Pakistani Genocide - Page 3

Hongkongfuey · 09-08-2005, 12:43 PM

Quote:

The historian branch of the State Department held a two-day conference on June 28 and 29 on US policy in South Asia between 1961 and 1972, inviting scholars from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to express their views on the declassified documents.

During the seminar, Bangladeshi scholars acknowledged that their official figure of more than 3 million killed during and after the military action was not authentic.

They said that the original figure was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million.

Shamsher M. Chowdhury, the Bangladesh ambassador in Washington who was commissioned in the Pakistan Army in 1969 but had joined his country’s war of liberation in 1971, acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake. Instead, he suggested that Pakistan and Bangladesh form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report.

Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India.

Prof Sarmila Bose, an Indian academic, told the seminar that allegations of Pakistani army personnel raping Bengali women were grossly exaggerated.

Based on her extensive interviews with eyewitnesses, the study also determines the pattern of conflict as three-layered: West Pakistan versus East Pakistan, East Pakistanis (pro-Independence) versus East Pakistanis (pro-Union) and the fateful war between India and Pakistan.

Prof Bose noted that no neutral study of the conflict has been done and reports that are passed on as part of history are narratives that strengthen one point of view by rubbishing the other. The Bangladeshi narratives, for instance, focus on the rape issue and use that not only to demonize the Pakistan army but also exploit it as a symbol of why it was important to break away from (West) Pakistan.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm

The state department conference referred to can be seen on this URL
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

There were many interfactional battles between Bengalis and non-Bengalis to account for. The Rahman Report makes it clear 26,000 people died, that's not unreasonable when you consider that 100,000 have been killed in the Iraw War in 1 year using the latest smart technology.

And the comparison with Kashmir is very very genuine. There have been over 60,000 Kashmitis killed by the Indian Army over the last 15 years. The figures, the mental scarring associated with them are just ignored by the shameless Indians on here who just ignore an ongoing brutality of a people who want independence, just like the Bangladeshis in 1971 - Perhaps that's why plebiscite is never held. The outcome will lend more credence to the Kashmiri insurgency if it was officially declared that they support independence (which even your poor MORI poll, conducted by Prakhash, the New Delhi Based research guru, suggests).

Ray · 09-08-2005, 14:01 PM

Quote:

Prof Sarmila Bose, an Indian academic, told the seminar that allegations of Pakistani army personnel raping Bengali women were grossly exaggerated.

Ah our good Sharmila Bose!

A non entity whose biography is not on the net and yet trying very hard with controversies galore to be in the limelight.

To remain in the limelight in a recent article by Sharmila Bose (Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3) she lampooned Hindu Gods. But it did not create a furor. Maybe it is the Hindu psyche of fatalism! If she had been a Moslem, she would have been lynched like they tried to do so to Nasreen in Bangaldesh and Salman Rushdie!

I am rminded of Disraeli:

"But what minutes! Count them by sensation, and not by calendars, and each moment is a day."

Take Salman Rushdie, his novel features a complex series of adventures and dream material exploring issues of religious belief and of the interpretation of Islamic religious scriptures. What so blasphemous about that?

To quote Sharmila Bose or Salman Rushdie would be "a opinion" but not the gospel truth! Or would it?

If parodying Prophet Mohamet is the truth, the Bose is equally true!

Ray · 09-08-2005, 14:11 PM

Quote:

Rahman Report makes it clear 26,000 people died,

A Report by a Commission that was most reluctantly set up. With the all pervasive Army in the background as ever.

And you want the truth!

No rigging in LB election says Mush and that is it. Let see what anyone can do about it!

How many coups has Pakistan had? And why?

The Army plays a major role in Paksitani politics and policy making!

Ray · 09-08-2005, 14:34 PM

Quote:

The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies. Dennis Kux. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2001, 470 pp. $22.95 (paper).

Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan. Mary Anne Weaver. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2002, 284 pp. $24.00.

Late this summer, General Pervez Musharraf -- Pakistan's self-appointed president and chief executive -- delivered yet another devastating blow to the country's democratic prospects. At an August 21 press conference, Musharraf announced 29 new amendments to the constitution that vastly strengthened the powers of the military and the executive. Among other prerogatives, these amendments gave the president (who will be Musharraf for at least the next five years, thanks to the fraud-ridden "referendum" held in April) the power to dismiss Pakistan's legislature -- effectively making all of parliament's actions subject to his approval. Another innovation, the National Security Council, formally institutionalized the already pervasive role of the military in the country's politics.

Musharraf's fiats were just the latest in a 45-year-long saga of military assaults on Pakistan's body politic. For most of its history, the country's military -- often with the complicity of other key elements of the Pakistani state, such as the civilian bureaucracy and even, on occasion, the judiciary -- has seemed intent only on maintaining its own prospects and prerogatives. This single-minded determination has brought the country several coups, ill-considered alliances, and disastrous military operations against India.

Musharraf himself came to power in one such coup, in October 1999. The general took office promising to restore order, instill probity in public life, and promote social justice. But his dictatorial predecessors had made similar pledges, and Pakistan's military regimes have never delivered long-term economic prosperity or political stability. Instead, they have consistently skewed the distribution of wealth and income, made the development of honest and effective political parties nearly impossible, undermined the independence of the judiciary, and exacerbated the underlying weaknesses of the Pakistani state. And so far Musharraf's rule has offered no exception to this depressing trend.

This time, however, Washington cannot afford to ignore the mismanagement in Islamabad. Pakistan's sorry status quo and uncertain future are of critical significance. As the United States seeks to uproot the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban, it remains acutely dependent on Pakistan's stability and well-being, not to mention its cooperation. Moreover, the long-running tensions between India and Pakistan now have significance far beyond the subcontinent, thanks to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. The United States is thus very concerned indeed to ensure that their recurrent tiffs do not spiral into full-scale war. And if the world hopes to stanch the growth of fundamentalist Islam, turning Pakistan toward democracy and away from venal, autocratic rule will be imperative.

Key to that effort will be learning how Pakistan got to where it is today, and how to leverage U.S.-Pakistani ties to improve governance from Islamabad. Fortunately, three authors who have spent significant periods of time in Pakistan have recently produced books that should be useful to the process. In his comprehensive account of U.S.-Pakistan relations, Dennis Kux, a former U.S. diplomat, touches on many of the central developments in the latter country's coup-ridden history. Journalist Mary Anne Weaver's new book focuses on the interplay between Pakistani politics and society. And Owen Bennett Jones, another journalist, seeks to uncover the deep sources of Pakistan's critical ailments. Each book has its merits, but Jones' work is far more analytically probing than the other two and gives a clearer picture of how Pakistan has arrived at such a parlous state.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE

The root causes of Pakistan's economic and political woes lie in its feudal society and the winner-take-all approach to governing that has been practiced by successive civilian and military leaders. The party that brought Pakistan independence, the Muslim League, lacked internal democracy. Once partition and statehood had been achieved, the league, dominated by upper-class landed gentry from the former United Provinces of British India, displayed scant interest in forging a state that would promote popular participation and equity. Although they sought to free the Muslims of South Asia from Hindu domination, Pakistan's leaders failed to address the new state's own ethnic diversity. This was a critical shortcoming, for contrary to the political rhetoric of Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the region's Muslims never constituted an inchoate, monolithic nation. Instead, a variety of Muslim communities existed throughout British India, and these communities were riven by sectarian, ethnic, and class cleavages.

After the creation of Pakistan, these ethnic differences quickly came to the fore. The new country's leaders showed scant regard for representative institutions, accommodative policies, or pluralism. And when this neglect resulted in serious political disorder less than ten years later, the military stepped in, inaugurating what would become a long tradition of seizing power. In fact, since this initial coup in 1958, Pakistan has been ruled by its military for more than half of its history. Even when civilian governments have managed to assume power, they have for the most part been hamstrung by pressures and demands from the military -- the best-organized entity in the country.

In forging Pakistan's foreign policy, successive regimes have made matters worse by further bolstering the military's prerogatives. To do so, both civilian and military rulers have exaggerated the threat from India (asserting, for example, that India seeks to repossess the entire territory of Pakistan), single-mindedly fastened on the unresolved Kashmir dispute, and assiduously courted the United States as a strategic ally.

The military alliance with the United States has been the subject of considerable polemic but little dispassionate examination from Pakistani, as well as Indian, writers. Pakistani scholars, most notably the historian Ayesha Jalal, have sought to blame the U.S.-Pakistan nexus and India's putative aggressive posture for Pakistan's pervasive militarism. For their part, Indian academics, particularly the historian Mannakal Venkataramani, have argued that Pakistan's hostility toward India was largely fueled by the former's military relationship with the United States. Kux's book, The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies, provides a more disinterested account of the creation and development of the strategic relationship between Washington and Islamabad. By thoroughly examining the U.S. documentary record and interviewing both American and Pakistani decision-makers, Kux has revealed that Washington's interest in such a relationship was actually scant at first. It was only Pakistan's adroit and sedulous diplomacy, combined with India's refusal to align with the United States during the early Cold War, that led to the formation of this bond. Kux also shows that, far from encouraging Pakistani adventurism against India, key individuals in various American administrations have repeatedly sought to thwart Islamabad's attempts to inveigle the United States into adopting an uncritically pro-Pakistani posture on Kashmir.

All the same, the U.S. friendship has translated into substantial military and economic assistance for Pakistan. And such aid has further bolstered the prerogatives of Pakistan's military, thanks in part to the weaknesses of the country's civilian institutions. During the Cold War, the United States agreed to ignore Pakistan's internal arrangements as long as its ally remained staunchly anticommunist. Free from any American pressure to pursue domestic political reform, Pakistan's military and its conservative civil service skewed the nation's developmental priorities, privileged the military's own position, and did little to dismantle the country's feudalistic, inegalitarian social structures. Unlike neighboring India, for example, Pakistan never undertook even a modest program of land reform.

The debility of Pakistan's institutions and its failure to modernize politically is vividly portrayed in Weaver's Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan. In some of the book's more striking vignettes, she shows just how utterly unable Islamabad has been to control vast swaths of territory in tribal Baluchistan and feudal Sindh. In Baluchistan, tribal lords still dispense justice based on local customs and practices -- in many cases simply ignoring the laws of the Pakistani state. And Islamabad, for its part, has done little to bring economic development to this vast, trackless region where violent secessionism remains prevalent. Despite devoting much of her book to Sindh, however, Weaver does not discuss one of the most critical fault lines that cleaves the province: the recrudescent violence between locals and mohajirs (Muslims who immigrated from India during and after partition).

Still, the anecdotes that Weaver uses to paint her portrait of Pakistan provide carefully crafted glimpses of its many pathologies. Through an extended tale of illegal falconry, for example, she shows how sybaritic sheiks from the Persian Gulf (most prominently from Saudi Arabia) flagrantly violate Pakistan's laws governing the hunting of endangered wildlife. Such tales reveal the endemic corruption that invariably emerges as state authority and institutional order corrode.

Many of Weaver's accounts, unfortunately, have a breezy, chatty tenor that entertains more than it informs. And despite its current-events title, many of the essays she includes were written several years ago (in many cases for The New Yorker) and are thus quite dated. Although she has sought to update the book to take account of more recent events, Weaver's efforts feel a bit contrived. For example, her long conversations with Benazir Bhutto do illuminate the myriad problems and challenges that a young, Western-educated woman encountered as the first female prime minister of a deeply conservative and patriarchal country. Yet these interviews offer few insights into Pakistan's contemporary political realities, in which Bhutto's political relevance is limited. Although Bhutto continues to command some support from her Pakistan People's Party and segments of the electorate, her husband (a former cabinet minister) languishes in a Pakistani prison on corruption charges, and she herself faces arrest if she returns from exile. Bhutto's attempt to register as a candidate for the October parliamentary elections was quashed by the election tribunal of the Sindh High Court. Under these conditions, any political comeback appears unlikely.

A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

A more compelling analysis of Pakistan's institutional weaknesses and the capricious behavior of most of its leaders can be found in Jones' Pakistan: Eye of the Storm. This work leavens the historical record with investigative reportage and thoughtful judgments about Pakistan's likely future. Jones relies less on anecdotes than does Weaver, as he seeks to unravel the key historical and political strands that have brought the country to its current plight.

His deft summary of the historical forces that have contributed to the current disaster will sound familiar to South Asia specialists. But Jones is good at connecting historical evidence to contemporary developments. For example, in a superb and unsparing chapter on the army's role, he shows how Pakistan's military rulers have not only usurped political power but have distorted the country's priorities and sustained unremitting hostility toward India. These dictators have also managed to siphon off substantial economic resources, even while accusing Pakistan's civilian politicians of being the ones who have raided the treasury. (Look at the country's annual budgets, more than a third of which goes to the military, and it should become clear who has done the bulk of the raiding.) Shielded from most criticism and scrutiny, furthermore, the army has pursued flawed strategies to wrest Kashmir from India. To this end, it has repeatedly made overly optimistic assessments of its own prowess, uncritically assumed the reliability of potential allies, and routinely underestimated India's military tenacity and political resolve. These decision-making pathologies have cost Pakistan dearly in both blood and treasure while bringing it no closer to dislodging its enemy from Kashmir.

The flaws in Pakistan's leadership have not been confined solely to the realm of foreign policy. Military rulers (and, on occasion, civilian regimes) have exacerbated the country's ethnic and sectarian cleavages. The greatest debacle, the secession of Bangladesh in 1971 (which Jones describes and assesses in some detail), stemmed from the overweening ambitions of a civilian politician, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father), and the callousness of an inept military dictator, Yahya Khan. General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, another military ruler, made Pakistan's ethnic and sectarian tensions still worse. Zia, in attempts to bolster the legitimacy of his own regime, actively courted religious zealots within the country. During his decade-long reign (from 1977 to 1988), he instituted a separate Islamic court system, encouraged the formation of madrassas (religious schools, many of which were funded by Saudi Arabia), and promoted Islamist officers within the army. These policies unleashed pernicious social forces on Pakistan: most notably, Wahhabism, a form of virulently intolerant Islam that now threatens the cohesion of the Pakistani state.

With the tacit consent of the CIA, Zia directed the bulk of American aid dollars to Islamist Afghan mujahideen. Benazir Bhutto, his civilian successor, followed essentially the same course under the tutelage of her interior minister, General Naseerullah Babar. In their quest for "strategic depth" in the event of a war with India, Bhutto and Babar connived to foist the brutal (and, they hoped, pliant) Taliban regime on Afghanistan -- much to the later detriment of that country, the region, and the world.

Not content with promoting the interests of religious zealots at home and in Afghanistan, General Zia directed many of these condottierri toward the already-troubled Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. Their heirs, most prominently the militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-i-Taiba, have engaged in murder, mayhem, and rape in that region while ostensibly seeking to free it from Delhi's misrule. It was Pakistan's support of these terrorists that led to yet another confrontation with India earlier this year -- and brought the two countries to the brink of full-scale war in June. It took extraordinary intercessions from the United States and other countries to prevent such a conflict.

CRASH COURSE

Fourteen years after Zia's demise, the strategic culture of Pakistan's military has not changed,] and it continues to pursue foolhardy operations. The most recent misadventure, the Kargil crisis of 1999, came about a year after the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. Jones provides the most cogent and revealing account of this crisis to date. He suggests that Pakistan's military can be held almost solely responsible for this singularly ill-conceived adventure, which also brought the countries to the brink of war. The army high command, Jones reveals, had started planning the operation in about 1994 in an attempt to disrupt India's ability to supply its troops on the disputed Siachen Glacier. Indian artillery barrages that year interdicted Pakistani troop movements and thwarted the original invasion plans. But Pakistan's generals were undeterred and decided to await a more propitious moment. This came after the 1998 nuclear tests; the army assumed that India would not expand its military operations for fear of provoking a nuclear exchange. The generals were also concerned that, after a decade, the Kashmir insurgency -- the raison d'etre of their high military budgets -- was starting to taper off. Finally, they calculated that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, distracted by his efforts to improve relations with India, would blithely approve what then looked like a small tactical operation. As Jones reveals, however, even the military brass gave only scant thought to how to actually secure the salients they planned to capture -- and this lack of foresight doomed the operation from the start.

Sharif's willingness to seek a diplomatic resolution to the crisis after it erupted contributed to his overthrow in October 1999. Unlike during much of the Cold War -- when Washington overlooked the many shortcomings of Islamabad's military rulers -- this time the United States sharply upbraided Musharraf for his coup and imposed new sanctions on Pakistan. Indeed, the White House came close to labeling Pakistan a state supporter of terrorism due to its close links with the Taliban. It was only after September 11 that American policy toward Pakistan underwent a fundamental shift, and Islamabad once again became a close military ally of Washington. Sadly, the U.S. zeal in the war on terror seems to have propelled it to adopt a deafening silence toward Musharraf's abuses.

The unwillingness of Pakistan's elite to induce political reform has ill-served American interests, however. As Jones depicts, military rule in Pakistan, particularly under Zia, spawned many of the groups that the United States now so ardently seeks to eliminate. The effect of uncritical U.S. aid has been to extend and strengthen the violent grip of the Pakistani military.

This error is all the more tragic because only the United States can force Pakistan to reorder its domestic and external priorities. In the absence of substantial American economic assistance, diplomatic support, and multilateral loans, Pakistan would plunge into economic distress and social dislocation. Washington's clout is therefore enormous, and it could demand meaningful and long-lasting changes to address Pakistan's myriad woes. Whether the United States will prod Musharraf into changing the course he is so carefully plotting -- a route toward ever increasing military dominance and ever more limited democracy -- remains uncertain, however. Meanwhile, the fate of Pakistan's 140 million citizens hangs in the balance.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200211...to-misery.html

A long and tedious read but worth it.

If this is the way the Army invades and subverts and control the political fabric, who the Dickens will have the guts to go against the Army.

As far as the judiciary, bureaucracy being puppets has already been enunciated in a post by me with a link from the Pakistani media in one of the threads.

Hamdoor obviously did not have his gonads growing overnight!

Hongkongfuey · 09-08-2005, 14:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Ah our good Sharmila Bose!

A non entity whose biography is not on the net and yet trying very hard with controversies galore to be in the limelight.

To remain in the limelight in a recent article by Sharmila Bose (Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3) she lampooned Hindu Gods. But it did not create a furor. Maybe it is the Hindu psyche of fatalism! If she had been a Moslem, she would have been lynched like they tried to do so to Nasreen in Bangaldesh and Salman Rushdie!

I am rminded of Disraeli:

"But what minutes! Count them by sensation, and not by calendars, and each moment is a day."

Take Salman Rushdie, his novel features a complex series of adventures and dream material exploring issues of religious belief and of the interpretation of Islamic religious scriptures. What so blasphemous about that?

To quote Sharmila Bose or Salman Rushdie would be "a opinion" but not the gospel truth! Or would it?

If parodying Prophet Mohamet is the truth, the Bose is equally true!

Reality
Shamila Bose = Professor at George Washington University, USA, grand daughter of Subhash Chandra Bose, freedom fighter in India immortalized in the film, Bose - A forgotten hero, released this year.

Ray's reality
Sharmila Bose = A non entity whose biography is not on the net and yet trying very hard with controversies galore to be in the limelight.

Well that settles it. Since her biography is not on the net, all she is an attention seeker, PERIOD!

The bit you quote about Sharmila Bose saying this and really made me burst out laughing

She's not a young woman. She's a professor, and i cant find the story on the net, which even in the unlikely event it were true and not a case of mistaken identity or just someone making it up, does not negate any of her investigation. All i can find is this

Quote:

For example, Bibhuti Bhushan Nandy reports in HT, that: "A recent article by Sharmila Bose (Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3) depicted Ram as an impotent wretch and Sita as a nymphomaniac."
http://www.swordoftruth.com/cgi-bin/...splay&num=2683

Yes, so because Bibhuti said it i guess it's true

. This sounds like the beginnings of a smear compaign. August 3rd this year, well after her preliminary findings came out. What a joke.

lemontree · 09-09-2005, 00:09 AM

Hongkongfeuy,
The facts remian that if the figure was 3 million or 3 hundred thousand it does not make the brutality any less severe.

Quote:

Talking to people on Bangladesh, 1971 gets very very circular after a bit. It boils down to this. There is no evidence of mass genoicide or mass rapings, though I have no doubt some war crimes were committed, since they happen in any war, especially if discipline breaks down in the ranks or you have some undisciplined soldiers. This is not at all uncommon. You will find every single war has had breaks of the Geneva Conventions. It's as much to do with training a soldier to kill and manipulate their minds if need be so that they're filled with hatred for their enemy that will cause some to act out like that.

That is a lame excuse, for an army with high standards of discipline. The 2 Bn SSG killed its own troops since they were bengali. Troops that had served with the unit since its raising in the early sixties. The one regimental centre had its entire bengali troops killed inculding officers (900+ men). The Military hospital had its entire bengali army patients murdered and the hospital staff were held back. It is reported that some west Pakistani armt doctors went insane when this happened. Read links from your own defencejournal "The Way it Was" by Brig ZA Khan (Retd.)

Quote:

Having said all that. One picture of a West Pakistani Army soldier checking some guys dik for circumcision is hardly evidence of mass selective targeting of Hindus, is it?

Very true see the graphs below

Quote:

That soldier looks pretty Bengali to me, and it's you guys who say the West Pakistani are tall and fair, the Bengalis are short and dark, your words, not mine.

On the contrary those are words by Aryan not by Indians. Mohajirs in Pakistan don't look like your typical pathani or balochi soldier.

Quote:

Yes, yes, you've also shown a picture of small slaughtered people. That would not be difficult to find even in todays South Asia, even in Kashmir.

Then please find pictures of such mass graves and women tied up and gang raped in Kashmir and post it here.

Quote:

Oh, and then there's pictures of dead bodies who people claim they're all Hindu, as if that's a creditable source. Dont suppose the person who sold the pictures thought he could get more money by trumpeting forth a Hindu genocide? How did he know they were Hindu?

No one said they were hindu. Many of the pictures are also of the intelletuals and students killed on 25th March 1971 onwards in Dacca University.

Quote:

Yes yes, then there's RJ Rummel's "calculation". Hardly based on fact, just newspaper reports, majority of then Indian and Bengali.

We would have posted West Pakistani reports too if they had any history of credibility.

Ray · 09-09-2005, 00:25 AM

Hongkong,,

Sharmila Bose being a Professor does not make her a sage or something supernatural. She remains a human being and hence can and has possibly a personal agenda.

To be a Professor is no great shakes. If you are formally educated enough, you could always become a Professor.

To be Subash Bose's granddaughter is no great shakes either. It is just destiny. It gives her no addition brains or analytical power. There is a view that Subash Bose never married!

Since I am a fan of Subash Bose, I rather prefer to believe that Subash Bose did marry!

To give you an example on interpretation and Professors. There are many Professors who state that Taj Mahal is a Hindu structure! History, as I have been taught, teaches me that it is a Moslem structure. Both the issues are well argued by Professors of each side. Therefore, who is correct?

I think Lemontree in the post above has summed it up rather well.

Rather detailed.

Genocide or not?

It is your interpretation and mine.

The world's opinion is Genocide just as the world's opinion and mine is that the Taj Mahal is a Moslem architecture!

Hongkongfuey · 09-09-2005, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Hongkongfeuy,
The facts remian that if the figure was 3 million or 3 hundred thousand it does not make the brutality any less severe.

Actually, 3 hundred thousand deaths would be a hell of a lot less brutal than 3 million deaths, or do you get stuck passed 10?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Quote:

Talking to people on Bangladesh, 1971 gets very very circular after a bit. It boils down to this. There is no evidence of mass genoicide or mass rapings, though I have no doubt some war crimes were committed, since they happen in any war, especially if discipline breaks down in the ranks or you have some undisciplined soldiers. This is not at all uncommon. You will find every single war has had breaks of the Geneva Conventions. It's as much to do with training a soldier to kill and manipulate their minds if need be so that they're filled with hatred for their enemy that will cause some to act out like that.

That is a lame excuse, for an army with high standards of discipline. The 2 Bn SSG killed its own troops since they were bengali. Troops that had served with the unit since its raising in the early sixties. The one regimental centre had its entire bengali troops killed inculding officers (900+ men). The Military hospital had its entire bengali army patients murdered and the hospital staff were held back. It is reported that some west Pakistani armt doctors went insane when this happened. Read links from your own defencejournal "The Way it Was" by Brig ZA Khan (Retd.)

It was a civil war, West Pakistan vs East Pakistan. The Army was not spared the division. East Pakistan rifles deserted and took up arms against West Pakistani soldiers. That is the reality. West Pakistani soldiers were attacked in return. It was not one way shooting.

Do post the links from the "defencejournal". Your little bit of idiocy of doctors going insane is one of the most ignorant bits of drivel I have heard for a while, from any war. Military doctors, hell even doctors are trained for that. The sight of blood does not drive them insane you frigging moron.

Whilst we're on confessions, the West Pakistani forces themselves admit excesses were carried out ; just as happens in any war. Do try and digest this fact. But your Bengali army hospital patient massacre sounds like another load of rubbish. Do post your links.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Quote:

Having said all that. One picture of a West Pakistani Army soldier checking some guys dik for circumcision is hardly evidence of mass selective targeting of Hindus, is it?

Very true see the graphs below

More of the same fictitious drivel. Will you take a look at what you posted in that image of yours? PS It's not a graph, it's a table.

The site by Rummel (Hawaii.edu) is just an armchair enthusiasts opinion using questionable methodologies. His conclusions are highly suspect in almost all the genocides he claims occurred (see quote below). He uses newspaper reports (the majority of them Indian, Chaudrai especially, to derive a figure for the number killed during the war. That is why his estimate varies from 300,000 to 3 million. Then he takes an average of these reported figures that are propaganda!! In other words he's not using any evidence, as other people have remarked about him in the following quote -

Quote:

Other people point out that his methods of calculation of the death toll are highly controversial. He compares the statistical data before and after a certain date and derives an estimate about the number of killings that occurred between. However, he fails to establish evidence of actual killing. Moreover, his results are based on an absolute trust in statistical data and statistics are prone to errors.

However, he himself uses the wider sense of "killed by", including all kinds of "reason-result" relationships between acts of government and actual deaths. Moreover, in calculating the number of victims, he doesn't feel he needs evidence of a death; the result of statistical calculation is, for Rummel, effective proof that death occurred.

For an example of alleged manipulation: Rummel estimates the death toll in the Rheinwiesenlager as between 4,500 and 56,000. Official US figures were just over 3,000 and a German commission found 4,532. The high figure of 56,000 also merited the notation "probably much lower" in Rummel's extracts.

Another flaw in Rummel's statistical calculations is that he doesn't use error margins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel

Look at your table 8.2 more closely. Rummel has taken a selection of NEWSPAPERS/REPORTINGS (referenced in the right margin, many of them propaganda, just look at the names of those authors!!

), and he's quoted the values (upper limits/lower limits or midway estimates) as given in these reportings. He's used these figures to calculate a lower estimate and an upper estimate by determining which are the most common figures in the newspapers/reportings. Now look at the names of the authors used for those reportings. Specifically look at Table 8.2, the figures for "OVERALL". Look at the authors of those newspapers/reportings.

Choudhari X 5
Roy X 1
Muhith X 1
Kupa X 1

Those sound like Bangladeshi or Indian names to me, and some of those references are from newspaper articles and books. The Sisson & Rose book is a bit more balanced, but look at the figure which Rummel concludes from those newspaper reports. He has taken Choudhari references so much that Choudhari is what his figure resembles. If you take away all the Chaudhari references you're left with one figure of 8 million(!!!!) dead, and a more reasonable Sisson and Rose figure of 300,000, but even that is probably overestimated. This methodology by Rummel is in no way scientifically valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Quote:

That soldier looks pretty Bengali to me, and it's you guys who say the West Pakistani are tall and fair, the Bengalis are short and dark, your words, not mine.

On the contrary those are words by Aryan not by Indians. Mohajirs in Pakistan don't look like your typical pathani or balochi soldier.

More Indian fiction

On the contrary, those are words by gezar.
See here for tall fair tight assed Pakistani stereotyping

Quote:

what can we do brother dingdong honkkong?we cant attack the jeeeeeeeews as they have nuclear bomb and same situation with kafir hindus.....they lie about the holocoust of bengalis and expect the beloved tall fair tight ass pakistanis(TFTA) to believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Quote:

Yes, yes, you've also shown a picture of small slaughtered people. That would not be difficult to find even in todays South Asia, even in Kashmir.

Then please find pictures of such mass graves and women tied up and gang raped in Kashmir and post it here.

Yes, well, hope these reports will satisfy your lust for pictures.

Quote:

Children 'buried alive' to appease Gods

More than 100 children have been buried alive in India as part of a 400-year-old ritual to appease two female deities.

They were buried for about a minute during a ceremony known as Kuzhi Maatru Thiruvizhaa, which translates as festival of pits.

The ritual is practiced by a small group of Hindus in Tamil Nadu. It is observed every five to seven years, in the belief that villagers' wishes will be granted by goddesses Muthukuzhi Mariamman and Kaliamman.

Only prepubescent females are allowed to take part but there is no age restriction on males.
http://www.greatreporter.com/modules...rticle&sid=372
http://www.dalitstan.org/sol/bizz.htm

There's plenty of neutral reports of Indian Army soldiers raping women in Kashmir. Look at the other forum. But here's another link for youto get on with

Quote:

Authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir have arrested three Indian paramilitary soldiers following the gang rape of 17-year-old girl.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/1940088.stm

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Quote:

Oh, and then there's pictures of dead bodies who people claim they're all Hindu, as if that's a creditable source. Dont suppose the person who sold the pictures thought he could get more money by trumpeting forth a Hindu genocide? How did he know they were Hindu?

No one said they were hindu. Many of the pictures are also of the intelletuals and students killed on 25th March 1971 onwards in Dacca University.

Alright, my mistake. I read so many articles by Indians claiming a Hindu genocide in Bangladesh that i just got the wrong impression of what you said. But the same basis can be used, how can you tell these pictures were not of Biharis killed by Bengalis?

PS Dacca University killings only occurred on the night of the 25th March, 1971. It was over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Quote:

Yes yes, then there's RJ Rummel's "calculation". Hardly based on fact, just newspaper reports, majority of then Indian and Bengali.

We would have posted West Pakistani reports too if they had any history of credibility.

Here's a credible report by an Indian, Bengali, and even a professor that was received by the US State department, Bengali academics, and US academics at the following conference.

Report : http://www.drishtipat.org/1971/sarmila_paper.html
Conference : http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

Quote:

3:00-3:15 p.m.
Break
Delegates’ Lounge

3:15-5:00 p.m.
Session 3:
[u]South Asia in Crisis during the Nixon Administration /u]

Loy Henderson Auditorium

Chair: Dr. Peter A. Kraemer, Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State

Panelists:

‘We do not see any sign or hope:’ U.S.-Bangladesh Contacts in 1971
Dr. Ali Riaz, Illinois State University

The 1971 South Asian Crisis: U.S. Policy Revisited
Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed, University of Dhaka

Anatomy of Violence: An Analysis of Acts of Terror in East Pakistan in 1971
Dr. Sarmila Bose, George Washington University

Nixon's White House and Pakistan: The Tilt that Failed
F.S. Aijazuddin, OBE

Comment: Dr. Sumit Ganguly
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

Take a look at the company that Professor Bose was in when she gave her report. Now try and find me one conference of the same quality who would give your Rummel the time of day

Hongkongfuey · 09-09-2005, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Hongkong,,

Sharmila Bose being a Professor does not make her a sage or something supernatural. She remains a human being and hence can and has possibly a personal agenda.

To be a Professor is no great shakes. If you are formally educated enough, you could always become a Professor.

To be Subash Bose's granddaughter is no great shakes either. It is just destiny. It gives her no addition brains or analytical power. There is a view that Subash Bose never married!

Since I am a fan of Subash Bose, I rather prefer to believe that Subash Bose did marry!

To give you an example on interpretation and Professors. There are many Professors who state that Taj Mahal is a Hindu structure! History, as I have been taught, teaches me that it is a Moslem structure. Both the issues are well argued by Professors of each side. Therefore, who is correct?

I think Lemontree in the post above has summed it up rather well.

Rather detailed.

Genocide or not?

It is your interpretation and mine.

The world's opinion is Genocide just as the world's opinion and mine is that the Taj Mahal is a Moslem architecture!

Her agenda??

She is Bengali Ray - The Bengalis were the enemy of the West Pakistanis, your memory seems a little hazy to say the least!!

Oh yeah. Becoming a Professor is easy. Yep, you're right Ray, you could become obtain a professorship from a creditable institution at the drop of a hat

You dont get her report clearly. She's done a systematic analysis of the war. It's not just been researched and her conclusions based on her opinions. It has been researched and the conclusions made from the results she obtained. From these she was allowed to present her findings at the US State department Conference mentioned above.

PS Btw, i found out that that story you quoted about SHarmila Bose (with the h) in Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3 lampooning Hindu Gods ,was not Professor Sarmila Bose who did this research (case of mistaken identity as i said in another post to you).

Search on google for "Sarmila Bose, Ananda Bazaar Patrika, August 3" you wont find anything of the article lampooning Hindu Gods - just that there is a Sarmila Bose assistant editor of the paper!!). Hope that removes that stain YOU tried to tint her with. She's done an excellent job and has been given the credit she rightfully deserves by being allowed to present her report at an official conference.

Jay · 09-09-2005, 06:24 AM

Ok, lets for a moment consider that the people who attended the conference were indeed scholars, lets see what you going to reply about this...

Quote:

In the center of Dacca, the main city of East Pakistan, the army set fire to 25 square blocks and then mowed down those trying to escape.<72> Thousands were massacred in Dacca in the first few days<73> and the killings spread throughout the countryside. Bengali guerrilla resistance led to further bloody reprisals. U.S. consular officials in Dacca reported privately to Washington that "selective genocide" was going on.<74> A World Bank mission reported in July that in every city it visited there were areas razed and in every district there were "villages which have simply ceased to exist."<75> Sober estimates by the summer put the death toll between two and three hundred thousand.<76> ("When one fights, one does not throw flowers," Yahya told the press<77>). Literally millions of Bengalis fled across the border into India in what was probably history's largest one-way movement of refugees in so short a time.<78>

72. _Time_, 3 May 1971, in U.S. Senate, Subcommittee to Investigate Problems with Refugees and Escapees of the Committee on the Judiciary, _Relief Problems in East Pakistan and India_, part 1, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 28 June 1971; part 2, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 30 Sept. 1971; part 3, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 30 Sept. 1971, p. I:105.

73. See news reports reprinted in U.S. Senate, _Relief Problems in East Pakistan and India_, pp. I:104-05.

74. Morris, _Uncertain Greatness_, p. 216.

75. U.S. Senate, _Relief Problems in East Pakistan and India_, p. I:212.

76. _Le Monde_, 10 June 1971; _New York Times_, 14 July 1971 (Sydney H. Schanberg), _Washington Post_, 23 Aug. 1971 (Stephen Klaidman), reprinted in U.S. Senate, _Relief Problems in East Pakistan and India_, pp. I:180, 163, II:342.

77. Interview with _Le Figaro_ reported in _New York Times_, 29 Sept. 1971, quoted in U Thant, _View from the U.N._, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978, p. 426.

78. John P. Lewis testimony in U.S. Senate, _Relief Problems in East Pakistan and India_, p. II:242.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomHumnCri.html

Now, as you see these are testimonials given in US Congress. I will consider these as authentic than Sarmila Bose's research that was done a long time after the genocide itself took place.

lemontree · 09-09-2005, 06:51 AM

[quote=Hongkongfuey]Actually, 3 hundred thousand deaths would be a hell of a lot less brutal than 3 million deaths, or do you get stuck passed 10?
Was that required...?
So 3 lakh killed is OK by you.

Quote:

It was a civil war, West Pakistan vs East Pakistan. The Army was not spared the division. East Pakistan rifles deserted and took up arms against West Pakistani soldiers. That is the reality. West Pakistani soldiers were attacked in return. It was not one way shooting.

The EBR revolted after the killings started on 25th March 1971. Don't blame them for defending themselves.

Quote:

Do post the links from the "defencejournal". Your little bit of idiocy of doctors going insane is one of the most ignorant bits of drivel I have heard for a while, from any war. Military doctors, hell even doctors are trained for that. The sight of blood does not drive them insane you frigging moron.

Thank you for proving the other Indians right on WAB. You are too full of yourself to accept facts. Do your own searches.

Quote:

More Indian fiction

On the contrary, those are words by gezar.
See here for tall fair tight assed Pakistani stereotyping

You have just started posting here, so you know nothing of the past debates in WAB. Check all Aryans posts Mr.genius.

Quote:

Yes, well, hope these reports will satisfy your lust for pictures.

Just allegations....innocent till proven otherwise. Get a picture that compares ti Bangladesh then talk.

Quote:

There's plenty of neutral reports of Indian Army soldiers raping women in Kashmir. Look at the other forum. But here's another link for youto get on with

If your own Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report is not acceptable to you why should I believe some jerk who went for a boat ride on Dal lake when I was operating in J&K myself.

09-09-2005, 00:25 AM	#37 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	Hongkong,, Sharmila Bose being a Professor does not make her a sage or something supernatural. She remains a human being and hence can and has possibly a personal agenda. To be a Professor is no great shakes. If you are formally educated enough, you could always become a Professor. To be Subash Bose's granddaughter is no great shakes either. It is just destiny. It gives her no addition brains or analytical power. There is a view that Subash Bose never married! Since I am a fan of Subash Bose, I rather prefer to believe that Subash Bose did marry! To give you an example on interpretation and Professors. There are many Professors who state that Taj Mahal is a Hindu structure! History, as I have been taught, teaches me that it is a Moslem structure. Both the issues are well argued by Professors of each side. Therefore, who is correct? I think Lemontree in the post above has summed it up rather well. Rather detailed. Genocide or not? It is your interpretation and mine. The world's opinion is Genocide just as the world's opinion and mine is that the Taj Mahal is a Moslem architecture! Last edited by Ray : 09-09-2005 at 00:30 AM.