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

Re: mnkhan52

Just one question. If there is, as you say and shown by the articles you posted with your reply, a corpus of evidence against Pakistani generals and their conduct during the War of 1971, why was this evidence not presented to the International Court at the Haque back then?

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes, and nor should there be one, but what puzzles me is the delay in charging the Pakistani generals. Could you please explain to me what were the mitigating reasons which delayed the process for charging those gulity for 29 years? If the Bangladeshi government had evidence of war crimes, why did it not seek justice in 1971 when the crimes were still fresh in the minds of the victims?

I am sorry to say this, but this 29 year old gap, between the commission of the crime and being charged for it, simply amazes me and I fail to see any reason for the silence of the Bangladeshi government in this matter!

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

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

TO add to the discussion ..( which I I should add

has gone fairly of track ) ..a proper understanding of the contrast is only possible

if you more precisely define the events of Kosovo and the 1971 war

the Kosovo war can be called ``The result of a linguo-Culturo - religious rivalry with a long historical aspect , it is based on the negative form of nationalism of Demographic change , as a short term goal , and the destruction of the opposing group as a final objective ``

I have not used the word ethnic here as Kosovons and Serbs are both Slavs ..the Historial aspect is the usage of the Ottoman Empire of Albanians in crushing Serbian revolts .

While the 1971 War can be better described as ``

The result of an idealogically derived state apparatus enforcing it`s writ in defence of it`s idealogical boundries ``

These terminologies may sound confusing ..but do allow a person to make the contrast .



In Criticism of Omar74`s comments about the law of the land being sarcosanct above all else and how Baluchistan joined PAksitan .etc .

First of ( and this is in contrast to Kosovo )

The Bengali`s were the original founders of the Muslim League and Bengal was the only place where the Muslim League was a real mass movement and could hold mammoth rallies ..their commitment to Pakistan was much more then any other Province ( with the exception of NWFP which voted as par a referendum ) The Bengalis provided 2 Prime Ministers to the country , the man who tables the pakistan resolution was Bengali as well ...also did you know that the Awami League was a breakaway faction of the Muslim League ( it was originally called the Awami Muslim League )



I also object to the belief that the law of the state is above all , Dictatorships have always often legalised their actions ..does that mean they were just ?...To add to your knowledge pakistan is a signator of the Universal declaration of Human rights ..last I heard at least ..and the basic fundamental rights of man and women are above any law as far as I am concerned .

Another fact is that if the West Pakistani people were not lied to about what was going on in East Pakistan ..they might have stopped it much earlier .

One of the InterAct(ors?) said Pakistan is full of contradictions ..I would add to that by saying ..that a country based on providing a home for people from Hindu discrimination for some reason , almost like a victim of abuse , has time and time again discriminated against it`s own

Clarification:

I don`t object to Jamal`s quest for long overdue

justice, i merely object to unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations with regard to Z.A Khan, whose only `crime` was arresting Bangabandhu

Mujib without bloodshed, though Jamal and other Bengalis won`t bluntly come out and admit this, but would rather go on a fishing expedition looking for `other`, `crimes` committed by him. Ofcourse this may seem like a `war crime` in an of itself to them, but technically, Pakistan was not at war with any other state at the time of Mujib`s arrest and transportation to West Pakistan (just another province of Pakistan) bY BRIG. Z.A KHAN does not in any sense amount o a `war crime`. Jamal`s definition of `war crime` thus reveals itself to be a politically motivated definition of the term which ignores the legal and actual definition of the term given the factual legal situation of the real sovereign in East Pakistan at the the time, the federal government of Pakistan. Hence these charges do not hold water against Z.A Khan. I will not comment on any of the others named, they may indeed, `fit the profiles of war criminals,`

but that is irrelevant to the issue i have addressed.

Being `a humanitarian` does not confer a liscence to libel, slander, and defame anyone.

That kind of `free speech` should and does carry a price. One should be prepared to pay it and bear the consequences if one indulges in any of the three aforementioned acts.

Re: Pakistani Brigadier`s daughter`s letter

Mohammad Nawaz Khan

I was following the debate with bated breath. I found a letter which can be a part of a film of the holocaust kind. Z.A. Khan wrote that when his two year old daughter was crying for milk on 25th March 1971 and when his wife was wailing, his servant brought a ton of milk packets.

When asked by his wife the place he got from, the servant replied that the army men are looting the only shop in the cantonment area which was then run by a retired Bengali army personnel. This is the shop which was looted (presumably the owner was shown the door of the Kayamat right away). So what does this anecdote mean?

The same two year old daughter is probably the writer aho is threatening Jamal Hasan, right? The same girl, who was then two years old. The same girl who lived because the baby food of many Bengali kids were snatched, the same girl who lives now on looted property, the same girl who lives now by being saved by provisions, which was obtained by killing Bengali kids and the parents of Bengali kids and looting Bengali properties. Is there any big wonder left, that the same girl would grow up and spew hatred and protect murderous fathers, and threaten human beings who chose to rise for their rights. What could be more co-incidental, more stranger and more dramatic (in a macabre comedy as it is) way of showing that the marauding evil force of General Yahya was simply living on looted property and their only business was to kill, rape and loot?

I must thank Z.A. Khan for the revelation and her

daughter for such a sub-conscious bursting open.

Re: Omar

I distinctly recall that the Blasphemy law in Pakistan can be used to disastrous effects against anyone sprouting disdain on the founder of the nation Mohammed Ali Jinnah. If this were true, and if and only if it were applicable in Bangladesh, then just imagine your plight for labelling Bangabandhu as a Ghaddar.

And now you are threating Jamal with Libel after a cold mouthed name calling of Bangabandhu by your most esteemed self. Talk about justice. Before you request an apology from Jamal don`t you think you need to apologize to him and all bengalis for labelling their leader as a Ghaddar. How would you feel if the fascist Hindus label Jinnah the same. Remember, what goes around does come around (once again)

Rishi

Rishi and Mr.Nawaz

As for the milk shop looting incident that Mr.Nawaz claims to have `discovered`, i addressed it already in post #68. I`ll simply repost my response since you seem to think it so important.

Also, your post does nothing to substantiate the claim the Z.A Khan was part of a murderous coterie of generals. That represents your prior beliefs, nothing more. Certainly not evidence of a legal standard. Does not amount to proof of any sort.

Response : Did Z.A Khan order this looting? Was he even aware of it until AFTER It occurred? Clearly not. Did he even approve of this? His narration of this incident in fact only goes to show that he disapproved of this conduct by the Pakistan army, nothing more.

As for Rishi`s silly comment comparing my calling Mujib a ghaddar and blasphemy against Mr.M.A Jinnah in Pakistan, firstly, i think the blasphemy laws in Pakistan only apply to the prophet (pbuh) Muhammed. Secondly, if they do apply to M.A Jinnah, and a Hindu called him a `ghaddar`, that is a permissible political interpretation of the events of the 1940s in British India. That is indeed protected speech under the first ammendment in the U.S, as is my calling Mujib a ghaddar. However, it is FACTUALLY inaccurate to call someone guilty of `genocide` or `war crimes` without providing any factual evidence. There is a clear distinction between the use of the 2 terms. Try calling Jinnah `a war criminal` guilty of `genocide`, and if he were alive he could indeed sue you. If anyone cares to sue me for calling Mujib a ghaddar i will be happy to provide my e-mail address, and even my mailing address in order to make the suit against myself possible for my doing so. The ACLU will show up in court with me, rest assured. However they WON`T be willing to do so on Mr.Hassan`s behalf for the reasons i articulated above. I hope he, and Chowk and its editors are willing to spend at least $250,000 and Up on litigating this issue because that is what a trial would cost them, if a suit were filed, and this is a VERY conservative estimate.

I repeat for purposes of clarity, calling Jinnah a `ghaddar` falls within the legal doctrine of `fair comment`, due to his role in the 1940s in British India, that is protected speech in the U.S, however, calling someone a `war criminal` guilty of `heinous crimes` in the context of a discussion on genocide is NOT within the category of `protected speech.`

I am new to this forum but it looks every bit as heated as a tea stall in any South Asian capital. Great.

I am no fan of Sheikh Mujib; by the way he usurped democracy, and foisted a one party dictatorship in Bangladesh, he ought to be tried posthumously in Dhaka for violating the Bangladesh Constituion. It is sickening how his old pals and daughter go about bandying his ``love of democracy`` ad nauseam. Accountability is must for old wounds to heal. By the same token, there needs to be a limited trial of the principal leaders of the Pakistan military accused of the 1971 atrocities. Mind you, I say accused not guilty. Let Pakistan show its goodwill by reaching some kind of agreement to have trial at a neutral place like the Hague.

As for Ms. Khan, the brigadier`s daughter, I do appreciate your pain at having fingers pointed at your father. Whether he is guilty of war crimes against my countrymen is only for a court to decide.

To the gentleman who pointed out India`s ``generosity`` in not absorping Bangladesh in the aftermath of the Independence War, I say, thank your stars. Bangladesh is not Hyderabad, Kashmir, Junagadh, Jodhpur, Manvadar, Babriwar, Sikkim, or Bhutan. We would have made it India`s ``Afghanistan``. After we got our independence in nine short months of battling the reputedly ``finest`` army in the world. If anything, India should consider turning over the half of the Bengali heartland that it has ruled for the last half century.

News From Bangladesh

April 18, 1999

Commentary

Saber rattling by the friends of Brigadier Z.A. Khan

By A.H. Jaffor Ullah

[Editor`s Note: Ever since NFB had published Jamal Hasan`s article ``Balkan Tragedy: A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide & Ethnic Cleansing in Bangladesh`` a controversy had brewed in Pakistani Internet forum CHOWK (http://www.chowk.com). Brigadier Z.A. Khan`s daughter Muneezae Khan and a friend, Mr. Omar, asked Jamal Hasan to withdraw the charge that Brigadier Z.A. Khan fits the profile of a perpetrator of Bangladesh Genocide or else he (Jamal Hasan) faces the legal consequences. Quite a few Bengalis have visited the Chowk forum and defended Jamal Hasan`s assertion. This article is one of the latest in this series to explain why the charges against a person alleged to have committed genocide should be treated differently than a person who is alleged to have killed one person out of rage or for other ulterior motives.]

I`m appalled and awestricken by Mr. Omar`s insensitivity and inane writing regarding the events of 1971 in occupied Bangladesh. His perspective of the entire bloody episode of 1971 is very different from most people that I know of. And it is very odd one too! In one instance, Mr. Omar was most willingly giving Brigadier Z.A. Khan a clean bill of health` without being in occupied Bangladesh in 1971, but then he was admitting that other officers of Pakistani army may have committed crime against humanity. Isn`t that what is called a double standard, Mr. Omar? Mr. Omar was in essence saying that some Pakistani generals and officers stationed in occupied Bangladesh during 1971 may have committed the crime against humanity, but Brigadier Z.A. Khan was a ``clean`` man.

Let me explain one aspect of the crime against humanity charge against any military or civilian person. In the court no one has to prove that the then Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan pulled the trigger to kill innocent Bengalis. Gen. Augusto Pinochet never did go to the killing fields in Chile to kill any of his countrymen or sympathetic foreigners to deposed President Alliande. He engineered the Chilean Genocide while holding the high office of Military dictator. He ordered the killing and now he is being held in Great Britain waiting to be extradited to Spain. Some Spanish citizens lodged a complain in Spanish court because Pinochet`s soldiers exterminated quite a few visiting left-leaning Spanish students.

We all know that Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan was not the planner of Bangladesh Genocide. I didn`t hear anyone say that. However, he truly was an executioner. One could be an executioner without having to fire a single bullet in the heads and vital organs of a victim. All Lt. Col. Khan had to do -- like a good soldier -- follow the order of his boss be it Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan or Maj. Gen. Mitha or any lowly Brigadier who was higher in the chain of commands. Mind you in his admission he was the Commander of a commando battalion that was involved in all sorts of gruesome killing in eastern sector of occupied Bangladesh. He simply accepted the orders from higher up officers. In no place in his book did he mention that he valiantly defied the order of superiors.

We have heard too many cases where Nazi war criminals have been sentenced heavily for only being a lowly prison guard or aiding in rounding up of the Jews. In some instances, the guard never had a chance to shoot a single fire in the line of duty. Nevertheless, the prison guard or informants were part of a web that was responsible for the death of six million Jews. In the case of Bangladesh Genocide, the prosecutor has to prove that Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan was commanding a unit that inflicted casualties on civilians. Nothing more, nothing less! His subordinates must have taken orders from him directly to cause the loss of lives. This trial of Brigadier (Retired) Z.A. Khan will never be a criminal trial; the rules for criminal trial are very different from the rules for crime against humanity. Remember that I enumerated earlier that Gen. Pinochet never fired a single bullet himself! Nevertheless, look at his present predicaments.

The author Mr. Jamal Hasan or I, who made the incomplete list of Pakistani Officers involved in Bangladesh Genocide, is not pointing finger at Z.A. Khan and saying that Mr. Khan shot one particular person out of rage or taking a revenge. Mr. Khan was part of a genocidal army who most willingly executed a well-designed plan to exterminate an outrageously large number of civilians. He openly admitted in his memoir that he flawlessly executed the order. If Pakistani army committed a crime against humanity during 1971 in occupied Bangladesh, then, so did the then Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan. Let the International Jurists decide whether Bengalis were ``rebel`` or a patriot, Mr. Omar.

If Jamal Hasan or I defamed the good name of Brigadier Z.A. Khan, then let him come out of Pakistan. We are most willing to meet him in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The Netherlands. This saber rattling by Khan`s daughter Muneezae Khan or Mr. Omar won`t work here. If my hunch is right then, no one, and that includes Brigadier Z.A. Khan, will have the courage and intrepidness to face up the challenge of Bengalis in the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Mr. Omar or Ms. Muneezae Khan should be mindful that theirs past activities are not in question here. Brigadier Z.A. Khan penned a vast amount of incriminatory write-ups conveniently placing him in all sorts of killing grounds in occupied Bangladesh. He gleefully performed his tasks without ever asking his bosses a single question. His write-ups, he thought, were designed to ridicule his bosses -- the armchair generals of Dhaka. Little did he realize that those vivid descriptions of gratuitous killings could be played against him to implicate him in the high crime of crime against humanity.

Mr. Omar has characterized Bengali leader Sheikh Mujib as a ``Ghaddar`` (Traitor) in his rebuttal to Khaled S. Ahmed`s write-up entitled ``The Way It Was` -- Reading Between The Lines`` (appeared in NFB`s Readers` Opinion page on March 22). This tells me quite clearly the mindset of Mr. Omar. I am hoping some readers will take up the issue and give Mr. Omar a befitting answer.

In summary, the Bengalis will be most willing to take Brigadier Z.A. Khan or any officers of Pakistani army to International Court of Justice who served in occupied Bangladesh from March 26, 1971, through December 16, 1971, and participated in an organized campaign to annihilate freedom loving Bengalis.

Gruesome killing in 1971 is a naked testament that an well-orchestrated genocide was carried out in occupied Bangladesh and that campaign of terror and destruction had netted an estimated three millions lives. If Bengalis would have perpetrated a crime of this magnitude in Punjab, and Pashtun land, how would Ms. Muneezae Khan (daughter of Brig. Z.A. Khan) and Mr. Omar feel?

______________

A.H. Jaffor Ullah writes from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. His e-mail address: jhankar@bellsouth.net

News From Bangladesh

April 18, 1999

Readers’ Opinion

A PAKISTANI ADMITS 1971 ATROCITY

Khaled S. Ahmed

Respond to Mr. OMAR1974 on his posting in www.chowk.com on April 16, 1999:

honestly appreciate OMAR1974`s efforts to protect Brig. (Retd) Z. A. Khan from possible indictment as war criminal and in the process like to thank him for admitting that crime was committed. But according to him Brig. Khan was innocent observer whose participation can not be legally established.

It also appears that OMAR1974 did not read the original posting of Brig. Khan where he wrote ``when I went to brigade headquarters I found the commanding officers of 20 Baluch and 24 FF there and was informed by the brigade major, Major Anees, Corps of Engineers, that the brigade commander had locked himself in his room in the Circuit House and was not coming out. I knocked on the door, identified myself and asked him to open the door. I went in and asked him if he was unwell, when he said he was all right, I asked him why he was not coming out, he said that if he gave any orders and something went wrong he would be sacked.``

I am quoting the following from an article recently published by Prof. Enayetur Rahim and Joyce L Rahim as information are now available from US State Department - ``The following night the Pakistan Air Force dropped bombs again on a Dhaka bustee area and again blamed India. The Pakistani military was more valiant in taking on civilian targets than in confronting a fighting force. The Pakistani authorities claimed that the Indian raid which was originally directed against the airport and the railroad station, missed its targets, and made a direct hit on the brick and concrete structure of the Islamic Mission Orphanage where 400 of its residents were asleep, killing an estimated number of 300 orphans`` and request OMAR1974 to visit the site to know the cowardice behaviors of Pakistani General`s in 1971.`` If OMAR1974 wants to justify any one killed in Bangladesh by Pakistani occupation army were violating law of the land then what about those orphans?

I would also like to thank OMAR1974 again for admitting that killing of prisoners of war was a violation of Geneva Convention but he believes Brig. Khan was a silent observer and there is no proof of his participation in shooting them and he only knew those facts and narrated in his book.

Perhaps you are trying to tell that Bangladesh should consider him as prosecution witness rather than trying to indict him as war criminal!!!

Those Pakistanis who are calling Sheikh Mujib a GADDAR need to understand in the historical context that they are wrong. Pakistan Government did allege but could not try him as GADDAR during the time he was in their custody for 9 months in 1971. And neither Pakistan could arrest him when he made a trip to Lahore in 1973 as Prime Minister of Bangladesh. People like OMAR1974 must understand that if he or she calls any one GADDAR when their Government extends red carpet to the person they are calling GADDAR as national hero from another country, their action tantamount to GADDARI with their own country.

I do not know Brig. Khan personally neither I know OMAR1974 but for both of you I can repeat what I have written earlier - `Whatever ``way`` one attempts to describe the 1971 events of Bangladesh, those who fought for democracy and freedom shall be glorified and those who perpetrated the Genocide shall be cursed. Perhaps you would do a great service to Bangladesh if you can take it to the court.

I would expect the rational people to ``understand the world, not through religion or by accepting authority but through the use of reason.`` And quote Empedocles who once said ``Each man believes only his experience`` and so does OMAR1974 and perhaps also Brig. Khan.

Reg sigalph235 (Reply#76):

I`m the person who praised India for not trying to absorb Bangladesh in 1971. I never said it was act of ``generosity``, that was your own twisted interpretation. I said it was a good recognition of the facts on the ground and that the Bangladeshis were not ready for it. There is no generosity when you can see reality for what it is - but there is a little bit of wisdom or practicality.

As regards ``India`` handing back W. Bengal, you are now indulging in complete lack of reality (something India avoided in 1971).

Indian Bengal is ruled by Bengalis. They are confident in their Bangla identity and their Indian identity. Dont hold your breath waiting for them to join you. You will turn blue.

This discussion is I hope, only a beginning. We
as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis need to interact
more to JOINTLY get to the bottom of this very
bloody mess. And if we get too emotional at this
stage then we will have to wait for another
generation to even get close to the truth.

And Between Omar1974`s ``Ghaddar`` and Jamal Hasan`s ``War Criminals`` lies this truth.

First I must say loud and clear, I do support
Muneezae Khan`s right to defend her father. And
I do find it difficult to deny the fact that ``War
Criminals`` especially from a losing side of a war
rarely write books to detail their activities.
So I will ask my Bangladeshi friends to quit targeting a daughter`s loyalty to her father.

So could we please not write stuff like:

``The same two year old daughter is probably the writer aho is threatening Jamal Hasan, right? The
same girl, who was then two years old. The same girl who lived because the baby food of many
Bengali kids were snatched, the same girl who lives now on looted property, the same girl who lives now by being saved by provisions, which was obtained by killing Bengali kids and the parents of Bengali kids and looting Bengali properties.``

Such writing makes very counterproductive resentment amongst the present generation in Pakistan that had absolutely no part in the events of 1971. So let us resist high drama and get on
with some serious soul searching and reflection.

Personally, I preferred Samina`s reply which included an apology YET GOT NO RESPONSE from the
Bangladeshi contributors or media. She too
is from a military family and blames Bhutto (but
I am not convinced on that yet). But let us please
refer back to her reply instead of generating
``baby food out of the mouths of..``.

I support Jamal Hasan for pursuing this topic over
the years because I believe that he is helping Pakistanis too who need to know the HOW and the WHY of the events of 1971. And this is the game
plan that I would hope Pakistanis help to pursue.
Only then can we come close to any type of ``War
Crimes``. Because to me it seems that neither
the victims in Bangladesh nor the Pakistanis
have much information to share on HOW this all happened.
So let us resist sensationalism and talk turkey.

Ras

OMAR1974`s POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL OF ALL misleading comments on Z.A Khan continues with an open challenge to all to participate.