The Question of Genocide and the Quest for Justice in the 1971 War Sarmila Bose Available Online: 25 Nov 2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [Sarmila Bose] On: 25 November 2011, At: 04:31 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Genocide Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgr20 The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war Sarmila Bose Available online: 25 Nov 2011 To cite this article: Sarmila Bose (2011): The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war, Journal of Genocide Research, 13:4, 393-419 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2011.625750 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Genocide Research (2011), 13(4), November 2011, 393–419 The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war SARMILA BOSE The 1971 war in South Asia that ended with the break-up of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh has been framed in terms of genocide in popular representations and the nationalist history of Bangladesh. It has been depicted as genocide by the Pakistan army against the linguistically defined ethnic Bengalis in East Pakistan, in which three million Bengalis were said to have been killed. This article explores some of the problems with categorizing the killings of 1971; assesses, using detailed information on many incidents of violence during the year, which of them might be termed genocide according to the 1948 UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; considers how to treat those crimes that do not fit the definition of genocide, and what the implications are for the quest for justice for the crimes of 1971. It concludes that genocide is not the most useful framework to analyze the conflict; that some of the killings committed by both sides could be termed genocide while others might not, but that they still constitute serious crimes; and that a broader conceptualization of the violence of the war and engagement by the international community were necessary to achieve true justice for the victims of violence in 1971. Introduction: genocide and the 1971 war The 1971 Bangladesh war has been framed in terms of genocide in the dominant narratives and popular representations of that conflict. Bangladeshi nationalist nar- Downloaded by [Sarmila Bose] at 04:31 25 November 2011 ratives also frequently use the term ‘holocaust’ in an attempt to associate the 1971 war with the horrors of Nazi Germany. There is a related attempt to ‘rank’ the 1971 war, for instance, as ‘the worst genocide after Second World War’.1 The ‘ranking’ is based on the claim that three million Bengalis were killed by the Pakistan army during the conflict in their bid to crush the Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalist rebellion in the then province of East Pakistan. In this context, the use of the term ‘genocide’ is virtually interchangeable with ‘mass killings’. It is simply used to signify a massive atrocity—a gigantic crime against humanity. Ever since 1971, there have been demands by Bangladeshi nationalists for war crimes trials to try Pakistan army personnel and their local Bengali and ‘Bihari’ allies whom they termed razakar (collaborators).2 The term genocide is thus not used by Bangladeshi nationalists or popular com- mentators with any definitional clarity. In popular parlance, no particular effort is ISSN 1462-3528 print; ISSN 1469-9494 online/11/040393-27 # 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2011.625750 SARMILA BOSE made to make its use consistent with the definition of genocide in the 1948 UN Convention.3 Its use is primarily political, intended to indict Pakistan, and in particular the Pakistani army, as brutal killers and war criminals, while depicting ‘Bengalis’—a linguistically defined identity—as largely blameless victims, who had been killed for merely demanding their democratic rights. Indeed, Bangladeshi nationalist depictions typically refer to genocide having been committed by the Pakistani army against ‘innocent Bengalis’, suggesting that the victims were non- combatants, killed solely because of their identity as Bengalis.4 Over time, the claim of ‘genocide of three million’ took on the status of a sacred mantra in the popular telling and political culture of Bangladesh, the ritual chant- ing of which signals a particular political allegiance. It acquired a political meaning in Bangladesh that has little to do with the definition of genocide in inter- national law or the veracity of the casualty figure of three million. A few Western journalists had doubted in the aftermath of the war that millions of non-combatants had been killed by the Pakistan army.5 Over time, a few scholars also questioned such claims.6 However, the few early questioning voices in the Western media appear to have become submerged under a much larger volume of material repeat- ing the allegation of the genocide of millions, scholarly voices of dissent were largely not reflected in the popular sphere, and references to the alleged killing of millions of Bengalis found their way into other, broader works on genocide or history.7 It has been extremely difficult for Bangladeshis to challenge this mantra in public without being labelled a razakar (collaborator) or ‘Islamist’, the latter having acquired the status of an internationally recognizable term of vilification in recent years. Outsiders who question the official story risk being labelled a ‘denier’, in keeping with the attempt of those who claim genocide of millions to associate themselves with the horrors of Nazi Germany. The assertion by Bangladeshi nationalists, that the Pakistan army committed genocide during 1971, was believed widely around the world. The framing of the entire conflict as one massive crime against humanity, committed solely by the Pakistan army and its few local allies, is embedded in the narrative with which generations have grown up in India and Bangladesh. It is also believed by many Pakistanis, in particular those who are critical of the military repeatedly Downloaded by [Sarmila Bose] at 04:31 25 November 2011 taking power in their country, and are ashamed of what the armed forces were reported to have done in East Pakistan. This critical view is also found within the armed forces itself—for instance, when an officer from the 18 Punjab regiment returned to West Pakistan after the war, his own father demanded to know what his unit had been doing in East Pakistan, given the disturbing reports that had been circulating about the regiment’s conduct there.8 While the term genocide may be used as a political tool by Bangladeshi nation- alists or their Indian allies in the context of the 1971 war, it is not used with con- sistency even by genocide scholars. Its use can be arbitrary and there is discontent among genocide scholars about the UN definition of genocide.9 The problem with the UN definition appears to be that it can be both too restrictive and too expan- sive: it refers to the persecution and killing of particular racial or ethnic groups, rather than mass killings in general or political killings. At the same time, it is 394 THE QUESTION OF GENOCIDE not restricted to killings alone but includes a variety of other activities designed to destroy an identifiable group. Criticisms of the UN definition also includes com- plaints that it focuses narrowly on state actions only, suffers from Euro-centrism and tends to treat peoples and institutions as monolithic entities.10 An additional obstacle is the lack of reliable data. According to Gerlach: ‘The biggest problem of genocide studies is the lack of an empirical foundation. This emptiness is obvious at every genocide conference’.11 The problem of reliable data is acute with regard to the 1971 war.12 The abundance of political rhetoric is matched by a paucity of carefully documented data. If nobody knows, or differ- ent parties cannot agree on, what actually happened in 1971, it is impossible to embark upon any kind of analysis. This article considers the various types of violence in the 1971 war, and makes an assessment of which of them can be termed genocide on the basis of the closest approximation to an international consensus on what constitutes genocide—the 1948 UN Convention, how to treat the violence that may not fit the UN definition of genocide but still constitute crimes against humanity, and what the implications are for the quest for justice with regard to the 1971 war. For this purpose, it is necessary to have a working definition of genocide against which to assess the various incidents of violence. It would be counter-productive to become enmeshed in the definitional debates. The article therefore adheres to the UN definition of genocide, while not being restricted by that definition in its assessment of the crimes committed in the 1971 war and the quest for justice for its victims.13 This is also apposite as Bangladeshis who claim that genocide occurred during the 1971 war typically do not question the UN definition, but make the claim either within its definition or without any reference to it.