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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2)EVery effort be made to create an atmosphere of

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

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

(Please read this genders inclusive)

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

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

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

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

Re: Omar

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

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

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

iconoclast

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

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

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

Sincerely,

M. Nawaz Khan



News From Bangladesh

April 22, 1999

Commentary

WHO IS A WAR CRIMINAL?

A CHALLENGE TO THE DEFENDERS OF WAR CRIMINALS

By: Ahmed Ziauddin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh and Kosovo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy:

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh genocide:

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

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

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

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

4. The students;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individual responsibility:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profile of a war criminal:

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

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

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

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



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

Ms. Khan you wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Ras

FYI:

Century of Genocide

Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views

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

Garland 1997

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

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

--

Excerpts:

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

---

Excerpt:

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

---

%T Century of Genocide

%S Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views

%E Samuel Totten

%E William S. Parsons

%E Israel W. Charny

%I Garland

%C New York

%D 1997

%O paperback, references, index

%G ISBN 0-8153-2353-0

%P xxxix,488pp

%K history, politics, crime

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

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

Ratification Information

The Contracting Parties,

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

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

world,

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

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

Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:

Article 1

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

which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

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

ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

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

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

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

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

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4

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

responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article 5

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

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

acts enumerated in article III.

Article 6

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

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

Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article 7

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

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

Article 8

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

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

III.

Article 9

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

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

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

Article 10

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

December 1948.

Article 11

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

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

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

Nations.

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

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

Nations.

Article 12

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

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

Article 13

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

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

article 11.

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

accession.

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

instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 14

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

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

months before the expiration of the current period.

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

Article 15

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

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

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

writing addressed to the Secretary-General.

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

Article 17

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

article XI of the following:

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

(b) Notifications received in accordance with article 12;

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

(d) Denunciations received in accordance with article 14;

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

(f) Notifications received in accordance with article 16.

Article 18

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

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

contemplated in article XI.

Article 19

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

Pakistan Army War Crime 1971

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

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

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

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

Omar`s Response to posts thru #123

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

Yahya Khan`s Epitaph:

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

Re: Zunaid # 121

Interesting reading. Granted there are ample references to war crimes being committed, in 1971, but that still does not qualify as an indictment for charging the alleged quilty parties or holding them accountable. To prove the guilt or the complicity of Pakistani forces as being guilty of war requires positive prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Those allegations, in the books and newspapers which have cited the acts of Pakistani Army as being a case of genocide, needs to be re-checked and the people who wrote those articles etc. questioned to determine where and from whom they got their stories and if the stories can be independently verfied. This is not the end, but the begining of the process to determine if Pakistani Army did commit genocide in 1971. The real usefulness of those excerpts lies not in their afixing blame, but as a secondary source to determine avenues of further research and to collate further evidence, taking those excerpts and their citations as their point of origin.

Zunaid, I can understand yours and your fellow countrymens` passion to have justice served and in this matter I am in your court, but those excerpts are not a begining of the end to this process and furthermore, they merely hint towards the commision of the crime and they in themselves do not consitute a mea culpa for the Pakistani Army.

Re:KhaledSA #123

With all due respect, that convention, which you posted, merely defines the context of war crimes and in the case of Pakistani acts during 1971 war, the debate is not to define the context of the crime, but to charge those responsible with war crimes. The fact that there is an international treaty does not automatically translates into an indictment for war crimes. For the guilty to be proscecuted, it needs more than a treaty to establish their guilt; it requires that prosecuation fulfill its burden of proof and show, with clairity and hard facts, the nature of the crime without any mitigating doubts.

Yes, I would agree with you that there is enough circumtanical evidence to indict Pakistani military officers for having committed war crimes, but you can not prosecute them on the basis of circumtancial evidence. Under the ruberic of the treaty`s articles and how it defines war crimes, you have a case to proceed against the alleged guilty persons, but you still lack the convincing evidence to convict them. There is huge differernce between indicting someone for war crimes and procecuting them for such said crimes.

Just as I mentioned in my post to Zunaid, those excerpts amount to more than a probable cause suggesting a crime and you can indict a person on the basis of that, but you can not procecute a person for war crimes on the basis of a probable cause! War crimes have a very high bar of prosecutorial standards which needs to be meet before a person can be charged with war crimes. The reason there have been so few war crimes trials is, because of this fact. It is a highly difficult process and with an exceptionally unassiable burden of criteria to prove some responsible for war crimes.

This should not mean that it is beyond impossible, because it certainly is not. War crimes can be proven and those guilty of them can be punished, but it will take more than a few excerpts in some books and the verbatim reading of the convention on war crimes to convict someone of war crimes and punish them.

Ladies and gentlemen, in this case time is both on your side and against you! War crimes have no statute of limitations and that means you, those who want to prosecute Pakistani military personnel for war crimes, can slowly and methodically built your case; document your evidence and assemble your facts. On the other hand, those alleged to be guilty are advancing in years and may not have too much time to live. Hence, you are presented with a cruel choice; you can risk a speedy process and seek to indict those on the basis of what facts and evidence you have or take your time and risk those alleged to guilty dying and thus, escaping a final curtain call!

To be honest, your have a hard task before you with a difficult choice and I do not envy you your choices!

Regarding the learned Bengali professor`s comments on the U.S court system which were brief, and his exposition on International law.

Dear Sir, I am afraid you are not familiar with the Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal), or the fact that Jamal Hasan need not be sued in Federal Court at all. I hope that when the time comes you all show an equal willingness to contribute to the, non-profit, `Jamal Hasan Legal Defense Fund,`

for which Mr.Jamal would be earnestly advised to starting establishing soon. Nor it appears dear Learned professor, with all due respect, are you entirely familiar with the state defamation laws

existing in the United States, or where the burden of persusion will lie if a case is ever brought against Jamal Hasan. Furthermore, you seem

somewhat unaware of the legal standard which applies in U.S Civil Courts (includes state court systems) in Civil trials for Z.A Khan to prove a case of libel.

I repeat, realistically it is highly unlikely that the International Tribunal at the Hague will have anything to do with the case against Jamal Hasan. I am glad that this debate has occurred, despite the wrongful allegations made against Z.A Khan for political/emotional reasons alone. Perhaps it is indeed time that you all petition your own government to take some action after 28 years, and that the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission report be made public in Pakistan. I am confident Z.A Khan will stand exonerated. The idea of a `Truth Commission` is not a bad idea at all.

Re: Rishi’s Unprincipled stance and India, and most Indians’ unparalleled duplicity

I wasn’t in the mood to address this earlier, because I did not want to debate the issue of Kashmir and India’s behavior in the course of 1947-48, but I will say this much, that Rishi accorded importance in a much earlier post-riposte in this debate to the state of Kashmir acceding to India through lawful means, an instrument of secession. He also then proceeded to explicitly and implicitly defend the annexation by force of the princely states of Hyderabad, Junadgah and a third state to India in 1947. These states India justified on the basis of having an overwhelming Hindu majority in annexing. The annexation of Goa too in 1963 by force, was justified for these very reasons. Fine, I’m willing to accept that as a rationale if it is applied as the only basis for annexing territories by India (a Hindu majority). However, this is not the case at all because on this basis, using this reasoning Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan. Frankly I can only really say that this (defending legalisms, and completely abandoning them whenever it suits Rishi and India) is a most unprincipled stance, that only goes to reinforce my view that India adopts whatever conflicting principles suit it at a given time and seem to give it an advantage, to justify anything it does. Now either the accession of Kashmir can be justified as having taken place to India on the sole basis of the legal instrument that the maharajah of Kashmir signed upon his hasty departure from a state where he no longer enjoyed any authority and that therefore this accession is completely legally valid, since this method does not take into account the overwhelming religious majority of people residing in the state and therefore, Pakistan’s army should vacate the portion of the state that is under its administration, and Pakistan’s position is therefore completely morally bankrupt, which I am willing to agree to if Rishi concedes that LEGALITY is above all else. Then however, Rishi and India cannot justify the annexation of the 3 princely states in 1947 to India by force, or the annexation of Goa also by force in 1963. Take your choice of principles, and stick to them. You can’t have it both ways, that is to say; have your cake, and eat it too. Now, however if we agree to the principle that, ‘Might makes right’ (which has been the real basis of India`s foreign policy through out its existence as an Independent state, except that they don`t like being on the receiving end of force majure)in international relations, then perhaps Rishi can justify everything that India has done logically. However, then both he and his hypocritical country’s foreign policy (which was against the U.S in the Gulf war, and is against NATO bombing in Kosovo in 1999) would stand exposed for what it is. Morally bankrupt. That is India. That has always been India. The truth is that Jawaharlal Nehru was sentimentaly too attached to Kashmir, the state of his birth, to do what was right. My own great grandfather, a member of the Muslim League spent time with him during WWII as a political prisoner in a British camp in India, and used to play tennis with him I believe, Nehru liked ordering his favorite dishes from his cook at the time. We even had notes signed by Jawaharlal Pundit Nehru in our family for a long time. But his legacy has been of the unending violence created by the Kashmir conflict for so long, with no end in sight. All the lives lost to this day in Kashmir can be layed squarely at his doorstep.

A piece of historical trivia

My great grandfather, Professor Abdus Sattar Kheiri was the first muslim to propose the creation of a seperate muslim state/homeland out of British India. He submitted a paper in this regard in French at the 2nd Socialist International in Stockholm, Sweden in 1917, at the conference which he attended. The 2 Kheiri brothers were the first to advocate the 2 nation theory. The official notes survive to this day. And a book he authored, `National States and National Minorities,` in 1947 (editor. M.Ashraf, published in Lahore) still exists in the N.Y public library collection. Forget Iqbal, he came much later (by some 13 years) to espouse. the 2 nation theory.

Thankfully, Prof. Kheiri`s great-grandson is more than sufficiently intellectually endowed with the gifts of his creator to counter nefarious Indian and Bengali propaganda that seeks in essence nothing less than to dispute the viability of this theory. And to rewrite history, by painting themselves as angels.

http://www.defencejournal.com/sept98/wayitwas1.htm

A vivid discription of Bengali Ghaddari follows.

Bengalis were the real war criminals and traitors

They deserved fully to be shot. If we had to do it over agin, I would personally see to it myself.

The only good Bengali wearing a Pakistani army uniform in 90% of the cases in East Pakistan in 1971 was a dead Bengali. The truth is, the Pakistan army was too soft on them. You people have SOME NERVE talking about war crimes. Look at your own. Everything that was done was completely justifiable. I stand by Z.A Khan`s actions PROUDLY.

Omar Mirza, nephew of Z.A Khan

Exerpt From The Way it Was

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

Pakistan but when he was called away to Dacca Major Zia ur Rehman, later President of Bangladesh, assumed the command of the Bengali troops. On the night 25/26 March, he woke up his commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Janjua, took

him to the offices of 8 East Bengal in his night clothes, made him sit in the commanding officer’s chair and made the colonel’s batman shoot him dead. From this moment there was no turning back for Major Zia ur Rehman.