What Constitutes Blasphemy?

Re: Fuzair #623

Additional ramblings pursuant to your thoughts ``you could charge Indira Gandhi and the Indian government with waging a war of aggression against Pakistan, also a valid war crime``:

In one of my previous posts I had described briefly what position the UN took on India`s attack (yes, that is what it was!) on East Pakistan in 1971, and why it did nothing (much less bring war crime charges against the GOI. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Mrs. Gandhi had perusaded European public opinion to her side prior to the initiation of hostilities, thus neutralizing Nixon.) Allow me to describe the circumstances, under which the UN would possibly have acted:

- If India were to annex Bangladesh (the foolishness of such an act notwithstanding)

- If India were to grossly maltreat the Pakistani POWs

- If India were to attack West Pakistan, seize large chunks of territory and annex it

- If India were to maltreat West Pakistani civilians

Barring the above scenarios, there would have been very little political will to have framed war-crime charges against India.

Sadna 624

That, alas, is never going to happen. We in India have turned a misguided conception of secularlism into a fetish. That fetish, like Pakistan`s obsession with religion, puts India too on a vicious cycle. This cycle creates people like those on the Muslim Personal Law Board on one end and Thackeray on the other. This is a great weakness of our polity.

So what we have is a built-in tension between the universalistic ideals of India and her capitualtion to deeply divisive medieval logics that separate people from people. Anyone interested in a modern India has the responsibility is to make sure that forces of exclusion and separation never outgrow those of unity. The latter are certainly not standing still, as becomes clear from even a cursorily reading of Indian newspapers.

Re: Urstruly #625

Your posts explain why many Pakistanis must have felt bitter about 1971. Leaving aside some obviously provocative statements (of taking `advantage` of the situation) made by some Indian commentators, the principal reason that India intervened was because India became increasingly convinced that the West Pakistani dictatorship was incapable of handling the situation in East Bengal politically, and that rapproachment between the Awami League and Bhutto`s party was an impossibility, after the events of March 1971. In fact, if you read the book ``War and Secession : Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh``

by Richard Sisson, and Leo E. Rose, you will learn that until March 1971 India had absolutely no interest in what was going on in this regard. It was only after the refugees started pouring into India, that Delhi started taking an interest in the matter. It was a messy situation, and I do not think that anybody`s hands are entirely clean -- it is a matter of whose hands are dirtier. Sorry for digging up old corpses.

Re: Sadna #626

````...However, the dialogue has clarified one point: that the main reason for not muzzling the jihadis is the perception that they are the ones who have secured the `hard-won advantages` in the freedom struggle.``

If the overall relationship is adversarial (and it is), I can hardly fault Pakistan for trying to take advantage of a murky situation. India did pretty much the same in 1971, although the scale of violence on both sides was much higher; and India was not motivated by putting down Pakistan, as it was with the long-term social impact of hosting millions of refugees, and a seemingly never-ending conflict across the border. The challenge for our generation is to turn adversaries into friends. That will be a much bigger victory than Bangladesh or Kashmir for any side.

As far as your idea of nationalizing places of worship is concerned -- that will be a monumental mistake. It is far better to enforce existing laws on contributions to charitable organizations and to ensure that such donations are used only for tax-exempt purposes. That should be enough. No more.

RSaxena

YOU!!!!

I do have a horrible way with words and am quite apt to mangle spellings. You will probably see many and even more delightful gems appearing in my posts:)

I enjoy your exchangs with KRashid, Shankar, and Scout, although IMO you ought to give Scout more respect. Hers is one of the sane voices in here.

Re: Fuzair #623

``So any 1971 War War Crimes trial would be huge mess all around. Any suggestions as to how it should be handled (as an academic exercise now)?``

Here is another afterthought. How about using the model that many WWII combatants (prinicpally the Western and Japanese ones) have used. Let me pick an example (knowing full well that there will be significant differences from the example that I pick and the situation in the Subcontinent and 1971 -- please use your imagination to smooth over the inconsistencies). How about the US and Japan? More important than the war crimes tribunal (which nabbed a few hundred Japanese), was the spirit in which the peace treaty was signed and enforced to signal an end to hostilities. First, the US did not demand reparations, and settled all claims and counter-claims through a treaty. Second, the Japanese renounced a militaristic foreign policy, and promised to never use troops overseas. Third, the US assumed responsibilities for Japan`s defence, while staying out of Japanese internal politics. The Japanese for their part, agreed to a constitution that preserved their Emperor`s position, but was written by the US. What can we learn from this?

How about if the Subcontinent`s armies are merged under unified command (crude NATO), and not to be used for internal activities if even one member state vetoes their use? This would preclude the use of troops in East Bengal, Kashmir, and against each other etc. In exchange for this veto privilege and reduction of fear from other states, the member states will have to perforce concede certain sovereignty to a higher joint authority, principally in the area of dispute resolution and foreign policy. This may be the hardest part because religion is the dominant currency for political discourse in our part of the world, and it has been used to scare people, and to pin blame, and ultimately to divide people.

Dispute resolution on inter-state issues could be handled by a court with equal representation from all member states, so that the big ones do not manage to coerce small ones. A joint foreign policy could be handled by a secretariat that ensures that members states do not strike separate deals with other foreign states. States can continue to have free reign on internal matters. Finally, while accession will be voluntary, secession will not -- it will be possible, only in case of majority vote and not a unilateral decision. This will ensure that a state does not conveniently secede when it finds a certain decision unpalatable. In other words, in order to obtain protection from such a framework, one will have to work within it, and not outside it.

I know that these ideas are highly controversial and perhaps they will be attract a number of critical posts. However, they are not too far from what Jinnah had accepted in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. (Nehru`s slip of tongue that eventually destroyed that proposal, is also a part of our blighted history.)

Godot 601

Why would you include Yasser Arafat in that list? I have mixed feelings about him. I strongly disagree with his overt and covert use and support of violence. I also think he has let extremists on his side take the lead by putting forward demands that are impossible for the other side to concede. Except for these major points, he would have some of my support, for the very little it is worth.

I think of Arafat as someone like Yasin Malik in Kashmir. If it was only between Yasin Malik and the rest of India, peace would come to Kashmir, the rest of India, and Pakistan quite quickly. The tragedy is that neither Arafat nor Yasin Malik have any real power on their sides. People who are only interested in eternal wars have taken over.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Please, no tripe such as ``all fighting in Kashmir is indigenous.`` I have no time or interest in proving otherwise. None can make the blind see.

Re: Fuzair #623

``So any 1971 War War Crimes trial would be huge mess all around. Any suggestions as to how it should be handled (as an academic exercise now)?``

I am sorry, I did not answer this question in my previous post.

I think that you have raised a point which clearly demonstrates that war is a nasty business, and often times the strong (and not necessarily the ones in the right) get away (shamefully) scot-free. I do not believe that I have the right answers. I wish I could wish wars away.

The right way will be to punish every wrong doer in a fair and impartial manner. That means, Yahya, Bhutto for their part in the political mess; personnel of both sides engaged in executions and shooting unarmed people; Pakistani generals and military in East Bengal for their acts on the civilians there; and the Indian Government for an undeclared war in East Bengal. Many of the principal actors are now dead. Besides, the successor states are sovereign states that cannot be tried, and like you said, it will be a huge mess around.

Failing a trial of all wrong-doers, the least that can be done is to absorb the lessons from our collective, blighted history (including the fact that many of those who participated in the 1947 riots are still alive and unpunished) -- we have to learn to get along better with each other.

Re: Fuzair #623

`` The common (and common sense) guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/freedom-fighter/take-your-pick practice of hiding arms until ready to attack means that ALL regular troops can, legally, execute out of hand, most opposing forces.``

Well, this is a dilemma of warfare today, be it Somalia, Kashmir, or Bosnia. I think that the Britannica definition more-or-less vindicates my earlier observation that non-hostile, personnel cannot be summarily shot. I do not think that uniformed personnel will ever get the licence or legal authority to shoot non-uniformed civilians -- all such cases will probably be decided on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in urban warfare situations, the uniformed personnel will be at a considerable disadvantage. By `execute`, I assume that you are implying shooting surrendered militia, custodial killings, etc. Standards of expected behavior have become much higher today than they were even 30 years ago. I do not think that regular troops can legally `execute` (if my interpretation of your assumption is correct) out of hand, most opposing forces -- because I do not belive that international public opinion accepts this, yet it choses do to little about it. And precisely for this reason, guerrilla groups use this tactic (ie blending in the crowd, use civilians as cover, etc.) to obtain support. If, however, the opposing forces are engaged in a violent act of war, they can be killed without legal penalty, under international law.

Now regarding Mukti Bahini and Indira Gandhi, I do not think that their acts were strictly legal either. Indeed, many objective analysts concur with what you have said, ie. Indian troops entered Bangladesh about 2 weeks before war was officially declared. Was this illegal? Lacking any support by means of a UN resolution, it probably was. However, to make things more complicated, the UN could have rectified this illegality by issuing a resolution -- it pointedly did not for political reasons. Likewise, the NATO attack on Kosovo was strictly speaking illegal, because NATO`s opinions do not constitute a legal writ. Yet the UN did nothing, except provide humanitarian relief. It is also worth noting that the UN was incredibly remiss in ignoring warnings about the impending massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, and the call by the Dutch commander for armed UN intervention in 1991(?). What may be legally right, may also be morally wrong.

Your reference to `the summary execution of Mukti Bahini prisoners` may or not be a war crime. In such cases, war crimes are usually invoked if the defendant party is unwilling or unable to use its own legal system. It most certainly must have been a crime according to Pakistan criminal law prevailing at the time. Yet, no one has ever been tried. The same, of course, applies to the Bahini and the successor Bangladesh government.

Ultimately, of course, the whole issue of war crimes is entirely political. Why was Emperor Hirohito not indicted, but his cabinet and PM were? Why were many Nazi sentences reduced as the Cold War became colder? I think that this was mostly due to politics.

re: ylh 617

Thanks for the link. It is difficult to say how many hindus believe all that breathless BS. I can tell you that a great many of those who swell the ranks of such outfits as ShivaSena certainly believe most, if not all, of that junk. They believe that Hinduism and India are under attack from all sides - a trait common to all extremist outfits. To these people any Muslim by the very fact of his or her faith is suspect. These are the folks who scare me in India.

Re: ahmadb, #619

Those who believe that given Pakistan`s current situation of its support of the ignorant and thickheaded Talebans, making an enemy out of a powerful India over worthless Kashmir, bad relations with the neighboring Iran, inability to control rampant arms in the hands of its citizens, sectarian killings, lawlessness, massive illiteracy, burgeoning population, massive foreign debt, no viable economic policy in sight (and to top it off, the lunatic policy of implementing an interest-free economy!), etc, etc, etc, Pakistan still has a future live in a fantasy world.

Those people are among the worst enemies of Pakistan precisely because of their illusion that, given the current situation, in the end everything will be a-okay, that Allah will take care of it. Well, my friend, I have news for you: if nothing is set in motion for the betterment, ie, change in Pakistan`s policies to make Pakistan a part of the civilized world, nothing for the better is going to happen. What are some of the factors indicating Pakistan`s change of course and towards its entry into the twentyfirst century, into the civilized world, could you point out?

Your contentment with the status quo (ie, current situation) is what makes you an enemy of Pakistan

Re: YLH #617

``I ask all Indians on this site... and this is a very honest question ... How many people in India ascribe to these fantastic beliefs...``

A miniscule minority. For evidence look at:

http://www.meadev.gov.in/govt/elec99/results.htm

You will find that out of 537 Lok Sabha seats in the 1999 elections (and a total of 51 political parties contesting) Shiv Sena (and the only party on the list that I think may subscribe to that agenda) won a grand total of 15 seats (or precisely 2.8%)! Even this is too high, IMO. They had fewer seats than all the communist parties (who had 40). Shiv Sena (SS?) is a regional party and it is not clear how they will a national party status.

shammi #607
You may have seen this:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/feb/07ashok.htm

``The mantras for peace

Never before as last month, had so many retired Pakistani generals including the last chief of the army staff, General Jahangir Karamat, invaded Delhi on multiple Track II security dialogues.
...``
``...However, the dialogue has clarified one point: that the main reason for not muzzling the jihadis is the perception that they are the ones who have secured the `hard-won advantages` in the freedom struggle. Their gains are seen as a leverage to re-engagement on Kashmir. This strategic rationale is at the very heart of the proxy war and jihad has given the freedom struggle, its missing political paradigm. ..``

Sadhana

THE PUPPETS AND THE PUPPET MASTERS

Following are some of the excerpts from International and Indian Media, circa 1971.

Editorial, Yorkshire Post, April 1, 1971

``The reason, why India is so actively taking part in the destruction of Pakistan and the way it is recruiting agents in East Pakistan, has its roots in history. It all started the day when Pakistan came into being; from that day on, India has never accepted its (Pakistan`s) independent existence and spares no effort to destroy it``

David L`Shack of Daily Telegraph (London) May 6, 1971

``India realizes that it is in its best interest that its opponent (Pakistan) is either destroyed completely or rendered crippled. It (India) has no interest in the safety and well being of Bengalis; it is only running its propaganda campaign to achieve its goals``

Michael Edwards, an expert on the South Asian affairs, in a discussion on BBC`s ``The World Today``, on April 14, 1971, said,

``The statements that are being made by the political parties of West Bengal (India), and the way they are conducting their political rallies in support of East Bengalis should be understood in the right perspective. The general attitude in West Bengal towards re-unification has its roots in prevailing politics and economical necessities. West Bengali leaders believe that if they will be able to assert their domination over East Pakistan, if it secedes, and they will also be able to obtain cheaper raw material for their industry``.

The Free Press Journal (India) writes in its editorial of April 2, 1971

``We (India) should work very carefully on our plan to disintegrate Pakistan. It is possible that East Bengal returns our favor by accepting our right on Kashmir``

Daily Indian Express, writes in its editorial of March 30, 1971.

``We have come across a historical opportunity to intervene militarily. The time is now.``

The Director of Institute of Defense Studies, Mr. Subramanaim, writes in Indian Express on April 7, 1971.

``We (India) must realize that the disintegration of Pakistan will only benefit India. We are offered with a historical opportunity and we must avail it.``

Mr. Subramaniam Swami wrote in daily ``Motherland`` (India) on June 15, 1971.

``Pakistan`s geographic integrity is not our problem. It is their (Pakistan) headache. We should look for answers to our two main questions i.e whether the disintegration of Pakistan benefits India and if it does then what can we do about it………….the disintegration of Pakistan will benefit India by strengthening its internal as well as external security. It is our mission to be a great international power. In order to achieve this goal we should promote national unity and work towards eliminating Pakistan.``

Ms. Indira Gandhi, as reported by the Daily Telegraph on June 15, 1971

``India will not accept any political solution that does not result in the creation of Bangladesh``.

Eklavya #611
``We must be on guard, realizing that we are not some special, god`s chosen people. An average Pakistani and an average Indian is cut from the same identical cloth. We are just luckier that our founders chose a radically different vision of nationhood and a different cultural structure for striving towards those national ideals.``

You are right. Let me tell what I think is a key point and there may be a future battle here: temples werenot allowed to become privatized zones of influence and money of religious individuals, the temples always remained `supervised` by the government. I say nationalize all places of worship even mosques everywhere on the subcontinent and make them public property!

Sadhana

Re: Shammi #340

Here is my (belated) response to your post. Much of it is in the form of an extended quotation from the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on this. The ``Protocol`` reference is to the Geneva Protocol of 1977, the latest internationally ratified (and presumably accepted) word on this.

``The first Protocol of 1977 made a number of important changes that bind those states that are parties to it. For example, one of the major problems with recognizing guerrilla fighters as lawful combatants is that they may not, in fact, distinguish themselves from the civilian population--in which case, all civilians are placed at risk. Therefore, article 43 of the Protocol requires all combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. However, even if a combatant does not do this, he will still be entitled to treatment as a lawful combatant if he carries his arms openly during each military engagement and during such time as he is visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.``

The last part of this is clearly unworkable in practice. The common (and common sense) guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/freedom-fighter/take-your-pick practice of hiding arms until ready to attack means that ALL regular troops can, legally, execute out of hand, most opposing forces. Its only when the opposing forces grow large enough and successful enough to operate while going about armed in public (i.e., behave as regular troops) are they sheltered by this provision.

Now, leaving aside the problem of actually trying to enforce such minute distinctions in combat, it is likely then that `war crimes` such as the summary execution of Mukti Bahini prisoners would not actually fall in the category of war crimes.

That having been said, let me make clear that I am not in any way, shape or form execusing Pakistani Army atrocities against clear non-combatants (i.e, the vast majority of the women and all the children). There is more than enough evidence to implicate many (but far from all) general officers, brigade and unit commanders in `War Crimes.` It is a shameful blot on the record of many units and their COs that they either could not control their men or, worse, encouraged them to commit atrocities. Again, if fighting a guerilla war, the insurgents count on the fact that their activities WILL provoke government troops to commit atrocities: this is one of the ways they get new recruits.

Furthermore, we must also keep in mind that actions such as Bengali officers, JCOs, NCOs and ORs mutinying and killing their West Pakistani Officers, JCOs, and NCOs and their families (as happened in several instances) is a simple criminal act and punishable as murder. There is no need for a War Crimes tribunal here.

Acts such as `Tiger` Siddiqui`s (I think I have the name right) public beheading of two Pakistani POWs is a war-crime. (Whatever happened to him anyway?)

So the problem here is one of definition, jurisdiction, proof/evidence and probably insurmountable as far as punishing many of the low-ranking offenders goes. You could try to charge Niazi and some of the senior officers on the grounds that they encouraged, if not actually ordered, atrocities to be committed (similar to the grouds on which Yamashita was hung in Tokyo: he was responsible for his troop`s behaviour in Manilla, but the Aussie judge dissented on this).

Now keeping on this topic, you could charge Indira Gandhi and the Indian government with waging a war of aggression against Pakistan, also a valid war crime. Pakistan attacked on Dec 3rd BUT there is more than enough evidence to show that Indian troops were fighting brigade strength actions by the end of November.

So any 1971 War War Crimes trial would be huge mess all around. Any suggestions as to how it should be handled (as an academic exercise now)?

Regards.