at all. Under

the tribunal`s statute, the office of the prosecutor need only determine

``that a prima facie case exists.`` That`s to say that the prosecutor must

gather evidence sufficient to prove reasonable grounds that Milosevic

committed a single crime under the tribunal`s extensive jurisdiction.

With this in mind, the chances of Milosevic being held accountable increase

with the arrival of each new group of refugees driven from their homes in

Kosovo. Their remarkably consistent testimony is providing crucial

information--now being gathered by representatives of the tribunal as well

as by human rights organizations--about what has actually taken place in

Kosovo. These firsthand accounts are indispensable in building a case

against Milosevic--and the refugees I interviewed during the days I was

there are willing to testify about what they saw.

But with refugees flooding out of Kosovo and some being relocated in distant

countries, the prosecutor`s office must ensure that testimony is taken

swiftly, legally and professionally. The lack of access to Kosovo by

independent journalists and human rights monitors and the extreme

instability of refugee life heighten the importance of collecting these

accounts while they are still fresh in people`s minds. Yet the prosecutor`s

office was slow to act. A full five weeks went by before the tribunal sent a

corps of investigators to the region.

What crimes should the Yugoslav president be indicted for? The tribunal`s

statute provides jurisdiction over ``serious violations of international

humanitarian law`` including both ``crimes against humanity`` and ``genocide,``

the most abhorrent of all. Milosevic should be indicted for both.

Crimes against humanity are defined as ``systematic and widespread`` and

directed at any civilian population; they include murder, extermination,

imprisonment, rape and deportation. They are distinguished from other acts

of communal violence because civilians are victimized according to a

systematic plan that usually emanates from the highest levels of government.

In Kosovo, the forced deportation of ethnic Albanians by the Yugoslav army

and the Serbian Interior Ministry police force is an obvious manifestation

of such crimes. The refugees with whom I spoke described being robbed,

beaten, herded together and forced to flee their villages with nothing but

the clothes they were wearing. By confiscating all evidence of the ethnic

Albanians` identity--passports, birth certificates, employment records,

driver`s licenses, marriage licenses--the Serbian forces also severed the

refugees` links with their communities and land in Kosovo. This attempt to

make each ethnic Albanian a non-person is itself a crime against humanity.

Emerging evidence of mass killings, summary executions and gang rape lends

further credence to the widespread and systematic nature of these crimes.

As to the crime of genocide, the tribunal`s statute rests on the 1948

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which defines

genocide as ``acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a

national, ethnical, racial or religious group.`` Arising as it did from the

extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany, the convention invites comparison

with the Holocaust and is intended to prevent such heinous crimes from

happening again. This tragedy has not reached that perverse level of

brutality but, like the earlier efforts to eliminate an entire

people--whether the Jews, the Armenians or the Tutsis--it should be

prosecuted as a crime of genocide.

The convention addresses intent, and stipulates that acts designed to

eliminate a people--in whole or in part--constitute genocide. Among other

acts covered by the convention, crimes of genocide include ``(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.``

In the former Yugoslavia, acts of genocide have been perpetrated through the

abhorrent policy of ethnic cleansing--that is, making areas ethnically

homogenous by expelling entire segments of the Kosovar population and

destroying the very fabric of a people.

Ethnic cleansing does not require the elimination of all ethnic Albanians;

it may target specific elements of the community that make the group--as a

group--sustainable. The abduction and execution of the intelligentsia,

including public officials, lawyers, doctors and political leaders, for

example, is part of a pattern of ethnic cleansing and could constitute

genocide, as could targeting a particular segment of the population such as

young men. It is clear from the refugees who have been interviewed that

these acts are being systematically committed in Kosovo.

An often overlooked but important element of the 1948 convention is that an

individual can be indicted not only for committing genocide, but also for

conspiring to commit genocide, inciting the public to commit genocide,

attempting to commit genocide, or for complicity in genocide. The point is

that criminal responsibility extends far beyond those who actually perform

the physical acts resulting in genocide. In short, the political architects

such as Milosevic are no less responsible than the forces that carry out

this butchery. There is no immunity from genocide.

Prosecuting Milosevic will require relying on a legal strategy based on the

concept of ``imputed command responsibility.`` Under this theory, Milosevic

can be held responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates if he knew

or had reason to know that crimes were about to be committed and he failed

to take preventive measures or to punish those who had already committed

crimes.

Since it is unlikely that Milosevic has allowed documentary evidence to be

preserved that would link him to atrocities in Kosovo, the prosecutor`s

office will have to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to build its

case. This means identifying a consistent ``pattern of conduct`` that links

Milosevic to similar illegal acts, to the officers and staff involved, or to

the logistics involved in carrying out atrocities. The very fact that

atrocities have been so widespread, flagrant, grotesque and similar in

nature makes it near certain that Milosevic knew of them; despite his recent

protestations to the contrary, it defies logic to suggest that he could be

unaware of what his forces are doing.

What will the consequences be if the Yugoslav president is indicted? First,

an indictment would send a clear message that the international community

will not negotiate or have contact with a war criminal. It is current U.S.

policy not to negotiate with indicted war crimes suspects. And so it should

be. Milosevic would be stripped of international stature except as a

fugitive from justice. This might, in turn, open an avenue for Serbians to

once again distance themselves from their leader`s regime. Second, an

indictment would likely result in an ex parte hearing in which the

prosecutor`s office could present its case in open court--without Milosevic

being there. By establishing a public record of Milosevic`s role in the

crimes committed, such a hearing would be cathartic for both victims and

witnesses, and also for citizens long denied access to the truth. Finally,

the tribunal would issue an international arrest warrant making it unlikely

that Milosevic would venture outside his country`s borders.

When I watched the bus loads of new arrivals enter the Stenkovec camp, I saw

a small girl`s face pressed against the window. Her hollow eyes seemed to

stare at no one. History was being repeated. In his opening statement at the

Nuremberg trials in 1945, U.S. chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson said, ``The

wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so

malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being

ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.`` Jackson was

expressing the hope that law would somehow redeem the next generation and

that similar atrocities would never again be allowed. Today, we must hold

personally liable those individuals who commit atrocities in the former

Yugoslavia. To negotiate with the perpetrators of these crimes not only

demeans the suffering of countless civilian victims, it sends a clear

message that justice is expendable, that war crimes can go unpunished.

Inevitably, lasting peace will be linked to justice, and justice will depend

on accountability. Failing to indict Milosevic in the hope that he can

deliver a negotiated settlement makes a mockery of the words ``Never Again.``

Mark Ellis is executive director of the American Bar Association`s Central

and East European Law Initiative and president of the board of the Coalition

for International Justice.

What Makes a War Crime

Here are some significant developments in the history of war crimes

adjudication, based on the soon-to-be-published book, ``Crimes of War: What

the Public Should Know,`` by Roy Gutman and David Rieff (Norton), and other

sources:

BACKGROUND

The first formal punishment for war crimes was probably handed out at the

1305 English court trial of Sir William Wallace, who was accused of waging a

war of extermination against the English population. Throughout the Middle

Ages, there were many cases in which national military tribunals tried and

convicted enemy nationals of breaches of the laws of war. Horrors of war

experienced in both the Crimean War between Russia and the allied Turkey,

Sardinia, England and France and the Civil War in America led to the

evolution of international treaties that defined war crimes after the

mid-1800s.

MARKERS

* The 1945 Nuremberg Charter: The term ``genocide`` was not used, although it

was mentioned in the indictments of major war criminals at the Nuremberg

trials of German military leaders for atrocities committed during World War

II. Shortly thereafter, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution that

declared genocide a ``crime under international law,`` defining it as ``a

denial of the right of the existence of entire human groups, as homicide is

the denial of the right to live of individual human beings.``

* 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: Among other

things, this treaty identified war crimes worthy of prosecution, which

included conspiracy to commit genocide, public incitement to commit genocide

and complicity in genocide. The concept of cultural genocide is not

included, however.

The 1949 Conventions: Made up of four separate treaties, each of which

listed grave breaches of the law that apply only in international armed

conflict and only to so-called protected persons during battlefield action.

The conventions require that all parties search for and extradite those

wanted. International law gives nations the right to prosecute war criminals

under the theory of universal jurisdiction.

DISTINCTIONS

* Certain activities may still be considered war crimes even though they are

not listed under these conventions; these would be illegal acts (e.g., if

the commander of a POW camp failed to keep records of disciplinary

punishments).

* For civil wars, the list of activities considered war crimes is shorter,

since many nations consider the regulation of internal conflicts a matter of

domestic law.

* The Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Yugoslavia includes ``serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva

Conventions`` such as murder, ill treatment, rape, corporal punishment,

pillage, hostage taking, executions. The laws of war cover only atrocities

during armed conflict; crimes against humanity such as Stalin`s purges or

the Khmer Rouge atrocities would not be considered war crimes.

KEY TRIALS/INDICTMENTS

After World War II, an international military tribunal in Nuremberg during

1945-46 indicted 24 former Nazi leaders; at another tribunal there, which

lasted from 1946-1949, 185 other German military and civilian leaders were

indicted and tried before a panel of all-U.S. judges.

The International Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo for Japanese war

crimes, established by Gen. Douglas A. MacArthur as supreme commander of the

Allied Powers, lasted from 1946 to 1948. Twenty-five defendants were brought

to trial. Japan`s prime minister from 1941-44, Gen. Hideki Tojo, was hanged

as a war criminal.

The International Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia began in 1993.

Its jurisdiction is over crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia since

1991; the first case brought is still pending. A total of 74 men have been

indicted publicly.

A tribunal for the 1994 genocide of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda was

set up one year later but did not reach a verdict in any case until 1998,

when the first international conviction for genocide was of a Rwandan mayor

named Jean-Paul Akayesu. Thirty-five were indicted at the Rwanda tribunal in

Tanzania.



Sources: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Harvard Center for International Affairs,

The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

THE CURRENT STATUS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN PAKISTAN:

The New York Times

May 10, 1999

Pakistan Acts Against Critic in Crackdown on Journalists

By CELIA W. DUGGER

A prominent Pakistani journalist who has been harshly critical of the government has been detained by Pakistani authorities and is being held at an unknown location. His wife said Sunday that the police

dragged him from his bedroom, shoeless and without his eyeglasses, early Saturday morning.

The journalist, Najam Sethi, is one of several who have been arrested,

interrogated and harassed in Pakistan over the past week. Pakistani

journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, say the government is apparently retaliating against editors and writers who have given interviews to BBC reporters investigating high-level corruption.

Pakistani officials did not return calls Sunday, but the official

Pakistani news agency quoted an unnamed government spokesman on Saturday as saying that Sethi was being interrogated by agents of Pakistan`s intelligence service for alleged links to India`s intelligence agency.

The spokesman said the government`s suspicions were aroused when Sethi, editor of The Friday Times, an English-language weekly based in Lahore, gave a speech in India that was darkly pessimistic about Pakistan`s future. He spoke at the India International Center in New Delhi on April 30.

The top Pakistani envoy in New Delhi, Ashraf Qazi, was a guest at the

event, which was sponsored by the India-Pakistan Friendship Society. Qazi filed a report to Islamabad describing Sethi`s remarks as an act of ``the most contemptible treachery,`` the spokesman said.

Qazi did not return calls to his residence here Sunday. I.K. Gujral, a

former prime minister of India who heads the Friendship Society, said Qazi rebutted Sethi`s remarks at the meeting.

``It is unfortunate that they should make such silly accusations against Sethi,`` Gujral said. ``He is a respected intellectual.``

Sethi`s wife, Jugnu Mohsin, publisher of The Friday Times, said she and her husband had been threatened even before he gave the speech. Saifur Rehman, appointed by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as the nation`s chief investigator of corruption, phoned her to accuse her husband of conspiring with the BBC to destabilize the government, she said.

Rehman could not be reached for comment.

The speech her husband gave in New Delhi had been printed months earlier in The Friday Times, without incident, and was delivered to a standing ovation at the National Defense College in Pakistan, she said. ``They are accusing him of somehow being a traitor by voicing the truth in enemy territory -- India,`` she said. ``This is a spurious charge.``

Ms. Mohsin said the arrest of her husband occurred at 2:30 a.m. Saturday, when about 10 police officers -- two of them uniformed Punjab state police officials -- barged into their bedroom, clubbed Sethi on the head with wooden rods, smashed their bedside phone with a rifle butt and held a gun to her head.

When she demanded a warrant, she said an officer retorted: ``You want a

warrant? Let us give you his dead body.`` Ms. Mohsin said her hands were tied with rope and she was locked in her dressing room while the police took her husband away.

``I am afraid,`` she said. ``I think his life is in danger.``

Sethi is not the only journalist who had given interviews to the BBC who has been detained. M.A.K. Lodhi, who is in charge of the investigations bureau in Lahore for The News, an English-language daily, was interrogated from May 2 to May 4 about his involvement with the BBC crew, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported.

And Hussain Haqqani, a columnist for The Friday Times and the Urdu daily, Jang, was detained on Tuesday and has not been released, the committee and Pakistani journalists said.

Other journalists who are critical of the government have also been

harassed. A man in dark glasses came to the home of Ejaz Haider, news

editor at The Friday Times, Ms. Mohsin said. Haider was not home, but the man gave his 7-year-old son an anonymous note printed on computer paper. It said, ``Put up bullet-proof windows on your car.``

And Imtiaz Alam, a columnist for The News and Jang, said men broke the

lock on the gate to his home on Wednesday at 3:30 a.m., pu