British Colonial Policies and the Muslim World

British Colonial Policies And The Muslim World

Syed Aslam

First Edition 2013

Cover The British attack on Delhi 1857

ISBN 978-1-4675-6201-0

Printed in USA

Dedicated to The Victims of British Colonial Policies

iii

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V FOREWORD VI INTRODUCTION 1 1. SHORT HISTORY OF BRITAIN 9 2. TRADER TO COLONIZER 18 3. WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 21 4. BAHADUR SHAH ZAFER 31 5. THE PARTITION OF INDIA 35 6. THE GENOCIDE 52 7. KASHMIR 72 8. MALAYSIA 90 9. PRINCE AMONG SLAVE 97 10. THE MIDDLE EAST 101 11. CREATION OF KUWAIT 125 12. THE IRAQ WARS 128 13. ZIONISM AND ITS COST TO THE USA 142 REFERENCES 168 INDEX 173 GLOSSARY 177

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to my friend Dr. Mashooq Ahmed for sharing his family’s story of the Bihar riot of 1946 and for the account of how his parents survived the massacre of Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh in 1971. I am obliged to Mr. Bashir Hyder of Oklahoma who gave me firsthand information about the genocide of Non-Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh. He also managed to arrange a talk with a lady in Karachi, Pakistan whose whole family was massacred in Jessore, Bangladesh. I must thank also to Dr. Kalim Ajiz the great poet of Bihar for sharing his story of the Bihar riot in which all of his family members were massacred in the village of Telhara. I am obliged to my cousin Dr. Husain Majid and my friend Dr. Habib Zuberi for reading the manuscript. Thanks also to my nephew Irfan Jafry for suggestions and for reading the draft of this book and my grandson for technical support. I am grateful to my sister Sofia Anjum Taj for designing the cover of this book. In the end I must thank my wife Shahnaz Aslam for her cooperation and help.

FOREWORD

In this book Syed Aslam shows that the British polices during the past two hundred years have been harmful for Muslim interest around the world. Most of the problems the Islamic world is facing today are largely the result of that British Colonial Policies. Consider countries like Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and, most important of all, Israel and see what the British have done there. In Malaysia the British brought so many Chinese that the Malay Muslims would have become minority in their own home land. To avoid that they had to let Singapore become a separate country because of its large Chinese population. In India the British used the divide and rule policy which brought the Hindu and Muslim community to a very sharp divide. As a result of this, many communal riots happened and thousands of people lost their lives. Finally, the subcontinent disintegrated into three countries India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan). The division of the Indian subcontinent brought death destruction and colossal misery to the Muslims of India. The transition to Bangladesh from East Pakistan created havoc and more than half million Non-Bengali Muslims were massacred in a matter of weeks by the Awami League terror groups. The British left India in 1947 dividing the country and creating the Kashmir problem. This problem has hurt both Pakistan and India. But Pakistan being a smaller country is hurting more because it invests huge recourses in the army to defend against India. Very little is left for social programs vi as a result of which Pakistan is becoming poorer and poorer with a great deal of social unrest. After the defeat of the Ottomans in 1918 a major part of the Muslim World was in the hands of the British. They were free to divide the Muslim lands as they wished and that is exactly what happened. In the early nineteen twenties when the British came to Cairo, Egypt to draw the boundary lines between fragmented Muslim lands of the Middle East, not a single Arab leader or the King were present. They drew the boundary line at will creating countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar, Lebanon, Amman, Eden and the Jewish home land of Israel. The fragmentation of the Muslim World was in the interest of the West, but the creation of Israel became a thorn in the throat of the West. Why? Because it created huge security problems especially for the USA. America has suffered colossal economic losses which Mr. Aslam has discussed in the book's last chapter. I am honored to write a forward for Syed Aslam's book. “British Colonial Policies and The Muslim World”

Dr. Fida Hasan Toledo Ohio

vii

INTRODUCTION

o event in the history of the world has affected the N Muslim World more than the British Colonial policies. Other people and country like Ireland and countries of Africa have also suffered from British Colonial policies but to talk about them is out of the scope of this book. It is one thing to rule a country, but it quite another thing to create problems intentionally where ever British ruled. This book has been written for the sole purpose of exposing the wickedness (Fitna) of British Colonial policies and its effect on the Muslim Ummah. Millions of Muslims throughout the world have suffered and will continue to suffer for many generations to come because of these British Colonial policies. This subject is very vast, so I can't claim that I have covered it all. The book begins with a short history of the British people. It is worth knowing a bit of British history because it explains why the British people managed to create an empire where the sun would not set. It shows that the English people were very active politically. In 1215 King John had to sign the Magna Carta, which stated that the king was not above the law. The king only ruled by the will of the people, and that if he broke his part of the contract, then the people had the right to overthrow the king. It shows how the power of the monarchy diminished and the power of the people increased through the parliamentary system. Finally Britain began a transition to the modern system of cabinet government led by a Prime Minister, which occurred more than 250 years ago.

The next chapter deals how the British East India Company became the ruler of India from a trading company. Within eight years of its conquest by Robert Clive of the East India Company in 1757, the state of Bengal was on its knees and what was once one of the richest provinces in Asia became one of the poorest. The accumulated capital in the possession of the Nawab of Bengal was looted and more than three million pounds were taken out of Calcutta and sent to England.1 The manufacturing base was debilitated through heavy taxation and the market was flooded with cheap goods from England. The successors of Robert Clive were even more ruthless in their exploitation. Warren Hastings, the Governor General who succeeded Robert Clive, starved the begums (queens) of Awadh to extract from them their collection of jewels (1765). When Srirangapatam fell, the state treasury of Tippu Sultan was looted and a sum of over two million rupees fell into British hands. The golden throne of Tippu Sultan was broken up, melted down and distributed among the conquering British troops.2 Similar episodes were repeated in the kingdoms where the Company managers, exploiting internal rivalries for succession, extracted huge sums from the Rajas and Nawabs. Surplus capital disappeared from India. The taxation imposed by the Company ensured that additional capital growth in native hands would be impossible. The Company’s objective was profit and its relentless pursuit made the Company managers oblivious to the welfare of the general population. In essence the East India Company was nothing but an armed gang of thugs who were looting the vast country at will. The Muslim rulers who came to India did not send the Indian wealth outside of India like the British did. One hundred years of misrule by the East India Company made every Indian jittery. They were waiting for 2 an excuse to fight the British and kick them out of India. In 1857 the British-Indian Army revolted against the East India Company and the war of Independence started. The rebel army captured Delhi and other cities in northern India. The loss of Delhi was a crushing blow to British prestige. It took the British nearly two months to regroup and the siege of Delhi began which lasted for seven weeks. Finally in September of 1857 Delhi was recaptured by the British. After reclaiming Delhi, thousands of girls were raped by the white British soldiers. It was savagery on a colossal scale, thousands of Muslims and Hindus were executed every day for months. Most people of Delhi were expelled by force and the city became a ghost-city. The same story was repeated in other recaptured cities of northern India. It is estimated that in ten years, ten million people were murdered by the British.3 Bahadur Shah Zafar was arrested and exiled to Rangoon, Burma. All of his sons and grandsons were assassinated except two who were also exiled with the last Mughal king. After subduing the people of northern India the victorious British showed no mercy to the vanquished, especially the Muslims. The British government took over the rule of India from the East India Company and began to introduce a number of policies which included divide and rule policy. This policy brought the Hindus and the Muslim of India in to a confrontational mode. In 1935 when the British allowed a limited self-rule by election they added fuel to the fire by granting separate electorate for Hindus and Muslims and they called it Communal Award.4 This award finally led to the partition of India. The last Viceroy of India, Louis Mountbatten acted in a very irresponsible manner during partition in which events spiraled out of control and millions of people lost their lives. The British succeeded in dividing the subcontinent into 3

India and Pakistan. They also did a very sinister thing, they created the Kashmir problem. It was the hallmark of British Colonial policy which they repeated everywhere especially in the Muslim world. In a recent visit (2010) to Pakistan David Cameron the Prime Minister of UK when asked by students at Islamabad’s Institute of Information Technology that how Britain could play a role in resolving the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. He replied:

I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.

The Telegraph quoted Mr. Cameron, as making this statement. In effect Cameron affirmed many deeply held beliefs of the Pakistanis on Britain’s role as a colonial power. During British rule, Britain was responsible for Human rights violations, crushing the uprising against British Rule, creating discord between communities who had lived side by side for centuries and eventually leaving the colony after creating the Kashmir problem. The problem is still festering after the lapse of sixty five years. Bleeding the economies of both India and Pakistan, a third world countries with no end in sight. The death of thousands of Kashmiri and their unbearable suffering at the hands of the Indian Army can also be blamed on the British Colonial Policies. The partition of India was one of the greatest tragedies for the Muslims of India for whom the idea of Pakistan came into existence. The division of the Indian subcontinent took place on the basis of religion. It turned out that culture and language proved to be a more powerful social glue than religion. After the birth of East Pakistan the Muslims of Bihar and other Urdu speaking 4

Muslims of India migrated to the safe haven of East Pakistan. They thought they were going live in peace with their Bengali Muslim brothers. But East Pakistan proved worse than hell on earth. The display of barbarism and the cruelty by the Bengali Muslims towards the Bihari Muslims and killing them on such a colossal scale is unprecedented. It was not like a spontaneous riot; rather it was a well-planned scheme of ethnic cleansing which was executed with extreme effectiveness and ferocity by the Awami League terrorist machine.5 One may argue that the British were not directly responsible for the genocide in Bangladesh – that is true but their colonial policy which created East Pakistan in the first place was. Close to 16 million Africans were abducted and sold in to slavery in which about 5 million were Muslims. I am not blaming all the abductions on the British, but from the early 18th century, Britain’s involvement in the slave trade grew enormously. In 1720 alone nearly 200,000 enslaved Africans were transported across the Atlantic in British ships.6 It was a very profitable business often making a high rate of return on investment. In 1788 a slave-ship set sail from West Africa, among them was a 26-year-old man Abdul Rahman Sori, heir to the throne of one of the largest kingdoms in Africa. Forty years later his master Thomas Foster agreed to release Rahman, with the stipulation that he will return to Africa and not live as a free man in America. He went to Monrovia, Liberia with his wife and died four month later at the age of 67. In 1824 British hegemony in Malaysia was formalized by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, which divided the Malay Archipelago between Britain and the Netherlands. The British always saw their empire as primarily in economic terms and its colonies were expected to turn a profit for the British. To exploit the natural recourses of Malaysia, the British brought huge numbers of Chinese workers. 5

Their policy of ruthless greed for profit was going to make Malay Muslims a minority in their own homeland. In 1963 when Malaysia gained independence from the British, Singapore was part of Malaysia which had large Chinese population. The Malaysian government had no choice, but to lose a part of their country to make a 51.5% Malay Muslim majority. Brunei is a tiny kingdom surrounded by Malaysia. In 1929 oil was discovered in Brunei, now the British started to take special interest with that tiny kingdom. At the time of independence of Malaysia like any other kingdoms, Brunei also should have been a part of Malaysia. The leaders of Malaysia insisted that it should be a part of the new country. But the British and of course the Sultan of Brunei strongly opposed it. That tiny country remained as British protectorate until 1984. By keeping that tiny country separate from Malaysia both the Sultan and the British were the winners and the people of that area were losers. The British have pursued this policy vehemently everywhere. It is the Middle East where the British Colonial Policy hurt not only the Arabs and Muslims but the Superpower America. After the defeat of the Ottomans in 1917 the British divided the Arab land into small kingdoms. That was bad enough, on top of that they created the state of Israel a Zionist agenda on Arab lands. The only way you can create a country is by evicting the local population by force – which is what the Israelis did. In 1948 when Israel came into existence it created close to a million refugees. With the help of America Israel became so powerful that it defeated Egypt, Syria and Jordan in six days in a preemptive attack. After the Six Day War of 1967, Israel expelled another 320,000 Palestinian from the Jerusalem area on a short notice. This tiny country has created havoc on its neighboring countries. The small country like 6

Lebanon, was attacked at least four times by Israel. In the last attack of 2006 Israel destroyed just about everything including sewage and water treatment plants. In the occupied territory of the West Bank the Palestinians have been dehumanized by the Israeli. The entire area has been converted into huge jails by erecting high walls surrounding the towns and cities. A forty-five minute trip from Ramallah to the Hebron now takes nine hours after changing vehicles eleven times. Israel has left Gaza strip but that too is nothing but a huge jail because the sea and air belongs to Israel. In the 2009 attack on Gaza, Israel mercilessly destroyed just about everything in Gaza using the most advanced weaponry. They massacred 1,434 Gazan refugees which included 288 children and 121 women. Even the Israeli newspaper declared that Israel has committed war crime in Gaza besides the UN findings. In the last chapter I have discussed how Zionism has affected the United States of America. Our Jewish friends might think that I am anti-Semitic. But I am not. Jews are very nice people. Most of my personal physicians are Jewish. I feel the same sense of pain as a Jewish person might feel watching the films on the Holocaust. Throughout this book and in this chapter I have tried to present the facts researched by me and others. Readers are encouraged to find out the truth. I am against the Zionist agenda and so are many Jewish people which include members of the Jewish Voice for Peace. I happen to be the member of that organization and communicate with my Jewish friend all the time via e-mail. The Zionist agenda has created a host of problems for our beloved country the USA. It has affected America in terms of morality, prestige, sense of justice, security, and above all financially. In this chapter I have discussed all those facts. I, one hundred percent support the existence of Israel. But 7 the way the Zionists are pushing their agenda on America is not good for Israel in the long run, because some day it might backfire. Israel has the right to exist but it has no right to destroy the neighboring countries just because they can muster blind support from America, A Time magazine reporter asked President Jimmy Carter: Are you optimistic about Israel's future? He replied “No, I'm not. The U.S. has the least influence in the Middle East now than it had since Israel was formed. We are totally immune to any sort of influence from the Palestinians or from the Arab world. We are completely in the bed with the Israelis, who are persecuting the Palestinians horribly, and this is contrary, I think, to the best interest of Israel.” (TIME January 30, 2012).

SHORT HISTORY OF BRITAIN

ost likely Stone Age man migrated to Britain M through a land bridge when Britain was part of Europe. With the rise of water levels in the sea Britain was cut off from Europe. The people who crossed the land bridge developed their civilization separately and largely undisturbed by any outside armies for a long time. These people built Stonehenge, Neolithic tombs and tools which have been found all over the British Isles. Three thousand years ago came the Iron Age when they stopped building burial mounds and stone circles. The Iron Age peoples started farming in permanent fields. The iron weapons made man more aggressive and groups needed protection from bands of armed thugs. Julius Caesar made a landing in Britain in 55 BC but only succeeded in establishing a temporary bridgehead. After one year he left Britain and the Romans did not attack Britain for another century. The Romans attacked Britain again in 43 AD with a huge army of 50,000. At the time of invasion Britain was divided into small kingdoms, with no single kingdom holding any real control over any large area of the country so the British tribes were no match to the Roman army. Within a year or so the Romans controlled most of Britain.7 A revolt under Queen Boudicca nearly managed to dislodge the Romans but their superior military prevailed, and after that they had no major uprisings in Britain. Most 9 of the country was under civil rule. The Romans pushed north, and built the network of straight roads across the country, most of which can still be seen today. As they pushed north into Scotland, they decided to build a gigantic wall, Hadrian's Wall, to control the frontier. It was started in 122 AD, and runs roughly from Newcastle to Carlisle. The Romans did expand further into Scotland, building the Antonioni Wall across the Lowlands. The country enjoyed a period of unprecedented peace. Sometime around 300 AD the Roman Empire came under attack by the barbarian hordes in central Europe and some troops were withdrawn to help in that theater. In 410 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine finally removed the whole garrison out of Britain to defend the Rhine frontier from attack. The Romans never returned to Britain again and they were instructed to defend themselves. The breakdown of Roman law and civilization was very fast in Britain after the Roman army left. The raids from continental pirates, Vikings, and Scots started so to defend themselves they invited mercenaries from Europe. These mercenary soldiers were Angles and Saxons from northern Germany. The mercenaries brought their families with them, and got paid with land which they could farm. Eventually the Anglo Saxon mercenaries realized that they were stronger than their employers so they took control of governing areas themselves. The Anglo Saxon invaders were not well organized as the Romans. They slowly colonized northwards and westwards, pushing the native Celts to the fringes of Britain. Roman Britain was replaced by Anglo Saxon Britain, with the Celtic peoples remaining in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland. The Anglo Saxon areas eventually combined into kingdoms, and by 850 AD the country had three competing kingdoms. The three kingdoms of Mercia, North Umbria and Wessex, not only were 10 competing between themselves, but they were also under sustained attack. This time, Viking attacked with a large army in 865 AD. They made wide territorial gains, and by 875 the kingdoms of Mercia and North Umbria had succumbed. Only Wessex remained as Anglo Saxon. The Vikings attacked Wessex in 878, and the Saxon king Alfred had to flee to the Somerset marshes. However he was able to regroup and counter attack. His efforts and those later of his son and grandsons, gradually pushed the Vikings northwards and eventually into the sea. By 955 AD Alfred the Great's grandson Eadred, ruled over a united England. Government became centralized, and the king had the infrastructure to rule the whole country Next came another wave of Viking attacks. The English king, Ethelred found his kingdom under attack on all coasts by Norsemen. On Ethelred's death in 1016, the Viking leader Cnut was effectively ruling England. But on Cnut's death, the country collapsed into a number of competing Earldoms under a weak or strong Earls. The strongest of these earls was Harold, Earl of East Anglia. Through a series of battles and intermarriages, Harold controlled Wessex and was in a powerful position. So when Edward the Confessor died in 1066 without a male heir, Harold claimed the throne. His claim was disputed by William, Duke of Normandy, whose claim to the English throne was even more tenuous than Harold's. On Edward’s death the Vikings saw a chance to regain a foothold in Britain, and landed an army in Yorkshire in 1066. Harold marched north to take on the Vikings. He defeated the Vikings near York, but while celebrating his victory, learned that William of Normandy had landed in southern England. In 13 days he had marched his army some 240 miles from Yorkshire to Sussex, where the Normans were camped near Hastings. 11

The ensuing Battle of Hastings was won by the Normans who were fresh, and had better archers and cavalry. Harold died with an arrow through his eye. William was crowned in London on Christmas Day 1066 With the coming of Christianity to Britain which was brought by Irish monks to places like Lindesfarne in 635, or Iona in Scotland in 563. The church had organized the whole country into diocese, each under a bishop by about 850 AD. It was the Viking raider that paradoxically allowed William to conquer Britain who started castle building across the whole country. The uniqueness of the Norman conquest in British history is that not only did the ruler change, but also the whole of the ruling class changed, and there was even a new language. The English nobility lost their lands, and the new landowners built castles like Warwick and Windsor that survive to this day. By the time William died in 1087 around 100 major castles had been built. William I had been duke of Normandy as well as King of England. Henry II expanded this empire, as he was Duke of Aquitaine. England was the major player on Continental Europe, and continued to hold parts of France for 500 years.8 After Richard's death in 1199 there were two potential claimants to the Angevin throne: John, whose claim rested on being the sole surviving son of Henry II. Richard appears to have started to recognize John as his legitimate heir in the final years before his death. Norman law favored John as the only surviving son of Henry II. John was supported by the bulk of the English and Norman nobility and was crowned at Westminster, backed by his mother. At the end of his life King John had tensions between English barons. War broke out and John was defeated by the barons. He kept his throne by signing the Magna 12

9 Carta, which stated that the king was not above the law. The king only ruled by the will of the people, and that if he broke his part of the contract, then the people had the right to overthrow the king. The whole episode amounted to a civil war. Continental wars continued to cost England more money than it could afford, and England soon lost all its French possessions. Between 1370 and 1413, Kings were dethroned, peasants revolted and the House of Lancaster seized the throne. Henry V's reign was brief and colorful. The consequence of the loss of the French territories was that the Royal House of Lancaster became discredited. A series of coups and counter-coups, intrigue and murder gripped the throne. A litany of kings came and went between the battle of St Albans in 1455 and the battle of Bosworth in 1485. The result was a new royal house – the Tudors. Henry VII seized the throne on winning the battle of Bosworth and England was to enter a new period of history Henry VIII, who came to the throne in 1509, was a man who left his stamp on the history of England. His six marriages in search of a male heir led to two daughters. Henry's need for a divorce led to disagreement with the pope who refused to grant even one. Henry countered by dissolving the Roman Catholic Church in Britain, and setting up the Church of England. One other bonus for Henry from his split with Rome was that he gained control of the monasteries – the monastic buildings and land were sold off after the dissolution of the monasteries in 1538. Many of the buildings fell into decay, and they lost their farmlands forever. Henry's elder daughter Mary was a Catholic and a militant one. Her efforts as queen to restore Catholicism to England made her the most unpopular queen in British history. A loveless marriage to the King of Spain produced 13 no children. So when Mary died she was succeeded by her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth. Elizabeth's reign brought in one of the most glorious eras of British history. Exploration, colonization, victory in war, and growing world importance. The Arts flourished, this was the age of Shakespeare and Bacon. Drake's voyage round the world in the Golden Hind started in 1577 and took 3 years. Though he did not find Australia or the North West passage, he brought back great wealth from raids on the Spanish possessions in the Pacific and from cargoes of spices. Drake was the first Briton to sail round the world. Eventually there was all out war with Spain. Philip of Spain assembled the largest fleet the world had seen, and in 1588 it set sail to invade England. The smaller, more maneuverable English ships harassed the Spanish armada all the way up the English Channel. This forced the Spanish to cut anchor and scatter. The power of the Armada had been in its tight disciplined formation that the English could not break. Now it was just a collection of individual ships. The Spanish ships made their way back home to Spain via the north of Scotland and down the Irish coast. Fifty ships and 20,000 men perished and Spain was humiliated on the world stage. The Spanish wars had crippled the English exchequer, inflation soared, and in 1601 Elizabeth had to go to Parliament to get more money. Sensing hostility, as Parliament was angry about the privileges she had granted to her favorite people. She acknowledged her mistake and gave a speech which became in later years a model for the relationship between monarch and the subjects – with obligations on both sides. But by now Elizabeth's health had declined, and she was dying. The choice of successor was not straightforward, as she was the last of Henry VIII's children and none of them had any children 14 themselves. Elizabeth delayed making her choice of successor until she was on her death bed. Her successor would be James Stuart, King of Scotland, and son of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom Elizabeth had executed as a traitor. James Stuart was a Scottish Catholic who believed in the Divine right to rule as he pleased. This brought him into conflict with the English Parliament. The failed Catholic Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament in 1605 led to anti catholic riots. The failure of both James and his son Charles I to understand the English tradition of parliamentary liberty led eventually to civil war. James died unlamented in 1625. His son Charles I immediately came in to conflict with Parliament. He tried to rule without summoning parliament for 11 years, but eventually ran out of money and summoned parliament in 1640. Parliament was naturally angry about his neglect of their rights. They refused him money, and the country split between supporters of the king and supporters of parliament. Cromwell commander of the New Model Army won the decisive Battle of Naseby. Charles was captured and put on trial for treason in 1649. He refused to recognize the court, but was found guilty. Republicans signed the death warrant and Charles I was hanged. Oliver Cromwell and the army emerged as the power in the land. Cromwell dissolved parliament and started the short period of England's dictatorship. Cromwell was unable to find anything to replace the monarchy. When he died in 1658 his son Richard succeeded him, but he was not the man to rule Britain. In 1660 Charles II was restored to the throne his father had died for. Between 1660 and 1714 several kings and queens ruled the United Kingdom. After the death of last Queen Anne a foreign born king was installed by the parliament. George was born in Hanover, in what is now Germany. At the age 15 of 54, after the death of Queen Anne, George ascended the British throne as the first monarch of the House of Hanover who did not speak English. Although over fifty Roman Catholics bore closer blood relationships to Anne, but the Act of Settlement 1701 prohibited Catholics from inheriting the British throne. George, however, was Anne's closest living Protestant relative. During George's reign the powers of the monarchy diminished and Britain began a transition to the modern system of cabinet government led by a prime minister. Towards the end of his reign, actual power was held by Sir Robert Walpole, Britain's first de- facto prime minister. George died on a trip to his native Hanover, where he was buried The coming of George III to the throne in 1760, brought the first British born king who was to rule for the next 50 years. This was an exciting time, marred only by the loss of the American Colonies. The loss of the American colonies brought about changes in Britain with the appointment of Pitt as prime minister, whose legislative program was to bring about the end of royal power. At home the industrial revolution was in full swing. Coal fires lit the night sky as they powered steam engines in factories. But in Europe, French power was manifesting itself following the French revolution in 1789. Nelson's victory at Trafalgar ensured that Britain ruled the seas, but French troops controlled Europe. Nelson's victory at sea in 1805 and Wellington's on land at Waterloo in 1815, marked the end of major wars for a century. Britain was the dominant power, and the defeat of Napoleon removed French aspirations to rule the world. It was an age of poets like, Keats, Shelly and Byron. In science, Faraday and Davy who did good work in electricity. Stephenson with his steam engine and in art persons like Constable and Turner. It was against this background that Victoria came to the throne in 1837, to 16 commence a reign that spanned 64 years. Victoria was 18 when she became queen. She became a symbol of her age. It was an age of steam and iron, men like Brunel came to prominence, He surveyed the Great Western railway to Bristol, and built bridges and tunnels that still exist today. The Great Exhibition of 1851 in Hyde Park was a showcase for British achievements. Authors like Dickens and the Bronte sisters wrote novels. A new parliament building was constructed at Westminster after the old building burnt down The British Empire, like all empires, was acquired by force of arms. By 1900 Britain had the largest navy in the world, and used it to control the huge Empire. The British Empire in 1900 consisted of Canada, Australia, India, large chunks of Africa, the Caribbean and the Far East. However by Victoria's death in 1901, Britain was being challenged militarily by Germany. European countries rushed to arm themselves and protect themselves with a series of alliances which resulted in the 1st World and the 2nd World War. These two wars finally compelled the British to think that they can't colonize the countries they ruled and lost the empire.

TRADERS TO COLONIZER

Group of merchants who had incorporated A themselves into the East India Company were given monopoly privileges on all trade with the East Indies. (Present day Indonesia) Sir Thomas Roe reached the court of the Mughal Emperor, Jahangir, as the emissary of King James I in 1615, and gained approval for the British the right to establish a factory at Surat, Gujarat. Gradually the British eclipsed the Portuguese and over the years they saw a massive expansion of their trading operations in India. Numerous trading posts were established along the east and west coasts of India, and considerable English communities developed around the three presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. The East India Company amassed great deal of wealth from the business. The Company saw the rise of its fortunes, and began its transformation from a trading venture to a colonizing enterprise. The company now had a sizable army. The Mughal rule on India was on decline. The East India Company flexed its muscles and challenged Siraj-ud- Daulah the Nawab of Bengal. On June 23rd 1757 a battle took place at Plassey, a small village between Calcutta and Murshidabad, the forces of the East India Company under Robert Clive defeated the army of Siraj-ud-Daulah.10 The battle lasted no more than a few hours, and indeed the outcome of the battle had been decided long before the soldiers came to the battlefield. The aspirant to the Nawab's throne, Mir Jafar, was induced 18 by the company to throw in his lot with Robert Clive. He agreed and a large number of the Nawab's soldiers were bribed. They were told to throw away their weapons, surrender prematurely, and even turn arms against their own army. Jawaharlal Nehru, in his book The Discovery of India, justly describes, Clive as having won the battle by promoting treason and forgery, and pointedly notes that British rule in India started with cheating and bribery. The East India Company found itself transformed from an association of traders to rulers, exercising political sovereignty over a largely unknown land and people. The Company's servants were corrupt people who plundered Bengal which left the formerly rich province in a state of utter destitution. The famine of 1769-70, which the Company's policies did nothing to alleviate, may have taken the lives of as many as ten million people. The Company, despite the increase in trade and the revenues coming in from other sources, found itself burdened with massive military expenditures, and its destruction seemed imminent. The British government's intervention put the ailing Company back on its feet but put India under the rule of a Governor-General. The first Governor-General of India was Warren Hastings. Under his dispensation, the expansion of British rule in India was pursued vigorously, and the British sought to master indigenous systems. Hastings remained in India until 1784 and was succeeded by Cornwallis. In 1793 he introduced a Zamindari system (Landlord system) in the region of Bengal and then all over India. The law transferred the ownership of the land from the village communities to the Zamindars, the class of tax-collectors, who were responsible to the Company directly. These Zamindars became a new class grouping within themselves and this division led to further alienation and antagonism in Indian rural societies. The Zamindars in 19 turn became a new breed of land-owners under Company protection and served the role of tax-collector who provided the Company with guaranteed revenue through their own unscrupulous and often brutal means of tax collection. For the next fifty years, the British were engaged in attempts to eliminate Indian rivals, and it is under the administration of Wellesley that British territorial expansion was achieved with ruthless efficiency. Major victories were achieved against Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Marathas, and finally the subjugation and conquest of the Sikhs in a series of Anglo- Sikh Wars which led to the British occupation of most of India. In some places, the British practiced indirect rule, placing a Resident at the court of the native ruler who was allowed sovereignty in domestic matters. Lord Dalhousie's notorious doctrine of lapse, whereby a native state became part of British India if there was no male heir at the death of the ruler. This was one of the principal means by which native states were annexed. Often annexation, such as that of Awadh in 1856, was justified on the grounds that the native prince was of evil disposition, indifferent to the welfare of his subjects. The annexation of native states, harsh revenue policies, and the plight of the Indian peasantry all contributed to the war of independence in 1857.

WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

he British had enforced a system of taxation, which T involved constantly increasing revenue demands. In the first half of the 19th century tax revenues payable to the British increased by 70%. This led to mounting agricultural debts with land being mortgaged to traders and moneylenders at a very rapid rate. This inhumane system of taxation was then extended to Awadh and other places where the entire local nobility was summarily deposed. The dissatisfaction with the British was not confined to the agricultural communities alone. By bankrupting the nobility and the urban middle class, demand for many local goods was almost eliminated. At the same time local producers were confronted with unfair competition from British imports. The introduction of English goods into the market resulted in unemployment of weavers, carpenters, blacksmiths, shoe-makers and many others. The demand for native arts and manufactured goods which were famous all over the western world was nearly extinguished. Once renowned and great cities turned into heaps of ruins. Hundred years after the battle of Palassi it seemed that everyone was awaiting for a spark to fight the British and kick them out of India.11 The cartridge of the Enfield rifle used by British-Indian Army was heavily greased with 21 animal fat. Indian soldiers heard and quickly passed on the news that the grease was a mixture of cow and pig fat. This fact was abhorrent to both Hindus and Muslims especially when the cartridge had to be removed with help of teeth. It began at Barrackpore on 29th March 1857. Mangal Pande, a young soldier of the 34th Native Infantry, shot at his sergeant major on the parade ground. When the British adjutant came near him, Pande shot his horse and severely wounded the officer with a sword. He was later arrested and hanged. As a collective punishment the 34th Native Infantry was disbanded. Mangal Pande became a martyr and an icon representing the beginning of the Indian War of Independence. It was the morning of May 11th 1857. The city of Delhi had not yet woken up when a band of sepoys (Indian soldiers) from Meerut, who had defied and killed the European officers the previous day, crossed the Jamuna River. They set the toll house outside of Delhi on fire and marched to the Red Fort and entered the fort through the Raj Ghat gate, followed by an excited crowd. They appealed to Bahadur Shah Zafar, who possessed nothing but the name of the mighty Moghuls to become their leader, thus, giving legitimacy to their cause. Bahadur Shah vacillated as he was neither sure of the intentions of the sepoys nor of his own ability to play an effective role. He was however persuaded, if not coerced, to give in and was proclaimed the Shahenshah-e-Hindustan. The sepoys then set out to capture and control the imperial city of Delhi. Simon Fraser, the Political Agent, and several other Englishmen were killed. There were three battalions of Bengal Native Infantry stationed in or near the city. Some detachments quickly joined the war of independence, while others held back but also refused to obey orders to take action against the 22 rebels. In the afternoon, a violent explosion in the city was heard. Fearing that their arsenal, which contained large stocks of arms and ammunition, would fall intact into rebel hands, nine British Ordnance officers opened fire on the sepoys, including the men who were guarding them. When resistance appeared hopeless, they blew up the arsenal. Although six of the nine officers survived, the blast killed many in the streets, nearby houses and other buildings. The news of these events finally tipped the sepoys stationed around Delhi into open rebellion. The sepoys were later able to salvage at least some arms from the arsenal, and a magazine two miles outside Delhi, containing up to 3,000 barrels of gunpowder, without resistance. Many fugitive European officers and civilians had congregated at the Flagstaff Tower on the ridge north of Delhi, where telegraph operators were sending news of the events to other British stations. When it became clear that the help expected from Meerut was not coming, they tried to reach the city of Karnal not far from Delhi. Those who became separated from the main body or who could not reach the Flagstaff Tower also set out for Karnal on foot. Some were helped by villagers on the way, others were robbed or murdered. The city of Delhi was in the hands of the Indian army and most of the British officers were either killed or left the city. The next day, Bahadur Shah held his first formal court after many years. It was attended by many excited but unruly sepoys. The King was alarmed by the turn of events, but eventually accepted the sepoy’s allegiance and agreed to give his blessing to the rebellion. On May 16, up to 50 Europeans who had been held prisoner in the palace were killed by some of the King's servants. Civilians, nobility and other dignitaries took the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. The Emperor issued coins in his name, one of the oldest ways of asserting Imperial status, and his 23 name was added to the acceptance by Muslims that he is their king.12 The loss of Delhi was a crushing blow to British prestige. It took the British nearly two months to regroup and set out to reclaim Delhi. From Meerut and Simla two British columns set out for the capital. Punishing disloyal villages as they advanced, one could have charted their course by the scores of corpses they left hanging from trees as the British army moved towards Delhi. Five miles from Delhi, they met the main army. The Indian soldiers fought bravely but lost the battle. The British established themselves just outside of Delhi. The Siege of Delhi began which lasted seven weeks. In September 1857, under the command of Major Nicholson and with the support of Sikh and Gurkha regiments were able to reclaim Delhi, breaching the walls with heavy guns and after a bitter street-to-street fight. In the attack on the Kashmiri gate Nicholson was hit by a bullet and died soon after. Delhi was now in British hands again and they started the full scale of viciousness and brutality which the people of Delhi had not seen before. British officer Hodson arrested the old king Bahadur Shah at Humayun's tomb. Next day he arrested his sons Mirza Mughal, Mirza Khizr Sultan, and grandson Mirza Abu Bakr and killed them in cold blood under his own authority at the Khooni Darwaza (the bloody gate) near Delhi Gate. The British army removed the clothes from the bodies and kept the naked bodies on display for three days. Out of sixteen sons fourteen were shot or hanged.12 At some point the British army severed the heads of three princes and presented it to Bahadur Shah Zafar on a silver platter while he was in their custody. The orders were given to the British soldiers to shoot any male of fighting age on sight. At Muhalla Kucha Chelan in Delhi, some 1400 Delhiwallahs most of them 24

Muslims were slaughtered in one day. Meanwhile many of their women were so disturbed by what they saw that they left their homes with their children and jumped into the wells of Delhi. After these mass murders they took forty intellectual men who were the pride of Delhi lined them up below the wall of the Red Fort, and shot them wrote Zahir Dehlavi. Thousands of girls were raped by the white British soldiers soon after they captured the area. It was savagery on grand scale. In every Muhalla the British army made preparation to hang people and for weeks thousands of people were hanged or shot just on suspicion that the person may have taken part in the uprising. The length of the ropes were kept short, this meant a slow and more lingering death by throttling; while a long drop would break the neck and bring instant death. When gun was used to kill people the Gurkha soldiers were told to aim on the lower part of the body so that they die slowly. This was done to satisfy the crowds of morbid white British soldiers who were standing around, puffing cigars.13 Lieutenant Charles Griffiths of the British army in his book The Siege of Delhi says:

Every soldier in our rank knew that the day of reckoning had come for the atrocities which had been committed, and with unrelenting spirit dedicated himself to the accomplishment of that purpose. It was a war of extermination, in which no prisoners were taken and no mercy shown – in short one of the cruelest and vindictive wars this world has seen. Dead bodies lay thick in the streets and open spaces, and large numbers were killed in their houses. Many non-combatants lost their lives, our men mad and excited, making no distinction.

Urdu poet, Mirza Ghalib wrote from Delhi, “In front of me, I see today rivers of blood". He went on to describe 25 how the victorious army went on a killing spree – killing everyone in sight – looting people's property as they advanced. About a hundred thousand people had already been butchered by British soldiers. People have lost sanity from this great sorrow. It is just possible that I may lose my sanity from the onslaught of grief. So many of my friend and relatives have been killed, think of me who has to morn for so many. If I die today, not a single soul would be left to mourn for me.” The residents of Delhi were ordered to leave their homes and get out of Delhi or face death. One could see thousands of women in pardah ( Lady who cover the face) with little children and in some cases harassed and worried men leaving the city through the Delhi gate. Nobody knew where they were heading, they were just moving. These were the wives and daughters of nobility and intellectuals of Delhi. These women observed pardah who were evidently unaccustomed to walking. It was a scene from hell, wrote Zahir Dehlavi. Out of the city they camped in the open fields with no shelter from the elements of nature without food and water. It was really a brutality on colossal scale which excelled any barbarism in the history of the world. Hindus were allowed to return to their homes after a year but not the Muslims. In all of Delhi it was difficult to find even a thousand Muslims. Many prominent Muslims were living outside the city under thatched roofs and mud huts. A huge number of people were dying daily of starvation and lack of shelter. In 1860 some Muslims were allowed to return who could prove their loyalty to the British. Those who could not prove their loyalty found that their houses had been confiscated. A huge number of properties were confiscated this way. Later these properties were put up for auction, which were bought by Hindus of Delhi. 26

With the loss of the Mughal court went much of the city's reputation as a center of culture and learning. Its libraries had been looted, its precious manuscripts lost. The madrasas were almost all closed, and their buildings were bought by Hindu moneylenders. The most prestigious of all the Madrasa i-Rahimiyya, was auctioned off to a leading Hindu Baniya. The British destroyed several finest Masjids such as Akbarabadi, Kashmiri Masjid, and Sufi shrines and many more. They were even thinking to demolish the great Jama Masjid but instead they gave it to the Sikh regiment who used it for five years. The magnificent Moghul palaces in the Red Fort were demolished and in its place barracks were erected for the British cavalry. The vast area between the Red Fort and Jamia Masjid, wherein stood many a nobleman’s home and an ancient mosque, was razed to the ground. Every house in the old city was broken into and looted. Thirty-three of the Moghul princes were butchered and the Moghul lineage came to an end. Week after week in the streets and bazaars of Old Delhi mass hangings took place. In short Delhi became a ghost city and human killing factory. After the subjugation of Delhi the British rulers poured in immense resources in arms and men to suppress the struggle in the other parts of India. The same pattern of barbarism and cruelty were displayed by the British army after the fall of big cities like Lucknow, Allahabad, Kanpur and Jhansy. Although the rebels fought back heroically, the betrayal by a number of rulers such as the Sikh princes, the Rajasthani princes and Maratha rulers were a factor in the British victory. It is important to note that the British had superior weaponry and a much better organized army. British barbarity in suppressing the uprising was unprecedented. In Awadh alone 150,000 people were killed, of which 100,000 were civilians. 27

The number of Indians killed in 1857 has been under- estimated. Computed afresh, figures represent almost a mass genocide. Amaresh Misra in his new book published recently re-estimates the casualties of the war. According to him casualties of the war were close to10 million killed in a period of ten years. He estimates that seven per cent of the population of Utter Pradesh, Haryana and Bihar were the victim of the British massacre. It was the first holocaust of the human civilization only to exceed by four million compared to Nazi holocaust says Amaresh Misra. He found an interesting document in a general post office archives in Lucknow where a British officer wrote to his colleague saying he had 2.5 million unopened envelopes addressed to people belonging to Utter Pradesh because those people could not be found. Even 20 years after 1857, the British Road survey and labor records mention that they cannot find people to carry out the work. They attribute this to the Sepoys Mutiny as they called it.14 The barbarism displayed by the British army was indescribable. Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old officer in the British army recorded his experience like this;

It was literally a murder. I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screaming husbands and sons were butchered in front of them were most painful. Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old gray bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes is really hard to take.13

British troops adopted a policy of taking no prisoners. One officer, Thomas Lowe, remembered how on one occasion his unit had taken 76 prisoners – they were just too tired to carry on killing and needed a rest, he recalled.

Later, after a quick trial, the prisoners were lined up with British soldiers standing a couple of yards in front of them. The prisoners were shot simultaneously. This was not the only mass execution Lowe participated in: on another occasion his unit took 149 prisoners, and they were lined up and simultaneously shot. There were many Muslims who wrote about the War of Independence all writers presented different interpretations of the revolt of 1857. Indeed this had to be the case. During the revolt India lost freedom of the press; publishing the barbaric nature of the British army by natives was tantamount to treason and was subject to harsh punishments. This was particularly true of Muslims. Many Muslim newspapers were closed and their editors jailed. Muslims in general received harsher treatment. This was because the British assigned the primary responsibility for the revolt to Indian Muslims. The followers of Islam were not sure of their destiny in the Indian sub-continent. Robert Montgomery, Judicial Commissioner of Punjab, congratulated Captain William Hodson for his cold blooded murder of three Mughal princes after they had surrendered to Hodson at his urging. Montgomery hoped that the Captain would bag many more. A Captain of the 23rd Native Infantry described with delight with which, in his magisterial capacity, he burnt villages and hanged Muslims on trees. He emphasized that if the matters were left in his hands every “Mohammedan” should be strung up for his faith. Captain Mowbray Thomson narrated to Sir Henry Cotton how some of his Muslim prisoners were tied to the ground stripped off their clothing, and deeply branded over every part of their bodies from head to foot with red-hot iron. Howard Russell a well-known war correspondent who covered the mutiny writes; 29

Our antagonism to the followers of Muhammad is far stronger than that between us and the worshipers of Shiva and Vishnu. If we could eradicate the traditions of Muhammad by one vigorous effort, it would indeed be good for the Christian faith and for the British rule.

Russell was not alone in his anti-Muslim feelings. Magistrate Philip Egerton and Judge Charles Raikes suggested the conversion of the Jama Masjid of Delhi into a church, with each brick named after a Christian martyr. He further said that the city of Delhi which has been for centuries the stronghold of Muslims of India, and in which was hatched this last great conspiracy against the Christian religion should be utterly destroyed, and that on it's site should be built another city, to be the center from which victorious Christianity should radiate to every point from North to South, from East to West, from Bombay to Calcutta.

BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR

ahadur Shah Zafar was born in the year 1775 and was B the last Mughal emperor of India. He was the son of Akbar Shah II by his Hindu wife Lalbai. He became the Mughal Emperor upon his father's death in 1838, a purely symbolic title while the British East India Company exercised real power. Technically, the British were the Emperor’s agents. What residual political authority he had was confined to the Red Fort where he lived on a British pension. He is recognized as one of the great poets of Urdu language. Within the limited domain of Delhi’s social life, however, Bahadur Shah Zafar did preside over a period of flourishing cultural life. Relations between different religious communities, which would become increasingly strained under Britain’s divide and rule policy, were very cordial, with a great deal of interaction and sharing of festivals. Later, he was transformed into a symbol of Indian anti-British resistance. He does deserve credit for leading where he could, culturally, and a champion of inter-religious harmony. After losing the war of independence the British treated him very poorly. After his arrest the British put Bahadur Shah on display for some time, like an animal in a cage for white visitors. Finally he was given a very small place in the Red Fort to live with his wife with no privacy. British solders frequently insulted him by dropping inside the living quarters in the presence of the ladies who 31 observed pardah. He was allowed Rs 0.25 for the food per day. His show trial dragged for two months before a Military Commission, they found him guilty on all charges. He could have been hanged on such a verdict but they could not do so, thanks to Captain Hodson's guaranty of his life at the time of his arrest. The British decided to exile him to Rangoon, Burma. In October of 1858 when the British finally subdued the war of independence Bahadur Shah Zafar left Delhi on a bullock cart early in the morning. The last Mughal king left Delhi with his fourth wife Zinat Mahal and two sons Mirza Jawan Bakht, his young wife and Mirza Shah Abbas the son of Zafar's concubines a total fifteen people. It is interesting to note here as to why the British did not kill these two princesses? Because Shah Abbas was only 13 years old at that time. But what about Mirza Jawan Bakht who was about 17 years old? Bahadur Shah Zafar after becoming the Emperor married Zinat Mahal who was just 19 years old. Mirza Jawan Bakht was her only son. During the uprising she told her son not to associate with the sepoys and had regular contact with Caption Hodson the British intelligence officer through a spy. She was thinking that after the mutiny British will nominate her son to become the Emperor. Boy, she was so wrong. She could not save her own jewelry and property worth million dollars from the greedy British and died at Rangoon in 1882, as a poor lady. While Bahadur Shah was in house arrest at Rangoon he was denied paper and pen. He was known to have written on the walls of his room with a burnt stick.16 He wrote the last famous Ghazal of which the last couplets are: How unfortunate is Zafar! For his burial Not even two yards of land were to be had, in the land of his beloved. After a couple of years in exile he requested the British 32

Government to let him die in India but they turned down his requests so he died in Rangoon in the year 1862 at the age 87. He was buried under great secrecy and the ground was covered with grass. On the demand of Muslims of Rangoon the British allowed a tomb stone to be placed at the grave site. Later a small shrine was also built. It turned out that the shrine was built at the wrong spot. In 1991 workmen were digging a drain at the back of the shrine when they found the skeleton of Bhadur Shah Zafar 25 feet away from the shrine. It was covered with lime which was consistent with the fact, because the British had the instructions to cover the body with lime for faster decomposition.12 A new shrine has been erected on the site of old shrine. This is a popular visiting place for the Muslims of Rangoon. Mirza Jamshid Bakth the grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar was given permission to return India in 1925 on the condition that he will not live in Delhi and not to disclose his identity. He was forced to move to Calcutta. After the death of Jamshid Bakth his son Mirza Bedar Bakht received the government pension. Bedar Bakth married a lady who had a son from her previous marriage who was a tailor. Bedar died in 1980 leaving behind three daughters. His wife claimed that his son should get the government pension but the Indian government stopped the pension altogether. With no income the family became dirt poor and slum dwellers. Their story was published in the magazine India Today. I read the story and wrote a letter to India Today to send me their address in Calcutta so I could help them. I received the address and I sent two thousand rupees but I found that the girls did not receive the money. A middleman who was supposed to be helping the family managed to take the money and wrote me several letters for more money. It is sad to say that the descendants of the traitor Mir Jafer are living in luxury in 33 the city of Calcutta because of the British favor. On the other hand the descendants of freedom fighter are living in the slums of the same city, shame on the Government of India. This is how the story of the family members of Bahadur Shah Zafar ended, who was direct descendant of great Mughal kings who built monuments like Taj Mahal and Red Fort from which the Indian Government is earning billions of dollars every year from the tourist industry.

THE PARTITION OF INDIA

he aftermath of the uprising was gruesome for India T and a disaster for the Muslims of northern India. Seeking vengeance, the victorious British showed no mercy to the vanquished, especially Muslims. Their properties were taken by force and for ten years the British had a public policy not to give government jobs to Muslims. Educated Muslims realized that not only the British rule in India was here to stay, but also they intended to stay on their own terms. After a decade the British realized that Muslims were no threat to their colony which was partly assured by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. His main aim was that Muslims in India should come out of the past and acquire the knowledge and technology of the West. Sir Syed was a realist and a far- sighted statesman. He clearly visualized the predicament of the Muslims of India. He saw the difficult choices available to them: total submission to British rule with a chance of survival in the future, or virtual social, economic, and even physical annihilation. The war of independence had forged an unshakable unity amongst Hindus and Muslims alike. It was an important milestone in the freedom struggle providing hope and inspiration for future generations. But as soon as the British government took over the rule of India from the East India Company it began to introduce a number of policies which were designed to further entrench the pre- 35 existing social divisions within the country. It worked to keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the colony, and introduced a system of deliberate racial discrimination which favored Muslims over Hindus in some areas and the opposite in others. For example in the state of Bihar, where Muslims were in the minority 90% of the Zamindars (Landlords) were Muslim. In East Bengal where Hindus were in minority the majority of Zamindars were Hindu. Almost the same pattern can be found in the Princely state. The ruler of state of Hyderabad was Muslim and the subjects were Hindu and in the state of Kashmir where the subjects were Muslim the ruler was Hindu. This was part of a deliberate and orchestrated plan to maintain British rule in India. Government officials realized that the pre-existing racial and religious differences between Hindus and Muslims could be turned to their advantage if the two groups were made to oppose each other. This climate of hostility was artificially created and intensified by the divisive policies. They argued that our endeavor should be to uphold in full force the separation which exists between different religions and races. Resorting to rumors and falsehoods, they deliberately recast Indian history in highly communal colors and practiced communal politics to divide the Indian masses. The British government also sought to employ the different racial groups in different sectors of the colonial economy and administration, thus emphasizing ethnic and cultural divisions even more. In particular those ethnic groups that were regarded as being martial races like Rajput and Sikh were used to man the military and security apparatus of the colonial state both in India as well as in the other neighboring colonies. These policies were perpetuated and intensified well into the twentieth century. It culminated with the fragmentation 36 of the Indian nationalist movement along class, ethnic, and religious lines. Although the Indian National Congress (INC) formed in 1885, was a secular party but its office bearer was infected with Hindu communalism. The Indian Muslims felt that their presence would no longer be welcomed in an independent predominantly Hindu India. This feeling resulted in the formation of the Muslim League in 1906. In 1935 when the British allowed a limited self-rule by election they added fuel to the fire by granting separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims and others. The British Premier called it Communal Award. Separate electorates were given to Sikhs, Scheduled castes and Muslims were given 33% representation in the Central Legislation. Congress party pacified Sikhs and Schedule Cast giving a higher percentage than the British if they did not form their own party.17 They could have done the same thing to Muslims but they chose not to do it. This was the land mine which resulted in the partition of India. The Muslim League was formed in opposition to the Indian National Congress (INC), so the British colonial government tried to play the INC and Muslim League against one another. But the two political parties generally cooperated in their mutual goal of getting rid of the British. Both the INC and the Muslim League supported sending Indian volunteer troops to fight on Britain's behalf in World War I. In exchange for the service of more than one million Indian soldiers in the war the people of India expected political concessions from the British. However, after the war Britain offered no such concessions. In April of 1919, a unit of the British Army went to Amritsar, in Punjab, to silence pro-independence unrest. People were holding meetings at Jallianwala Bagh which had only one opening to escape. The unit's commander General Dyer, closed the escape route and ordered his men 37 to open fire on the unarmed crowd, killing more than 1,000 protesters and wounding another 500 . When word of the Amritsar Massacre spread around India, hundreds of thousands of formerly apolitical people became supporters of the INC and Muslim League.18 In the 1930s, Mohandas Gandhi became the leading figure in the INC. Although he advocated a unified Hindu and Muslim India, with equal rights for all, other INC members were less inclined to join hands with Muslims against the British. As a result, the Muslim League began to make plans for a separate Muslim state, Pakistan. World War II sparked a crisis in relations among the British, the INC and the Muslim League. The British expected India once again to provide much-needed soldiers and material for the war effort, but the INC opposed sending Indians to fight and die in Britain's war. After the betrayal following World War I, the INC saw no benefit for India in such a sacrifice. The Muslim League, however, decided to back Britain's call for volunteers, in an effort to get British favor in support of a Muslim state in post-independence India. After the second World War Winston Churchill was not in favor of granting independence to India. But his party was voted out of power, and the pro-independence Labor Party was voted in to power in the 1945 elections. The Labor party called for almost immediate independence for India. The Muslim League's leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, began a public campaign in favor of a separate Muslim state. In February of 1947, the British government announced that India would be granted independence by June 1948. The Viceroy for India, Lord Louis Mountbatten did a very irresponsible and reckless thing by shifting the date to August 1947. But why was he in a hurry to divide a big country like this? Mohammad Ali Jinnah was suffering from terminal tuberculosis which 38 only the British Government knew. If Mr. Jinnah had died before June 1948, the Congress party might have succeeded in stopping the partition of India. And also Mountbatten might have thought to dump the country as soon possible to release the British government from the responsibility of any disorder in the subcontinent. He knew very well that doing such serious business of dividing a big country in a hurry could result in the loss of the life of hundreds of thousands of people, but he did not care. John Kenneth Galbraith, the Harvard University economist, who served as the American ambassador from 1961–63, was a harsh critic of Mountbatten in this regard. The horrific casualties of the partition of the Punjab are luridly described in Collins' and LaPierre's Freedom at Midnight, in which critics contend that Mountbatten cannot escape the responsibility in which events spiraled out of control and millions of people lost their lives.19 It will be interesting to see how Mountbatten divided the country in such a short time. Radcliffe arrived in India on July 8, 1947 and met Mountbatten and the nationalist leaders soon thereafter. It was at this meeting that Radcliffe learned, apparently for the first time, that the boundary line must be completed before August 15 1947. He warned Mountbatten that the time restriction could wreck the end result, but he still wanted the boundary line to be finalized by August 12. Moreover, he lacked any advisors versed in even the basics of boundary-making, and only his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, was familiar with the realities of administration and everyday life in the Punjab. In spite of the shortcomings, Radcliffe did finish the job by August 12, 1947 On August 8, Mountbatten’s private secretary, George Abell, sent a letter with a preliminary description of the 39

Punjab boundary to Evan Jenkins, the provincial governor. This draft showed the Ferozepore area and its headworks going to Pakistan. When the final award was released, on August 17 Ferozepore was assigned to India. Infuriated Pakistanis were sure that Mountbatten had pressured Radcliffe to change the boundary line and indeed that was true. In 1992 the private secretary of Radcliffe, Christopher Beaumont did confirm that Mountbatten not only bent the rules but bent the boundary of the two countries in favor of India. Christopher died in 2002 but he left archives of various and somewhat important pieces of papers. These are no ordinary collection they are the thoughts and reflections of Christopher Beaumont, who played a central role in the partition of India in 1947. After the death in of Mountbatten's Private Secretary, Sir George Abell, Beaumont was probably the only person left who knew the truth about partition. The central theme present in Beaumont's historic paperwork is that Mountbatten regularly interfered in Radcliffe’s work and dictated to him what to do. According to Beaumont, Radcliffe was a highly intelligent and civilized person but Mountbatten did not measure to his personality and they did not get along well. Due to hastily arranged partition 1 to 1.5 million people lost their lives. The British government and Mountbatten must bear a large part of the blame for this tragedy says Beaumont. On Kashmir, Beaumont argues that it would have been far more sensible to have made the flash-point territory a separate country. Radcliffe had completed his job by August 12, as Mountbatten, had insisted. As the transfer of power approached, however, Mountbatten chose to delay the boundary announcement until after the independence ceremonies in both countries. In public statements, Mountbatten insisted that he simply wished to avoid 40 spoiling the joyous celebration of independence by announcing news that would undoubtedly distress all parties.20 However, in private government communications and in the minutes of the Staff Meeting at which the decision was taken, it becomes clear that Mountbatten’s primary motivation was avoiding the appearance of British responsibility for the genocide which inevitably would follow after the announcement. It is difficult to see how these concerns, either for Indian or Pakistani national joy or for the evasion of British national responsibility, could outweigh the potential benefit of saving the life of hundreds and thousands of people by making administrative, military, and constabulary arrangements before the actual transfer of power took place. Governor Jenkins of the Punjab had begged Mountbatten repeatedly for advance notice of the award. On July 30, Jenkins told the Viceroy that even a few hours would be better than none. As it was, in some border regions whose destiny was uncertain, both Indian and Pakistani flags were raised. In some cases Pakistani officials set to work in territories that later became Indian. As August 15 drew closer, many administrators joined with the flow of refugees, disrupting administration of the state. In short, Punjab found itself in administrative chaos, ill prepared to deal with the impact of partition. When the award was finally announced, on August 17, the border forces in places were inadequate to stop the communal massacres. Violence was particularly severe along the new border. Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly-formed countries in the months immediately following Partition. Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 41

7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition. It was the most massive migration in the history of civilization. 21 The partition in haste created the genocidal massacres in the Punjab. Some were spontaneous and some had organization and planning behind them. Much of the larger scale violence was mutual and it can be called retributive genocide. When train loads of dead Muslims entered Pakistan, a train load of dead Sikhs and Hindus were sent to India. It was sheer madness on horrendous scale. This could have been prevented by the British with the help of the Army and better planning but they chose not to do it. The glimpse of how people suffered in 1947 after the partition of India can be found in this story. Azmat Ali Khan aged 19 was a resident of a small village near Amritsar just ten miles from the new border. This village had both Hindu and Muslim population and for centuries they were living together in harmony. On August 25th ten days after the birth of the new nation of Pakistan his grandfather and father decided to migrate to the new country. They loaded their valuable on two bullock carts and headed towards the border with grand- father, father, mother and three sisters aged 13, 15 and 17. They gave the keys of the house to a Hindu family of the same village. The Hindu family accompanied them at least a mile pleading not to migrate. Both families had tears in their eyes and with heavy heart they bade farewell. Just four miles from the village a group of not more than thirty Sikh men ambushed the Khan family. They killed his grand-father and father first. They tied Azmat's hands and legs and one by one they raped his mother and sisters cut off their breast and killed them all. Finally the mob came to beat him to death and left him to die. After a while a group of Muslims who were also migrating to Pakistan on bullock carts saw the scene of the massacre and found out 42 that Azmat was alive but unconscious. They put him on their bullock cart and brought him to a hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. His wounds on one of his leg was pretty bad so the physicians had to amputate it. Azmat found himself in hospital when he gained consciousness. A middle aged man who was Hakim (A village doctor) by profession learned the tragic story of this young man and decided to adopt him. He had no children of his own. After losing every body of his family and no relatives to turn to it was a God- given opportunity for Azmat. The physical wounds healed in matter of months but the mental scar has not healed after the elapse of sixty years, he says in his article. He learned the art of Hikmat from his adoptive father and received university education got married and after the death of his father he took care of the family business. God blessed him with three daughters and a son exactly the same number of sisters he had lost. At the end of the article he argued with great passion that the division of India was unnecessary which created such a colossal suffering to millions of people both Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. His long article was published in an Urdu magazine on the 60th anniversary of his tragedy. I hundred percent agree with Azmat that the partition of India was one of the biggest tragedies for the Muslims of India for whom the idea of Pakistan came into existence. The argument was that Muslim minority will not be safe among a Hindu majority in a united India. This argument had no merit at all because it would be practically impossible to accommodate and transfer such a vast population of Indian Muslims into a tiny Pakistan. Muslims of India would have done far better in a united India. I come from the state of Bihar and I have firsthand knowledge about the fate of Bihari Muslims when they migrated to so call safe haven of East Pakistan where 43

Muslim Bengali physically annihilated them. The story of Bihari Muslims starts from Bengal. In the province of Bengal, Muslims represented the majority of the population and were mostly concentrated in the Eastern part. As a result of this demographic structure the Muslim League government was in power under the provincial autonomy scheme. Riot broke out in the northern Noakhali District in 1946. The violence unleashed was described as the organized fury of Bengali Muslim mobs. It soon engulfed the neighboring police stations and other areas. The devastation caused by the riot was widespread and the violence was quite extensive. The Hindu press placed the figures at about a thousand Hindus dead. Mahatma Gandhi went to Noakhali and stayed there for months. He recommended the Hindus not to celebrate Diwali that year. This gave Noakhali riot a huge propaganda.

The Statesman a Calcutta English newspaper reported on October 10 1946;

In an area of about 200 sq. miles the inhabitants surrounded by riotous mobs, are being massacred, their houses being burnt, their womenfolk being forcibly carried away and thousands being subjected to forcible conversion. Thousands of hooligans attacked the villages, compelled them (Hindus) to slaughter their cattle and eat. All places of worship in affected villages have been desecrated. The District Magistrate and the Police Superintendent of Noakhali took no steps to prevent it.

Amrita Bazar Patrika another English newspaper reported, on October 23rd 1946:

For the 13th day today, about 120 villages in Ramganj, Lakshmipur, Raipur, Begumganj and Senbag thanas (police stations) in Noakhali district with a Hindu population of 90,000 and nearby 70,000 villagers in Chandpur and Faridganj thanas in Tippera (Comilla) district remained besieged by hooligans. Death stares the people of these areas in their face and immediate rushing of supply to these areas with the help of military, which alone could do it, would have saved the lives of these people, most of whom have been without food for the last few days.

This inflammatory news was also published in Hindi and English newspapers of Bihar which paved the way to Bihar riots. As a reaction to the Noakhali riots, a devastating genocidal riot rocked Bihar in the month of November 1946. I was eight year old at that time but I vividly remember the slogans of a large number of Hindus who were chanting on the streets of Patna that they would take revenge of the Noakhali riot in Bihar. And they did. A large-scale massacre of Muslims in Bihar started in six districts of Bihar most probably planned by some communal elements of the Bihar Congress party. Begun as a reprisal for the Noakhali riot which was checked in matter of weeks the Bihar genocide continued unchecked for months. Village after village was burnt and a large number of Muslim women gave up their lives by jumping into wells to save their honor. Those who were caught alive were gang raped. According to a conservative estimate the death-toll was about 30,000 Muslims killed. The carnage stopped when Mahatma Gandhi and Pundit Nehru came to Bihar and gave orders to shoot mobs at sight. Mr. Jinnah did not make a trip to Bihar but stated that the Bihar riots have solidified his claim for Pakistan and the division of India is unstoppable. The Bihar riots

45 proved his two nation theory. The window on Bihar riots can only be opened by telling the stories of victims of riot. This is the story of one of my friend Dr. Mashooq Ahmad who now lives in Michigan. One day we were talking in his house, when I noticed a cut mark on his head. I asked what this cut mark was all about. He told me the whole story. It was the month of November and Bihar was engulfed with genocidal Hindu Muslim riot. On the morning of November 16th 1946 a mob of Hindus numbering more than one thousand started to surround his village Harla located in Patna District. It was a small village with adults numbering not more than fifty and sixty ladies and of course same number of children. Slowly the Hindu mob was closing in to the village. The fifty adult males had no choice but to fight the mob with whatever they had. They did not own any gun and that was the reason why this village was attacked. In general the Hindu mob never attacked big villages with guns. The male adults fought bravely but the mob overpowered them and killed all of them. Now the mob moved to individual houses to kill women and children. Most of the young women jumped in the wells to save their honor. Dr. Ahmad’s mother did not jump in to the well and took a chance because my friend was only two years old at that time. The mob came to his house where all other relatives had gathered. The Hindu mob started killing anyone they found. Dr. Ahmad's uncle their children and his wife who was seven month pregnant were killed. The Hindu mob not only killed her, they took a knife and cut open her belly to get the unborn child. Dr. Ahmad's mother was hiding at some place and witnessed the butchery. Finally the mob found her and hit the mother and the infant son on the head. Both fell down bleeding, the mob thought they were dead. After the massacre they left the village killing close to one hundred and fifty 46 people. The people of village Saeen which was the village of my wife's grand-father Syed Abulfatah Muhammad is about two miles away from Harla. They knew that Harla has been attacked by the Hindu mob. They took their guns and walked to village Harla in the evening to see if anybody survived the attack. They found out that a few people were alive which included my friend and his mother though both of them were unconscious. They brought them to village Saeen and finally to Patna where they were treated. As a matter of fact my elder brother Syed Abdul Ahad Ahmed was working as a volunteer to take the riot victims from the Patna railway station to the hospitals in Patna. Dr. Ahmad's father and elder brother were not present in the village at the time of attack so they both survived. The Harla village is known to me from my childhood. One of our close relative was married to a person of Harla just five months before the riot. My mother used to say all the time, how pretty she was. Her dead body was not found so it was assumed that she was kidnapped. Her family hoped that she might return some day but that never happened. Her 16 year old brother was visiting her when the riot started. He jumped into a big rice container when the mob entered the house and saved his own life. He did not see the actual killings but heard the cries and moans of the victims. Dr. Mashooq Ahmad's father sold all their property in Bihar and moved to Rajshahi East Pakistan now Bangladesh and started a successful business with the money he brought from India. Dr. Ahmad finished his medical degree at Rajshahi and came to Dhaka in 1968 for his residency. He completed more than a year of internship with Dr.Mohibbur Rab. He suggested to him to move to Karachi because, he said, things are getting bad there. His parents and elder brother did not move to Karachi with 47 him. His brother thought that bad things would not happen there. On the morning of March 20th 1971 his brother opened the business as usual when somebody came running to him and said, take everybody from your house and run to the safer area of Rajshahi. He went to his house which was not very far, took his father, mother and his family and literally ran for their lives without shoes. Later on the Bengali terrorist mob came, robed the house first and set the house on fire and killed many Non-Bengali Muslims who could not escape. His father and brother lost the house, business just about everything they had, except some money in the bank. Dr. Mashooq was lucky that his mother barely cheated death the second time around. His brother lived in a camp for a while then moved to Dhaka and from there to Karachi. This is the same city where my wife's two uncles (Mamu and Khalu) were killed on a boat and their bodies thrown in the river. The story of the Bihar riots will not be complete unless I mention about the village Telhara, because of two reasons. Mahatma Gandhi visited this village after the riot and this is the village where the famous Urdu poet and writer Dr. Kalim Ajiz's family was massacred including my first cousin’s wife. I have a very faint memory of this village when I was there to attend the marriage ceremony of my cousin. Telhara is a fairly good size village with a mixed Hindu and Muslim population located about forty miles from Patna. At the time of the riots it was dominated by Muslims and they had few guns also. It should not have been on the menu of Hindu mob. But the leader of the Bihar riot Mathura Singh was bent upon to finish the Muslim population of this village; he might have some personal reasons. He himself was present among the mob and I learned that he was hit by gunshot but it was bird shot so he survived. 48

It was the morning of November 6th 1946 the Hindu mob numbering more than 5,000 encircled the village. They tried to attack but because of the guns they could not come close to village for three days and the mob lost some hooligans because of gun. On the 4th day the Muslims ran out of gun cartage and this news reached to the Hindu mob through espionage. Male members of the village fought with the mob but finally they over powered them. They first put the village on fire and then the killing started. Most of ladies jumped into the well to save their honor including the mother and sister and many other relatives of Dr. Kalim Ajiz. He reached the village next day with armed forces but the story was over where close to 250 Muslims were massacred including women and children. Some victims of the riot survived to tell the story of the massacres. Now the grim task of pulling the dead bodies out from the well and giving them last rite started. Mahatma Gandhi was in Noakhali where Bengali Muslims had killed Hindu Bengali. A month later he came to Bihar and visited Telhara. Dr. Kalim Ajiz has written about this genocide in his book entitled Vo Jo Shaeri Ka Sabub Hua (The cause of my poetry) in a dramatic, passionate and flowery Urdu. Our village Shahobigha was not attacked directly because of guns, but a lot of Muslim villages in that area became victims of death and destruction. After the riot the people of the village felt unsafe, so they deserted the village and moved to safer place in different cities. A good number of people migrated to Karachi, Pakistan after the partition of India in 1947. Shahobigha became history for us, a village so dear to my father and uncle. One of my father’s maternal uncles (Mamu) moved with us to Patna and he died two years after leaving the village. The other uncle went to Calcutta to live with his daughter and he met the same fate in a matter of one year. My father’s 49 elder sister and her widowed daughter migrated to Karachi, Pakistan with her son and they survived for a while but paid a terrible price, a life of unfamiliarity, an inhospitable environment and misery. This is the story of many Muslim families of Bihar. I was seven years old at the time when the village was abandoned, but the sweet memories of my visit to the village once a year is still fresh in my mind, after the elapse of sixty five years. It was the tradition of the village that everybody used to go back to the village in the month of Muharram to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Husain. Ten to fifteen days before the commemoration (Ashura) the village people used to build Tazia and Sipper for the tenth of Muharram procession. Every day in the evening the male members of the village would gather near the Imambara to practice the art of using the sword and other weapons specially Lathi. Some people used to be very skilled in the use of those weapons and Muharram was the time to display their skill in public. A little late in the evening both young and old people of the village used to sit-down under a banyan tree and recite Mersia for two to three hours, after that we used to do Matam by beating our chests. I guess the people of this village had some influence of Shiaizm. The day of Ashura the tenth day of Muharram used to be the most exciting day. The people would assemble at the Imambara in the morning with all the decorated Tazia, Sippers and all sorts of weapons. Then people would start the march at the beat of the drum and go from village to village displaying their skill and mastery of each weapon. My last visit to Shahobigha when the village was intact, hustling and bustling with life was in the year 1945. Since then I visited the village once in 1964. My elder brother I along with and my friend Mr. Omair walked a distance of about five miles from my village Sheikhpura to 50

Shahobigha hunting along the way. It was a remarkable and shocking visit. Except for a few houses most of the houses were at different stages of ruins. My father’s uncle (Mamu) house was completely on the ground, our own house which my father was building had turned in to a ruin and my uncle’s house was barely standing. It was a sorry sight to see the destruction of the village which in my childhood memory was so full of life. After 1946 no major riot took place in Bihar for 18 years, because after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, the communal Hindu element was suppressed by Pundit Nehru the first Prime Minster of India. But in 1964 riots happened in East Pakistan where Bengali Muslims killed some Hindus. A few thousand refugees came to Calcutta they were brought to Jemshedpur, Bihar by the communal elements to start Hindu Muslim riots. Riot broke out in Jamshedpur and the city of Ranchi. My sister and her husband Mr. S.W. Jafry who was lecturer at a local college had to move to a camp for 15 days to save their lives. Many Muslims were killed including a young man who was going to get married that day when the riot broke out. The Hindu mob snatched him and others from the marriage party and killed all of them. Riots also broke out in the city of Ranchi where one of my second cousin’s husbands was working as engineer in Heavy Steel Industry. His house was in a Hindu majority area. His wife was cooking the evening meal when the husband came and told her to leave the house through the back door as soon possible. She had no time even to turn off the stove. They grabbed their kids some important papers and managed to reach a safe place in a camp. After the riot he decided to migrate to East Pakistan. He moved from the frying pan to fire, exactly the same thing happened to him in East Pakistan in 1971. He lost everything a second time in his life. 51

THE GENOCIDE

he term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a T very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against a group of people with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. This is exactly what happened to the non-Bengali Muslims (mostly Muslims from Bihar) of Bangladesh. The sad part is this that even the West Pakistanis, let alone the world community did not give much importance to this tragedy. The indifference of the West Pakistani Government and the giant propaganda machine of India crushed the cause of these unfortunate people. It all started after the Awami League, the party of Sheikh Mujebur Rahman won all the East Pakistan seats of the Pakistan's National Assembly in the 1970-71 elections. West Pakistan opened talks with the East Pakistani leaders on constitutional questions about the division of power between the central government and the provinces. Sheikh also wanted to form a national government headed by the Awami League. The talks proved fruitless and on March 1, 1971, Pakistani President Yahya Khan indefinitely postponed the pending National Assembly session, precipitating massive civil disobedience. Sheikh Mujib started his fiery speech against West Pakistan and instead of stopping the carnage he added fuel to the fire. The soldiers of East Pakistan Rifles rebelled and from March 1st started the genocide of 52

Non-Bengali Muslim assuming that every Urdu speaking person in Bangladesh was West Pakistani and killing them was their duty. Massive and indiscriminate massacre started with great efficiency and ruthless brutality. I agree hundred percent that both President Yahya Khan and Mr. Zulfeqar Ali Bhutto were wrong and Sheikh Mujiur Rahman had every right to declare the independence of Bangladesh but he had no right whatsoever to commit the genocide of Non-Bengali Muslims. On the night of March 25th the West Pakistani Army came into action and tried to stop the carnage. To hide the crime of genocide by Awami League terror groups cried wolf and tried to present themselves to world community as a victim of Pakistani aggression. The fact is this that in a brief period of few weeks the Awami League terror machine exterminated half million non-Bengali Muslims before a single shot was fired by the Pakistani Army. The disposal of huge number of dead bodies were easy, thanks to the river system of Bangladesh. A lot of killing took place on boats and the dead bodies were thrown in the river. The genocide of Bihari Muslims did not end in 1971. In 1972 on the occasion of the first anniversary of Bangladesh government of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman allowed the Bengali terrorist to kill 20,000 to 25,000 Bihari Muslims in Dhaka alone.22 The tragedy started after the Bihar riots of 1946 caused by the Noakhali riots in Bangladesh and the partition of India in 1947. A large number of Bihari Muslims numbering more than two million migrated to East Pakistan now Bangladesh. They thought they were going to El Dorado but East Pakistan proved worse than hell on earth as we shall see. The ferocity of barbarism and the cruelty displayed by the Bengali Muslims towards their fellow Muslims is unprecedented and unheard in the annals of History. This was not like Bihar riot; rather it 53 was a well-planned scheme of ethnic cleansing which was executed with extreme efficiency and ferocity by the Awami League terrorist machine. City after city Non- Bengali Muslims were rounded up by armed terrorist thugs and massacred. Sometimes the victims were boarded on large boats and killed one by one and the bodies thrown in the river, this was a preferred method. Sometimes the terrorists would gather them near a body of water after killing their bodies dumped in the pond. Another method was to spread kerosene encircling the area where Non-Bengali lived and leaving a small area for escape. After putting kerosene on fire the terrorists would throw Jute ball soaked in kerosene on individual houses to start the fire and if anybody tried to escape he or she would be killed by the terrorists guarding the escape area. Most of the time they would gather the bodies at one place put kerosene and wood on them and burn them to ash. The scale of the tragedy can better be understood by a personal story, if somebody who survived to tell it. This is such a story of a well to do family of the city of Jessore. Akhter Husain like millions of Bihari who migrated to East Pakistan had settled in the city of Jessore. He came from a wealthy family of Bihar, so when he left India he had a good sum of money with him. With the money he managed to open a small factory where hundreds of local people worked. He also owned other businesses in the city. Mr. Husain was also a well-known man in the city as he did some welfare work for the poor people and had a nice big house. On the morning of 25th March 1971 four armed Muslim Bengali terrorists came to his house while they were eating breakfast. At gun point six male members which included Akhter Husain his four sons and a son-in-law and four female members and an infant were brought out of the house. They were forced to march on the road without 54 shoes several miles until they reached the city jail which had been evacuated earlier to house the Bihari Muslim. A respected man of the city walking bare foot with hand tied behind the back and people starring at them as if they were a bunch of criminals. What must have been going on in his mind is very hard to comprehend. Thousands of Bihari Muslim families were also brought there for slaughter in a similar way. They were all pushed into different rooms with enough space just to stand with no toilet facility. They were kept there for two days only on water. In one night the rooms became hell with the smell of urine and human excrement. The third day they were told that they are taking them to Dhaka by steam boat. All male members’ hands were tied with rope and everybody both male and female were ordered to board on steam boat which was jam packed. As the boat reached midstream the execution of male member started by hitting their heads with a blunt object. One by one the Bengali butchers killed all male members and threw the dead bodies along the way into the river. Mrs. Husain saw how the Bengali terrorists took her husband and four sons and the son-in-law for execution one by one. The butchery continued all day till the boat reached a small island in the middle of river. One can visualize the sense of horror when the hungry and thirsty helpless women and children crying and sobbing for their loved ones and begging the terrorists to spare their lives. It must have been a scene from hell. What could be worse in hell than this killing factory? It was getting dark when the Bengali terrorists told the women to board on smaller boats. The terrorists did not kill the girls and women because they wanted to sell them. Many jumped into river and drowned including the daughter-in-law of Mr. Husain and her infant son. Mrs. Husain and her two daughters aged 25 and 14 also jumped 55 but they landed in a muddy part of the river. As Mrs. Husain tried to run away from the terrorists one Bengali terrorist hit her on the head with a sharp object, she fell down bleeding and became unconscious. The terrorists ran away leaving the two girls unharmed because they had camouflaged themselves with mud. Mother and the two girls passed the dark horrible night on that island with dead body of other people around them. In the morning a fisherman was passing that island. The kind hearted man pick them and brought them to his home and gave them food which they did not had for last four days. Above all saved them from the blood thirsty beasts, calling them beasts is really an insult to animals. After month and half when the madness subsided the fisherman came to Muhammadpur to their relative Mr. Bashir Hyder (He is now an American citizen and visits us on regular basis) and informed them that the two girls and their mother are alive. A few days later he managed to bring them to Muhammadpur. I learned the story in 1971 because they are related to my wife but before writing this book I managed to talk to them personally to verify the story. Mother and two girls came to West Pakistan got married and have now grown up children of their own. The mother who is in her eighties is alive and well but of courses with a wound mark on her head. The Bengali beasts massacred the entire non-Bengali population of Jessore numbering more than fifteen thousand.23 The irony is this that they took the photo of dead Non-Bengali Muslims claiming that Pakistan military massacred the Bengali Muslims which has been debunked thoroughly by Qutubuddin Aziz in his book. These treacherous Bengali Muslims do not feel ashamed of committing genocide to their fellow co-religionists on such a grand scale and use the photo of their dead bodies to hide their crime. How cruel you can be? The four sons of Mr. Husain I am told, 56 were very bright students. The eldest son was a professor at the local university. These bastards killed the best and the brightest men of their country just because of whim and hate. Mr. Basheer Hyder's younger brother Mushir Hyder and his wife's younger sister Bilqees Hyder a newlywed couple were also in Jessore and both were killed. She was six month pregnant. Mr. Hyder talked to them on March 24th 1971 but when he called them the next day nobody was there to answer the telephone. Mr. Bashir Hyder told me that on March 14 every Bihari household was hosting Bangladeshi flag according to the wishes of Sheikh Mujib. But that was not enough for the Awami League terrorists. On the evening of March 25th the Bengali terrorists had planned to finish off the Biharis of his area. They had already brought the oil tanker to pour kerosene encircling the area where Mr. Hyder lived. He learned about it and thought that the end was near and chanted his last prayers. The same evening the Pakistan Army finally came into action and saved his area from death and destruction. The accounts of genocide of the non-Bengali in Bangladesh have been written by many writers. The first person to write on this subject is Professor Rushbrook Williams. He has a half century’s intimate knowledge and experience of Indo-Pakistani subcontinent. In the book The East Pakistan Tragedy he provides a balanced, authoritative account of the genocide committed by Awami League terror group. Here are some of the quotations from his book. 23

It was this campaign of genocide on a grand scale perpetrated by the armed Awami League mob, and not, as the time-table of event shows, the action of the Army, which set in motion the flood of refugees seeking food, safety and shelter across the Indian border. A highly 57

disciplined force like the Pakistan Army rarely gets out of hand, even when confronted by evidence of murder, rape and mutilation perpetrated on innocent non-Bengali civilians. Such occasional acts of personal vengeance as occurred were dealt with by the full severity of military law. Even so, the wildest stories of indiscriminate killing by the Army were carefully propagated by the Awami League and by the supporters of Bangladesh (India) and conveyed to the outside world by every medium of mass- communication. The Pakistani Government was reluctant to make known to the outside world, the terrible story of what had happened during the Awami League's reign of terror. The policy of releasing information only gradually about the East Pakistan massacres achieved the desired ends; there were no reprisal against the people of Bengali race living in West Pakistan. But the price paid in damage to Pakistan's 'image' abroad was very heavy.

Mr. Willams has given day by day accounts of almost every city of Bangladesh starting from March 1st to April of 1971. He has also given the figure of non-Bengali killed by Bengali terrorists. He says:

At Santahar, in Bogra District, more than 15,000 non- Bengali Muslims were rounded up and murdered and their womenfolk paraded naked through the street before being shot dead. Surviving injured reported that mothers were made to drink the blood of their own children. In the Sankipura area of Mymensing, the men of 2,000 Non- Bengali families were taken out and murdered and the womenfolk were compelled to dig their graves.24

Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz a press correspondent has done extensive research before writing the book Blood and Tears. Here are some of the excerpts from his book.

I must stress, with all the force and sincerity at my command, that this book is not intended to be a racist indictment of the Bengalis as a nation. In writing and publishing this book, I am not motivated by any revanchist obsession or a wish to condemn my Bengali compatriots as a nation. Just as it is stupid to condemn the great German people for the sins of the Nazis, it would be foolish to blame the Bengali people as a whole for the dark deeds of the Awami League militants and their accomplices. The sheaves of eye-witness accounts, documented in this book, prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the massacre of Bihari and other non-Bengali Muslims in East Pakistan had begun long before the Pakistan Army took punitive action against the rebels late in the night of March 25, 1971. It is also crystal clear that the Awami League’s terror machine was the initiator and executor of the genocide against the non-Bengali Muslims which exterminated at least half a million of them in less than two months of horror and trauma. Many witnesses have opined that the federal Government acted a bit too late against the insurgents. The initial success of the federal military action is proved by the fact that in barely 30 days, the Pakistan Army, with a combat strength of 38,717 officers and men in East Pakistan, had squelched the Awami League’s March- April, 1971, rebellion all over the province. Looking at the tragic events of 1971 in retrospect, I must confess that even though I was in press service I was not fully aware of the scale, ferocity and dimension of the province-wide massacre of the non-Bangli Muslims. Bengali troops and paramilitary units stationed in East Pakistan mutinied and attacked non-Bengalis with atrocious savagery. Thousands of families of unfortunate Muslims, many of them refugees from Bihar who chose Pakistan at the time of the partition riots in 1947, were mercilessly wiped out. Women were raped, or had their breasts torn out with specially-fashioned knives. Children did not escape the horror; the lucky ones were killed with their parents. 59

The government of Pakistan’s White Paper on East Pakistan in August 1971 listed numerous incidents of atrocities including alleged rape and massacre of non- Bengalis by Bengalis all over East Pakistan. My research in Bangladesh and Pakistan confirmed incidents of killings and brutalities by Bengalis against non-Bengali men, women and children in Jessore, Khulna, Mymensingh and Chittagong. While many of the alleged rapes by Bengalis appear to have occurred during mob attacks on non- Bengali communities, some are alleged to have been committed by rebel Bengali military officers. Major general A O Mitha, a senior Pakistani general present in East Pakistan in March-April 1971, wrote that during a visit to the military hospital at Chittagong, “As I was walking down the ward, a Bengali officer who was wounded and under guard called out to me. I stopped and went to him, and he said that all he wanted to tell me was that he and his men had stripped women from West Pakistan, and after raping them, had made them dance in the nude; having done this, he was quite happy to die. I made no reply and walked on. During my research three Pakistani officers independently mentioned exactly the same story at the Dhaka military hospital about the wounded rebel Bengali officer and identified him by name. He survived and holds high public office in independent Bangladesh. Typically, the Bangladeshi “liberation literature” does not mention atrocities, including rape, committed by “nationalist” Bengalis against non-Bengalis. The Awami League’s rebellion of March 1971 took the heaviest toll of non-Bengali lives in the populous port city of Chittagong. The testimony of hundreds of eye-witnesses interviewed for this book gives the impression that more than 50,000 non-Bengalis perished in the early March 1971 carnage. Thousands of dead bodies were flung into the Karnaphuli river and the Bay of Bengal. Savage killings also took place in the Halishahar, Kalurghat and Pahartali localities where the Bengali rebel soldiers poured petrol and kerosene oil around entire blocks, 60 igniting them with flame-throwers and petrol-soaked jute balls, then mowed down the Non-Bengali innocents trying to escape the cordons of fire. In the wanton slaughter in the last week of March and early April, 1971, some 40,000 non-Bengalis perished The exact death toll, which could possibly be much higher will never be known because of the practice of burning dead bodies or dumping them in the river and the sea. The uniformed killer puffing the cigarette to burn the eyes of the terrified prey. Eye gouging and burning the skin of victims was a favorite torture method of the rebel. Typical of the open-air, human abattoirs operated by the Awami League-led rebels in East Pakistan in 1971 is this photograph of multiple-executions done by a Mukti-Bahini killer squad in Dhaka Race Course. The pro-Pakistan Bengali and non-Bengali victims were tortured before being slain. Hundreds of eye-witnesses from towns and cities of East Pakistan, whose testimonies are documented in this book, are unanimous in reporting that the slaughter of West Pakistanis, Biharis, and other non-Bangalis and of some pro-Pakistan Bengalis had begun in the early days of the murderous month of March 1971. There were, of course, some genuine Bengali civilian victims of the Pakistan army during 1971. Chandhan Sur and his infant son were killed on March 26 along with a dozen other men in Shankharipara, a Hindu area in Dhaka. The surviving members of the Sur family and other residents of Shankharipara recounted to me the dreadful events of that day. Amar, the elder son of the dead man, gave me a photo of his father and brother’s bodies, which he said he got from a Calcutta studio while he was refugee in India. The photo shows a man’s body lying on its back, clad in a lungi, with the infant near his feet. In the book 1971: documents on crimes against humanity committed by Pakistan army and their agents in Bangladesh during 1971, published by the Liberation War Museum, Dhaka, I came across the same photo of the Sur father and son’s dead bodies. It is printed twice, one a close-up of the child 61 only, with the caption: ‘Innocent women were raped and then killed along with their children by the barbarous Pakistan Army’. Foreigners might just have mistaken the ‘lungi’ worn by Sur for a ‘saree’, but surely Bangladeshis can tell a man in a ‘lungi’ when they see one! And why present the same ‘body’ twice? The contradictory claims on the photos of the dead of 1971 reveal in part the difficulty of recording a messy war, but also illustrate vividly what happens when political motives corrupt the cause of justice and humanity. The political need to spin a neat story of Pakistani attackers and Bengali victims made the Bengali perpetrators of the massacre of Punjabi civilians other non-Bengali Muslims in Jessore conceal their crime and blame the army. During my research, some Pakistan army officers occasional opportunistic cases of rape or attempted rape by army personnel, such as when on patrolling duty. Usually, the accused soldier was put through the army’s disciplinary process and jailed if found guilty. In some cases officers on the field meted out exemplary punishments themselves – such as thrashing the offender in front of other troops and locals Officers reporting the occasional cases were indignant at the accusations of large-scale rape, which they said were false. The caption of a photo is just as grim as its content: ‘April 2, 1971: Genocide by the Pakistan Occupation Force at Jessore.’ It is in a book printed by Bangladeshis trying to commemorate the victims of their liberation war. It is a familiar scene. There are many grisly photographs of dead bodies from 1971, published in books, newspapers and websites. Reading another book on the 1971 war, there was that photograph again taken from a slightly different angle, but the bodies and the scene of the massacre were the same. But wait a minute! The caption here reads: ‘The bodies of businessmen murdered by rebels in Jessore city.’ The alternative caption is in The East Pakistan Tragedy, by L.F. Rushbrook Williams, written in 1971 before the independence of Bangladesh. There was no reason to think 62 he would willfully mislabel a photo of the massacre. It turns out that the massacre in Jessore may have been genocide, but it wasn’t committed by the Pakistan army. The dead men were non-Bengali residents of Jessore, butchered in broad daylight by Muslim Bengali terrorist. In fact, if the Americans had read The Times of London of April 2 and Sunday Times of April 4 or talked to their British colleagues, they would have had a better idea of what was happening in Jessore. In a front-page lead article on April 2 entitled ‘Mass Slaughter of Non-Bengali in East Pakistan,’ The Times war correspondent Nicholas Tomalin wrote an eye-witness account of how he and a team from the BBC program Panorama saw Bengali troops and civilians march 11 Punjabi civilians to the market place in Jessore where they were then massacred. “Before we were forced to leave by threatening supporters of Shaikh Mujib,” wrote Tomalin, “we saw another 40 Non-Bengali being taken towards the killing ground”. There are many horror stories about the killing of non- Bengali. “My only daughter has been insane since she was forced by her savage tormentors to watch the brutal murder of her husband”, said Mukhtar Ahmed Khan, 43, while giving an account of his suffering “In the third week of March 1971, a gang of armed Bengali terrorist raided house of my son-in-law and overpowered him. They tied up my son-in-law and my daughter with ropes and they forced her to watch as they slit the throat of her husband and ripped his stomach open in the style of butchers. She fainted and lost consciousness. Since that dreadful day she has been mentally ill.” The Liberation War Museum of Dhaka proclaims: “Between March 25 and December 16, estimated 3 million Bengalis were killed, 2,00,000 women raped and 10 million were displaced. This was the worst genocide after second world war”. Without citing any source, Samantha Power wrote, “ Pakistani troops killed between 1 and 2 million Bengalis and raped some 2,00,000 girls and women,” and Susan Brownmiller claimed “2,00,000, 63

3,00,000 or possibly 4,00,000 women” were raped. For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the Hamoodur Rehman Commission, set up by the civilian government of Pakistan after the war and headed by a Bengali judge, was dismissive of the Bangladeshi claims: It does not need any elaborate argument to see that these figures are obviously highly exaggerated and absurd. So much damage could not have been caused by the entire strength of the Pakistan army then stationed in East Pakistan, even if it had nothing else to do. In fact, however, the army in East Pakistan was constantly engaged in fighting the Mukti Bahini, (Indian infiltrators) and later the Indian army. It had also the task of running the civil administration, maintaining communications, and feeding 70 million people East Pakistan during 1971, Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children. This does not mean that rapes had not occurred elsewhere. However, given the scale of rape alleged in the narratives on 1971, I was surprised to find none in any of the incidents in my case studies. Many of the pictures of the massacres of the Biharis have now become part of the lore that blames the Pakistani Army. The massacre of Non-Bengalis in Jessore is a vivid example of the demonetization of the Pakistani Army by the Bangladeshis.

The most recent book 'Dead Reckoning' written by Dr. Sarmila Bose, niece of the famous Indian national leader Subhas Chandra Bose has many horror stories about the

64 genocide of Non-Bengalis in Bangladesh. The ultimate cruelty displayed by Muslim Bengali terrorists can be documented by this story.

Brig Qadir of 13FF has described the experience of his unit while searching the ghost-town of Santahara, house by house. In one house they had difficulty opening a door. 'When we finally did, the sight was the ugliest, most horrifying, grotesque experience of my life: the little room ten feet by twelve was filled with the bodies of children, ranging from a few months to a few years. They had, apparently, been held by their feet and their head dashed against the walls, which were smeared with human brains and skulls. There was not one, including myself, who did not throw up. When we buried them there were 34 bodies.25

But how many Bengali terrorists were killed anyway? According to Sermila Bose 26,000. The Hammoodur Rehman Commission estimates the figure 26,000. The commission accepted this reasonably correct, it might be biased, but biased upward. It is very obvious from the facts presented by L R Willams, Qutubuddin Aziz and Sarmila Bose and plain common sense that the Bangladeshi Government and intellectuals are lying through their teeth. But why they are lying so much? To get world sympathy and above all to cover their own crime of committing the real genocide of more than half million non-Bengali Muslims. I have no word to describe their psyche and character of those Awami League terror groups. But let me tell you one thing if ten is a perfect score then these people will receive perfect score all the time in cruelty, falsification, savagery, viciousness and cowardliness. These Armed Bangladeshi thugs slaughtered unarmed non-Bengali men, women and children in such huge numbers but when it came to the 65 real fighting with the Pakistani Army numbering only 38,000 they tucked their tails behind and vanished. The Bihari Muslims, who had left India out of fear of the Hindus, now found out that the Bengali Muslims were far worse, treacherous and cruel than the Hindus of India. Pakistan was created that the Muslims of India were not safe in a Hindu majority India. But look what happened to Muslims of India in East Pakistan–genocide on colossal scale with such ferocity and cruelty. In 1947 during the partition of India a huge number of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were killed in Punjab. But those who were alive had hoped that when they reach the other side of the border they would be safe and would be taken care of. Here those who were alive were thrown into living hell on earth – refugee camps of Bangladesh. Tens of thousands fled back into India again and Indra Gandhi directed government officials to let the Bihari Muslim stay in India. Even the communal Hindu party BJP was sympathetic towards the fate of Bihari Muslims of Bangladesh. Strikingly, and shamefully, Pakistan washed its hands of the Bihari Muslims. They did not even tell the real story of their genocide to the world. They did not publish the photographs of their massacre in newspapers or web sites. The photographs which the armies have taken during their action in East Pakistan are sitting in their archives. The Bihari who could not get into India made their way into Nepal and Burma and came to Pakistan. Some Bihari Muslims who could not go to Pakistan were huddled in 66 refugee camps in Bangladesh. In the late Eighties, some 300,000 Biharis lived in such camps were fed and clothed by international relief organizations. After 40 years the same number of Biharis are still in these camps. The blood thirsty Bengali Muslim terrorists were not satisfied after killing five hundred thousand to a million 66

Biharis and other non-Bengali Muslims and looting their properties worth billions of dollar. The government of Bangladesh passed a law that the Biharis living in the camps have no right to go back to their homes. In most cases, they have no right to hold property outside the camps. Most of them were dispossessed from their homes and businesses after their massacre in 1971, and afterwards they were prevented from acquiring any property. As late as 1978 the dictator General Ziaur Rahman, sent the army to dispossess thousands of Biharis from their houses in Mirpur and the occupants were forced to go to refugee camps. The children of the camp people are not allowed to enroll in Bangladeshi schools. Urdu is banned in all schools of Bangladesh. Urdu books and literature cannot be printed in Bangladesh. These kinds of atrocities are unheard of in the 20th century except in Nazi Germany. The Nazis were punished for their crime but these criminals are still at large, rather they have been rewarded with good jobs by the Bangladesh government. The tragedy of these stateless people is immense and of an in-your-face variety. Many people have visited the camps and they say that it is hell on earth. Here is one comment.

Shamed by guilt and excited by the real experience, I wandered the smelly, open-drained and dark streets of the ghetto. I have frequented other slums but this one was special for it reeked of the contemporary elite politics, bloodshed and cold inhumanity that Bangladeshis are shy of confronting. The living conditions would put any half- concerned South Asian to shame. The homes for most of the families comprised tiny little rooms, with all the belongings and large families concentrated in the inner space. There are no proper toilets and water supply – as if civilization had taken a backseat here.

Most victims of Partition were abandoned once. But the Bihari Muslims were abandoned three times. Three sovereign nations had turned their back on them – their ancestral home India, their new homeland, which later became Bangladesh and their promised homeland, Pakistan. It is ironic that Pakistan absorbed three million Afghani refuges when Russia occupied Afghanistan but they could not take three hundred thousand Biharis who gave their blood for Pakistan in 1946 and again in 1971. The world community has collected millions of dollars for their repatriation to Pakistan. But all successive governments have just dragged their feet on this issue including General Zia and Pervez Musharraf who themselves were refugee from India. The question comes to mind. What was the fault of the non-Bengali Muslims that they were treated so viscously and brutally? In the eyes of their murderers the offense was threefold; they did not support an independent Bangladesh, they did not speak the local patois Bengali and some of them held high posts in the administration and above all their industry and hard work and money they brought from India had made them relatively prosperous. I'd like to remind here that at the time of partition there was a great shortage of qualified Bengali Muslims to fill the position left by the Hindu Bengalis. There was not a single Bengali Muslim in the Indian Civil Service program. It was the non-Bengali Muslims, from Bihar and U.P who filled the gap. They brought their wealth their talent and educational skill and served East Pakistan peaceably and faithfully and look what they got. They were wiped out of existence physically. I agree they did not support independent Bangladesh and held high posts in the administration and thought themselves superior to Bengali Muslims. But how two percent non- Bengali Muslims could have stopped the birth of 68

Bangladesh? The Bengali Muslims cannot argue that non- Bengalis were killed because of Army's action. Calendars of events suggest that most of the killing had already taken place before the Army took any action. I blame West Pakistan for the genocide of non-Bengalis also because they acted too late to stop the massacre and they did not tell the world the real story. Their argument was that if the real story would have surfaced the Bengalis living in West Pakistan would have been killed. So what? If a few hundred Bengalis would have lost their lives. They could have been protected by the police and the army. When the Army took action and recaptured East Pakistan from the clutches of the Awami League terrorists they must have witnessed horrible scenes of massacre. I wonder why they did not release the photographs of the massacre? In Dr. Sermila's book she has mentioned quoting Army Officer that whenever they saw the scene of massacre they took photograph. Where are those photographs? Some Bengali Muslims complain that they were discriminated by the non-Bengali populations. Look at South Africa, white people ruled there for more than forty years with a cruel system of Apartheid where Blacks had no equal right as white. Where black people could not buy house in white area. Where black could not attend the schools and universities of white people. Their leader Nelson Mandela was put in jail for 27 years on charge of breaking the system of Apartheid. When he came to power how many white people were killed or expelled from the country? None. There is no sense of remorse in the Bangladeshi society on the issue of genocide of Non-Bengali Muslims on such a colossal scale. Their psyche is based on propaganda, rumor and falsehoods. They call their country 'Islamic Republic of Bangladesh'. I think the word Islamic has no place to represent their country. I am not saying that every 69

Bangladeshi Muslim is dishonest and brutal. But quite a few of them are otherwise why 300,000 Biharis are still living in hell in the camps of Bangladesh after 40 years? Why their houses and places of businesses have been taken from them by force? Why are the children of camp people are not allowed to attend the Bangladeshi schools? Why Urdu is banned in Bangladeshi school? Why Urdu printing press is banned in Bangladesh? The Bangladesh government says that the Bihari in refugee camps are economic burden on Bangladesh. I pose this question to the government officials and intellectuals of Bangladesh. What happened to the assets of a half million non-Bengalis killed and more than a million non- Bengali who left Bangladesh without getting a penny for their assets? Who owns those properties? The Awami League terrorists who killed unarmed men, women and children or the government of Bangladesh? Why the Bangladesh government is not taking a fraction of that assets to rehabilitate those unfortunate victims of camps? The uneducated fisherman who picked up the three unfortunate women from the island and kept them in his house for a month and a half and other Bengali Muslims who saved the lives of non-Bengali Muslims at the risk of their own life are my heroes. Not the leader like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his so called freedom fighters (I call them the worst kind of terrorists) who were nothing but criminals and mass murderers. As a matter of fact Mujibur Rahman should have been tried in a court of law in Pakistan for the genocide of at least 500,000 Non-Bengali Muslims and should have been hanged. I personally was in favor of the formation of Bangladesh, it was their birth right. But the power should have been given to saner section of Bangladeshi society. Hitler took five years to kill six million Jews but these Awami League beasts took just more than a month to exterminate half a million non- 70

Bengali Muslims. If General Yahya Khan and arrogant Mr. Zulfeqar Ali Bhutto did not allow Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to become the Prime Minster of Pakistan and they did not comply to his six point demand, why the non-Bengali population of East Pakistan were made the scape goats? What was their fault? What they could have done different to escape this kind of wanton brutality? The Bihari household even hosted Bangladeshi flag on their houses as directed by Sheikh Mujib according to my friend Mr. Bashir Hyder, but still no mercy was shown to them. Why? I pose this question to every Bangladeshi intellectual?

KASHMIR

he Muslim era of Kashmir started with the arrival of T Shah Hamadan in 1372 CE from central Asia. He spread the message of Islam and converted a huge number of the local population. Shah Mir became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir. He ruled the area till he died in 1389.He was followed by Sultan Skinder who ruled for 24 years. Zainul Abidin ascended on the throne and ruled for 50 years which is known as the golden era in the history of Kashmir. His two sons fought with each other so after his death in 1470 they lost the throne to the Chak family. Yousuf Shah Chak family ruled Kashmir for more than a hundred years till Akbar the Mughal Emperor entered Kashmir in 1586. For the next 166 years the Mughal dynasty ruled Kashmir. They became obsessed with the beauty of Kashmir. The fame of the valley spread throughout the country and a very large number of people started to visit the valley. Mughal king Jahangir fell in love with the scenic beauty of Kashmir. Where he found a hill coming down gently to a spring on a beautiful lake, he utilized the place for planting a pleasure gardens. Shalimar and Nishat gardens on the banks of Dal Lake would keep Jahangir's love for natural beauty ever fresh in our memory. Shah Jahan also visited the valley a number of times accompanied by a large number of nobles.26 The Mughal era came to an end with the invasion of Persian leader Nadir Shah in 1739. He took the peacock 72 throne and Kohinoor and left the Mughal king in disarray. Afghans saw an opportunity and invaded Kashmir and started the ruthless rule in 1752. Kashmir remained a dependency of Kabul rulers till 1819, roughly a period of 67 years. The Afghan rule was the darkest period in the history of Kashmir. The rulers of Kabul were great despots, and they ruled all the parts of their kingdom ruthlessly and with an iron fist. The corner stone of their policy was terror. Abdali the king of Afghanistan died in 1818, his sons fought but lost Kashmir to Ranjit Singh the Sikh ruler of Punjab. Gulab Singh a Dogra Hindu was commander of Ranjit Singh but he betrayed his old master and helped the British defeat Ranjit Singh. At the famous Treaty of Amritsar the British sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh for Rs 7.5millions.27 Gulab Singh died in 1857; Ranbir Singh took over and helped the British retake Delhi after the mutiny. His repressive rule lasted for 28 years and was succeeded by Partap Singh. His rule was dominated by the British and he allowed a revenue commissioner. This was a great relief for Kashmiri, because inhuman laws like forced free labor and execution for cow slaughter was abolished. In 1889 the British took over direct rule for sixteen years, giving further relief for Kashmir from the repressive Dogra rule. Maharaja Partab Singh was reinstalled in 1905 and the saga of autocratic and despotic rule continued. After the death of Maharaja Pratap Singh the British installed his nephew Maharaja Hari Singh on the throne. He continued to govern the state till 1948. The Kashmiri people did not find peace after the partition of India; the biggest tragedy was yet to unfold on them – the unresolved issue of Kashmir problem. This problem had a huge impact on Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistani Muslims and to great extent on Indian 73 population. This problem was created intentionally by the British by their treacherous policy which they have perpetuated in other Muslim's lands. We have seen going through the short history of Kashmir that when British defeated Ranjit Singh of Lahore they could have ruled Kashmir directly. But they chose to sell it to a Dogra Hindu, Gulab Singh to perpetuate a Hindu rule on the Muslim majority area. In 1892 the British had taken over the rule from Pratap Singh because of his bad governance but restored him again in 1905 to harass the Muslims of Kashmir. The British knew that Pratab Singh had no son to succeed him. They started to groom Pratap's nephew Hari Singh to make him the Mahraja of Kashmir. In 1903, Hari Singh served as a Page of Honour to Lord Curzon at the grand Delhi Durbar. At the age of 13, Hari Singh was dispatched to Mayo College in Ajmer. A year later in 1909, when his father died, the British took a personal interest in his education and appointed Major H.K. Brar as his guardian. After Mayo College the ruler-in-waiting went to the Imperial Cadet Corps at Dehra Dun for military training and for polishing up his English. By the age of 20 he was appointed commander-in-chief of the Jammu and Kashmir state forces. Following the death of his uncle, Pratap Singh, in 1925, Hari Singh was installed as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir by the British. During the Second World War, Sir Hari Singh was a member of the Imperial War Cabinet.28 So you see Mountbatten a citizen of civilized and a democratic nation and Pundit Jawahir Lal Nehru a champion of democracy grabbed Kashmir because a hand-picked ruler of Kashmir acceded to India. What a double standard? But why the British wanted to have a Hindu ruler in Kashmir? Very simple, to create the problem we are facing even now. The British wanted to divide the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan. If the British ruled Kashmir directly at the time 74 of the division of India, Kashmir would have become a part of Pakistan automatically. When the British left India there were around five hundred princely states. The rulers of each princely state were given the choice by the British to join Pakistan or India. But why the British gave the choice to Rajas and Nawabs to decide the fate of millions of people? Just to create mischief and problems. The idea of giving the choice was totally illogical and unethical and was not practical at all. Here is a case in point. The Nawab of Junaghad acceded his state to Pakistan just after partition of India in 1947 but India would not allow it to happen, it was captured by police action. The Muslim ruler of Hyderabad who wanted to remain independent, met the same fate, captured by police action. All the police actions took place when Mountbatten was the Governor General of India. The rule formulated by the Redcliff award was broken by India in the presence of Mountbatten. In the case of Kashmir the rule to accede was very conveniently used by Mountbatten to send army to Kashmir to subjugate the people of Kashmir. Even the rule to accede was not followed by Mountbatten. Recent research, from British sources, has indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of October 26 due to poor flying conditions, Indian representative V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until October 27, by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar. Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force. Pakistanis also argued that because Hari Singh fled from the valley of Kashmir, he was not in control of his state and therefore not in a position to take a decision on behalf of his people. By stating that the Instrument of Accession 75 was signed on 26 October, when it clearly was not. Pakistan believes that India has not shown good faith and consequently that this invalidates the Instrument of Accession. The creation of the Kashmir problem was in planning for long time by the British government which is evident from the short history of Kashmir. The boundary line between India and Pakistan was drawn based on simple district majority rule. If a district had Hindu majority and attached to Hindu majority area became part of India on the other hand if a district had a Muslim majority it became part of Pakistan. Gurdaspur district was attached to Muslim majority area of Punjab and had Muslim majority. There was no reason why this district should have been awarded to India. Radcliffe being an honest person would not have done this injustice. It was Mountbatten who put pressure on Radcliffe to bend the rule in favor of India because if that district would have become part of Pakistan, India would have lost the land route to Jammu and Kashmir.20 So you see Mountbatten who was working for the British government had wickedness in his mind to create the Kashmir problem from the very beginning. Pakistan's founding politicians were so bitter that they swore a 'thousand year struggle' to get Kashmir back from the Indians. Though, in the intervening sixty five years, most Pakistanis have lost any hope of getting it back, and also have lost all fervor to get Kashmir to join Pakistan. But no politician can openly say that forget about Kashmir problem and move on. In the case of Pakistan the cost of this unending quarrel with India is enormous. They are forced to invest horrendous amounts of money in a fight with an enemy who is many times larger in terms of population, many times larger in terms of land and has grown into an economic powerhouse many times larger than Pakistan. In 76 their desperation to harm India the Pakistani military tried twice to invade Kashmir after the partition of the subcontinent. India controlled the best parts of the Kashmir valley and Pakistan occupied the rest, which is mostly uninhabitable. This obsession with Kashmir has had serious and crippling consequences to Pakistan's democracy and economy. Military coups have become a common place in Pakistan and democratically elected rulers were murdered, or usurped and put in prison by the military generals. The military became the dominant institution in the country and destroyed democratic institutions and encouraged religious fanaticism. In the ensuing years, Pakistan has invested billions of dollars in a nuclear bomb, untold amounts in a vast Military machine that has spawned various Jihad outfits which have come back to haunt Pakistan in the form of uncontrolled domestic terrorism. The western countries have tried to get the Kashmir issue resolved in the hope that Pakistan will then focus on the terrorists that have made Pakistan their home. But India thinks that they are much stronger in terms of economic and military power than Pakistan and they can afford this endless adventure, so there is no end in sight to this issue. Pakistan where 42 percent of men and 72 percent of women are illiterate – spends half of their total annual budget on army. A big chunk is used to pay the IMF loan. Not much is left to serve the people. Pakistan can ultimately create better lives for their people by shifting the national focus to these primary issues, than the Kashmir problem. With all its emotional baggage, used for too long by politicians of Pakistan the real problems have been badly neglected. Sufficient investment, resources and attention should be directed toward the real problems of the long-suffering people of Pakistan. 77

Sufferings of the Kashmiri

In modern times, Kashmir is known more for violence than for its scenic beauty. Two decades of conflict and 66 years of occupation by India have not only done irreparable loss to life and property but have done unimaginable harm to the psyche of men and women folks of Kashmir. The Indian authorities in a combat situation used strict measures which includes curfew, search operations, arrests and third degree torture which has inflicted a devastating impact upon native population, particularly on women in the community. It has been estimated that around one hundred thousand people mostly youth have lost their lives in the conflict and about a million have been injured. It has also been estimated that about 50,000 women have lost their husbands. The number of persons who disappeared is 4000. Sexual violence against women not only occurs but is an essential part of conflict. In Kashmir the Indian army has used it to punish, intimidate, coerce, humiliate and degrade the women. However most of the crimes committed in Kashmir by the Indian army go unnoticed because of intimidation and social stigma. Conflict has caused disruption in their education, job opportunities, and over all development, besides mental disorder among women of Kashmir due to ongoing occupation. According to some studies, the psychiatric morbidity in patients increased from 9 to 25 per cent in 1995. In 1966 I had an opportunity to take a group of students from my University on a trip to Kashmir. We were staying in a houseboat. One day a vendor came to sell us some saffron which is grown locally. When he found out that I was a Muslim he took me away from the houseboat and 78 showed me his finger nail. He told me that he was tortured by hammering nails into his fingers. I asked him why you were tortured. He said just because the Indian security forces suspected that I was working for Pakistan. That incident took place 45 years ago. You can imagine what the Indian army must be doing now. Here is the Amnesty International report you can see what a horrendous crimes a so called democratic India is doing in Kashmir.

Repressing Kashmir must far outweigh any gains India can anticipate. One thing is absolutely clear to our delegate -- there is no chance that India can "pacify" Kashmir. Thus, India must accept the huge financial drain of Kashmir in perpetuity or until such time as Kashmiri's choose their political status though the promised plebiscite. Amnesty International has been monitoring the situation in Kashmir for a number of years and has carried out lengthy investigations. We have interviewed hundreds of Kashmiris in Kashmir, met with numerous representatives of the Kashmiri people both in Kashmir and elsewhere and met with many others, including diplomats of a variety of countries. We have seen events as eye-witnesses. We have reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, including Grave breaches of humanitarian law continued unabated till 1996. Civilian casualties mount and estimates now indicate that over 25,000 were killed since January of 1990. Casualties include women, children (from infants to young boys and girls). Most of these deaths have direct humanitarian law implications: they were perpetrated by military forces of India in the course of the conflict in Kashmir; they are not "incidental civilian casualties" and must be viewed as violations of the right to life under humanitarian law. Our investigations indicate no normalized treatment of POWs. There appears to be no known facility, and no international or national monitoring of such facilities that may exist clandestinely. All Kashmiris interviewed report 79 that if the Indian Army captures a "militant" that militant will probably never be seen again alive – only as a mutilated body found along a roadside. Our investigations also indicate serious violations of the Geneva Conventions regarding protection of hospitals, medical personnel, sick or wounded persons and medical aid. Our investigations indicate that many hospitals and clinics are routinely raided. The Indian forces have entered operating rooms during operations, have abducted patients and seized medicines. Humanitarian Law Project/International Educational Development is gravely concerned about the consistent pattern of violations of humanitarian law. In addition to our own clandestine monitoring of humanitarian law violations, we have also received information from a number of other credible reports and observers who shared their information with us. A list of some of our resources is annexed to this report. The information we provide is meant to be illustrative and does not pretend to set out all instances of these violations. Murder and torture of captured combatants have none of their rights under Geneva Convention and customary rules. As stated above, the Indian forces do not comply at all with humanitarian law provisions regarding treatment of prisoners-of-war. To the best of our knowledge, there are no publicly- acknowledged POW camps. No human rights investigator has ever found a POW camp. International monitoring in this area is non- existent. However, it is clear that the Indian forces are able to capture some opposition combatants, and it must be assumed that these POWs are tortured and killed in violation of the Geneva Conventions and customary standards. Rape of Kashmiri women is being carried out on a large scale. In our past reports, we set out examples of war-time rape of Kashmiri women. Since our last report, we have verified more than 200 such rapes in Doda and the valley in January 1994 alone. In some of the outlying areas, during the same period 5 women were found, dead they 80 were raped. Rape continues to be a major means of Indian oppression against Kashmiri people. Constant and continuing armed attacks against the civilian population in Kashmir. Our investigators consistently verify that the vast majority of casualties in the Kashmiri war are civilians, caught up in "crackdowns", "sweeps" or just gunned down or tortured to death. Other human rights investigations have also verified the same pattern of civilian casualties and large numbers of custodial deaths. The refusal by Indian authorities to allow public, independent, unfettered monitoring of the situation. The Indian authorities have consistently refused permission for independent, international monitoring of the situation in Kashmir. Human rights organizations such as ours are routinely denied permission to investigate openly. Although India has permitted one assessment visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross and one by the International Commission of Jurists in recent years, apparently other organizations have had difficulty arranging open investigation. The International Federation of Human Rights and Amnesty International have been recently denied permission to visit. Our investigators have reported on the poor conditions in hospitals and clinics, in part because of forays by Indian troops into medical facilities. Some hospitals have noticeable bullet holes. A 1994 report by a British doctor contains eyewitnesses’ accounts that are similar to our investigators findings: there have been raids on Lal Ded Women's Hospital and doctors and medical personnel are "threatened beaten and detained." A colleague of that doctor told how Indian forces had beaten him, fracturing his arm. In 1995 there were numerous attacks on journalists and on communication in general. Journalist Mushtaq Ali (Agence France-Presse) was killed on September 7, 1995. Other journalists have been harassed, attacked and arrested. The media is severely restricted. Humanitarian aid is severely 81 limited as outside groups are not allowed to provide medicine and other relief materials. This report sets out several of the many incidents of the destruction of revered places, shrines and cultural places by Indian forces. Whole villages have been burned to the ground in the course of the long war. Srinagar and other major cities clearly show the effects of repeated military operations. At the time of writing this report there are approximately 60 interrogation centers of the Indian forces in Kashmir where torture is an every-day occurrence. The International Federation of Human Rights has been meticulous in its own clandestine investigations and in its interviews with people outside of Kashmir who spent time in the various centers to verify the existence and practices of these centers. While our delegates have seen much evidence of torture, we also point out that many of the reports of non-governmental organizations listed in the bibliography provide detained evidence of the practice of torture in Kashmir. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture also documents incidence of torture in India- occupied Kashmir. The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (Copenhagen) has also verified torture of Kashmiris by Indian forces. Other reports on the situation on Kashmir (listed in the bibliography) provide compelling evidence of severe abuse of civilians and combatants while in custody, including prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and killings. Most detention in Kashmir India is a result of the conflict and as India invokes certain legislative acts to justify that detention this report next analyses this legislation in light of human rights and humanitarian law. Many of the human rights violations not yet discussed in this report stem from abuse of power under repressive legislation and police and military force brutality against the people. People are arrested for engaging in acts protected by international human rights standards of free speech, freedom of association freedom of assembly, and 82 freedom of the press. While many arrests are completely vicarious with no pretense of following laws established by the legislature, the occupation forces have relied on a number of legislative acts to answer criticism of human rights abuses. These acts are, however, in themselves repressive, and cannot be relied on by India to justify its arrests and treatment of detainees. India also justifies detention in Kashmir by claiming its territorial rights over Kashmir, in part based on its de facto control of parts of Kashmir. Because Kashmiris seek independence, India claims it is entitled to defend its territorial integrity. Ignoring the objective application of international humanitarian law, in particular the definition of combatants, India claims that the Kashmiri defenders are terrorists, and has granted its armed personnel "shoot- to-kill" powers. Four legislative acts widely invoked in Kashmir clearly violate international standards and warrant special attention. This law, repealed in 1995, allowed Indian forces to round up and detain citizens for up to one year without formal charges, due process of law or formal trial. When and if court hearings were held, they were held in secret. Victims did not allowed to confront their accusers, and witnesses kept their identities secret. Confessions, often extracted through deliberate and brutal forms of torture were admissible if police affirm they were obtained "voluntarily". This act clearly violates Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), which requires that notice of charges be given promptly at the time of the arrest. Article 9 also requires that court actions be taken “without delay" regarding the lawfulness of detention. The act also violates Article 14 of the Covenant, which provides for the right to counsel and the right to examine witnesses. To the degree this act is used to criminalize resistance in defense of the right to self- determination or to punish persons who sympathize with the resisters, it violates both international humanitarian 83 law and Article 15 (penalties only for criminal offenses) in conjunction with, inter alia, Articles 18 (freedom of thought), 19 (freedom of opinion), 22 (freedom of association) of the Covenant. During our delegate's 1994 stay, the TADA was being debated in the media, in particular, on television. According to many people interviewed, some of the debate in India centered on the violations of international human rights standards inherent in the act. While there was some celebration at its repeal in late Spring 1995, many attorneys in Kashmir and India commented to our delegates that Indian forces will still carry out arrests and interrogation as if it were still in force. They point out that legislation described below is still in force and will be relied on by Indian forces to defend against arbitrary or illegal detention and violations of procedural rights. They also point out that Indian forces have always acted with impunity with or without legislative sanction, so the repeal of the TADA is not regarded as a significant deterrent to the Indian forces. Repeal of the TADA is also not expected to be a deterrent to the widespread use of torture by Indian forces. This law enables the Indian security forces in Kashmir to detain civilians for up to one year without trial or due process for a wide variety of reasons, including the exercise of free speech. For example, under this act, an individual whose child has been murdered by Indian security forces and speaks out publicly against India's campaign of terror can be detained for up to one year without trial for endangering "public safety". Also under this act an individual who produces pamphlets or newsletters that advocate the implementation of the U.N. resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir can also be arrested and detained without formal charge or due process. This act contains the same defects as the TADA, and with the repeal of the TADA will most likely be invoked instead. Its criminalization of rights protected by 84 international human rights law is particularly glaring. The National Security act. Under the act, the armed forces and the police can detain individuals for up to one year without charge or trial to prevent them from "acting in a manner prejudicial to state security”. Under this law, an individual does not even have to take a specific action to be detained. If the Indian authorities believe that he is about to do something, they can detain him without charge to prevent him from acting. The armed forces special powers act. This law was passed on September 10, 1990. It allows the Governor of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to unilaterally "declare the whole or any part of the state to be a disturbed areas". Once Kashmir is identified a "disturbed area", this act empowers the armed forces to search homes without warrant, arrest Kashmiri citizens without warrant, destroy entire homes and villages and shoot at unarmed civilians in the streets with intent to kill. For any of the above actions, article 7 of the act, titled "protection of persons acting in good faith under this act" holds that "no prosecutions, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted...against any person in respect to anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this act. This means that any member of the armed forces who conducts the above described human rights violations summary executions of unarmed civilians, burning down homes and villages, torture and arbitrary arrest can do so with complete immunity from prosecution. The National Security Law and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Jammu and Kashmir) also violate Articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant as well as international law standards protecting speech, press and information, association and democracy. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act constitutes a parse violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which require penal sanctions for violators of them and do not allow any party to absolve itself of liability for violations. 85

While much attention has been given to the war crimes committed by Indian forces and the complete abrogation of civil and political rights in the area, little attention has been given to what our delegate refers to as the economic ruin of Kashmir and the tremendous drain on India's resources represented by the military oppression of Kashmir. India should free up the resources to better address the overwhelming poverty and hardships faced by the people of India. And the cost of maintaining 600,000 troops in Kashmir provides such a daily drain of Rupees that international lenders and investors ought to be concerned with India's overall ability to repay. Surely, the cost of those of the United Nations bodies and those of other non-governmental organizations. We have studied and diligently tried to reflect accurately on the law. Our final assessment comes from our delegate: The people of Kashmir are in dire need of help. The country is in ruins! I was asked why the United Nations can help Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti –yet has done nothing to help the Kashmir. Kashmiris ask over and over why the United Nations does not implement their Plebiscite. It will take years and millions of dollars to repair the damage. With proper assistance and with time, the wounds (physical, mental, emotional) can be healed. From my evaluation of the situation, Kashmir would be a free, independent, democratic country if given the right to self- determination as promised to them by the United Nations in 1948-49. It would be a prosperous nation, with its doors open to all. But first there must be peace and there will never be peace as long as India occupies Kashmir. Kashmiris have sacrificed much and now they will not stop short of freedom. There is very little money going into Kashmir through the tourist industry -- the main industry in Kashmir. It has been this way for years, largely due to the ever-present Indian forces. Troops are deployed in almost every city and town and there is continual movement of troops all over Kashmir. 86

The Indian government interferes with all aspects of the tourist industry. Tourists are subjected to body searches and searches of personal belongings in all banks, post offices, public buildings, even the Tourist Center. Just traveling from one place to another anyone would be subjected to searches numerous times. Banks in Kashmir are not allowed to give cash on credit cards, making it impossible for tourists to obtain emergency money. Business suffers tremendously. Merchants have great difficulty obtaining approval for purchases, and merchants often have to travel to Delhi to make credit card transactions. The Indian government is interfering with the economy of Kashmir in all ways possible. Until something changes, there will be little revenue going into India – only tremendous drain of resources. Why does India fear the plebiscite when India claims to be the largest democracy in the world? In a democracy the free will of the people must always be attained with an absolute commitment to honor the integrity of the voting process and to accept and adapt to the outcome -- win or lose. Perhaps the Indian leaders making the decisions to continue the abuse, oppression, desecration, ignorance and destruction of this losing battle of their occupation of Kashmir should look into a mirror and into their own hearts and remember who they are. Remember what they and their families went through to gain their freedom from an occupying power. It is not serving anyone to continue this madness and it is an insult to those who lived and died for the freedom of India. This is not a war between India and Pakistan. It is a war taking place in Kashmir between Kashmiri people and their occupiers. It is not a religious war – it is a war to fight the oppression of the occupying invader and to gain freedom. It is a fight to gain the rights India promised.

This report is bit old but it makes no difference only the numbers of casualties and rapes have gone up because India's policy of oppression is going on. Read the most 87 recent Amnesty International report of 2008.

Hundreds of unidentified graves – believed to contain victims of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture and other abuses – have been found in Indian- administered Jammu and Kashmir. Amnesty International has urged the Indian government to launch urgent investigations into the mass graves, which are thought to contain the remains of victims of human rights abuses in the context of the armed conflict that has raged in the region since 1989.The findings appear in the report Facts under Ground, issued on 29 March by the Srinagar-based Association of the Parents of Disappeared Persons (PDP). The report details the existence of multiple graves which, because of their proximity to Pakistan controlled-areas, are in areas not accessible without the specific permission of the security forces. Since 2006, the graves of at least 940 people are reported to have been discovered in 18 villages in Uri district alone. The Indian army has claimed that those found buried were armed rebels and "foreign militants" killed lawfully in armed encounters with military forces. However, the report recounts testimonies from local villagers saying that most buried were local residents hailing from the state. The report alleges that more than 8,000 persons have gone missing in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989. The Indian authorities put the figure at less than 4.000, claiming that most of these went to Pakistan to join armed opposition groups. Unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture are violations of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law, set out in treaties to which India is a state party. They also constitute international crimes.

Amnesty International has called on the Indian government to unequivocally condemn disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir. Make sure that prompt and impartial

88 investigations are done on all sites of mass graves in the region. All past and current allegations of enforced disappearances must be investigated and, where there is sufficient evidence, anyone suspected of responsibility for such crimes must be prosecuted. India by doing injustices to the people of Kashmir is also doing a grave injustice to the poor people of India. India is home to the largest population of poor people on the planet. Over 600,000 soldiers manning Kashmir have been able to reduce terrorist violence in the state, but are unable to ensure peace. In the last sixty years India has spent trillions of dollars on Kashmir. India – which has a population of over one billion and where almost half the children under age 4 suffer from malnutrition – spends three times as much for military purposes as for health, family planning and education. Defense consumes nearly 20 percent of the combined national budgets. The money which is being wasted on Kashmir to subjugate the people of Kashmir could have been used to uplift the poor people of India. Continued animosity between India and Pakistan has resulted in a vicious cycle of arms acquisitions. Each arms deal by one country triggers off an arms procurement spree in the other. Many western countries exploit this psychology by selling arms to both. In the first six months of the 2002 conflict, Britain issued 148 military exports licenses to India and 18 to Pakistan. This is the reason why the British created the Kashmir problem to make money from the misery of poor people of the subcontinent and keep the entire region in constant conflict.

MALAYSIA

slam came to the Malay Archipelago through Arab I traders in the 13th century, ending the age of Hinduism and Buddhism. It arrived in the region gradually, and became the religion of the elite before it spread to the commoners. Here is a short history of Muslim Malaysia. The port of Malacca on the west coast of the Malay Peninsula was founded in 1402 by Parameswara, a prince of Temasek, now Singapore. He claimed to be a descendant of Alexander the Great. Parameswara headed north to found a new settlement because his kingdom was attacked by Siam now Thailand. Parameswara continued his campaign northwards till he reached a fishing village at the mouth of the Bertam River and founded what would become the Malacca Sultanate. He decided to establish a kingdom called Malacca and built and improved facilities for trade. The Malacca Sultanate is commonly considered the first independent state in the peninsula. The emperor of the Ming Dynasty of China used to send out fleets of ships to expand trade. In exchange for regular tribute, the Chinese emperor offered Malacca protection from the constant threat of Siamese attack. Here he met many Arab and Muslim traders. Parameswara became Muslim and married a Persian girl and took the fashionable Persian title of "Shah", calling himself Iskandar Shah. Chinese chronicles mention that in 1414, the son of the first ruler of Malacca visited the Ming emperor to inform them that his father had died. Iskandar 90

Shah's son was then officially recognized as the second ruler of Malacca by the Chinese. The political power of the Malaccan Sultanate helped Islam’s rapid growth throughout the archipelago. By the beginning of the 16th century, with the help of Malaccan Sultanate the Malay peninsula and parts of Sumatra, Java, and other kingdoms around the Malay archipelago, Islam became the dominant religion. It reached as far as Philippines, leaving Bali as an isolated outpost of Hinduism .28 Malacca became a cultural center, creating the matrix of the modern Malay culture: a blend of indigenous Malay, Indian, Chinese and Islamic elements. Malacca's literature, art, music, dance and dress, and the ornate titles of its royal court, came to be seen as the standard for all ethnic Malays. The court of Malacca also gave great prestige to the Malay language, which had originally evolved in Sumatra. In 1511 Afonso de Albuquerque of Portugal led an expedition and seized Malacca with the intent of using it as a base for activities in Southeast Asia. The son of the last Sultan of Malacca fled to the southern tip of the peninsula, where he founded a state which became the Sultanate of Johor. Another son created the Perak Sultanate to the north. By the late 16th century the tin mines were discovered by European traders, and Perak grew wealthy on the proceeds of tin exports. Portuguese influence was strong, as they aggressively tried to convert the population of Malacca to Christianity. After the fall of Malacca to Portugal, the Johor Sultanate and the Sultanate of Aceh on northern Sumatra moved to fill in the power vacuum left behind. The three powers struggled to dominate the Malay Peninsula and the surrounding islands. Johor founded in the wake of Malacca's conquest grew powerful enough to rival the 91

Portuguese, although it was never able to recapture the city. Instead it expanded in other directions, building in 130 years one of the largest Malay states. During this period numerous attempts to recapture Malacca led to a strong backlash from the Portuguese, whose raids even reached Johor's capital. In the early 17th century the Dutch East India Company was established. During this time the Dutch were at war with Spain, who had captured the Portuguese Empire. From there they expanded across the archipelago, forming an alliance with Johor and using this to push the Portuguese out of Malacca Backed by the Dutch, Johore established a loose hegemony over the Malay states. The Dutch did not interfere in local matters in Malacca, but at the same time diverted most trade to its colonies on Java. English traders came in Malay waters in the 18th century. Before the mid-19th century British interests in the region were predominantly economic, with little interest in territorial control. They were looking towards Southeast Asia for new resources. Due to the growth of trade with China the British were looking for bases in the region. Various islands were used for this purpose, but the first permanent acquisition was Penang, leased from the Sultan of Kedah in 1786. This was followed soon after by the leasing of a block of territory on the mainland opposite Penang. In 1795, during the Napoleonic Wars, the British with the consent of the Netherlands occupied Dutch Malacca to forestall possible French interest in the area. When Malacca was handed back to the Dutch in 1815, the British governor, Stamford Raffles, looked for an alternative base, and acquired Singapore from the Sultan of Johor. The British acquired Malacca from the Dutch in exchange of other colony. Now the British became the sole colonial power of the peninsula and they controlled all trade through the straits of Malacca. British influence 92 increased in the peninsula because they managed to stop Siamese expansionism. During the 19th century the Malaysia's Sultans aligned themselves with the British Empire, due to the benefits of associations with it.29 In 1824 British hegemony in Malaysia was formalized by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, which divided the Malay Archipelago between Britain and the Netherlands. The Dutch evacuated Malacca and renounced all interest in Malaysia while the British recognized Dutch rule over the rest of the East Indies (Indonesia). By 1826 the British controlled Penang, Malacca, Singapore and the islands of Labuan, which became crown colony. Initially the British followed a policy of non-intervention in their relation between the Malaysian states. The wealth of Perak’s tin mines made political stability there a priority for the British investors, and Perak was thus the first Malay state to agree to the supervision of a British resident. British gunboat diplomacy was employed to bring about a peaceful resolution to civil disturbances caused by Chinese and Malay gangsters. The British concluded treaties with some Malay states, installing “residents” who advised the Sultans and soon became the effective rulers of their states. These advisors held power in everything except the Malay religion and customs. By the turn of the 20th century, the states known together as the Federated Malay States had British advisors. In 1909 the Siamese kingdom was compelled to give up control over many states in favor of British rule. Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor and Queen Victoria were personal acquaintances, and recognized each other as equals. It was not until 1914 that Sultan Abu Bakar's successor, Sultan Ibrahim accepted a British adviser. The four previously Thai states and Johor were known as the Unfedrated Malay States. The states under direct British control developed rapidly, and became the biggest suppliers of tin 93 and rubber in the world. During the late 19th century the British also gained control of the north coast of Borneo, where Dutch rule had never been established. Development on the Peninsula and Borneo were generally separate until the 19th century. The eastern part of this region now Sabah was under the nominal control of the Sultan of Sulu, a vassal of the Spanish Philippine. The rest was the territory of the Sultanate of Brunei. In 1841, a British adventurer, James Brooke, helped the Sultan of Brunei suppress a revolt, and in return he received the title of Raja and the right to govern the Sarawak River District. In 1846 his title was recognized as hereditary, and the "White Rajahs" began ruling Sarawak as a recognized independent state. The Brooke's expanded Sarawak at the expense of Brunei. In 1881 the British North Borneo Company was granted control of the territory of British North Borneo, appointing a governor and legislature. It was ruled from the office in London. Its status was similar to that of a British Protectorate, and like Sarawak it expanded at the expense of Brunei. By 1910 the pattern of British rule in the Malay lands was established. The Crown Colony was ruled by a governor under the supervision of the Colonial Office in London. Their population was about half Chinese, but all residents, regardless of race, were British subjects. The first four states to accept British residents, were termed the Federated Malay States: while technically independent, they were placed under a Resident-General making them British colonies. The Unfedrated Malay States had a slightly larger degree of independence. Johore was Britain’s closest ally in Malay affairs, had the privilege of a written constitution, which gave the Sultan the right to appoint his own ministers. The British always saw their empire primarily in 94 economic terms, and its colonies were expected to turn a profit for British shareholders. Malaya’s obvious attractions were its tin and gold mines, but British planters soon began to experiment with tropical plantation crops like tapioca, pepper and coffee. In 1877 the rubber plant was introduced from Brazil, and rubber soon became Malaya’s staple export, stimulated by booming demand from European industry. Rubber was later joined by palm oil as an export earner. All these industries required a large labor force, and the British did not regard the Malays as reliable workers and they did not care what would happen to the local population in term of demography. The solution was simple the importation of plantation workers from India, mainly Tamil-speaking from South India. To work in mines, mills and docks a flood of immigrants were brought from southern China. Soon towns like Singapore, Penang and Ipoh became Chinese majorities, so was Kuala Lumpur, founded as a tin-mining center in 1857. The British policy of ruthless greed for profit was going to make Malay Muslims into a minority in their own homeland. Now present day Malaysia has 51.5% Malay Muslims after getting rid of Singapore and the rest are Chinese, Indians and others. In 1963 when Malaysia gained independence from the British, Singapore was part of Malaysia which had a huge number of Chinese. However, social unrest and disputes between Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (Mostly the Chinese) and Malaysia's Alliance Party resulted in Singapore's separation from Malaysia. The Malaysian government had no choice, but to lose a part of their land to get rid of a large part of the Chinese population. Singapore became an independent republic in the August of 1965. As mentioned before the tiny state of Brunei became British protectorate in 1888. The Sultan of Brunei became 95 a puppet of the British. In 1929 oil was discovered in Brunei, now the British started to take special interest in that tiny kingdom. At the time of independence of Malaysia like any other kingdom Brunei also should have been a part of Malaysia. The leaders of Malaysia insisted that it should be a part of their new country. But the British and of course the Sultan of Brunei strongly opposed it. That tiny country remained as British protectorate till 1984.30 But why the British had so much interest in keeping the tiny kingdom out of Malaysian federation? The answer is very simple, if you are a small country with low population and high income where would the money go? Bank of England. The per capita income of Brunei is about $49,000 and per capita income of Malaysia is about $15,000.28 The income of Brunei is not divided equally among the citizens of Brunei, a bulk of it goes to the Sultan of Brunei. But what is he doing with that kind of money? The royal family lives in the utmost luxury with toilet seat made of solid gold and rest of the money goes to the Bank of England. By keeping the tiny country separate from Malaysia both the Sultan and the British are the winners and the people of the area are losers. The British have pursued this policy vehemently everywhere especially in the Middle East.

PRINCES AMONG SLAVES

t is estimated that of the 16 million Africans abducted I and sold in to slavery, thirty percent of them were Muslims. Most of the slaves came from coastal area of West Africa where quite a few Muslim countries are located. From the early 18th century, Britain’s involvement in the slave trade grew enormously. They had full control on slave trades on the West coast of Africa. In addition, the British won the sole license to ship black slaves from Africa to Spanish controlled territories in America, by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. In 1720 alone nearly 200,000 enslaved Africans were transported across the Atlantic in British ships. It was a very profitable business often making a high rate of return on investment, as account books from the period show. Powerful trading interests tried to prevent any regulation of the slave trade using a fierce campaign of misinformation, lies and delay tactics. The slave trade refers to the transatlantic trading patterns which were established as early as the mid-17th century. Trading ships would set sail from Britain with a cargo of manufactured goods to the west coast of Africa. There, these goods would be traded, over weeks and months, for captured people provided by African traders. Slave traders found it easier to do business with African intermediaries who raided settlements far away from the African coast and brought those young and healthy boys and girls to the coast to be sold into slavery. The first thing the slave 97 traders would do was to dehumanize them by forcing them to remove any clothing from their bodies, be it boys or girls. Then putting chains on hands and legs and board them on ship with just enough room to sleep.31 The casualty rate of these slaves were ten to thirty percent. It was a very cruel business but if you were making money it was OK for the British monarchy. The slave ship after sailing a few months would come to America and the slaves would be auctioned on the block. They use to have ritual before going to the auction block. The slaves were washed thoroughly and oil rubbed on the naked bodies to make it nice and shiny because they had to be on the block naked whether a boy or a girl. Money from the sale of the slaves would be used to buy tobacco, coffee, sugar and other things and shipped back to England. The trade pattern repeated again and again it was a golden triangle. With this slave trade the British were creating havoc on the Muslim population of West Africa. At the peak of the slave trade, 5% of England's GDP was coming from this dirty trade. A prince also came to America as a slave, this is a real story of an African prince. In 1788 a slave-ship set sail from West Africa, its berth laden with a profitable but fragile cargo: hundreds of men, women and children bound in chains and headed for American shores. Eight months later the survivors were sold in Natchez, Mississippi. Among them was a 26-year- old man Abdul Rahman Sori, heir to the throne of one of the largest kingdoms in Africa. Abdul Rahman Sori was born in 1762 in Timbo, West Africa, present day Guinea. In 1774 he left his hometown, Fouta, to study at Timbuktu and became well versed in Arabic. Rahman was the leader of one of his father's army divisions. After winning a battle against a warring nation, he took with him a few soldiers to report back to his 98 father, when he was ambushed and captured. He was sold to English slavers for a few muskets and some rum. After enduring the brutal Middle Passage to America, packed below decks and in filthy conditions, he was purchased by a struggling Mississippi farmer named Thomas Foster. Foster hoped that the strong African would help establish his cotton farm. In 1794 he married Isabella, another of Foster’s slaves, and eventually fathered a large family: five sons and four daughters.32 By using his knowledge of growing cotton in Fouta Africa, Abdul Rahman Sori rose to a position of authority on the plantation and became the foreman. This granted him the opportunity to grow his own vegetable garden and sell at the local market. During this time, he met an old acquaintance, Dr. John Cox. He was an Irish surgeon who had served on an English ship. He was the first white man to reach Timbo after being stranded in his ship and falling ill. Cox stayed ashore for six months and was taken care of by the Abdul Rahman family. Cox appealed to Foster to sell Abdul Rahman to him so he could return to Africa. However, Foster would not budge, since he viewed Abdul Rahman Sori as indispensable to his farm. Dr. Cox continued, until his death in 1816, to seek Rahman's freedom. After Cox died, Rahman continued to work for his freedom. In 1826, Abd al-Rahman Sori wrote a letter to his relatives in Africa. A local newspaperman, Andrew Marschalk, who was originally from New York, sent a copy to Senator Thomas Reed in Washington, who forwarded it to the US Consulate in Morocco. Since Abdul Rahaman wrote in Arabic, Marschalk and the US government assumed that he was a Moor. When Sultan of Morocco read the letter, he asked President Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay to release Abdul Rahman Sori. In 1828, Thomas Foster agreed to the release of 99

Rahman, without payment, with the stipulation that he will return to Africa and not live as a free man in America. Before leaving the US, Rahman and his wife went to various states and Washington DC. He solicited donations, through the press, personal appearances, the American Colonization Society and politicians, to free his family back in Mississippi. Word got back to Foster, who considered this a breach of the agreement. Abdul Rahman's actions and freedom were also used against President John Quincy Adams by future president Andrew Jackson during the presidential election. After ten months, Abdul Rahman Sori and Isabella had raised only half the funds to free their children. They made arrangements to leave America. He went to Monrovia, Liberia with his wife. Abdul Rahman Sori lived for four months before he contracted a fever and died at the age of 67. He never saw his town Fouta or his children again. The funds that Abdul Rahman and Isabella raised bought the freedom of two sons and their families. They were reunited with Isabella in Monrovia. Thomas Foster died the same year as Abdul Rahman. Foster's estate, including Abdul Rahman's other children and grandchildren, were divided among Foster's heirs and scattered across Mississippi and the South. Abdul Rahman's descendants still reside in Monrovia and the United States. In 2006, Abdul Rahman's descendants gathered for a family reunion.33

100

THE MIDDLE EAST

p until the nineteenth century, British feelings U towards the Ottoman Empire was always a complex mix of respect, and fear. In the middle ages the Ottomans had even come so far as to threaten the very existence of Christianity in Europe. However, the technological advances of the Industrial revolution meant that the British had long ceased to see the Ottoman Empire as any kind of threat. Instead, it was seen as a very weak organization, falling apart at the seams. All the major European Imperialists including Britain saw opportunity in the demise of this ailing power. What is surprising is that the Ottomans lasted as long as they did in a very unfavorable international situation. Britain was the principal beneficiary of the gradual demise of Ottomans in early twentieth centuries.34 In 1914 Enver Bey the leader of the Young Turk revolution made an alliance with Germany. This led the Ottomans into the fatal step of joining Germany in World War I, against Britain and France. The British saw the Ottomans as the weak link in the enemy alliance, and concentrated on knocking them out of the war. British made a direct assault at Gallipoli, Turkey in 1915 but suffered a heavy loss and could not knock out the Ottomans from the alliance. The British now turned to fomenting revolution in the Ottoman Empire, exploiting the awakening force of Arab nationalism. The Arabs had lived more or less happily under Ottoman rule for 400 101 years. The British found an ally in Husain ibn Ali the governor of Makkah. During the year 1916, as World War I was underway, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Henry McMahon, secretly corresponded with Husain ibn Ali the Ottoman governor of Makkah and Medina. McMahon convinced Husain to lead an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. McMahon promised that if the Arabs supported Britain in the war, the British government would support the establishment of an independent Arab state under Hashemite rule in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine.35 The British retreat from Gallipoli, Turkey and the surrender of the Anglo-Indian force at Kut-el-Amara, Iraq forced them to reorganize their army again. As a wealthy industrial power, Britain had the resources that the Ottoman Empire could not match. In Iraq a new commander, General Stanley Frederick Maude, assembled a large force of some 150,000 men, equipped with modern weapons of war. They first transformed Kuwait into a modern port, roads were constructed, and river transportation on the Tigris was dramatically expanded. In early 1917, Britain seemed on the verge of knocking Turkey out of the war, and was enjoying success on several fronts. In March, Maude's forces captured Baghdad. Two weeks later, Murray's advance force, having cleared Ottoman forces out of the Sinai, launched an attack with infantry and cavalry against Gaza, the gateway to Palestine, which was also occupied by the Ottoman forces. The attempt to take Gaza, however, failed. Encouraged by Murray's misleading report of this battle, British ordered another assault, but this second Battle of Gaza was a frontal assault with inadequate artillery support against strong defenses proved a disaster for the British forces. 102

Murray's failure to capture Gaza led to his replacement by General Edmund Allenby. His government hoped to achieve a concrete victory to boost morale at home, and gave him the flexibility to advance on Jerusalem. In October, when the weather was more favorable, Allenby made good use of his infantry and a large mounted force, flanked by Arab fighters to break through the Gaza Front. And after crossing the Judean hills, he walked through the Jaffa Gate on December, 11 1917 as the conqueror of Jerusalem, the first Christian conqueror since the Crusades. With the help of Arab fighters which included the group of Lawrence of Arabia the British captured Damascus in October of 1918.36 The war ended with the British occupying the territory that was to become Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire destroyed, Russia paralyzed by civil war, and French influence limited somewhat by their minor military role in the Middle East, Britain's military success made her the dominant power in the region. Now the British had the power to do all kinds of mischief in the Middle East as they wished. They divided the Arab land without consent and input of any Arab leader. When the British official came to Cairo to draw the boundary line between the countries they did not meet any Arab leaders or king. The Sykes-Picot agreement was a secret understanding concluded during World War I. The agreement was made between Britain, France, and Czarist Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France. The document which was officially released by the British Government in 1936, was exposed in 1917 by the Bolshevik Revolution. Czarist Russia was supposed to get Constantinople and large parts of Eastern Turkey, Armenia and Kurdistan. Historians 103 have pointed out that the agreement conflicted with pledges already given by the British to the Hashimite leader Husain ibn Ali, governor of Hejaz that the whole Arab province of Ottomans will be one country. On the basis of this pledge Husain ibn Ali lead an Arab revolt against the Ottomans. After the war at the Paris peace conference and through the League of Nations, much of the Ottoman Empire was divided into mandated territories assigned to the victors of the war. The British and French saw the mandates as instruments of imperial ambitions. According to Sykes- Picot agreement France obtained a mandate over Syria, carving out Lebanon as a separate state with a slight Christian majority. Britain obtained a mandate over the areas which now comprise Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. US President Wilson insisted that the mandates must foster eventual independence.

Creation of Israel

In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration was a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild, based on a request of the Zionist organization in Great Britain. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The declaration was the result of lobbying by the small British Zionist movement.35 Most probably it was motivated by British strategic consider- ations or that international Jewry would come to the aid of the British if they declared themselves in favor of a Jewish homeland. Whatever their motive was it was a biggest act of treachery imposed on the Arabs world. In 1921, the British divided this region in two: east of the Jordan River became the Emirate of Jordan, to be 104 ruled by Abdullah son of Husain ibn Ali , and west of the Jordan River became the Palestine Mandate. This was the first time in modern history that Palestine became a separate political entity. Throughout the region, Arabs were angered by Britain's failure to fulfill its promise to create an independent Arab state, and many opposed British and French control as a violation of their right to self-determination. In Palestine, the situation was more complicated because of the British promise to support the creation of a Jewish national home. The rising tide of European Jewish immigration, land purchases and settlement in Palestine generated increasing resistance by Palestinian Arab peasants, journalists and political figures. They feared that this would lead eventually to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Palestinian Arabs opposed the British Mandate because it thwarted their aspirations for self-rule, and opposed massive Jewish immigration because it threatened their position in the country. In 1921, clashes broke out between Arabs and Jews in which roughly equal numbers of both groups were killed. In the 1920s, when the Jewish National Fund purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arab landowners, the Arabs living in these areas were evicted. These displacements led to increasing tensions and violent confrontations between Jewish settlers and Arab peasant tenants. Seven year later Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem began to clash over their respective communal religious rights at the Wailing Wall a holy site for the Jews. But this site is also holy to Muslims, since the Wailing Wall is adjacent to the Temple Mount. On the mount is the site of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, believed to mark the spot from which Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. In 1929, members of the Zionists Youth Movement demonstrated and raised a Zionist flag 105 over the Wailing Wall. Arabs responded by attacking Jews throughout the country. European Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically after Hitler's rise to power in 1933, leading to new land purchases and Jewish settlements. Palestinian resistance to British control and Zionist settlement climaxed with the Arab revolt of 1936. British suppressed the revolt with the help of Zionist militias. After crushing the Arab revolt, the British reconsidered their governing policies in an effort to maintain order in an increasingly tense environment. They issued a White Paper (a statement of political policy) limiting future Jewish immigration and land purchases. The Zionists regarded this as a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. The 1939 White Paper marked the end of the British-Zionist alliance. At the same time, the defeat of the Arab revolt and the exile of the Palestinian political leadership meant that the Palestinian Arabs were politically disorganized during the crucial decade in which the future of Palestine was to be determined.36 Mahatma Gandhi who himself was struggling with the British for India's independence made a statement in 1938 in favor of Palestinian Arab.

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to

106

them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

In November of 1944, members of the Jewish Lehi underground assassinated Lord Moyne in Cairo. Moyne, a known anti-Zionist who was the British Minister of State for the Middle East and in charge of carrying out the terms of the 1939 White Paper preventing Jewish immigration to Palestine by force. He was also a personal friend of Winston Churchill. The assassination did not change British policy, but it turned Winston Churchill against the Zionists. Hakim and Bet Zuri were caught and were hanged by the British in 1945.37 The Jewish Agency and Zionist Executive believed that British and world reaction to the assassination of Lord Moyne could jeopardize cooperation of the British, and might endanger the Jewish State if they came to be perceived as enemies of Britain. Therefore they embarked on a campaign against the Lehi and Irgun, terrorist group. Members of the underground leaders were caught by the Jewish Agency and turned over to the British authority. British changed the policy and promised to the Jews that they would reverse the British White Paper and would support a Jewish state in Palestine. However, it was not enough to satisfy the Zionist. They attempted to bring immigrants into Palestine illegally. The rival Zionist underground groups now united, and all of them, in particular the Irgun and Lehi terrorist groups, used force to try to drive the British out of Palestine. This included

107 bombing of trains, train stations and officer’s clubs. British headquarter in King David Hotel was bombed where 91people lost their lives including British civilian. The terrorist group became very bold and started kidnapping and murder of British personnel. The leader of this terrorist group was Menachem Begin who was born in Poland in 1913 and came to Palestine in 1942. A numbers of British soldiers and policemen were deployed to quell the Jewish uprising, yet Begin managed to elude captivity, at times disguised as a rabbi. British placed a 'dead-or- alive' bounty of £10,000 on his head.38 He threatened a campaign of terror against British officials, saying they would kill Sir John Shaw, Britain's Chief Secretary in Palestine. He was also responsible for the massacre of 250 men, women and children of the village Dare Yaseen in 1948. The same terrorist Menachem Begin became Prime Minister of Israel and even received the Noble Peace Prize in 1978. In Britain, newspapers and politicians began to demand that the government settle the conflict and stop endangering the lives of British troops. The British found Palestine to be ungovernable and returned the mandate to the United Nations. British objective of creating a Jewish homeland in the Muslim land had been achieved. The British plunged the dagger in the heart of Muslim Ummah. The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under international administration. The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29, 1947 as UN Resolution (GA 181), with the support of both the US and the Soviet Union, and in particular, the personal support of the US President Harry S. Truman. Many factors contributed to Truman's decision to support 108 partition, including domestic politics and intense Zionist lobbying. The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. The resolution divided the land into two approximately equal portions in a complicated scheme with zigzag borders. The intention was an economic union between the two states with open borders. At the time of partition, half land in all of Palestine was owned by the Arabs, less than half belonged to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. There were about 600,000 Jews in Palestine, almost all living in the areas allotted to the Jewish state or in the internationalized zone of Jerusalem, and about 1.2 million Arabs. The allocation of land by Resolution 181 was intended to produce two areas with Jewish and Arab majority respectively.39 It soon became evident that the scheme will not work. Mutual antagonism would make it impossible for either community to tolerate the other. The UN was unwilling and unable to force implementation of the internationalization of Jerusalem. The Arab League, declared a war to get rid of the Jews from Palestine. Abdullah, king of Jordan, had an informal and secret agreement with Israel, negotiated with Golda Meir, to annex the portions of Palestine allocated to the Palestinian state in the West Bank, and prevent formation of a Palestinian state. The British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem’s streets almost immediately; violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war. During that fateful April of 1948, eight out of thirteen major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the

109 territory granted to the Arab state. Before the end of the mandate the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and Lehi terrorist group carried out the slaughter in a cold blood and premeditated fashion. The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them. The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked world opinion , drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country. By 1948, the Jews were not only able to defend themselves but were able to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the Israeli army archives which says, “in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders and rapes”.40 The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts. Jordan’s King Abdullah promised the Israelis and the British that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off the overwhelming hordes of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified. Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, 110

September and October of 1948. But no general expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing a clear or written expulsion orders. He preferred that his generals understood what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the great expeller and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy. But while there was no expulsion order, brutality towards Arab civilians increased. As a result of this 700,000 Palestinians left Palestine in 1948 and another 320,000 after the 1967 war.41 This tiny country Israel started arming itself and Britain, France and America armed her to the teeth. Now this country became a big monster in that area bullying the neighboring countries. In 1956 United Kingdom, France and Israel attacked Egypt and captured Suez Canal. Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year because of Russian’s warning. The Israeli forces did not withdraw from the area. President Eisenhower issued a strong warning to Israeli which convinced them to withdraw their forces by March of 1957.42 Year by year Israel was getting stronger and stronger by arming with modern weapon supplied by the United States and the European countries. Egypt and Syria had no choice but to indulge in the arms race. Being a third world countries they spent billions of dollars for obtaining Russian arms the money they could have used on social programs. By 1967 Egypt and Syria thought that they had enough strength to tackle the big bully Israel and started to flex muscle. In May 1967, Nasser received false reports that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border and expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai and took up 111

UNEF positions at Sharmel-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite US pressure. Israel's move was a surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force on June, 5 1967. Egypt had by far the largest and the most modern of all the Arab air forces, consisting of about 420 combat aircraft, all of them Soviet-built. Both Egypt and Syria lost most of their combat aircraft on the ground the very first day of the war. Without the air cover the Arab army lost the war in six days. Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Close to 20,000 Arab soldiers died while Israel lost about 900. It was a very costly war for the Arabs in terms money and honor.43

Attack on USS Liberty

While the war was going on an American ship USS Liberty was collecting electronic intelligence in international waters. It was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel. The ship suffered thirty four killed in action and one hundred seventy three wounded. The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns. After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats not more than fifty yards away, launched a total of five torpedoes one of which struck the side of USS Liberty. All 112 this was happening while big American flag flying on the mast of the ship. Israeli just wanted to sink USS Liberty and kill its 294 American crew and blame the whole incident on Egypt. But they failed to do so and were caught red hand. The US. 6th Fleet, positioned nearby, received a distress call from the Liberty, and one carrier dispatched a squadron to search for the disabled ship. Before the ship was found, the fleet received orders from Washington ordering the planes back. A Forty Million Dollar state of the art signals intelligence platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold as scrap. 44 Though Johnson administration official continued individually to characterize the attack as deliberate, but they never sought the prosecution of the guilty parties or attempted to seek justice for the victims. Johnson administration concealed and altered evidence in their effort to downplay the attack. Though they never formally accepted the Israeli explanation that it was an accident, but never pressed for a full investigation either. They simply allowed those responsible for this crime literally to get away with murder. After 1967 war Israel became the most arrogant country in the world. The fourth Arab-Israeli War brought some sense in Israeli psyche. The war was fought from October 6 to 25, 1973, between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria. The war began when the coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur. The war had far-reaching implications. The Arab World, which had been humiliated by the rout of the Egyptian- Syrian-Jordanian alliance in the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by early successes in the conflict. In Israel, despite the tactical achievements on the 113 battlefield, the war effectively ended its sense of invincibility. Upon assuming office on January 20, 1977, President Carter moved to rejuvenate the Middle East peace process that had stalled throughout the 1976 presidential campaign. His effort paid off and in 1978 Camp David Accords, was signed by Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and was witnessed by United States President Jimmy Carter. A Peace Treaty was signed in 1979. Egypt got back Sinai Peninsula but with a lot of conditions. The Arab nations, and especially the Palestinians, condemned it and considered it as a stab in the back. The treaty left the Palestinian problem and Golan Height issue of Syria unresolved. Israel after signing the Peace Treaty with Egypt became bold again and this time they wanted to grab some land in Lebanon. After the 1970 Jordanian Civil War, in which the PLO was driven out of Jordan, southern Lebanon came under Palestinian control, with Yasser Arafat's forces. In 1978 Israeli troops invaded southern Lebanon in a campaign to drive the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) out. This Israeli military offensive forced an estimated 285,000 people to become refugees, with over 6,000 homes destroyed or badly damaged. Between 1,100 and 2,000 Lebanese civilians were killed and so were an unknown number of Palestinian fighters. The PLO forces retreated ahead of the Israelis. In June of 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon again in response to the assassination attempt on the life of Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom. Calling this invasion "Operation Peace in Galilee," Israeli forces began heavy bombing of PLO targets in Lebanon and reached Beirut. Surrounded West Beirut and subjected it to heavy 114 bombardment. The PLO forces and their allies negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of Special Envoy Philip Habib. By the end of the war, nearly 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians were killed, most of them in Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. Israeli forces remained in control of south Lebanon near the border until 2000, when the troops were withdrawn in order to end the ongoing guerrilla war with the Hezbollah.

Sabra and Shatila massacre

On September 16, 1982 the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia entered the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Their mission was authorized by the Israeli Defense Force, under the command of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon that held the territory around Beirut. Phalangists murdered anywhere from 3000 to 3500 unarmed Palestinians living in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Countless others were raped, tortured, and terrorized. Hundreds more were rounded up and loaded onto trucks, driven away never to be seen again. The bodies found were severely mutilated. Many boys had been castrated, some were scalped, and some had the Christian cross carved into their bodies. Some were never accounted for, because of being buried under the rubble of demolished buildings. The massacre continued for two days under the nose of Israeli Defense Force. During the night the Israeli forces fired illuminating flares over the camps. According to a Dutch nurse, the camp was as bright as a sports stadium during a football game.45 United Nation declared this massacre genocide and held Israel responsible for it, the country which cries about their Holocaust all the time did the same thing to the people whose land they stole. No one has been put on trial for this 115 capital crime. In 1993 Israeli forces attacked Lebanon again and destroyed thousands of houses and buildings, causing some 300,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians from southern Lebanon to migrate towards Beirut and other areas outside of the combat zone. Israeli forces also targeted Lebanese infrastructure, like power stations, bridges, and roadways. This is a tactic that would be repeated in future Israeli attacks on Hezbollah and Lebanon. In 1996 Israel started massive air and artillery attack on Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon. A United Nations camp at Qana, Lebanon, was hit by Israeli shelling, killing 118 Lebanese civilians who sought shelter there.46 The 2006 conflict started when Hezbollah fired an anti- tank missile on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli border. The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional wounded soldiers were taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon. Five more were killed in a failed rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive air strikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon and Hezbollah positions. Israel's Air Force flew more than 11,000 combat missions, its Navy fired at least 2,400 shells, and its Army fired over 100,000 shells. Large parts of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure were destroyed, including 460 miles of roads, 72 bridges. Other targets such as Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, sea ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 24 fuel stations, 1000 commercial structures, up to 345 schools , hospitals, and 14,000 homes. It was not a war of revenge but a total destruction of a small unarmed country by a well-armed nation. I can understand if the Israeli had bombed the Hezbollah positions but this kind of wanton destruction of a small country with colossal savagery cannot be justified by any logic. It was nothing but a war crime and ugly display of 116 arrogance and uncivilized brutality. The Israeli attack killed at least 1,200 people, mostly Lebanese citizens, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese. After the ceasefire, some parts of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to Israeli unexploded cluster bomb. The uses of cluster bombs are prohibited in civilian area but 47 for Israel there is no International Law. Israel is converting the West Bank into a big jail by constructing Apartheid Wall as high as 40 feet including in and around East Jerusalem, which is totally against the International Law and the Oslo accord. Wall’s path, finalized in November of 2003, reveals that if completed in its entirety, nearly 50% of the West Bank population will be affected by the Wall. Palestinians will be lose lands and they will be isolated into Israeli de-facto annexation. The wall’s location, reaching up to 3 mile inside Palestinian territory and projected length of 350 miles suggest it is more realistically an additional effort to confiscate Palestinian lands, and unilaterally redraw geopolitical borders. The aim is to encourage an exodus of Palestinians by denying them the ability to earn a living from their land, reach their schools, work places and deny adequate water resources. The glaring example has been given by President Carter in his book: Beyond the White House

Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian doctor active in an independent political party that seeks a nonviolent resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, talked to us about the village of Qalqilay in the West Bank. He said: Imagine a city where 46,000 people are surrounded by a wall in all directions with one little entrance with a gate. The gate has a lock and Israeli soldiers keep the key. They shut off the city every day at 6:00 PM and open the next morning. Sometimes they decide not to open the gate at all 117

for several days. During the last month, before I came here, the city was entirely shut off for ten days. The people of Qalqilay called me and said, “We don't even see the sunset anymore because of the wall that surrounds us is 24 to 40 feet high. I am also a medical doctor. I do not think it is a coincidence that you have so many medical doctors participating in human rights activities. There is nothing as drastic and as sad as struggling to have a pregnant woman ready to give birth trying to cross a checkpoint to receive medical care. Fifty-three women so far have been obliged to give birth at checkpoints. The last woman who gave birth this way in Jenin, was standing 60 feet from an ambulance and the Israeli guards wouldn't let her cross to get to it. We have lost eighty-nine people already heart attacks or children who were having respiratory problems who were not allowed to cross to receive medical care. West bank and Gaza is a small country, but in this little tiny place, you have 482 checkpoints that have prevented freedom of movement for the last two and half years. How many other times in history has a whole population been prevented from using roads and streets – their own roads and streets – for month after month? A trip that would usually take forty-five minutes from Ramallah to Hebron area would now take, if it were possible at all, nine hours after changing vehicles at least eleven times. This is so drastic and so terrible and so unacceptable that something must be done about it.”48

The Gaza Strip lies on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The Strip borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the south, east and north. It is about 25 miles long, and between 4 to7.5 miles wide, with a total area of 140 sq. mi. The population is about 1.6 million people, most of them descendants of refugees. One million of the population, as of March 2005, was considered refugees. Israel occupied the Gaza Strip in 118

June 1967, after the Six-Day War. During that period Israeli created settlements. In total they created 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip, comprising 20% of the total territory. A wave of protests, civil unrest and bombings against Israeli military and civilians, many of them done by suicide bombers convinced Israel to leave Gaza. In 2005, the Israeli government voted to implement a unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip. Under the plan, all Israeli citizens had to leave Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was determined to show that the Palestinians will not be reaping any rewards from Israel's withdrawal. He converted 21 settlements into heap of rubble. The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and do not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea only by land. Official documents such as passports, ID cards, export and import papers, and many others had to be approved by the Israeli army. The Israeli Army left Gaza Strip physically but did not leave the people in peace. In response to this the ruling Hamas party thought that let us harass the Israeli population by firing self-made rocket in to Israel, which was a foolish idea. On June 19, 2008, an Egyptian brokered an agreement between Israel and Hamas to end the hostility. The agreement required Hamas to end rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and Israeli Air Force not to bomb any area of Gaza strip. In November, 2008, Israel launched a military strike on Hamas to destroy what Israel said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate in to Israel. According to Israel, the raid was not a violation of the ceasefire, but a legitimate 119 step to remove an immediate threat. Israeli infantry, tanks, and bulldozers entered into the Gaza Strip, the first major incursion since the June truce. A gunfight broke out, in which one Hamas fighter was killed. Hamas responded with a barrage of mortar and rocket fire at Israeli troops. Israel was planning for a military attack six months before the conflict by collecting intelligence on potential targets. The Israelis were also engaged in a disinformation campaign to give Hamas a false sense of security and to take them by surprise. On December 27, 2008, Israel launched a brutal and massive attack on the refugees of Gaza strip. It began with an opening wave of air strikes in which F-16 fighter jets and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters simultaneously struck hundreds of preplanned targets within a span of few minutes. A second wave of jets and helicopters struck at additional targets. The air strikes hit Hamas headquarters, government offices and all police stations. An Israeli Unmanned aerial vehicle strike on the Police headquarters of Gaza City killed 40 people, including several dozen police cadets at their graduation ceremony. At least 230 Palestinians were killed and more than 700 injured on the first day of air strikes including children. Human rights groups critically note that the attacks began around the time children were leaving school. The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. After six days of barbaric air strikes, Israel began the ground operation with a massive artillery barrage all along the Gaza boundary. Then came the Israeli Navy they attacked Hamas rocket outposts, command and control centers, Hamas patrol boat, and the office of Hamas Prime Minister, using the Typhoon Weapon System and Surface to surface missiles the tool of most modern war fare. 120

In the course of the 22 days of criminal Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, a total of 1,434 Palestinians were killed. Of these, 235 were combatants. The vast majority of the dead, however, were civilians and non-combatants: protected persons according to the UN investigations. A total of 960 civilians lost their lives, including 288 children and 121 women. 239 police officers were also killed, majority of them in air strikes carried out on the first day of the war. The Ministry of Health has also confirmed that a total of 5,303 Palestinians were injured in the assault, including 1,606 children and 828 women. Early estimates by independent observers in Gaza say that Gaza lost nearly $2 billion in assets. The Israeli attack destroyed 700 small factories, workshops and business enterprises throughout the Gaza Strip about 25 mosques and many water and sewage lines were also ruined. The World Health Organization said that 7 hospitals and 25 primary health care clinics were damaged during the 22 days of offensive. Over 50 United Nations facilities sustained damage. An initial survey conducted by the UN Development Program estimates that 14,000 homes, 68 government buildings, and 31 non-governmental organization offices were either totally or partially damaged. As a result, about 600,000 tons of concrete rubble will need to be removed. A satellite-based damage assessment of the Gaza Strip by the United Nations revealed 2,692 destroyed and severely damaged buildings, 220 impact craters on roads and bridges with an estimated length of 105 mile of paved and unpaved roads damaged, 715 impact craters on open ground or cultivated land 187 greenhouses completely destroyed.49 It is heart wrenching that Israel Armed Forces which ranks fourth strongest army in the world, used all the advanced weaponry in its arsenal to kill and destroy literally defenseless refugees of Gaza. Their aim was not 121 to fight and kill Hamas fighters but to massacre the civilians and destroy everything they had including schools, hospitals, small industries, mosques, houses, roads and bridges and even U N facilities. Do the Israelis have any sense of shame? First they stole the land from their fore fathers by force and now they committed genocide on their children. The irony is this that we Americans support all these Israeli's shameless acts by all means like money, arms and diplomatic support and ask this question: why they hate us? In September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by the South African Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a report accusing Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice. In March, 2009, USA based Human Rights Organization published a 71 page report titled “Rain of Fire”, Israel’s unlawful use of white phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's use of the weapon was illegal. Donatella Rovera, Amnesty’s researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories said that such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbor hoods is inherently criminal. Its repeated use in this manner, despite evidence of its indiscriminate effects and its toll on civilians, is nothing but a war crime. In February 2009 Haaretz, the Israeli daily, in an editorial entitled “Investigate Now" used this language:

The questions are plentiful and troubling: the mass killing of civilians, among them 300 children and 100 women; the shooting at medical crews; the use of illegal munitions against a civilian population, including white phosphorus shells; the prevention of the evacuation of wounded; bombing and shelling of schools, hospitals, supply convoys and a UN facility. These questions cannot

122

remain unanswered. The suspicion that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza is liable to cause it great damage. This is precisely the moment at which Israel needs to preempt the others and investigate herself.

Israel committed war crime in 1982 when close to 3000 Palestinian refugee were massacred in Sabra and Shatila camps United Nation took no action. In 1993 a United Nations camp at Qana, Lebanon, was hit by Israeli shelling, killing 118 Lebanese civilians who sought shelter there. Israel committed war crimes in 2006 Lebanon war, no action was taken. Now the 2009 Gaza war, even the Israeli newspapers are saying that they have committed war crime in Gaza still no action was taken by the world body. But why? Because we Americans shield Israel no matter what they do. In 1977 Senator James G. Abourezk of South Dakota was a keynote speaker on the occasion of Jefferson-Jackson dinner at Colorado. After the dinner he talked to the reporters and said this: 50

As a United State Senator I have sworn an oath to uphold the government of the United States, but I never dreamed I would be required to swear allegiance to any other government. The United States is likely to become, if it has not already become, a captive state of its client state.

So we are literally a captive state of Israel according to Senator James G. Abourezk. They can break any International Law, commit war crime, bomb any country, and even kill Americans deliberately which they did in 1967 on USS Liberty and got away without paying any price. Chuck Hagel is the US secretary of defense in the 2nd Obama administration. The former Republican senator from Nebraska is guilty of a cardinal sin which has cut

123 short many promising careers in Washington. He has proved himself insufficiently loyal to Israel and less than enthusiastic about confronting Iran. In a 2006 interview with Aaron David Miller, Hagel stressed: I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator… I support Israel, but my first interest is that I take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that. In Washington, where every politician is required to affirm and show loyalty to the Israeli interests, such statement constitutes a heresy. This is the reason, why he had hard time getting confirmation from the US Senate. President Obama chose him for his cabinet because of his bold and patriotic statements.

124

CREATION OF KUWAIT

uwait was the part of the Ottoman Empire for a long K time. The Kuwaitis had traditionally maintained a relative degree of autonomy. In the 1870s, Ottoman officials were reasserting their presence in the Persian Gulf, with a military intervention. The Ottomans were going bankrupt, additional income was required from Kuwait and the Arabian Peninsula. Midhat Pasha, the governor of Iraq, demanded that Kuwait submit to Ottoman rule and pay more tax which the Kuwaity Sultan did not like and looked towards the British. However, his son Abdullah Al-Sabah, pursued in general pro-Ottoman policy, formally taking the title of Ottoman provincial governor. In May 1896, Abdullah Al-Sabah was assassinated by his half-brother, Mubarak. He was not a pro-Ottoman but was recognized by the Ottoman sultan, as the governor of Kuwait. In 1899 Mubarak invited the British to deploy gunboats along the Kuwaiti coast. Britain saw Mubarak's desire for an alliance as an opportunity to gain a foot hold in Arab land. The Ottomans demanded that the British stop interfering with their empire. In the end, the Ottoman Empire backed down, rather than go to war. The British managed to establish a protectorate-like relationship over Kuwait in the Anglo-Kuwaiti agreement of 1899, which included the promise of the governor to neither receive the agent of any 125 power nor cede any part of his territory without the consent of the British government. After about ten years the British policy towards Kuwait changed a bit, because the British wanted Bahrain and Qatar from the Ottomans. Informal negotiations began in July of 1911. The British sent memorandum to the Ottoman Government. Ottomans initialed the compromise and the Anglo-Ottoman Convention was signed in 1913 The agreement included provisions that the British acknowledge Kuwait as an autonomous provincial sub-district of the Ottoman Empire and pledged not to establish a protectorate. In return the British wanted from the Ottomans to renounce its claim on Qatar and Bahrain. The Ottomans were willing to drop all claims to Bahrain, in which they had never been able to maintain anything but a symbolic role, but not Qatar. As a question of sovereignty, the Ottomans argued that the empire had always exercised effective sovereignty over the peninsula and could not justify the abandonment of a territory which it had never formally renounced. But under British pressure the Ottomans had to give up claims to both. Thus the British initiated the birth of two small countries which was consistent with British colonial policy.51 Three years after signing the agreement World War I started which engulfed the Middle East. By the end of 1918 all the countries in the Middle East were in the hands of the British because Germany and Turkey lost the war. In 1921 the British chose Faisal son of Husain ibn Ali of Makkah to become the king of Iraq. Two years later the British government recognized the outer line of the Convention as the border between Iraq and Kuwait. This was done intentionally by the British to limit Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf. Iraq got 30 miles of mostly marshy and swampy coastline. As this would make it difficult for 126

Iraq to become a naval power or engage in business activities with the outside world. The Iraqi King Faisal I did not agree to the plan. However, as his country was under British mandate, he had little say in the matter.52 Kuwait was the part of Ottoman Empire a province of Iraq and naturally it should have been part of Iraq. But the treacherous British would not allow it to happen; they wanted to create the problem for the Muslim Ummah. Their colonial policies not only created problems for the Muslim Ummah but also for the superpower America, which I will discuss in the last chapter of this book. Kuwait was now a separate country whose border was established by a memorandum sent by the British high commissioner for Iraq in 1923, which became the basis for Kuwait's northern border. In Iraq's 1932 application to the League of Nations it included information about its borders, including its border with Kuwait, where it accepted the boundary established in 1923. The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. When Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion. The Emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area that prevented Iraq to take control of their former Provence.53

127

THE IRAQ WARS

here were many reasons for the Iran-Iraq War but T disputes over navigation rights in the waterway known as Shatt al-Arab between Iran and Iraq was the main factor. The navigation problem intensified because the British denied Iraq a deep sea port by the artificial creating state of Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq War lasted for eight years which resulted in the death of close to 1.3 million Muslims and economic loss of 500 billion each a total of one trillion dollars. The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Husain launched his eight year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. The Kuwaiti Sheikh had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field. The main source of earnings for Iraq was petroleum, whose price fluctuated depending on international production levels. By 1990, Kuwait, under western pressure had increased its oil production to undermine OPEC quotas thereby driving the price of Iraqi oil down from $28 per barrel to $11 per barrel and further ruining the Iraqi economy. This made Saddam Husain mad and he 128 started a huge military buildup near the Kuwait border. The Bush administration gave no warning to Saddam against attack on Kuwait. Instead the US Ambassador April Glaspie informed Husain that, “We have no opinion on conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait” She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to 54 come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." Saddam concluded that he had a green light to overrun Kuwait. The Bush administration gave him no reason to believe otherwise. The invasion started on August 2, 1990, and within two days of intense combat, most of the Kuwaiti Armed Forces were either overrun by the Iraqi Republican Guard or escaped to neighboring Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The state of Kuwait was annexed, and Husain announced in a few days that it was the 19th province of Iraq. Within hours of the invasion, Kuwaiti and U.S. delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed a Resolution condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. The Arab League passed its own resolution, which called for a solution to the conflict from within the League, and warned against outside intervention. In November 1990 the UN Security Council set January 15, 1991 as the deadline for an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. On January 17 coalition forces began an air bombardment of Iraq that continued without respite until the war ended 43 days later. On February 24, 1991, after more than a month of air attacks, the coalition's ground 129 forces moved against Iraqi positions in Kuwait and in Iraq itself. The magnitude and decisiveness of these strikes destroyed what was left of Iraq's capacity to resist. After two days of strikes Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's armed forces had been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait to the positions they had occupied before August 1990. Two days after this order, the coalition ceased hostilities and declared victory. Some Iraqi forces began leaving Kuwait on the main highway in a column of some 1,400 vehicles. These vehicles and the retreating soldiers were subsequently attacked, resulting in a 30 mile stretch of highway filled with debris of tank and army vehicles. This event was later called by the media "The Highway of Death." Many Americans condemned this act as a cruel and unusual punishment to an already whipped foe. One can understand the legitimacy of a military action to drive Saddam's army from Kuwait, but it is hard to comprehend the Allied rationale for using air power to punish Iraqi people by systematically destroying Iraqi infrastructure, industry, electric power stations, refineries, petrochemical complexes, telecommunication centers, bridges, highways, railroads, hundreds of locomotives and boxcars full of goods, radio and television broadcasting stations, cement plants, and factories producing aluminum, textiles, and medical supplies. In short Iraqi people lost just about everything.55 Western media portrayed the Iraqi military as a global threat and a formidable army. But the military outcome of the war proved to be one-sided. Of the more than half million troops engaged in the war, only 150 died in battle, many from "friendly fire." By contrast, the US military reported more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed, 300,000 wounded. Some human rights groups have claimed a higher number of Iraqis killed in the battle. According to 130

Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. Whatever the numbers, the Iraqi army was completely routed, and all surviving Iraqi military units withdrew to Iraq. The Allied force destroyed 80% of Iraq's weaponry, and the international monitoring and inspections and no fly zone followed. Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General and International Action Center reported devastating effects of the US and British bombing on the Iraqi civilian population. The use of depleted uranium in bombs led to cancer and unprecedented levels of birth defects in Iraqi people. It is estimated that more than 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium was used in bombs and other ammunitions which has poisoned Iraq after the two wars. A very recent study shows that the cancer rate has increased many folds and huge number of children are born with birth defects especially in Fallujah and Basra area. Even the US soldiers have reported the effects of exposure to depleted uranium which is called “Gulf War Syndrome”56 After the war came the inhuman total trade embargo on the Iraqi people. This embargo was imposed by United Nation Security Council. The resolution called for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity. From 1991 until 2003 the effects of embargo and sanctions regime caused widespread poverty and malnutrition. According to UN estimates that close to 1.1 million children died during the years of the sanctions. In the year 2000 the Sept-Oct issue of the magazine New Left Review Mr. Tariq Ali a journalist has described how the Iraqi people have suffered because of the total trade embargo. He wrote the article entitled “Throttling Iraq” published in the magazine mentioned above. 131

A land that once had high levels of literacy and an advanced system of health-care has been devastated by the West. Its social structure is in ruins, its people are denied the basic necessities of existence, its soil is polluted by uranium-tipped warheads. According to UN figures of last year, some 60 percent of the population has no regular access to clean water, and over 80 percent of schools need substantial repairs. In 1997 the FAO estimated that 27 percent of Iraqis were suffering from chronic malnutrition, and 70 percent of all women were anemic. UNICEF reports that in the southern and central regions which contain 85 percent of the country's population, infant mortality has doubled compared to the pre-Gulf war period. The death-toll caused by deliberate strangulation of economic life cannot yet be estimated with full accuracy– that will be a task for historians. According to the most careful authority, Richard Garfield, a conservative estimate of "excess deaths" among under five-year-olds since 1991 to be 300,000', while UNICEF reported in 1997 that '4,500 children under the age of five are dying each month from hunger and disease. They estimated that the number of small children killed by the blockade were 500,000. Other deaths are more difficult to quantify, but as Garfield points out, 'UNICEF's mortality rates represent only the tip of the iceberg as to the enormous damage done to the four out of five Iraqis who do survive beyond their fifth birthday'. In late 1998 the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, former Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, an Irishman, resigned from his post in protest against the blockade, declaring that total deaths that it had caused could be upwards of a million. When his successor Hans von Sponeck had the guts to include civilian casualties from Anglo-American 132

bombing raids in his brief, the Clinton and Blair regimes demanded his dismissal. He too resigned, in late 1999, explaining that his duty had been to the people of Iraq, and that 'every month Iraq's social fabric shows bigger holes'. These holes have continued to tear under the Oil- For-Food sanctions in place since 1996, which allowed Iraq $4 billion of petroleum exports a year, when a minimum of $7 billion was needed even for greatly reduced services. After a decade, the throttling of Iraq by the US and UK has achieved a result without parallel in modern history.

In an interview for 60 Minutes Lesley Stahl posed this question to the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “We have heard that because of US sanctions on Iraq half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” She replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.” This interview was broadcast on 60 Minutes on 5-12-96. We condemn the terrorist all the time that they kill innocent people. But the death of innocents, even 500,000 children, is an acceptable price to pay for one's political goals? After destroying Iraq in the first Gulf War in 1991 and imposing the most inhuman trade embargo the second Bush administration was adamant to attack Iraq again. Former US President Jimmy Carter warned the Bush Administration not to go to war against Iraq without UN backing. He said, “American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations.” Others who spoke out against starting the war included Pope John Paul II, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela. Prior to the war, protest marches were held in virtually all major cities around the world. In the 133

United States almost every city had protest marchers against the Iraq war. The war against Iraq did not seem to be serving even our interests. The US alienated itself from many of its closest allies like France, Germany and many other countries. Three million Italians participated in anti- war rally in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally. In our own backyard, both Canada and Mexico expressed their opposition to the war. All Latin American countries remain opposed to the war. In other words the whole world was against the Iraq war except Israel. Sheldon Adelson a multi billionaire and a strong supporter of Israel spent 15 million dollars on advertisements in support of the Iraq war.57 In spite of so much opposition for the war Iraq war happened. Why? Because of the strong Israeli lobby in favor of war. With the rise of right wing Liqud party to power in seventies the mainstream Zionist thinking involved dissolution of the Arab world into smaller states. Oded Yinon a member of Foreign Ministry of Israel wrote an article in the World Zionist Organization's periodical published in February 1982 entitled A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s in which he wrote:

Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces is a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique area such as Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short term target.

Fragmentation and destabilization of Arab states is a very rational strategy for Israel especially when the sole superpower is ready to do the dirty job for you at no cost. 134

Patrick J. Buchanan, a well-known commentator has written an article entitled Whose War in which he argues that the Israeli lobby has pushed our country in a series of wars that are not in American's interest. “What they seek is to conscript American blood and money to make the world safe for Israel and nothing else”. Noam Chomsky the famous professor of MIT argues in his book entitled Fateful Triangle. He thinks that the Lebanon and Iraq wars represent an attempt to implement Israel's geostrategy. He wrote:

The earlier concept during the reign of the left wing Zionists was based on the search for “coexistence” and maintenance of the status quo. The new conception is based on goal of “hegemony” not “coexistence.” Israel is now committed to “destabilization” of the region including Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Stephen Sniegoski presents the thesis that the 2003 Iraq war was, at root, all about Israel. He has devoted the whole book to prove without doubt that Iraq war have been fought to implement Israel's geostrategic goals. He says in his book entitled “The Transparent Cabal”:

The origins of the American war on Iraq is really an adoption of a war agenda whose basic format was conceived in Israel to advance Israeli interests and was ardently pushed by the influential pro-Israeli American neoconservatives, both inside and outside the Bush administration. Voluminous evidence, much of it derived from lengthy neoconservative’s paper trail, substantiate these contentions.

135

In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder notes the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the Iraqi war is security for Israel. If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote:

It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a superpower would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state.

The second Bush administration claimed that Iraq posed a grave danger to the rest of the world and to the United States in particular. Though this claim was so ridiculous yet Bush sold it to congress and got the consent of both houses to wage the war on Iraq. At the time of the US attack Iraq's GDP was 2% of US military spending because of total trade embargo. Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith in his article False Pretenses published in January of 2008 say:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Husain’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the US invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that

136

effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

In spite of worldwide opposition, US and Britain launched a unilateral illegal attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003. Thus began the large scale vandalism of a defenseless country under the very nose of United Nation. The war started with massive air and cruise missile strikes. An amphibious assault on the Al-Faw peninsula was launched to secure the oil fields and the important ports, supported by warships of the Royal Navy. The invasion was quick and decisive with no major resistance. The regular Iraqi forces were defeated in a matter of weeks. On May 1, 2003, President Bush staged a dramatic visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The visit climaxed at sunset with Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished”. In this nationally televised speech, delivered before the sailors and airmen on the flight deck, Bush effectively declared victory due to the defeat of Iraq's conventional forces. But Mr. Bush did not realize that the real war had just started which was guerrilla war. The fall of Baghdad was accompanied by massive civil disorder, including the looting of public and government buildings and drastically increased crime in the city. Thousands of tons of ordinances were looted, providing a significant source of ammunition for the Iraqi insurgency. Initially, Iraqi resistance largely stemmed from Husain’s Ba'ath Party loyalists, but soon religious radicals and Iraqis angered by the occupation contributed to the insurgency. Insurgents used guerrilla tactics including: mortars, missiles, suicide attacks, snipers, improvised explosive devices, car bombs, small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades. Al-Qaida which did not exist during Saddam's rule, established themselves in Iraq to fight the 137

Americans. Foreign fighters from around the Middle East under the banner of Al-Qaida led by Abu Musab al- Zarqawi took root in Iraq. Thousands of Arabs came to Iraq to participate in "suicide missions" against US occupation troops. These operations caused more casualties and further demoralized the US soldiers. Most US soldiers, occupying Iraq, became demoralized in a matter of months. They were told that they were going to liberate Iraq, but now they are seeing that they were not wanted there. They were living in constant fear of being shot. It was like Vietnam once again, they were never sure who the civilian are and who are part of the resistance. One soldier patrolling the city of Fallujah told the news reporter that they had to be on their toes all the time scanning the buildings for snipers. It’s not tanks and infantry that we’re fighting anymore.58 Many of the soldiers also felt betrayed. They never figured that they would remain in Iraq as an occupying force for an extended period of time. In addition, many became aware that they were deceived by their Commander in Chief, George Bush, and were not given the real reasons they are risking their lives in Iraq. They were told that they would be liberators and eliminators of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam Husain supposedly possessed. As a matter of fact Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, confessed that the WMD was just an excuse for the war.

Cost and casualty of war

The first casualty of the war was the National Museum of Iraq and the Library. American archaeologists had begged the Bush Administration to save the Museum and other archaeological sites from the vandals. But they did 138 not care about it and the museum was looted in broad daylight. American officials came under sharp criticism from archaeologists from all over the world for not securing the museum. At least 13,000 artifacts were stolen during the looting, including many which were moved from other sites into the National Museum for safekeeping. American troops and tanks were stationed in that area but without orders to stop the looting. On the other hand not a single item was stolen from the office of Ministry of Oil because President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were more interested in Iraq's oil than its heritage. They could not understand that it was not only Iraq's heritage but those precious stolen items belonged to whole world. George Donny, the curator of Iraq's National Museum says about the looting like this:

It's the crime of the century because it affects the heritage of all mankind.

The direct and explicit costs of the Iraq war amounts to nearly one trillion dollars. But there must be many other expenses which would come to light later. Dr. Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has calculated that total cost of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario and possibly up to six trillion dollars. He says that his calculations are based on conservative assumptions. Nake M. Kamrany is professor of economics at the University of Southern California says about the cost of war in Iraq in his article:

The Bush Administration succeeded to eliminate Saddam Husain and bring about a regime change in the 139

governmental structure of Iraq from Sunni to Shiite domination, but no weapons of mass destruction were found. What is the significance of that change to the US national security interest? In fact, Saddam Hussein's government was anti-al Qaeda, anti-Iranian with a secular orientation. The regime change in Iraq has availed a unique opportunity for Iran to extend its hegemony over Iraq.

In addition to strategic drawbacks, the cost of care of disabled veterans and disability compensation will peak decades after the conflict is over. And since the war was financed through borrowing, the cost of interest, repayment of principal, caring for disabled veterans and disability payments will continue to put pressure on the budget deficit. A ripple effect of the Iraq invasion was the rise in oil prices from approximately $30/barrel in 2003 to $140/barrel in 2008, costing American consumers’ colossal amount of money. The war debt has caused congressional gridlock and inability to effectively address the current economic impasse. Given the enormous cost sustained by the US without significant strategic gains.

The human sufferings in Iraq due to war are on a gigantic scale. United Nations reported an estimate of 4.7 million refugees with 2 million abroad and 2.7 million internally displaced people. In 2007, Iraq's anti-corruption board reported that 35% of Iraqi children, or about five million of them were orphans. The Red Cross stated that Iraq's humanitarian situation remained among the most critical in the world, with millions of Iraqis forced to rely on insufficient food and poor-quality water. The casualty of war is also huge. Documented civilian deaths from violence by Iraq Body Count are 127,700. Estimated violent deaths by Iraq Family Health Survey are 223,000. Death of Iraqi combatant and insurgents comes to 28,000 to 37,000. About 4,490 US soldiers died fighting 140 this war and 32,100 wounded, another 319 coalition forces were also killed.59 All these sufferings and loss of life happened just to satisfy the goal of Israel and Neo-Cons of America who are staunch supporter of Israel. Our young men and women became fodder of war to ward off the perceived threat to the state of Israel. Now the same Neo- cons and the Israeli lobby are pressing Obama administration to attack Iran and to indulge in to another costly adventure.

141

ZIONISM AND ITS COST TO USA

he Zionist movement was established with the goal of creating a Jewish state in the heart of Arab land T by forcing out the local population. This political movement was formally established by the Austro- Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in 1897. Zionists claim the area of Palestine because this was territory controlled by two Jewish mini-states, Judah and Samaria, which was destroyed by the Romans in the first century AD. If Zionist claims to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, based on the Jewish occupation of that area 2000 years ago, are accepted as valid then all Americans should vacate the USA and give land back to the American Indians and the Australians should go back Europe and give back the land to the Aborigines. The United States had no reason to pay any attention to Zionism in its early stage. In 1912 when the Zionists sought a public endorsement from President William Howard Taft. Secretary of State Philander C. Knox turned it down by saying that Zionism involved certain matters primarily related to the interests of countries other than our own, so it is not in our interest to endorse this political movement. The US State Department at that time was totally against Zionism. They defined its chief function as protecting and promoting American interests abroad, but not encouraging the efforts of a small group of Americans to help create another nation in a foreign land. In the eyes of the State 142

Department, this would be interfering in another country's affair without any obvious US interest. Supporting the Zionist agenda they argued would definitely worsen relations with the Arabs and the Muslim world which is not a goal of US foreign policy. This view was conveyed by the State Department to the Zionist leadership of the time. Zionist leaders hoped to create a Jewish state and for which they considered many options. But finally they chose the area of Palestine which was changing hand from Ottomans to the British during the First World War. The Zionists promised the British that Zionists in America would push the US to enter into the first World War to help the British if they supported a Jewish home land in the Middle East. The treacherous British bought this idea and passed a bill in the Parliament proposing a Jewish home land in Palestine which came out in the form of Balfour Declaration in 1917.60 Edward Mandell House was a Texan who became active in Texas politics and served as an advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. After the Balfour declaration he warned Balfour that creating a home land for Jews in Palestine would create a breeding ground for future wars in the Middle East which could involve America. Woodrow Wilson was very much against the concept of mandate on liberated area of the Arab land. He was in favor of independence and elected government for those countries. Many US diplomat and military experts were against the Zionists arguing that it is not in our interest and goes against our principles. In February of 1945 Roosevelt met with Ibn Saud in the middle of the Suez Canal aboard a US war ship. It was the first meeting between a US president and an Arab leader

143 which changed his policy on Palestine. Donald Neff has written in his book entitled Fallen Pillars:

Roosevelt came away from the session deeply impressed by the profound hostility of the Arabs to Zionism and the certain belief that a Jewish state could not be founded without force. On the way home, Roosevelt confided to Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius that he must have a conference with Congressional leaders and re-examine our entire policy on Palestine. In an address to Congress, he said that "I learned more about that whole problem, the Muslim problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in the exchange of two or three dozen letters." He summoned Judge Joseph Proskauer of the American Jewish Committee and told him to try to dampen Jewish hopes for a homeland because such an effort would certainly lead to war or a pogrom. In the circumstances, he added, a Jewish homeland was absolutely impossible at the present time.61

Unfortunately Roosevelt died in April of 1945 and the issue of Jewish homeland fell in the lap of the vice president, Harry S. Truman, who not only would inherit the presidency, but also the attention of a Zionist lobby determined to use all of its vast resources and energies to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Truman's Secretary of State George Marshall opposed the creation of Israel arguing that it would jeopardize US relations with the Arab and Muslim world. Policy planning head George Kennan also opposed stating that supporting the extreme objectives of Zionism would be detrimental to overall US security objectives. In spite of the strong argument against it, Truman under pressure and contribution of 2 million dollars cash for his presidential election62 from the Zionist lobby gave the green light. So 144 in 1948 the State of Israel came into existence. The creation of Israel was a colossal tragedy not only for the Palestinians and Arabs but for the Americans also when we examine the whole issue critically. After World War II America came out not only as victor but an ideal nation for the whole world which included the Muslim world. Muslims had no grudge or animosity with USA. It was the British who created Palestinian, Kashmiri, Kuwaiti and many other problems in the Muslim World. But that would change because of America's foreign policy towards Middle East was hijacked by the strong Israeli lobby. Musaddiq was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the British MI5 , the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Israeli lobby. The democracy was replaced by kingship in Iran. The Shah of Iran started his rule with an iron fist strongly backed by America. The events of 1953 in Iran damaged the image of the United States among the Muslim countries who saw USA not the supporter of democracy and justice but a supporter of unjust tyrants. We did this for temporary gain and never thought about long term gain. After the creation of Israel in 1948 the British went into the background and the US became one of the staunchest supporters of Israel. President Eisenhower administration had a somewhat balance approach over Israel's conduct and support. By the mid-sixties after the assassination of President John F Kennedy the Israeli lobby was so strong that it could get anything they wanted from America. Prior to the 1967 war, Israeli intelligence intentionally painted frightening picture of Egyptian capabilities to get more military supplies and approve Israeli initiatives. By this time Israel became one of the most powerful country 145 in the Middle East which they managed to display during the Six Day War with Arabs. With the loss of Jerusalem, Islam's third holy city, the West Bank and the Sinai the Muslim world experienced a big shock and outrage. On top of it the 1967 war created another 320,000 refugees who lost their home in the Jerusalem area due to Israeli expulsion. United States and Israel could have solved the Palestinian refugee problem very easily by compensating them financially and settling them in West Bank and Gaza Strip with respect and partnership. That could have been done with few billion dollars. Instead of solving their problem it was pushed under the rug and look how many trillions of dollars we have lost and the problem is still festering with no end in sight. If you kick around people like this they have no choice but to stand up and defend themselves. After the Six-Day War the Israeli Cabinet agreed to UN Resolution 242 adopted in November of 1967. According to the resolution Israel was supposed to withdraw from the territories seized in the war. Richard Nixon promised more money and US Aircraft, comprehensive peace and recognition by the Arab states if Israel withdraws to pre- war boundaries. America offered only carrot and no stick; they were never threatened with sanctions. So the Israeli leadership thought that the Nixon administration would not be able to do anything if they start building settlements in the occupied Palestinian lands. This idea was against American interests and the international law. Israel, however, defiantly started building settlements against the wish of United States. The US warned that this activity would create a serious obstacle to any future Middle East peace settlement, but this did not deter Israel. They started bulldozing Palestinians houses to create Jewish settlements. These events created hatred against 146

Israel and United States throughout Arab and the Muslim world. The US media beats the drum that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and many values are common with US. Paul Findley in his book Deliberate Deceptions says there is nothing common between US and the Israel. He says:

Israel practices as state policy a number of measures that are illegal; in the United States and other Western countries. These include assassination, kidnapping, expulsion, detention without charges or trial, land confiscation, and collective punishment – not to mention Israel's long-standing practice of espionage inside the United States, its principal benefactor. Moreover, Israel is the only country that officially sanctions torture.63

The euphoria which accompanied by the spectacular victory in the Six Day War caused many to believe that Israel was invincible. Then came the Yom Kippur War of 1973 when the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal and broke through the Israeli Bar Lev Line. The Arab anti- tank and anti-aircraft missile inflicted heavy losses on Israeli planes and armors. For the first time in a quarter century Israel faced the possibility of a major defeat. But Uncle Sam came to rescue and infused US weaponry worth 2.2 billion dollars. This timely help changed the course of the war and enraged the Arab World. On the other hand Russian planes were bringing nothing but the first aid materials for Egypt. In response to the US decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo on the USA and Britain which created a long line at the gas stations in US cities. To address the situation the Nixon

147

Administration began parallel negotiations with Israel and Arab oil producers to end the embargo. Later on Israeli promised to pull back from the Sinai and the Golan Heights. By January 1974, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel, Syria and Egypt was sufficient to convince Arab oil producers to lift the oil embargo. After the Yom- Kippur war Israeli arrogance took a nose dive, but the one sided American support made them to think that they could annex the West Bank and Gaza strip. Israeli repression including extra judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions and deportations continued. Then came the first Lebanon war of 1982 and Sabra Shatila genocide. Finally out of frustration and anger the Palestinians started the first Intifada (uprising against the Israeli occupation) which continued from year 1987 to93. The Intifada brought more repression and dehumanization of the Palestinian people. The Israeli tried to suppress the Intifada by brute force. The uncivilized treatment towards the Palestinians angered not only the Muslim world but also the entire civilized world. In January of 1988, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who later became Prime Minister, announced the policy of “punitive beating” of Palestinians. The Israelis described the purpose of punitive beatings: “Our task is to recreate a barrier and once again put the fear of death into the Arabs of the area”. According to Save the Children, beatings of children and women are common in Israel. Rev. Are, citing the report in the Washington Post, writes: “Save the Children concluded that one-third of beaten children were under ten years old, and one-fifth under the age of five. Nearly a third of the children beaten suffered broken bones.” In the London Sunday Times, June 19, 1977, Ralph 148

Schoenman, executive director of the Bertrand Russell Foundation, wrote: “Israeli interrogators routinely ill-treat and torture Arab prisoners. Prisoners are hooded or blindfolded and are hung by their wrists for long periods. Most are struck in the genitals or in other ways sexually abused. Most are sexually assaulted. Others are administered electric shock”. Amnesty International concluded that “there is no country in the world in which the use of official and sustained torture is as well established and documented as in the case of Israel.” On February 8, 1988, Newsweek magazine quoted an Israeli soldier: “We got orders to knock on every door, enter and take out all the males. The younger ones we lined up with their faces against the wall, and soldiers beat them with Billy clubs. This was no private initiative; these were orders from our company commander. After one soldier finished beating a detainee, another soldier would come to beat him again.” Even the Jews who survived the Holocaust despised the Israeli policy. Dr Hajo Meyer one of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine. He survived 10 months in the Nazi death camp. His comments sparked a furious reaction from hard line Jewish lobby groups. Speaking at a gathering Dr. Meyer said

There were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis. The Israelis tried to dehumanize the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanize me. Nobody should dehumanize any body and those who try to dehumanize others are not human”.64

Some of the Jewish people gave their lives for the Palestinian cause. Rachel Aliene Corrie age 23 was an

149

American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). She was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer when she was standing in front of a local Palestinian home, thus acting as a human shield, attempting to prevent the IDF from demolishing the home. International Solidarity Movement eyewitnesses assert that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran Corrie over while she was trying to prevent the demolition of the home.65 Hedy Epstein, is a German Jewish Holocaust survivor, whose parents were sent to Auschwitz in 1942, where they perished. In 1948, Hedy Epstein moved to United States. She decided to make a trip to Palestine. Shocked by the oppression that the Israeli government is imposing on the Palestinians she has devoted herself to tell the world the sad stories of the Palestinians. In an interview, given to the Swiss journalist in which she said that the children of Gaza are being killed whose parents cannot protect them or send them away to safety as my parents did when they sent me to England.66 There are many horror stories of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Any bad thing the Israeli do in West Bank, Gaza strip or Lebanon the blame goes to America because of the one sided blind support to Israel. In response to this policy many terrorist groups sprang up in the Middle East including Al-Qaeda. This group conducted many terrorist attack on US interest which finally culminated in 9/11 attack. The 9/11 Commission received testimony from FBI investigators regarding Al Qaeda’s motivation for the 9/11 attacks. During a 9/11 Commission hearing, Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton asked, “I’m interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents. What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated 150 them to do it?” FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald responded, “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem. They identify with the people who oppose oppressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the US” At the same hearing, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, said, “The Al-Qaeda leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel blindly.” The 9/11 Commission concluded that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by Al-Qaeda’s hostility to American foreign policy. The 9/11 Commission Report provided information about the views of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has claimed to be the mastermind behind 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report states: “By his own account, Khalid's anger toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel.”67 The US government prepared a summary, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s statements, for use at Zacarias Moussaoui’s 2006 trail. “Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to ‘wake the American people up.’ Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab and Muslim people.” It is quite obvious from common sense as well as the 9/11 Commission report that the rage in the Muslim world against United States is solely due to its blind support for Israel. Also Arab states were ready to recognize Israel if they moved to 1967 boundaries. But Israel wants the piece 151 of land and not peace of mind. Just because a few hundred thousand Israeli want to live in the West Bank we Americans are losing trillions of dollars in security, higher gas price, loss of business and costly wars. After 9/11 Israeli arrogance and repression increased towards Palestinians and Israel's neighbor as we have seen in the 2006 Lebanon war and 2009 Gaza war. Even extra judicial killings increased as we see in the case of Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin. Sheikh Husain Yassin was a co- founder of Hamas, an Islamic Palestinian paramilitary organization and political party. Yassin also served as the spiritual leader of the organization. Hamas gained popularity in the Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services. Yassin, a quadriplegic who was nearly blind, had used a wheelchair since a sporting accident at the age of 12. He was assassinated when an Israeli helicopter gunship fired a missile at him as he was being wheeled from early morning prayers. His killing, in an attack that claimed the lives of both his bodyguards and nine bystanders, precipitated worldwide criticism of Israel.68 Israel maintains and defends 236 illegal settlements and outposts. This number is growing. Palestinians have no military means to defend themselves; they can only depend on the legal ones. It is utterly shameful that the US was the only country to veto a recent (2011) UN Security Council Resolution condemning these settlements. In spite of strong political support there are 69 UN resolutions which Israel refuses to abide by. Israel continues to violate the charter of the United Nation and defy the world body's resolutions. The US has used the veto right about 73 times to shield Israel from UN resolutions which include the resolution on the murder of Sheikh Yassin, a quadriplegic and blind man with 11 other bystanders. Since we have to 152 defend Israel no matter what they do or what US and International laws they break, US has lost its credibility and prestige in the world especially in the Muslim world which I think is the biggest loss. Some may argue we cannot help it because of the political system of United States. I say to them that if we keep following this path our beloved country USA will be in jeopardy and can go bankrupt. This was the credibility and prestige loss; now let us see the monetary loss we have suffered because of Israel which came into existence because of the Zionist lobby. Dr.Thomas R. Stauffer was a Washington, DC-based engineer and economist who have taught the economics of energy and the Middle East at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He published an article in June of 2002 entitled: The Cost to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion. He says:

Conflicts in the Middle East have been very costly to the US, as well as to the rest of the world. An estimate of the total cost to the US alone of instability and conflict in the region – which emanates from the core, Israeli-Palestinian conflict – amounts to close to $3 trillion, measured in 2002 dollars. This is an amount almost four times greater than the cost of the Vietnam War, also reckoned in 2002 dollars. Even this figure is an underestimate of the costs because certain classes of expenditure remain unquantified. In particular, no reliable figure is available for the costs of "Project Independence," Washington's lavishly promoted effort to reduce U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East. That effort, which was subverted early on by diverse local special interests, was designed primarily to insulate Israel from any new "Arab oil weapon" after 1973/74, and may easily have cost $1 trillion. Even though the outlays were rationalized in the interest of "national security," 153 however, they contributed little or nothing to reducing US strategic dependence upon imported oil from the Middle East. Similarly, aid to Israel and thus the regional total – also is understated, since much is outside of the foreign aid appropriation process or implicit in other programs. The cost of support to Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, US aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion. About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs about– $1.7 trillion – rose from the US defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been incurred since 1973.The largest single element in the costs has been the series of six oil- supply crises since the end of World War II. To date these have cost the US $1.5 trillion (again in 2002 dollars). This changed with 1973, and costs escalated rapidly thereafter. Starting with the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, the costs to the US of regional crises and aid programs began to increase beyond any original expectations. Since 1973, protection of Israel and subsidies to countries willing to sign peace treaties with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, has been the prime driver of US outlays or the trigger for crisis costs. The 1973 war proved to be costly. At a minimum, it cost the US between $750 billion and $1 trillion. This was the price tag for the rescue of Israel when President Richard Nixon agreed to resupply Israel with US arms as it was losing the war against its neighbors. Washington's intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo which cost the US doubly: first, due to the oil shortfall, the US lost about $300 billion to $600 billion in GDP; and, second, the US was saddled with another $450 billion in higher oil import costs. Another element is ad hoc support for Israel, which is not part of the formal foreign aid programs. No comprehensive compilation of US support for Israel has been publicly released. Additional known items include loan guarantees – 154 which the US most probably will be forced to cover – special contracts for Israeli firms, legal and illegal transfers of marketable US military technology, de-facto exemption from US trade protection provisions, and discounted sales or free transfers of "surplus" US military equipment. An unquantifiable element is the trade and other aid given to Romania and Russia to facilitate Jewish migration to Israel; this has accumulated to many billions of dollars. Lastly, unofficial aid, in the form of transfers from the Diaspora resident in the US and net purchases by US parties of Israel Bonds, adds at least $40 billion to the total. A rough estimate, again a minimum, for such additional elements is more than $100 billion. US jobs and exports also have been affected, adding to costs and losses. "Trade followed the flag" in the area – but in the reverse direction. As US relations with Mideast countries deteriorated, trade was lost. Worsening political relations resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs. Some disappeared as a consequence of trade sanctions, some because large contracts were forfeited, thanks to the Israeli lobby – as in the case of foregone sales of fighters to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s – and still others due to a dangerously growing trade-aid imbalance with Israel. Good relations, however, do not necessarily mean employment gains for Americans. In the case of Israel, the striking trade-aid imbalance with Israel costs the US almost as many jobs as the sanction regimes. Israel exports to the US much more than it imports, while it pays for only a fraction of what it does import from the US Specifically, Israel buys little from the US in relation to US aid levels, and the trade-aid imbalance of $6 billion to $10 billion each year costs about 125,000 jobs in US. One aspect of US government policy in the region, however, does create American jobs: the states of the southern Gulf incrementally buy large quantities of US arms and related services. That relationship, primarily with Saudi Arabia, has translated into an extra 60,000 jobs 155

in recent years. Unrest in the Middle East has proven to be very expensive for the US. It is known that most of American foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel, but it is clear that the total costs to the US of the conflict in the region are very much higher than the aid bill itself. The total costs of supporting Israel are some six times the official aid, for example. Oil price crises have been particularly expensive—a sobering lesson from the history of the Middle East over the last 30 years.

Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income greater than France roughly equal to Japan receives $1000 per person each year in US aid. This is the direct aid from the US government. The indirect total costs of supporting Israel are some six times the official aid as pointed out by Dr.Thomas R. Stauffer. A conservative estimate of total US aid in the form of direct, military, economic and immigrant grant to Israel comes to 193 billion dollars.69 This amount is peanut compared to what US has suffered so far to support the Zionist movement. Now let us do some simple math. Since the inception of Israel in 1948 US taxpayers have suffered loss of three trillion dollars till the year 2002 according to Dr. Thomas Stauffer. Iraq war which was fought to satisfy the geostrategic goal of Israel would cost US another three trillion dollars according to Dr. Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. The Afghan war, which is a war against terrorism is still going on has already cost US more than half a trillion dollars and may end up costing around two trillion dollars by any conservative estimates. Newsweek reported that during last ten years the US alone has spent 628 billion dollars fighting terror on homeland security. But the total cost is $1.1 trillion dollars which includes the private companies, cost of high insurance and 156

70 other expenses related to fighting terror. When you add all these numbers it comes to 9.1 trillion dollars. This number does not include the amount the US has paid in the last ten years to Israel, Egypt and Jordan which must be near 100 billion dollars mark. So, you see US taxpayers have lost colossal amount of money to support the Zionist agenda, and there is no end in sight. We are literally going bankrupt for supporting Zionist agenda. But what are we getting in return? Nothing, just more headache and dismemberment of our most cherished principles such as – justice, human right, international laws and our own US laws. Dr. Stephen Sniegoski the author of Transparent Cabal an excellent book wrote an article entitled Canadian Ad Crusader Condemned for Saying Neocons are Jews in which he says:

Obviously, the very fact that one cannot speak the obvious truth about Zionist, without facing serious intimidation, helps to underscore the magnitude of Zionist power. And it shows why virtually no one in a mainstream position dares to deal openly with the neocon role in the Iraq war and Israel's connection to the war.

A left-wing Canadian journalist, Kalle Lasn, has written the obvious, and all hell has broken loose. Lasn, the editor of the (highly-praised) Canadian journal 'Adbusters', had the audacity to state, that the neocons are Jewish and proceeded to list 50 neocons, finding that 26 were Jewish. Moreover, he stated that the neocons have a special affinity for Israel and that their influence helps to tilt US foreign policy toward Israel. Here is a simple question: Would Israeli government do anything that might harm the United States or American citizens if it thought such an action were vital for Israeli

157 security and that it could completely get away with it? We know that this war was seen as important for Israel, to the extent that it produced some of the phony WMD lies. Would Israel do anything to harm the US? Israel was certainly willing to take American lives when it attacked the USS Liberty. The government of Yitzhak Shamir is reported to have sold the Soviet Union valuable US documents stolen by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard – information which, once in Soviet hands, led to the death of American agents. Moreover, in recent years Israel has resold to China sophisticated American weaponry that could easily be turned against the United States.62 Finally, according to a study released right before September 11, 2001 by the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies, the Israeli Mossad was sufficiently ruthless to target American forces and place the blame on Arab terrorists. About the Mossad, the study stated: “Wild card, ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and American president make it look like an Arab act”. In a Jan. 13 2012 column, Andru Adler editor of Atlanta Jewish Times outlined what he said were three possible responses by Israel to Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon: a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that he said would be emboldened by a nuclear Iran; a direct strike on Iran; and "three, give the go-ahead for US based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies at any cost. (Well cost to US) He continued, "Yes, you read 'three' correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?” 158

This is not the first time use of Mossad has been suggested to kill the US President. In 1991 President Bush was trying to negotiate a comprehensive Middle East peace treaty with Israel and the Arabs, when he arranged a conference in Madrid, Spain. Invitation went out to the government of Israel, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Palestinian leader from west bank, and the European Community including Russia. Yitzhak Shamir the Prime Minister of Israel at that time refused to participate. Bush threatened to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees if they did not attend the conference. The threat worked but made Shamir furious to the extent that he planned an assassination of Bush through Mossad. A former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky says in his book The Other Side of Deception that he heard about the plan and managed to thwart it. In his book he has given a detail account how he managed to do it.71

John F. Kennedy Assassination

Israel need not apologize for the assassination or destruction of those who seek to destroy it. The first order of business for any country is the protection of its people. Washington Jewish Week, October 9, 1997. This statement came out after the publication of the book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. John F. Kennedy administration did a few things which went against the Zionist and Israeli interest. He wanted to bring the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) back under government control which American Zionist did not like. In 1962 the Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, ordered American Zionist Council (AZC) to openly register as Israel's foreign agent. The AZC implied that Zionism was being 159 existentially challenged by the Kennedy administration. In 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter secret conflict with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion over Israel’s drive to build the atomic bomb. Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that because of JFK’s policies, Israel’s existence is in danger. On July 5, 1963 JFK wrote a letter (It is on Internet) to new Prime Minister about the issue of inspections of Dimona nuclear facility. He wrote:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister [Eshkol]:

It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time. You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits [i.e.: inspections] to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27th. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits [inspections] to Dimona. I am sure you will agree that these visits should be nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.

John F. Kennedy 160

Michael Collins Piper, the author of Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, has made a very strong case of involvement of Mossad in the murder of John F. Kennedy. His 750 page book with a lot of references is very convincing and compelling. He says:

On the puzzle you see before you all these various groups and individuals that have been implicated in the JFK assassination conspiracy. It is a confusing picture. However, when turn the puzzle over you find one complete picture – and that's a great big very clear picture of the Israeli flag. All other flags on front of the puzzle are intelligence jargon, “false flag” and Final Judgment proves just that.

Mr.Vanunu was a former worker at Dimona nuclear facility. He was released by the Israeli authorities after 18 years of imprisonment. He was convicted for treason related to the disclosure of state secrets regarding the Israeli’s nuclear program. His sensational public charge about the involvement of the Mossad in the Kennedy murder confirms Michael Collins Piper case he made originally over a decade ago. Mr. Vanunu states specifically that the motive for the assassination of Kennedy on the part of the Israeli government was related to the President’s insistence that the Zionist State come out clean about its nuclear program at the infamous Dimona plant.72 After JFK’s assassination, US policy toward Israel began an immediate 180 degree turnaround. Lyndon B. Johnson did the opposite and provided Israel with the atomic program shortly after he took over office. JFK's plans for making the FED a governmental institution were dropped and the idea has never since been resurrected. AZC registration as Israel's foreign agent were also

161 dropped and its place came into existence, American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC ( The most powerful Jewish lobby in American history) where every presidential candidate and law makers are scared to death to go against their agenda. Lyndon B. Johnson became a faithful servant of the Zionist master.

Robert F. Kennedy Assassination

On June 5th, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy, the likely Democratic candidate for President, won the California primary. He was shot in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, a Palestinian Christian. While there is no doubt that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan fired gun at RFK, but did RFK died from bullet fired from Sirhan's gun or another shooter was present. Robert Kennedy's autopsy report indicates that RFK had been shot two times on head, all from the rear at a steep upward angle, with powder burns indicating that the fatal shot being fired from 1 or 2 inches away. Cyril Wecht, a renowned forensic pathologist said that the coroner in the RFK case gave "unchallenged, unequivocal" testimony to the grand jury that Kennedy had been shot from behind at close range. All witnesses put Sirhan in front of Kennedy at least 3 to 5 feet away. So there is no doubt that another shooter was present in the pantry area. As a matter of fact Sirhan was seen in the hotel including in the pantry itself in the company of a girl wearing a polka-dotted dress. The girl and another male companion were seen running from the pantry after the shooting. Nina Rhodes-Hugh who was serving as a volunteer fund raiser for Kennedy's campaign was a few feet away from Senator Kennedy. She told CNN recently that there was a second shooter at the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968.She heard two guns firing during the 162 shooting and that authorities altered her account of the crime. The truth has got to be told says Nina. No more cover-ups. Sirhan was just a front man who was obsessed with mystical powers, and fascinated with hypnosis. Psy- chiatrists determined that he was highly susceptible to hypnosis, and may have produced his strange writings and shooting while in a trance. This is the reason Sirhan has continually maintained that he has no memory of writing in his notebook, nor of the events that night at the Ambassador Hotel. So this murder was well planned and well executed. Robert Kennedy was killed because the powerful interests in America didn't want him to be president. I don't want to name that powerful organization which wanted him dead. Make your own educated guess. Shortly before his assassination in June '68, Robert Kennedy told his press secretary, Frank Mankiewitz, that if he wins the election, he'll reopen the inquiry into the assassination of his brother. Sirhan's attorney William F. Pepper filed legal documents in Federal Court in Los Angeles in the year 2011. He alleges that his client had been subjected to hypnosis and mind control and had been “handled” at the murder scene by an unidentified woman who helped stage the assassination. Pepper’s filing includes significant references to witness statements and forensic reports that were systematically suppressed during the investigation. Pepper alleges that Sirhan is innocent and that Kennedy was murdered as part of a conspiracy in which his client was involved as a patsy by the use of hypnosis and other means. During an interview with CNN Pepper said that according to acoustic analysis of the sound tape 13 shot were fired and Sirhan's gun could fire only eight rounds. He said that 163 only two bullets hit RFK and rest of the shot was fired in other direction while subduing him. He said that Sirhan's case is good for retrial but there is a strong political fix which might prevent this case to reopen again.74 Just think if the British had not made the Belfast declaration then the Jewish people would not have gone there in anticipation of creating the state of Israel. Imagine a world without Israel, a world free of terrorism and America free from powerful Israeli lobby. Because of this lobby American democracy is turning into pseudo democracy. No political leader has the guts to discuss the policy when it comes to Middle East. As former Under 75 Secretary of State George W. Ball put it:

On Middle East policy, Congress behaves like a bunch of trained poodles, jumping through the hoop held by Israel's lobby.”

The Presidential candidates of both parties dance like the bird of paradise before the Israeli lobby to get their attention. Just recently during the Republican presidential- primary a billionaire and strong supporter of Israel, Sheldon Adelson gave 10 million dollars to Gingrich 57 super PAC. Gingrich started his rhetoric about Israel to please his patron and declared that the Palestinian are an “invented people”. Alison Weir, President of the Council for the National Interest and Executive Director of the organization called 'If American Knew' in her book; The History of US-Israel Relations writes like this:

Even though the movement for Israel has been operating in the US for over a hundred years, most Americans are completely unaware of this movement and its attendant ideology – a measure of its unique power over public

164

knowledge. The success of this movement to achieve its goals, partly due to the hidden nature of much of its activity, has been staggering. It has also been at an unimaginable cost. It has led to massive tragedy in the Middle East: a hundred year war of violence and loss; sacred land soaked in sorrow. What is less widely known is how profoundly damaging this movement has been to the United States itself. It has targeted every sector of American society for manipulation; worked to involve Americans in tragic, unnecessary, and almost catastrophically costly wars; dominated Congress for decades; determined which candidates may be contenders for the US presidency; promoted bigotry towards an entire population, religion, and culture; caused Americans to be exposed to escalating risk; and then exaggerated this danger (while disguising its cause) to foment irrational fears that are enabling the dismemberment of some of our nation's most fundamental freedoms and cherished principles. All this for a nation that today has reached a peak population of a little over seven million people; smaller than New Jersey.

It is true that the Jews of Europe suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany and created a refugee problem. Those refugees could have been easily resettled in Europe, USA and Canada after the war but the Zionist were totally against it. They wanted all the refugees to settle in Palestine. It was not the Arabs who killed six million Jews of Europe, then why Arabs were made to suffer for the crimes of Nazi Germany? Even after the birth of Israel they could have lived with the Arab neighbors in peace especially after 1967 war. But their arrogance and greed for more Arab land have made it impossible for them to live in peace.

165

I am concluding this book with a quotation from James Petras's book: Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power and Alan Hart's book: Zionism the Real Enemy of the Jews. James Petras says;

The ZPC (Zionist Power Configuration) represents a basic threat to our existence as a sovereign state and our ability to influence whom we elect and what agendas and interests our representatives will pursue. Even worse, by serving Israeli interests we are becoming not just complicit with but imitative of a State whose Supreme Court legalizes political assassinations across national boundaries, torture, systematic violations of international law including collective punishment, and a regime which repudiates United Nations resolutions and unilaterally invades and bombs its neighbors and practices military colonist expansionism. Americans need to put our fight against Israel and its Lobby at the very top of our political agenda. We must fight the Israel Lobby not only because of its role in degrading our democratic principles, robbing us of our freedom to debate and our sovereignty to decide our own interests, not only because it pushes the United States into actions which threaten its own physical, economic and military infrastructure but because, when the Lobby puts the military and budgetary resources of the Empire at the service of Greater Israel that results in uncontainable humanitarian calamities whose ramifications impact the entire world.

Mr Alan Hart warning is this:

Dear Americans, if you continue to allow your government to support Israel right or wrong, you'll not only be betraying your own most cherished values and ideals, you'll be inviting more and more of the world, not just 1.4 billion Muslims, to see as complicit in the Zionist state's 166 crimes. And that could make protecting America's own best interests a mission impossible. Now is the time to act, to make your democracy work for justice and peace, in order to stop the countdown to catastrophe for all of us. (p. 377)

167

REFERENCES

1 Sen, Sudipta (1998). Empire of Free Trade: The East India Company and the Making of the Colonial Marketplace. Philadelphia: University press. 2 Mohibbul Hasan, History of Tipu Sultan,on Internet 3 Amresh Misra War of Civilizations: India AD 1857 4 Syed Husain Rizvi 'Partition' End product of the trend, Tips Enterprises New Delhi 5 L. R. Willams The East Pakistan Tragedy, Drake Publishers Inc New York 6 Edward Reynolds. Stand the Storm: A history of the Atlantic slave trade. London: Allison and Busby, 1985. 7 Rebecca Fraser The Story of Britain: From the Romans to the Present 8 Encyclopedia Britannica on Internet 9 Magna Carta Wikipedia, on Internet 10 Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India 11 Majumdar, Raychaudhuri, Datta & Kalikinkar 1967 An Advanced History of India Macmillan, 12 William Dalrymple The Last Mughal 13 ibid 14 Amresh Misra War of Civilizations: India AD 1857 15 William Dalrymple The last Mughal 16 ibid p. 445 168

17 Syed Husain Rizvi 'Partition' End product of the trend, Tips Enterprises New Delhi 18 Dr. Tara Chand, History of Freedom Movement. 19 Collins' and LaPierre Freedom at Midnight 20 Alastair Lawson Memoirs of a British civil servant BBC news 2007/08/1 21 Wikipedia on Internet 22 Sarmila Bose Dead Reckoning Hurst & company London 2011 p.159 23 Rushbrook Williams The East Pakistan Tragedy Drake Publisher INC New York 24 ibid p.131 25 Sarmila Bose Dead Reckoning Hurst & company London 2011 26 K.J. Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, , Volume 4 27 The Treaty of Amritsar, signed 16 March 1846 28 Wikipedia on Internet 29 Richmond, Simon; Cambon, Marie; Harper, Damian (2004). Malaysia, Singapore & Brunai 30 Malaysia Encyclopedia Britannica, on Internet 31 Edward Reynolds. Stand the Storm: A history of the Atlantic slave trade. Allison London 1985. 32 Terry Alford Prince among Slaves: The True Story of an African Prince Sold Into Slavery. 33 Wikipedia on line 34 Frederick F. Anscombe The Ottoman Gulf Creation of 169

Kuwait and Qatar 35 Encyclopedia Britannica on Internet 36 Muslehuddin Ahmad Promised Land The story of Palestinian—Conflict EEC Research Organization Toronto, Canada 36 Ibid 37 Michael C. Piper Final Judgment Center for Historical Review Washington , DC 38 Menachem Begin Wikipedia on Internet 39 Wikipedia on Internet 40 Khalidi, Walid (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies. 41 Edward W. Said The Question of Palestine Vintage Book New York 42 Muslehuddin Ahmad Promised Land The story of Palestinian—Conflict EEC Research Organization Toronto, Canada 43 Encyclopedia Britannica on Internet 44 Victor Thorn and John Glenn, "A Ship Without A Country: Eyewitness Accounts of the Attack on the USS Liberty", American Free Press, Washington, DC, 2009 45 Friedman, Thomas (1995). From Beirut to Jerusalem. Macmillan. p. 161. 46 Cobban, Helena (1984). The Palestinian Liberation Organization: People Power and Politics. Cambridge University Press 170

47 A Review of Amnesty Internationale's Internationale's Report on 2006 Lebanon war. 48 Jimmy Carter : Beyond the White House 49 A Review of Amnesty Internationale's Report on Operation Cast Lead 50 Andrew Hurley One Nation Under Israel, Truth Press 1999 51 Frederick F. Anscombe , The Ottoman Gulf creation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar 52 Charles Tripp A History of Iraq Cambridge University Press 2000 53 Ibid 54 John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt The Israel lobby and US Foreign Policy. 55 Wikipedia on Internet 56 University of Virginia. Gulf War Syndrome. 57 Time magazine, February 6, 2012 issue 58 Newsweek September 12, 2011 59 Iraq war Wikipedia on Internet 60 Encyclopedia Britannica on line 61 Donald Neff ,Fallen Pillars: US Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945 62 Grant F. Smith Spy Trade” How Israel's lobby under- mines America's economy p 27 63 Paul Findley Deliberate Deceptions 64 Dr. Hajo Meyer: Zionist Israel Behaving Like Nazis! 171

On Internet 65 Rachel Aliene Corrie Wikipedia on Internet 66 Hedy Epstein - Discover the Networks on Internet 67 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. 68 Ahmed Yassin – Wikipedia on Internet 69 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 70 Matthew Yglesias ,Think Progress Sep. 8, 2011 Price Of Homeland Security 71 Victor Ostrovsky, The Other side of Deception A Rouge Agent Exposes The Mossad's Secret Agenda, New York: Harper Collins, 1994 p.280 72 Mordechai Vanunu – Wikipedia on Internet 73 Time magazine, February 6, 2012 issue 74 Pepper on U tube.

172

INDEX

Abdul Rahman Sori ...... 5, 100, 101, 102 Alison Weir ...... 167 Al-Qaida ...... 140 Amaresh Misra ...... 28 Amnesty ...... 80, 82, 89, 90, 124, 151, 173 Amritsar Massacre ...... 38 Anglo-Ottoman Convention ...... 128 Apartheid ...... 71, 119 April Glaspie ...... 131 Awadh ...... 20, 21, 27 Awami League vi, 5, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 70, Azmat Ali Khan ...... 42 Bahadur Shah Zafar ...... 3, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33 Balfour declaration ...... 145 Ben-Gurion...... 113, 162, 163 Bihari Muslims ...... v, 44, 54, 67, 68, 69 Brunei ...... 6, 96, 98 Chuck Hagel ...... 126 David Cameron ...... 4 Deir Yassin ...... 112 Dick Cheney ...... 138, 141 Elizabeth...... 14 Flagstaff Tower ...... 23 Gandhi Jee ...... 46, 48, 108 George III ...... 16 George W. Ball ...... 166 Gulab Singh...... 74, 75 Haaretz ...... 125 Hajo Meyer ...... 151, 174 Hamas...... 122, 123, 124, 154, 160 Hari Singh ...... 74, 75, 76 Harla ...... 46, 47 Hart, Alan ...... 168, 169 173

Hastings...... 12, 19 Henry McMahon ...... 104 Henry VIII ...... 13, 15 Hezbollah ...... 117, 118, 160 Indian National Congress ...... 37 Jahangir ...... 18, 73 Jallianwala Bagh ...... 37 Jama Masjid ...... 27, 30 Jemshedpur...... 51 Jerusalem ...... 7, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 119, 148, 172 Jessore...... 55, 63, 64 Jimmy Carter ...... 8, 116, 135, 173 John F. Kennedy ...... 161, 162, 163 Julius Caesar ...... 9 Kalim Ajiz ...... v, 48, 49 Karachi ...... v, 48, 50 Kenneth Galbraith, ...... 39 Khalid Sheikh ...... 153 King David Hotel ...... 110 King John ...... 1, 13 Lee Hamilton...... 153 Lord Moyne...... 109 Magna Carta ...... 1, 13, 170 Mangal Pande ...... 22 Mir Jafar ...... 19 Mirza Bedar Bakht ...... 33 Mirza Ghalib ...... 26 Mirza Jamshid Bakth ...... 33 Mohammed Ali Jinnah ...... 38 Monrovia...... 102 Mossad ...... 160, 161, 163, 174 Mountbatten ...... 3, 38, 39, 40, 75, 76, 77 Muhammadpur ...... 57 Muharram ...... 50, 51 Mukti-Bahini ...... 62 174

Musaddiq ...... 147 Nasser ...... 114 Nazis...... 60, 68, 151, 174 Nehru ...... 19, 46, 51, 75 Noakhali ...... 44, 45, 49, 54 Noam Chomsky...... 137 Ottoman Empire ...... 103, 104, 105, 106, 127, 129 Paul Findley ...... 149, 174 Plassey ...... 18, 170 Queen Anne ...... 16 Radcliffe, ...... 40 Rajshahi ...... 48 Ramallah ...... 7, 120 Rangoon ...... 3, 32, 33 Richard Goldstone...... 124 Richard Nixon ...... 148, 156 Robert Clive ...... 2, 18 Robert F. Kennedy ...... 162, 164 Romans...... 9, 10, 144, 170 Rushbrook Williams, ...... 64 Sabra and Shatila ...... 117, 125 Santahar ...... 59 Sarmila Bose ...... 66, 171 Shahobigha ...... 50, 51 Shatt al-Arab ...... 130 Sheikh Yassin ...... 155 Sheikh Mujiur Rahman ...... 54 Sheldon Adelson ...... 136, 167 Singapore ...... vi, 6, 92, 94, 95, 97, 171 Sir Syed Ahmad Khan ...... 35 Six-Day War ...... 116, 121, 148 Stephen Sniegoski ...... 137, 159 Taj Mahal ...... 34 Telhara ...... v, 48, 49 Theodor Herzl ...... 144 175

Thomas R. Stauffer ...... 155, 158 Tippu Sultan ...... 2 USS Liberty ...... 114, 126, 160, 172 V P Menon ...... 76 Victoria ...... 17, 95 Viking ...... 11, 12 West Bank ...... 7, 111, 114, 119, 120, 148, 150, 152, 154 William F. Pepper ...... 166 William Hodson ...... 29 Yahya Khan ...... 53, 72 Yitzhak Rabin ...... 150 Yom Kippur War ...... 149

176

GLOSSARY

Ashurah The tenth day of the month of Muharram. Baniya: A trader Begum: Wife of a person Fitnah: An act by which the evil deed can be perpetuated. Imam Bara: A place assigned in a village where the people assemble in the month of Muharram to commemorate the martyrdom of Hazrat Husain. Lathi: It is made of special kind of solid Bamboo about six feet long. It is very strong. Matam: A way of expressing the grief by beating the chest. Marsia: Description in poetry about the fight of Hazrat Husain with the Yazid’s army at Karbala. Madrasa: A religious school Mamu: A maternal uncle Nawab: Local ruler Sipher: A semi circle object made of light wood covered with shield and sword. Shahenshah: King Raja: Local ruler Tazia: It is made for the Muharram procession symbolizing the mausoleum of Hazrat Husain.

177