Disproving some genocide claims

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod:

I imagine your last post was directed at my exchange with AN, in which case that is the post you need to reply to, if I must really point it out, considering you initiated the exchange.

If you think RR's numbers are skulduggery, then prove it - continued banal rhetoric like 'millions viewed this or that' is merely equivalent to spurious anecdotal accounts. People will flee whenever there is war or strife - note the 400,000 from Bajaur alone. That does not mean the holocaust was being replicated. The verifiable numbers do not bear out the genocide claim, or the absurd high end figures bandied about.

The article you posted does not make clear what is quoted from the HR commission and what is opinion. Please clarify with a link to the relevant sections of the unadulterated HR report - and on that count, eat crow as well, since the commission you are quoting placed the civilian casualties at 26,000.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is the difference. Indian army is not there to kill the Kashmiris but to protect them from terrorists and mercenaries. That's why the difference.

Even the Hurriyat leadership is protected by the same Indian army otherwise they would not live for a day.

Indeed, that is why the GoI has refused to implement the plebiscite per the Instrument of Accession and the UNSC resolutions that she herself initiated and agreed to.

The IA is in occupied territory to suppress by any means possible the freedom sentiment and movement, with accompanying atrocities and human rights violations and all.

 

[Vinod2070]

If you think RR's numbers are skulduggery, then prove it - continued banal rhetoric like 'millions viewed this or that' is merely equivalent to spurious anecdotal accounts. People will flee whenever there is war or strife - note the 400,000 from Bajaur alone. That does not mean the holocaust was being replicated. The verifiable numbers do not bear out the genocide claim, or the absurd high end figures bandied about.

I think we have a fundamental difference on who needs to prove what.

AFAIK, the figure (whatever it is, there are accounts up to 5 million on a high end and 300,000 on the low end) is what is the generally accepted international figure. This is what you can read in several reputed international publications including the Guinness book. I see no reason to accept that the atrocities were at a much lower scale unless I see that coming from a reputed international source and more importantly Bangladesh as a nation accepts that.

Its RR who has tried to deviate from what are the generally accepted facts. The contents of the post are in no way any proof of anything. The burden of proof is on him and those who support him to convince the Bangladesh nation and the world that they constitute facts. I see no reason to need to prove anything.

As I mentioned, I don't see that post as anything more than mathematical sleight of hand.

The article you posted does not make clear what is quoted from the HR commission and what is opinion. Please clarify with a link to the relevant sections of the unadulterated HR report - and on that count, eat crow as well, since the commission you are quoting placed the civilian casualties at 26,000.

The reference to the commission's report here and the link that I provided was obviously only to point out that it was a deliberate policy of the West Pakistan establishment to suppress the Bengalis as a race. That the people involved, far from being punished, went on to reach the highest posts including the army chief despite admitting to what they did.

 

[Vinod2070]

Indeed, that is why the GoI has refused to implement the plebiscite per the Instrument of Accession and the UNSC resolutions that she herself initiated and agreed to.

The IA is in occupied territory to suppress by any means possible the freedom sentiment and movement, with accompanying atrocities and human rights violations and all.

Well atrocities and human rights violations are mainly from the mercenaries and the terrorists who came from across the border. That includes the ethnic cleansing that has taken place from the valley.

In any difficult CI situation, some human rights violations at the hands of the security forces are inevitable. That is not the policy of the Indian army and the guilty are brought to the book.

Can you say the same of the mercenaries and the terrorists!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think we have a fundamental difference on who needs to prove what.

AFAIK, the figure (whatever it is, there are accounts up to 5 million on a high end and 300,000 on the low end) is what is the generally accepted international figure. This is what you can read in several reputed international publications including the Guinness book. I see no reason to accept that the atrocities were at a much lower scale unless I see that coming from a reputed international source and more importantly Bangladesh as a nation accepts that.

Its RR who has tried to deviate from what are the generally accepted facts. The contents of the post are in no way any proof of anything. The burden of proof is on him and those who support him to convince the Bangladesh nation and the world that they constitute facts. I see no reason to need to prove anything.

As I mentioned, I don't see that post as anything more than mathematical sleight of hand.

If it is a mathematical sleight of hand then you should be able to illustrate with verifiable numbers why it is so. The point of this thread was to come up with an empirical argument based on verifiable numbers since the claims on how many died vary from 26,000 to 3 million - both cannot be true, and RR's argument is valid until you can empirically show that it is not.

The reference to the commission's report here and the link that I provided was obviously only to point out that it was a deliberate policy of the West Pakistan establishment to suppress the Bengalis as a race. That the people involved, far from being punished, went on to reach the highest posts including the army chief despite admitting to what they did.

The only thing the link points out is a biased opinion using selective quotes, which you tried to cleverly pass off as the "Hamood ur-Rehman Commission report".

No one is denying atrocities took place, including by Indian backed and trained groups, the scale is being questioned.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well atrocities and human rights violations are mainly from the mercenaries and the terrorists who came from across the border. That includes the ethnic cleansing that has taken place from the valley.

In any difficult CI situation, some human rights violations at the hands of the security forces are inevitable. That is not the policy of the Indian army and the guilty are brought to the book.

Can you say the same of the mercenaries and the terrorists!

The first and foremost violation of human rights was the illegal occupation and annexation of a people and their land, everything else is secondary, and a consequence of that occupation through force. Therefore India bears all responsibility for the atrocities committed by her forces and the militants.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Copying another post from earlier, that supports the view that the numbers of the dead have been exaggerated - so note that it is not just RR arguing that now:

Vinod:

""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.""
Sheikh Mujib wanted a confederation: US papers -DAWN - National; July 7, 2005

Note that while the link is a Pakistani newspaper, the original source of the information are declassified State Dept. documents.

 

[Vinod2070]

If it is a mathematical sleight of hand then you should be able to illustrate with verifiable numbers why it is so. The point of this thread was to come up with an empirical argument based on verifiable numbers since the claims on how many died vary from 26,000 to 3 million - both cannot be true, and RR's argument is valid until you can empirically show that it is not.

Well, I disagree with this interpretation. The sources used and the methodology are both far from impeccable. And again, this forum is hardly the right place to publish original "research" like this. Such things need to be validated by peers before they can be accepted.

I would any day trust the Guinness book and other reputed publications and also the government of Bangladesh (in this case) than such nuggets of wisdom on a forum. I would assume they would apply a lot more rigor before they publish their stuff than seems to be the case here.

The only thing the link points out is a biased opinion using selective quotes, which you tried to cleverly pass off as the "Hamood ur-Rehman Commission report".

No one is denying atrocities took place, including by Indian backed and trained groups, the scale is being questioned.

Well, my bad. It was actually a news report based on the Hamidoor commission report and I don't think even you can deny the relevant portions of the link that I pasted. It all came from the Commission's report.

 

[Vinod2070]

The first and foremost violation of human rights was the illegal occupation and annexation of a people and their land, everything else is secondary, and a consequence of that occupation through force. Therefore India bears all responsibility for the atrocities committed by her forces and the militants.

I have to disagree completely with each word here.

Kashmir became a part of India through the IOA. That is a legal document. All the rest is a consequence of Pakistan laying claim to that land just because it had a Muslim majority and never coming to terms with the reality even at a humongous cost to the people of Kashmir and even Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, I disagree with this interpretation. The sources used and the methodology are both far from impeccable. And again, this forum is hardly the right place to publish original "research" like this. Such things need to be validated by peers before they can be accepted.

I would any day trust the Guinness book and other reputed publications and also the government of Bangladesh (in this case) than such nuggets of wisdom on a forum. I would assume they would apply a lot more rigor before they publish their stuff than seems to be the case here.

What 'rigor' did they use? What was the methodology? Why did they select 300,000 or 3 million instead of 26,000?

And why, as indicated by the link related to the declassified State Department documents, are even Bangladeshi officials, journalists and some historians recognizing that the death toll claims may be inflated?

Well, my bad. It was actually a news report based on the Hamidoor commission report and I don't think even you can deny the relevant portions of the link that I pasted. It all came from the Commission's report.

Again, that atrocities were committed by both sides, including Indian backed and trained groups, is not being denied.

I must point out that as indicated by Stephen Cohen and the book by Rainia, RAW had started covert activities to destabilize EP at least as early as 1968.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have to disagree completely with each word here.

Kashmir became a part of India through the IOA. That is a legal document. All the rest is a consequence of Pakistan laying claim to that land just because it had a Muslim majority and never coming to terms with the reality even at a humongous cost to the people of Kashmir and even Pakistan.

The 'legal document' was conditional to a plebiscite, and the subsequent resort to the UN by India, the UNSC resolutions, and India's acceptance of them indicate that the accession was never complete, and therefore Indian control is illegal.

 

[Vinod2070]

What 'rigor' did they use? What was the methodology? Why did they select 300,000 or 3 million instead of 26,000?

And why, as indicated by the link related to the declassified State Department documents, are even Bangladeshi officials, journalists and some historians recognizing that the death toll claims may be inflated?

Well, I guess that is a questions for the publications concerned. I trust them that they would have applied their normal high standards of rigor.

I guess we have to have trust in some things based on the track record.

As I said, I am not hung up about any number at all. If it is generally accepted that the scale was much lower, it would be a good thing for all concerned.

Again, that atrocities were committed by both sides, including Indian backed and trained groups, is not being denied.

I must point out that as indicated by Stephen Cohen and the book by Rainia, RAW had started covert activities to destabilize EP at least as early as 1968.

Possible. I have not read much about this but it could well be true.

You do expect the Government troops to behave differently from a lawless Gorilla force though.

 

[Vinod2070]

The 'legal document' was conditional to a plebiscite, and the subsequent resort to the UN by India, the UNSC resolutions, and India's acceptance of them indicate that the accession was never complete, and therefore Indian control is illegal.

While I am not too familiar with the legalities, I am given to understand that the IOA was exactly the same for Kashmir as for all other states. There was no additional commitments mentioned as part of the IOA itself.

Any extra commitments if made would be unilateral and later on may be found to be impractical in light of the subsequent ground realities including the aggression by Pakistan and occupation of 1/3 of the state and ceding a part to China. The later attempts by Pakistan to use force would obviously negate any pretense to it altogether.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, I guess that is a questions for the publications concerned. I trust them that they would have applied their normal high standards of rigor.

I guess we have to have trust in some things based on the track record.

As I said, I am not hung up about any number at all. If it is generally accepted that the scale was much lower, it would be a good thing for all concerned.

Are the sources not in the public domain? And if they are, the methodology should be available to critique and analyze. That is what this thread is for.

Possible. I have not read much about this but it could well be true.

You do expect the Government troops to behave differently from a lawless Gorilla force though.

The situation in EP was different, that can be seen from how the insurgency in Baluchistan has been approached. Considering that I believe the evidence indicates the death toll to be closer to the 26,000 number, IMO the government troops did not go on any mass pogrom or massacre rampage.

Nonetheless, there was a breakdown in discipline, but again, once must consider the situation the troops found themselves in, cut off from West Pakistan, their supplies, and surrounded by a hostile external enemy and hostile groups within who also committed atrocities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

While I am not too familiar with the legalities, I am given to understand that the IOA was exactly the same for Kashmir as for all other states. There was no additional commitments mentioned as part of the IOA itself.

Any extra commitments if made would be unilateral and later on may be found to be impractical in light of the subsequent ground realities including the aggression by Pakistan and occupation of 1/3 of the state and ceding a part to China. The later attempts by Pakistan to use force would obviously negate any pretense to it altogether.

The commitment to a plebiscite was before the IoA was signed and accepted, and per Owen Benet Jones, a part of the partition process in the case of any disputed accession.

Mountbatten in fact insisted that the plebiscite condition be included before he accepted the accession on behalf of India.

The accession cannot be legal until the plebiscite is carried out. The subsequent agreement to the UNSC resolutions also commits India to the principle of a referendum that allows the people of Kashmir to decide their destiny.