Since 1978; even Cuba has let them in more recently.

That is becaue Saddam’s own documents and what the American troops have found prove that the WMDs were there. But the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge that fact.

Please document this claim.

The statement happens to be correct, as reporter Barry Bearak of the New York Times found in his investigation and as separate, independent investigations by the International Human Rights Organization and jointly by the Movement Against State Repression and the Punjab Human Rights Organization also concluded. It was indeed accurate that the government carried out the Chithisinghpora massacre. Don’t try to bamboozle us.

“To this day there has been NO conclusive proof as to Indian army’s involvement in the 2000 massacre.”

They talked to each other in the language of the Indian army, not the local peopel’s language, according to an eyewitness (who survived by pretending to be dead.)

“Indian state sponsored terrorism is definately alive and kicking in India and has been since the country was artificially drawn up in 1947.”

It certainly is. Among other things:

The book Soft Target shows how the Indian regime bombed its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 innocent people, to justify further repression against the Sikhs. The flight was bound for Bombay. The book quotes an investigator from the Canadian Security Investigation Service as saying, “If you really want to clear the incidents quickly, take vans down to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancouver, load up everybody and take them down for questioning. We know it and they know it that they are involved.” The book shows that within hours after the flight was blown up, the Indian Consul General in Toronto, Surinder Malik (no relation to Ripudaman Singh Malik), called in a detailed description of the bombing and the names of those he said were involved, information that the Canadian government didn’t discover until weeks later. Mr. Malik said to look on the passenger manifest for the name “L. Singh.” This would turn out to be Lal Singh, who told the press that he was offered “two million dollars and settlement in a nice country” by the Indian regime to give false testimony in the case.
India fomented and pre-planned the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, according to a police officer who was quoted in the newspapers. Government forces were caught red-handed in a village in Kashmir, trying to burn down the Gurdwara (Sikh place of worship) and some Sikh homes, to blame the Muslims.

The Indian newsmagazine India Today reported that the Indian government created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, identified by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. The January 2, 2002 issue of the Washington Times noted that India sponsors cross-border terrorism in Sindh. The Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that India paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to foment and support covert state terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir.

A report issued by MASR shows that India admitted that it held 52,268 political prisoners under the repressive “Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act” (TADA) even though it expired in 1995. Many have been in illegal custody since 1984. There has been no list published of those who were acquitted under TADA and those who are still rotting in Indian jails. Additionally, according to Amnesty International, there are tens of thousands of other minorities being held as political prisoners. The MASR report quotes the Punjab Civil Magistracy as writing “if we add up the figures of the last few years the number of innocent persons killed would run into lakhs [hundreds of thousands.]” The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, more than 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims throughout the country, and tens of thousands of Tamils, Assamese, Manipuris, and others.

“It has NEVER been a calculated policy of Indian Amry to massacre civilians as a part of anti-terrorist operations…”

False statement. Extrajudicial killings are a staple of Indian policy. In 1994, they paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers to kill sikhs. One bonus was paid to an officer who killed a three-year-old boy!

“wonder why it doesnt constitute Christian abuse when Sikhs start shouting at evangelists”

Wonder why you can’t see the difference between shouting at someone and breaking up a religioous festival with gunfire.

Who was it that put out a boklet on how to implicate Chrsitians in false criminal cases? Oh, yes, the RSS.

How come no international human-rights groups have been allowed into Punjab since 1978? Even Cuba has allowed them in more recently.

What brains are you talking about genius ? Assumptions made by you are as follows >

1. Clinton said ‘hindu militants’ killed those 36 sikhs.So it must be true.

2. Your father was in the Indian Army and he said Indian Army was sh1t , so it must be true.

3. Pankaj Mishra, a raving anti-India commie, said Indian Army killed those 36 sikhs, so it must be true.

4. 5 innocents were killed by Indian Army hunting for the killers of the 36 sikhs – so Indian Army killed those 36 sikhs as well. Its true..its true…

Is this what amounts to ‘brains’ on your part ?

Why you so vex boy? You so vex you gat yo sentence structcha all mix up. It pass your bedtime boy and you is vexing you self and you brain. Stop stuping yo teet. Brush dem and go to bed befo yo fada done pelt you one.

Clearly since you are so bothered and took the time to voice said botheration and vexation about annoying details you don’t have one.:)

One wonders if anyone who either publishes a blog or writes posts on blogs has a life There, see, you’re not so special:)

I think I can grudginly agree on this bit xyz, though I think you give more credence to Jha while I give more to Mishra for our own reasons. That is the best we can sort of agree on. I cannot reply with an essay to match yours as I have tons of work to do, but I think I agree with the broad gist of your argument, though with a slightly opposing view. I did give Clinton the initial benefit of the doubt without realising the publisher retracted the statement. That was of course amended later.

And finally, I am also more for transparency within the IA. But I believe that comes from digging and asking difficult questions that come, like Raj above would prefer not to be asked. That is not how I work. The army should be willing to defend itself against accusations.

“the government blamed Muslim militants but it seems Clinton knew what really happened.”

On what basis did you come to that conclusion? The way you phrased it just happens to make Clinton’s statement seem like a given fact, when it is anything but. The way you phrased it makes it seem as if the govt. is lying and Clinton is telling the truth. Just because Clinton said so? On what basis do you give more credence to what Clinton says than to what the government says? Why would Clinton, whose own government’s intelligence failed him on many occasions, be a better source of what really happened? Because of one line in his sketchy foreword to Albright? It might have been better to say: “But Clinton claims he knows differently.” So, I may be wrong, but it’s on that basis and subsequent comments you’ve made about things being fishy that I think you’re leaning towards the army being guilty more than it being innocent (of the massacre, not the subsequent killings). Of course, you’re entitled to that, if that is indeed the case.

My point is that at least Bearak and Jha seem more willing, as Jha says, to point out all the other circumstantial evidence in favor of the army’s claims. That’s all. The State Department’s own contradictory report, Clinton’s vagueness and really no evidence to back it up besides some feeling don’t ring very sound to me. I honestly believe it was a political statement on his behalf, first due to his balancing act between India and Pakistan (he couldn’t afford to offend Pakistan at the time, and I don’t blame him, he has to be the diplomat) and then he chose to first state publicly or repeat it at a political fundraiser for a conspiracy theory-prone Democratic party member whose constituents and backers are known to have anti-India agendas. I wonder if Bush makes a similar statement about something like that in someone’s book in the future, how many people here would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on vagueness?

I find Bearak’s attempts to report on the incident more sound than Mishra’s. But that’s my opinion.

Bearak’s interviews with the Sikh residents who frankly admiited lying and changing their stories but who did say that the first people they blamed for the massacre was militants – the fact that all this was said in the presence of a well respected Sikh journalist with a history of solid reporting in Kashmir (unless we are to believe that both Bearak and this journalist are lying or stooges) whom the people trusted, makes me trust the story more. Vinod Mehta’s (he who loses no opportunity to bring down the BJP govt.) own opinion in Outlook confirms Bearak’s findings – that no journalist – other than Mishra it seems – was really able to find any evidence that the army committed the massacre or that there was any real proof linking the army to it. Merely repeating people’s predictable suspicions in a region deeply hostile to India is irresponsible reporting. [Statements like "the scope fo private investigation remains limited etc." absolves one of the responsibiliy of trying to dig deeper for real facts to either corroborate or disprove something. Of course it is difficult, but journalists try very hard to overcome those difficulties. I think Bearak tried harder] That proves nothing. That’s like Bearak reporting that the jihadi’s father blamed the Indian Army in his interview wit him, so therefore there must be some truth to it.

So are all the other journalists, Bearak included, merely mediocre journalists or sell-outs to the govt. and only Mishra was able to get the see through it all? Is Mishra willing to accept that people changed their stories out of fear? I mean if it’s plausible to him and others that the Indian Army staged this, why is it not equally plausible that this was done to embarass the govt. on the eve of Clinton’s visit? Does it really make sense that the Indian Army would dress in their own uniforms and loudly shout Hindu slogans and then try and pin it on militants? Why is not plausible that witnesses changed their stories out of fear? At least try and see both or all sides of the story, that’s all one can ask of a supposed journalist. I think Bearak does a much better job of this.

I mentioned the jihadi because Bearak actually takes the trouble to interview him. That is hardly the only evidence I cited, given all the other references I’ve given And I did mention that Bearak himself says he’s not sure if the guy is telling the truth. As for the LeT, I think I would believe the Indian Army, all its warts included, over the LeT. That doesn’t mean I would swallow anything the IA said, but if it’s their word against the LeT, sorry, the lesser of two evils for me in this particular case given the lack of evidence to show otherwise. Given that the U.S. State Dept. report cites other incidents where LeT militants dressed in army uniforms, its hardly an unknown tactic for them. But instead of believing what is more plausible, people seem to want to believe what is more convoluted – that the IA pretended to be LeT militants but dressed up in IA uniforms and shouted Hindu slogans – a double deception that somehow managed to be hidden from the rest of the army and that either numerous Sikh army members in Kashmir/Delhi command knew nothing about or colluded with to score PR points with Clinton (I don’t think anyone with any brains was that enamored with Clinton to sacrifice 36 lives to impress your case on him – the man had just been exposed as a liar. Charming and witty, but a multiple liar nonetheless).

Anyways, I guess I choose to believe that, given the evidence available, it is much more plausible that the army is telling the truth about the massacre. I prefer Bearak’s piece to Mishra’s in the NYT, because it is more specific, in my opinion and I don’t think he rushed to judgment. That’s my opinion. Mishra says: “Suspicions and theories and some strange facts are not perhaps the best way to get to the truth…” I agree, that’s about the truest thing said by Mishra. I think Clinton must have realized that too, hence the retraction. The bottomline remains, given Mishra’s own admission that noone can positively identify who the killers were, Clinton was wrong to state Hindu militants as if it was a fact and right to retract it.

I’m all for greater transparency with the IA and holding it accountable for its abuses. I’m glad that in India, the army answers to the government and the people, not the other way around. Anything that makes them more answerable to the people is better. But I also think that knee-jerk reactions to the IA by people with their own agendas (and I’m not necessarily talking about Mishra here) is not constructive and crying wolf (as raz did with the rumors over the Hindu pilgrims being allegedly murdered by the IA – but no link or proof yet) harms the greater good. This goes for the government as well, by the way.

I think the reaction to the massacre and willingness to believe it was the IA, despite no evidence, was a knee jerk reaction to the BJP govt., and is the motivation for a lot of these leaky articles that found their way and often still find their way into the NYT – based on some truth but only focusing on some of the truths and not all of the truth and facts and background and evidence and suppressing what doesn’t suit the tone or theme of your article or story. The IA didn’t help itself by allegedly framing five innocent people and is to blame for giving fuel to conspiracy theorists.

xyz – I’ve never said the army committed the massacre for sure. But really all you have is one jihadi who wants to take responsibility for a massacre. That is your only real credible source isn’t it? Despite that LeT didn’t actually make any claims at the time.

Anyway, in case you didn’t see this, Mishra replied to Prem Jha’s article here:
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20001009&fname=opinionpankaj&sid=1

Once you are in Kashmir, that scepticism about the government’s ability to speak the truth returns, and multiplies fast. Not a single Kashmiri I spoke to believed the government’s story; and as the days passed it began to seem less and less the final word on the subject it was taken to be by the Indian press – if not any other press.

I still don’t think anyone is in a position to identify with certainty the killers of the Sikhs.
The scope for private investigation remains limited; there are areas in Kashmir journalists just can’t go to. People have their own suspicions; there are theories; there are the strange facts: for instance, that a patrol party of Rashtriya Rifles, which was 1.5 km from Chitsinghpura at the time of the massacre, heard the gunshots but did not bother to go and investigate. Suspicions and theories and some strange facts are not perhaps the best way to get to the truth but when the men in power declare, without offering any evidence, that they have the complete truth in their possession, and that there is no need for an inquiry; when those men go on to murder innocents in their attempt to make lies seem like truth, then it becomes all the more important for journalists to take some untrodden paths.

Read it in full.

Sunny when are you gonna answer XYZ’s points? Allow watching the World Cup and go through them one by one.

Please, stop going patriotic on my ass. It does nothing for you. Yes the village kids join the army, and so do people raised on golf courses. The Army is not some mythical beast for me as it is for you. There is a brutal hierarchy, there is discrimination based on caste, region and religion, army people get killed mostly by mistake by their own comrades (the story my dad told me were sometimes horrific) and generally shit happens. And because they are ordinary kids, they are also liable to commit horrific crimes in the way the American soliders have done in Iraq.

When you demonise Indian Army – you demonise the people of India.

Son, this isn’t Bharat Rakshak. We try and use brains when talking here, not point to the Indian flag tattoed on the chest. When you grow some brains, come back and join the discussion.

“Sick sick sick. State terrorism is alive and well.”

Blame the Indian people. We are a democracy. WE vote the ‘State’ to power. We are pretty much the ‘State’.

“I agree that at this stage it is wrong to blame the army for the massacre of 36 Sikhs. You may or may not like to believe me but as I said my dad was closely associated with the Indian army so believe me when I say I have no vendetta against it.”

You defintely have an agenda. What you dad’s job was is immatereal.

“But the fact that Clinton blames it on Hindu militants (and he is privvy to a lot more intelligence than we are), and that the army looks like it deliberately killed five innocent villagers to scapegoat for this massacre, instead of hunting down people belonging to LeT, makes me think there is something fishy here.”

Clinton said a lots of stuff, like – he didn’t have sex with that woman monica lewinsky. Clinton hasn’t explained his stand further on this matter. I will take it to be a case of ignorance and misjudgement rather than an agenda on his part.

“Of course people are going to see this as an unfounded agenda against the Indian army. I can’t control how people interpret my writing. But there is no ulterior self-hating-Indian agenda here. I thought the episode was interesting and wanted to ask if the Indian army was responsible for more than is attributed. The case is of course not closed because the army has made sure (by obstructing the CBI) that all the jigsaw pieces are not available.”.

We all have an agenda. In the 60s, an entire generation of Aemricans used to burn US flags. They thought they were being cool…

Whoa whoa whoa…..you had army soldiers as servants eh, Sunny boy ? Big time charlie, ain’t you ? I merely played with soldier’s kids (who are now soldiers as well) in villages… never saw the inside of a golf course.

But that was hardly my argument as to who has a greater right or not to comment on Indian Army. My point was ‘Indian Army’ is no alien entity, but a true representative of the Indian people. It is kids from villages of India who mostly join Indian Army. Not folks raised on golf courses.

When you demonise Indian Army – you demonise the people of India.