Feeling Good

General Tikka landed in East Pakistan at 3:40PM on March 7th, 1971. Do you think he alienated the Bengalis in 18 days which resulted in Mujeeb declaring Independence on 26th March. He did not have any role in the political negotiations with Mujeeb at this time. He requested a meeting with Mujeeb which Mujeeb turned down due to his own political reasons. Tikka`s orders at this time were clear; Take no action against anyone and keep the army in the barracks, which he implemented.

He is often portrayed as the man who favored a military solution to the dispute, which is not true since he supported the negotiations that were going on, even though he was not a part of those negotiations. Read Salik`s book, a firsthand account, which makes it clear along with internal army documents that Tikka was not informed of the status of the negotiations. Even Farman and Khadim Raja were not aware of the status, even though they had been therw well before Tikka. The negotiations were being done by General Yahya and his team that had flown in from west Pak.He did not know what was going on; only late on 23rd March was he told by Yahya to launch military operations. Read all sorts of books, there are hundreds of books out there on the 1971 war, quite a few of them by Pakistanis, Indians and Westerners and Bangladeshis. I will list them later.

He was not responsible for Pakistan`s humiliation. He was not financially corrupt like some of the other Generals (Niazi), nor was he a perpetual drinker like some others (which resulted in them neglecting their duties (including Yahya). He was a soldier doing what he was ordered to do by the President. What did you expect him to do on the 23rd of March when told by Yahya to lanch the operation? Tell Yahya that he was flying back to West Pakistan? Then some other General would have undertaken the operation, but you would have still blamed Tikka, just like people blame Sahibzada Yakub and Admiral Ahsan today for being ``soft`` even though they were really good soldiers. (Will reply in detail later.)

#158 by Tmk

[General Gul was the Chief of Army Staff from after the war till March 3, 1972. Only then was General Tikka appointed, since he had no political ambitions, and at that time the prestige of the army was low so Army rule in West Pak was not a possibility.]

You got me wrong. The point is not whether he was immediately promoted or not, nor is it about political ambition. It is that a man accountable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis, and Pakistan`s humiliation, could still retain office, and what`s worse, be promoted.

Re 154 by Harish Hyder:

``The Hamood-ur-Rahman report means diddly-squat since it was never never made public and acted upon. Not a single jawan/officer has been convicted till date for his role in the atrocities. In fact, Gen. Tikka Khan, widely known as the butcher of Bangladesh, was promoted to the rank of General right after the war.``

General Gul was the Chief of Army Staff from after the war till March 3, 1972. Only then was General Tikka appointed, since he had no political ambitions, and at that time the prestige of the army was low so Army rule in West Pak was not a possibility.

editors/interactors -- post #151 is NOT MINE -- given that i have seen this happen with other people is it then fair to assume that it is easy to hack into one`s account here?

harish #154 On abu ghraib: You clearly missed my point when you wrote ``As for Abu Ghraib, public outcry began only after the gory pictures were splashed across newspapers all over America. `` and ``You are making a virtue out of necessity. Had the media not exposed the sordid saga of abuse at Abu Ghraib, you think the US would have ever accepted it`s mistakes? ``

This ``media`` you refer to (specifically, the ``60 Minutes II`` show that broke the case wide open) is part of the checks and balances in the US that I refer to when I give the US an A+. It is not external to to the US.

And once again, I dont have any ``necessities`` that I try to make virtues out of. I am not interested in ``defending`` the actions of any government or any country - I am only interested in trying to understand the truth.

harish_hyd #154 on pakistan army in bangladesh - you are wrong when you assume that the hamood urrehman report was never made public. Please re-read what I wrote, and note that I say it was never made OFFICIALLY public. However, unofficially large sections (and I am quite sure the entire report) has in fact been made public by the pakistan press. I did a google on ``Hamood bangladesh`` and right on top came this on a pakistani website www.lawfirm.org.pk/hmd.html

And as I say, to the best of my knowledge there is no similar report on kashmir in India (or gujerat for that matter).

As I say in my post on abu ghraib that I just sent, I am not interested in defending any government or nation. Only on getting to the truth. And the truth as I understand it (and I am prepared to learn about any similar report in India on Indian army actions in kashmir) is that there is no such report in India. It may well be that the extent of abuse in Kashmir by the Indian army was smaller than that in Bangladesh by the Pakistan army - all I am saying is there is no evidence of internal controls within the military or broader controls within the society in India or Pakistan of the kind that the US has demonstrated.

The ``Moral Gap`` between the subcontinent and the US in this respect is as wide as the mouths of those who constantly harp against the US or against one another in India and Pakistan.

#153 by tahmed32 on May 31, 2004 6:10pm PT

[The Hamoodurehman report did a good job of documenting much of the abuse - and to this day has not been made public by any government]

[There has been no equivalent of the Hamoodurehman report in India (as far as I know). There has been no national outcry]

The Hamood-ur-Rahman report means diddly-squat since it was never never made public and acted upon. Not a single jawan/officer has been convicted till date for his role in the atrocities. In fact, Gen. Tikka Khan, widely known as the butcher of Bangladesh, was promoted to the rank of General right after the war.

In Kashmir, individual killings/rapes have not been wide-spread, so there has never been an outcry nor there is a need for a HuR type of report. The media is pretty free in India and if these incidents were wide-spread, they would have definitely brought to light, if not by the national media, at least by the international media. Remember the Gujarat riots, where the gory details were first brought to light by the Indian media. It is not easy to hide an intentional rape/killing in the valley, especially when there is so much opposition to Indian rule.

As for Abu Ghraib, public outcry began only after the gory pictures were splashed across newspapers all over America.

[the US demonstrated the national character to face up to the truth and to have a national outcry]

You are making a virtue out of necessity. Had the media not exposed the sordid saga of abuse at Abu Ghraib, you think the US would have ever accepted it`s mistakes?

harish #152 I think there is a way to measure the behavior of armies as well. It is in terms of the level of ex ante and ex post controls regarding adherence to geneva conventions. On this basis:

1. US military in al ghraib: ex ante controls = F(ail); ex post controls = D

Reason: evidence indicates that ex ante failed (perhaps 33 killed. others abused, 4000-5000 innocent people held for long periods of time); ex post controls were poor but not total failure: army general reported problems in november but his report ignored; army soldier separately reported problems and photos a month or so later, and announced to the world via press conference in January; Gen. Taguba commissioned to investigate. Nevertheless, it took TV show (``90 minutes II``) to finally bring the entire story out.

2. Pakistan military in Bangladesh: F and F.

Reason: evidence indicates ex ante failed (exact estimate of civilians killed not certain, but deaths documented by international agencies); ex post also failed as army did not do anything as follow-up.

3. Indian military in Kashmir: F and D

Reason: evidence indicates ex ante failed (exact esitmates uncertain, but deaths and abuse documented by international agencies). ex post gets D because some courts martial did take place. But large majority of unknown.

So, in summary, all three militaries LEFT TO THEMSELVES basically failed to behave according to international conventions.

SO, lets move to the next level of controls after ex ante and ex post controls beyond the military. These are checks and balances at the national level.

1. US in abu ghraib. A+. Reason: It was the US media (``60 Minutes II``) that brought the story out to the public. The nation did not hide behind excuses - this has been headline news, pictures have been made public, congressional hearings have been held in public, and all this public pressure has resulted in the problem getting fixed at abu ghraib (prisoners freed, conditions brought up to standard).

2. Pakistan in Bangladesh. D+. The Hamoodurehman report did a good job of documenting much of the abuse - and to this day has not been made public by any government. There has been no national outcry.

3. India in Kashmir. D-. There has been no equivalent of the Hamoodurehman report in India (as far as I know). There has been no national outcry.


So, in conclusion, while the militaries behaved poorly in all three instances, only the US demonstrated the national character to face up to the truth and to have a national outcry.

harimou:
``So, what is it likely to be: $200 billion, $280 billion or $400 billion?

I want to see all you frikking idiots who mindlessly spout the drivel that Rajiv Gandhi/Manmohan Singh were the economic liberators of India come out with your preditions.``

You talk as if forex reserves are the only criterion of a country`s well-being. They may be an indicator of economic health but only in conjunction with other indicators. If the reserves go up to $400 billion, it would not automatically imply good economic management or vice-versa. In case you didn`t know, the RBI has been for some time concerned about the large increased in forex reserves.

Forex reserves are primarily a function of the attractiveness of a country`s currency; it could mean that the currency is undervalued for the terms of trade, or expected to be revalued, or has a higher interest rates than available elsewhere or preferential treatment given to forex inflows, such as no tax on NRI deposits. As a matter of fact, I would hope that forex reserves do not rise any further; that the Indian corporations use these reserves to acquire attractive companies abroad to seek a global presence or to import the latest machinery and technology to increase their productivity and international competitiveness.
This is what I would look for rather than a mindless climbing of the forex reserves.

#150 by tahmed32 on May 28, 2004 11:27am PT

[I was referring to were actions carried out by individual soldier or officers where the intent was in fact to rape or kill civilians. That is where the US is miles ahead compared to both India and Pakistan.]

In Kashmir, intentional killing of civilians or rape have been few and far in between. I think no Army can discipline individual soldiers/officers bent upon committing acts such as murder or rape. As the conduct of the American prison guards at Abu Ghraib cannot be cited as an example to judge the entire American Army, so can the individual killings/rapes not be cited as an example to judge the Indian Army. When compared to Pakistan`s well-documented actions in Bangladesh, where soldiers responsible for one of the biggest genocides in recent history said by raping Bangladeshi women, they were helping purify Bangladesh`s Muslim race, the Indian Army has certainly fared far better in Kashmir.

And is sexual humilation, as happened at Abu Ghraib any less than rape/killing? If anything, Islamic beliefs say that it is worse.

harish #148 I agree with you on the point concerning where the Indian army unintentionally killed civilians. And no doubt better technology will reduce such civilian deaths in future. What I was referring to were actions carried out by individual soldier or officers where the intent was in fact to rape or kill civilians. That is where the US is miles ahead compared to both India and Pakistan.

Concerning the other points, I did not address them simply because my post was becoming too long, not because I was avoiding the issue. Here are my comments to the question of the US treatment of Indians, slavery, and discrimination against blacks:

First, I agree that these are indeed dark chapters in US history. However, to be fair one should note that such dark chapters exist in virtually every nations history. Starting 50,000 years ago when the neanderthals were wiped out by homo sapiens; who knows what evil went one between that time and 5,000-10,000 years ago when we know the egyptians screwed israelites (by enslaving them); and the israealits escaped, only to screw the canaanites (by destroying their cities and putting men, women and children to the sword); the romans then screwed the israelites, and also screwed the brits, french, germans; the vandals and huns then screwed the romans (razed Rome, e.g.); the aryans screwed the dravidians and in turn got screwed by central asians who were later to get screwed by the brits; the mongols screwed central asians, west asians, and much of europe (and also presented them with the black death which wiped out a third of the british and french populations); the aussies screwed the aborigines (tasmania island they wiped out every single aborigine by organizing aborigine hunts, as a tasmanian farmer once told me); the arabs screwed africans and east europeans and even south brits and icelanders (by enslaving them, and by castrating many of the male slaves) for several centuries).

So, the above is the World History of the Human Race in a nutshell. :-) And so, as Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Second: the US has been an inspiration to the rest of the world because of its democratic ideals - which were formulated when the Divine Right of Kings reigned supreme. AND the US has marched steadily forward towards meeting these ideals - by the emancipation proclamation in 1864, women`s suffrage after that, and the Civil RIghts Act of 1964.

I rest my case.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE29Df04.html
Pakistan on the march again


``...Officials close to Pakistan`s strategic circle have told Asia Times Online that recently Musharraf was given a detailed briefing of a new strategic road map for Indian-administered Kashmir in which Kashmiri freedom fighters will launch fresh assaults on key targets in the state....``

``...The genesis of Pakistan`s latest policy lies in a meeting held about eight months ago which included several prominent retired army officers, including former chief of army staff, retired General Jehangir Karamat, and a former director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and present managing director of Fauji Fertilizer (the country`s largest fertilizer plant owned by the army`s Fauji Foundation), retired Lieutenant-General Mehmood Ahmed. Also present was retired General (now senator) Javed Asharaf Qazi....``

``...Unlike Russia and the US, Pakistan`s oligarchy has its own dynamics and does not include petrochemical giants and heads of huge multi-national corporations, but ex-officers like retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, retired Lieutenant-General Mehmood Ahmed and retired Lieutenant-General Asad Durrani. These people effectively run Pakistan`s de facto ruling class, the Pakistan Army.

Though these generals have been retired for several years, they have retained their grip on many mafias, including religious ones, Afghan warlords and Pakistani and Afghan politicians. Their unmatched wealth and influence keep these generals in the power game.

Apart from many powerful import and export businesses, Gul operates a transport service (a bus service monopoly) in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The business is actually in the name of his daughter, Uzma Gul.

After being railways and communications minister and director general of the ISI, General Javed Asharaf Qazi (the founding father of the Taliban) is today a senator of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League. Another former director of the ISI, Asad Durrani, launched several joint Pakistan-US intelligence operations, and since his retirement he has served as an ambassador in important European countries, as well as in Saudi Arabia. Men such as these, as they have in the past, are defining Pakistan`s policies. ...``


Chalo, when ordinary Pakistani obfuscate all discussion of these policies by calling Indians `hatemongerers`, we know who these ordinary Pakistanis are really defending.

#146 by tahmed32 on May 26, 2004 12:03pm PT

[I think the keyword is ``intent``.]

Exactly. More Kashmiris fall victim to cross-fire and the bullets of terrorists than to intentional killing by the Indian Army.

[Vietnam was a guerilla war...]

So is Kashmir.

Kashmir is an extremely difficult terrain, both in terms of geography and battlefield conditions. The guerillas the Indian Army fights are motivated, well-trained, and well-armed. In a situation where a soldier has no idea of who the enemy is and where he could fire upon him from, he must make a decision within the blink of an eye.

And when fighting a trigger-happy enemy who believes that the more the casualties (whether military or civilian) the better the news (consequently the rewards), a soldier cannot be expected to take the onus of civilians` safety upon his shoulders because if he does, it can mean certain death for him. That is perhaps one reason for the large number of civilian casualties. But with better technologies such as the hand-held thermal imager that India recently procured from Israel and is also on the way to indigenously developing them, soldiers can now spot a terrorist and incercept him way before he can make his way into population centers. This has drastically reduced civilian casualties in the last 1-2 years. Hopefully it will get even better if and when Pakistan realizes that the Jihadis are a far greater threat to it`s own survival than they can ever be to India`s. The current calm that we are witnessing is only a tactical retreat.

[All I am saying is that COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS INCLUDING INDIA AND PAKISTAN, the US is miles ahead in terms of checks and balances. And I provided examples from 1947 and later in the subcontinent to support my point.]

Sure, but you conveniently chose to remain silent on the issues I raised:
1. Large-scale extermination of Red Indians that brought them to the brink of extinction.
2. Slavery.
3. Discrimination against blacks that continued well until the 60s.

tahmed32 #145
``What I was pointing to (your reading my posts carefully, commenting only when you spot some error) was a fact.``

It is not a fact, Mr Pompous.

harish #140 On the nuclear issue, I hope you will agree that we are now starting to beat a dead horse, and so perhaps we should let this poor animal RIP. Let us just hope that the current peace process will lead to an end in hostilities, and good sense will prevail on both side from here on. As the recent elections in India have demonstrated, these are all ``babu issues`` and the reality is that vast majority of people on both sides are more interested in ``roti, kapra or makaan``.

On the other issue (US in Iraq), you write:

``Do you think the pilots who just the other day bombed a wedding party that killed over 50 people would be ever held accountable? Similar incidents have occurred in Afghanistan too, where children and women have been maimed or killed by daisy-cutters dropped by American fighter jets. Similarly in Vietnam, where the effects of the Napalm bombs that were dropped on hapless civilians are still being felt generations later. Has the US ever apologized for these incidents? Or were the perpetrators ever held accountable?
Just the other day I read that American soldiers would be immune to prosecution for any killings in Iraq. Now how does the much-vaunted American checks and balances system explain that? ``

I think the keyword is ``intent``. Obviously, the bombing of the wedding party was not deliberate and can be attributed to the ``fog of war``. This happens in every war: a famous case was the shooting of General Stonewall Jackson by his own southern troops who mistook him for the enemy. In the current war, the US bombed Canadian troops as well as its own troops in Afghanistan due to human error, and it also shot down a British plane in Iraq. Other armies have done this too - the father of a friend of mine was shot dead with a machine gun burst in the 1965 war by our own troops. And I have read about this being a major problem in other wars (e.g. in an account of the North Africa campaign provided by a participant who wrote that he had no doubt that a number of ``British 8th army vs. the British 8th army`` skirmishes took place). The same is true in Afghanistan. The daisy cutters were targetted at taliban formations, not civilians and to the best of my knowledge these particular bombs in fact were not the ones that accidentally landed on civilians.

So, while tragic, the bombing of the wedding party is comparable to a traffic accident and not to the deliberate targetting of civilians. Nor do I think there is any reasonable person in the world who can seriously think that this was the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Vietnam was a guerilla war where the Viet Cong were part of the population, and here again the targetting was not deliberate. One can question the wisdom or event the morality behind the war, or the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to escalate US presence in Vietnam from ``advisory`` to full scale. But it would be confusing the issue to think that the napalm attacks were deliberately targetted at civilians.

I am not saying the US is perfect, and do not wish to end up defending every single action done in the name of this country. All I am saying is that COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS INCLUDING INDIA AND PAKISTAN, the US is miles ahead in terms of checks and balances. And I provided examples from 1947 and later in the subcontinent to support my point.

THis post has now become Romairesque as well. So I better end now. Hopefully I have made my point clear though.

nikki #143 you write ``pakistan calling itself a nuclear power is like pakistan saying that it is an industrialised nation...phooey...``

Your logic (i.e. calling Pakistan a nuclear power is like calling it an industrialized nation) leaves a lot to be desired. Please dont waste your time and mine and go practice your new found US slang with someone else.