Buy.com Monthly Coupon
Showing posts with label Indian Army. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indian Army. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Remembering the forgotten reports of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission

SALEEM SAMAD

Judge Hamoodur Rahman, along with two Pakistan High Court judges, worked tediously for five years and was able to submit the final reports on the Pakistan military’s failure since they launched the notorious “Operation Searchlight.” 

However, the report lies buried, with little or no accountability; the report never saw the light of day and was kept as highly classified documents in fear of backlash. 

The Hamoodur Rahman Commission (also known as the War Enquiry Commission), assessed Pakistan’s military involvement from 1947 to 1971. The commission was set up on December 26, 1971. 

When the Mukti Bahini and the Indian army threw their full might, the occupation forces had to negotiate an instrument of surrender on December 16, 1971. The surrender at Dhaka, according to war historians, was the largest surrender of the military after the historic surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan, which brought an end to WWII.

The Commission interviewed 213 persons of interest that included former president Yahya Khan, politician Nurul Amin, Abdul Hamid Khan (Chief of Army), Abdul Rahim Khan (Chief of Air Force), Muzaffar Hassan (Chief of Navy), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, senior commanders, activists, journalists, and various political leaders.

The Commission also interviewed Gen Tikka Khan, Gen AAK Niazi, and Gen Rao Farman Ali who were responsible for the horrific war crimes in Bangladesh.

In 1974, the Commission again resumed its work and interviewed 300 freed POWs and recorded 73 more bureaucrats’ testimonies that served on government assignments in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

The report recognized the atrocities and systematic massacre at Dhaka University which led to recommendations of holding public trials for civilian bureaucrats and court-martials for the senior officers. It is theorized that the first report is very critical of the Pakistan military’s interference in politics and misconduct of politicians in the country’s political atmosphere.

The military headquarters in Rawalpindi and Bhutto himself maintained that the first report should be classified to “save [the military’s] honour”. The report was marked Top Secret because Bhutto told Indian journalist Salil Tripathi in 1976 that he was concerned that it would demoralize the military and might trigger unrest.

Both the first and the supplementary report lashed out at the Pakistan Army for “senseless and wanton arson, killings in the countryside, killing of intellectuals and professionals and burying them in mass graves, killing of officers of East Pakistan Army and soldiers on the pretense of quelling their rebellion, killing East Pakistani civilian officers, businessmen and industrialists, raping a large number of East Pakistani women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture, and deliberate killing of members of the Hindu minority.”

The report also did not hesitate to accuse military dictator General Yahya Khan of being a womanizer, debaucher, and an alcoholic. He was forced to step down after Pakistan’s defeat in December 1971.

Rahman asked Bhutto for the feedback and status of the report. Bhutto remained silent for a while and replied that the report was missing. It was either lost, or stolen, and was nowhere to be found, he remarked.

Justice Rahman also asked the Chief of Army Staff General Zia-ul-Haq on the fate of the report who also commented that the original report was nowhere to be found, and nobody knew where the report went missing -- either at the Army GHQ or the National Archives of Pakistan.

In the 1990s, curiosity over the report grew when a Pakistan daily newspaper leaked the classified report which was lying at the army HQ in Rawalpindi. 

The trials of Gul Hassan, Abdul Rahim Khan, and Muzaffar Hassan were held in the light of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission’s recommendations. 

In December 2000, 29 years after the report was compiled, the War Report was finally declassified by Pakistan’s military dictator Pervez Musharraf. Subsequently, Bangladesh officially requested a copy of the report through diplomatic channels.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 13 April 2021

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Jammu & Kashmir continues to face violations of human rights and free speech

Kashmiri journalists protest against alleged harassment by Jammu and Kashmir police - Outlook/Umer Asif

SALEEM SAMAD

On the morning of August 5, 2019, the few that had access to dish TV watched in shock the proceedings of the Indian Parliament, which abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and stripped it of its limited autonomy.

The restive Kashmir Valley is already one of the most militarized zones in the world, where suspicion, distrust, and rumour galore brew among the 13 million residents.

“Working has been hell for journalists in Kashmir for the past year,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of the Asia-Pacific desk of Paris-based media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

For J&K’s residents, the state became the centre of the world’s biggest news and information blackout, with all forms of communication -- internet, mobile data, TV, and fixed-line telephone -- suddenly suspended. This unprecedented internet shutdown began on the night of August 4, 2019, on the eve of the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution of India, which granted special status to the state of J&K.

The South Asia Media Solidarity Network (SAMSN) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) deplored Kashmir Valley’s one year under shutdown.

On August 11, a special committee set up by India’s Supreme Court recommended the restoration of 4G internet services in J&K, and access to high-speed internet on a “trial basis in a calibrated manner in specified limited areas to assess the impact on the security situation” after August 15.

However, the government in New Delhi and the J&K Union Territory administration (Delhi-appointed governor in Srinagar) told the court that while security concerns and threats from the region continued to remain high, 4G internet services would not be made available.

Further fuel to the fire is the J&K government’s new media policy for journalists. The policy announced in June has come under strong criticism, with political parties stating that it will give the government an upper hand to militate against journalists and muzzle free speech. “It’s an assault on press freedom,” writes Naseer Ganai in Outlook magazine.

The policy says that background checks of newspaper editors, publishers, and reporters will be carried out before the empanelment of newspapers, media organizations, and outlets. The policy gives power to the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) to examine the content of print, electronic, and other media for “fake news, plagiarism, and unethical or anti-national activities.”

On the other hand, Tapan Kumar Bose, an independent filmmaker and a human rights activist based in Delhi, expressed his deep concern over those detained during the crackdowns and search operations, and those picked up from highways, with promises to relatives of their safe return -- the releases rarely happen.

Since 1990, thousands of habeas corpus petitions have been filed before the J&K High Court. “There is a total breakdown of the law and order machinery. I shall not feel shy to say that this court has been made helpless by so-called law enforcement agencies. Nobody bothers to obey the order of the court,” grieves Tapan Bose.

Besides Kashmir valley, Punjab, Nagaland, Manipur, and Assam are the worst places in India where enforced disappearances are rampant and appalling. Usually, security forces are in denial about those in custody and do not even register complaints about missing persons.

The relatives of the detainees move from pillar to post in J&K after being refused help for year after year. The relatives are frustrated and tired, but angry; they eventually abandon the search for their loved ones, and one day their cries go silent.

Tapan Bose, who made a documentary with Zahir Raihan during the 1971 Liberation War, stated that India’s domestic law allows impunity for enforced disappearances in states such as Manipur, J&K, and Punjab.

He says there is denial of justice and the right to know the truth, but de jure immunity minimizes victims’ access to the right to justice. The perpetrators are rarely held accountable for their acts.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 14 September 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Sino-India ‘war-cry’ at the roof of the world


Indian PM Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping Photo/REUTERS
SALEEM SAMAD
No bullets were fired! So far, Chinese and Indian troops exchanged brickbats and hurled bullies.
Normally, India and Pakistan skirmishes trade thunderous artillery fire and weapons drawn on each other -- often inflicting civilian casualties.
Presently, both China and India claim transgression of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) over Galwan Valley in Ladakh. The valley was once a flashpoint in the 1962 Sino-India war.
An earlier Sino-India border dispute in 2017 or Doklam stand-off refers to the faceoff between the Indian Armed Forces and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) over the construction of a road in Doklam near a tri-junction border area, known as Donglang, or Donglang Caochang (meaning Donglang pasture or grazing field), in Chinese.
After a month of the stand-off, both India and China withdrew their troops from the Doklam theatre.
As the Galwan valley stand-off continues, China is increasingly taking a more belligerent position. Of the flashpoints, three were in Ladakh in the Kashmir region, while another is at Nuka La Pass, which connects India’s north-eastern state of Sikkim with China’s Tibet.
The question is: Why are the two Asian giants hurtling down the path of war at the Himalayan frontiers?
When the military of the two countries are in a face-off, Xi Jinping tells PLA to “prepare for war” to thwart the coronavirus impact on national security.
The winter in Galwan Valley is brutal. Even during clear weather at any time of the year, border patrol at 15,000 feet above sea level is treacherous.
There are several theories to why this border tension exists when the world is trying to control the coronavirus that came from China.
First, China allegedly changed its claims over the Galwan Valley thrice. Now, Beijing says that the entire Galwan Valley belongs to China.
“India in recent days has illegally constructed defense facilities across the border into Chinese territory in the Galwan Valley region, leaving Chinese border defense troops no other option but making necessary moves in response, and mounting the risk of escalating stand-offs and conflicts between the two sides,” blames China’s official newspaper the Global Times.
Second, China is annoyed after the Indian authority’s plan for a huge economic zone in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, offering attractive packages to shift manufacturing plants from China, when companies are worried about the second wave of Covid-19 sweeping the country.
The media report in Indian newspapers has visibly irritated the bigwigs of the Chinese Communist Party, with the strategic ambition of India to replace China’s role in the global industrial chain only expanding. Thus, the Global Times editorial has expressed its rage against the “Make in India” campaign to become the world’s next destination for brand factories.
Third, Narendra Modi’s administration last year revoked the autonomous status of the part of Kashmir under its control. Indian-administered Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority region in India and has continued to be claimed by China’s staunch ally, Pakistan.
While India and Pakistan have fought wars over Kashmir, China has always stood beside Pakistan and supported Kashmir nationals’ right to self-determination.
The fourth sore point between China and India is Tibet, a region that China says is its rightful territory. Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and the so-called Tibetan government in exile, have its headquarters in Himachal, India.
Fifth, ignoring the Sino-India relations, Narendra Modi nominated two BJP lawmakers to 'attend' swearing-in of Taiwan virtual celebration of president Tsai Ing-wen swearing-in ceremony.
Meanwhile, China is in no mood for dialogue. Beijing is blaming India, and China’s newspaper the Global Times has been publishing aggressive and anti-India rhetoric. It claims that India has “illegally constructed defense facilities across the border into Chinese territory.”
“Not since 1975 has a bullet been fired across the shared border. As a result, the theory that Sino-Indian clashes are flashes in the pan and unlikely to lead to more extensive fighting has become a widely held consensus,” Professors Sumit Ganguly and Manjeet S Pardesi wrote in the Foreign Policy.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 1 June 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. His twitter is @saleemsamad and can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Monday, December 16, 2019

Bangladesh declared war against India on Dec 3

Photo: Courtesy Anwar Hossain Foundation
SALEEM SAMAD
And how a dream became reality
After nearly nine months of a brutal war of independence was coming to an end in early December, the foot soldiers of Mukti Bahini liberated large swathes of occupied Bangladesh backed by the mighty Indian Army, while the ragtag Pakistan soldiers were on the backfoot, converging to the nearest military garrisons.
Pakistan, in desperation, declared “Operation Chengiz Khan” and Pakistan Air Force (PAF) bombers began bombardment of six Indian military bases on December 3, 1971. The strike caused little damage.
The Indian armed forces in anticipation of air-strikes had kept their planes in bunkers.
A day before the Pakistan attack on Indian airfields, Indira Gandhi addressed her last public meeting in Kolkata after visiting the refugee camps in the city. Moments after the air-strikes in India’s western war theatre, few top military brasses briefed Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi regarding the PAF attacks on India.
Lieutenant General Sam Manekshaw, chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army, paused for a moment in silence and advised her (Indira) to delay the declaration of war against Pakistan.
She was told that a surprise was waiting at the eastern theatre. Soon, Indira informed her senior aides that India would not declare war against Pakistan. Instead, Bangladesh would strike Pakistan targets in the east. 
She explained to her aides that the imminent declaration of war would jeopardize the diplomatic efforts mustered around the Bangladesh cause -- the genocide and millions of refugee issues. On the eve of a formal war between India and Pakistan, telephones started to ring at the Mukti Bahini headquarters on December 2. The two-month-old Bangladesh Air Force was entrusted to strike targets deep inside occupied Bangladesh.
Earlier on September 28, 1971, Bangladesh Air Force was formed with three fighter pilots defected from PAF and six civil pilots from Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), and another 60 strong ground technical crew also from PAF.
The formation of the Bangladesh Air Force, dubbed “Kilo Flight,” began its journey with three vintage aircraft on October 8, 1971.
Indian civilian authorities and the Indian Air Force gave one American-made stubborn DC-3 Dakota (donated by the Maharaja of Jodhpur), one Canadian-built DHC-3 Otter plane, and one French Alouette III helicopter for the newborn “Kilo Flight.”
The pilots and ground crew gathered for a special mission on September 28 at Dimapur in Nagaland, where they took advantage of the lack of night-fighting capability of the PAF to launch hit-and-run attacks on sensitive targets inside occupied Bangladesh.
After months of intensive training, the formation was activated for combat.
The first sortie was scheduled to take place on November 28 but was postponed by Indian high commands to December 2, which invited frustration among the “Kilo Flight” crews, eagerly waiting to strike inside Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the three civilian aircraft were renovated, suitable for guerrilla warfare operations.
The Otter boasted seven rockets under each of its wings and could deliver 10 of the 25-pound bombs manually through a makeshift door in the bottom of the plane. The helicopter was rigged to fire 14 rockets from pylons attached to its side and had .303 Browning machine guns installed.
It was fitted with a one-inch (25mm) steel plate welded to its floor for extra strength.
The Dakota was also modified, but for technical reasons, it was used to ferry exiled government officials and supplies only.
The Otter took off from Kailashsahar with a two-member crew -- Flight Lt Shamsul Alam and co-pilot Akram Ahmed -- for a mission against targets in Chittagong, the vital seaport, to disrupt logistics and supplies of Pakistani troops.
The second unit -- a helicopter sortie from Teliamura base in adjoining Tripura state -- was piloted by Flight Lt Sultan Mahmood and Flight Lt Badrul Alam and made a deadly strike at Godnail fuel depot, Narayanganj. The smoke from the flames was seen from the capital Dhaka for days.
Two sorties on crucial targets on December 3 completely demoralized the Pakistan military.
Well, the Indians commenced air-strikes from December 4 in the eastern theatre and, by December 7, the lone airfield at Tejgaon airport was disabled and knocked out of operation.
The 13 days was the shortest war in military history, followed by a historic surrender ceremony, and in fact, the second surrender after WWII.
On December 16 in 1971, a dramatic push led to the fall of Dhaka. The jubilant Mukti Bahini chanting “Joy Bangla” and Indian troops riding battle tanks marched into the capital. Indira Gandhi at Ramlila Grounds in New Delhi. on December 12, 1971. said: “The Bangladesh of their dream has today become a reality.” 

First Published in the Dhaka Tribune 16 December 2019

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, also recipient of Ashoka Fellow and Hellman-Hammett Award.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

The Year Of Living Dangerously: The Bangladesh Liberation War through Raghu Rai's lens



FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER, what sets apart a war zone from other locations is the imminence of danger. Raghu Rai had gone along with the first column of Indian troops entering what was still officially East Pakistan from the Khulna border in early December 1971. Pakistani forces had retreated to defend the capital, Dacca, as it was then known. But after they had travelled about 50 km, Pakistanis attacked with artillery fire. Rai shot photographs of wounded soldiers being taken away. After the situation subsided, Rai was relieved to find a teashop and decided to have a moment’s respite, although the Indian army major told him to be careful. Just as Rai ordered tea and biscuits, a bullet whizzed past him. “The major shouted for me to lie down,” Rai wrote. “I did, and another bullet went past me. I crawled back to the shop and was told by the shopkeeper that the Pakistani army was on the other side of the railtrack, just half a kilometer away.” 

Photographers are meant to be impartial observers, or witnesses. But to the Pakistani sniper, Rai was a participant, entering enemy territory, accompanied by a foreign army. He was a target, fair game. He may have come to record, but he was intervening.

The photographs Rai took during that two-week war, when the Indian army marched to what is now Dhaka and defeated General AAK Niazi’s Pakistani army, are now published in a glossy volume by Niyogi Books, one which commemorates Bangladeshi bravery, and Indian support and generosity, and documents the Pakistani army’s brutality towards civilians.

Having stored away the images for safekeeping, Rai seemed to have forgotten their whereabouts. Two years ago, he excitedly called his friend Shahidul Alam, the gifted Bangladeshi photographer, to say that the lost negatives had been found. This was a huge discovery; Bangladesh was turning 40 in 2011, and the generation that fought for its freedom was fading. Alam, who has made it the mission of his life to document the Bangladeshi saga in all its manifestations by promoting visual culture through his agency, Drik, was himself compiling the works of photographers from Bangladesh and abroad for the book he published in 2011, The Birth Pangs of A Nation. That book includes some of Rai’s photographs and went on to win an Asia Publishing Award last year. (I wrote the sole essay in that book.)

Meanwhile, Rai put together his own collection, with Alam writing its introduction. The Bengal Gallery in Dhaka exhibited Rai’s photographs last December, exposing a new generation of Bangladeshis to the pain their parents’ generation had endured. I went to see the exhibition with a Bangladeshi friend. Many young Bangladeshis paused for a long time before certain images, some taking pictures on their cellphones; for many young visitors, this was their first exposure to the horrors of that war, because for long periods of the past four decades, the country has been ruled by governments that were lukewarm about independence, with coalition partners who had once been hostile to the idea of freedom from Pakistan.

One of Rai’s most telling images was of a mother unable to feed her child because her breast was emaciated. You could count her, and her child’s, ribs. Looking at that photograph, two teenage boys started giggling, as if they had never seen nipples before. Seeing them leer as though the image was vulgar, evoking what could be read as bibhatsa (disgust) in the place of karuna (compassion) or krodha(anger), it was apparent why Bangladesh needs to reclaim its history, and why works like Rai’s photographs matter. The war was fought over four decades ago, and Bangladesh has just got around to prosecuting some leaders accused of having committed war crimes. The International Crimes Tribunal is meant to bring the accused to justice, but it also has the purpose of educating the generation that has grown up since the war, about what really happened at that time. For many, the knowledge of the Liberation War comes from stories shared within the family, but for millions of other Bangladeshis, Rai’s photographs can contribute to the growing need for information and understanding about the events of 1971.

Rai’s photographs are now published in a volume, Bangladesh: The Price of Freedom, a 116-page book with 91 photographs, with the introduction by Alam and short texts by Rai describing his two assignments during the war. Rai first went in August to document the stories of refugees, and then again in December, with the Indian army. Those two journeys are distinct—one tells the story of a human tragedy; the other of human conquest, culminating in the Pakistani army’s surrender to Indian forces and Bangladesh’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s triumphant return in 1972.


RAGHU RAI is an elder statesman of Indian photography. Mentored by the legendary Henri Cartier Bresson in 1977, after he joined the elite agency Magnum, Rai is known for his astonishingly intense images, for capturing the essence of drama in people’s lives, finding exceptional stories in that fraction of a second where he spots something extraordinary that the normal eye might miss. Two stand out for me: the day after Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency in June 1975, Rai shot a man pushing a cycle with two children on it and a woman behind him, with scores of policemen all around. The caption said: “The situation was normal in Chandni Chowk.” In another, nearly a decade later in India Today, Rai photographed two schoolboys—a Hindu and a Sikh—with arms on each others’ shoulders, walking to school. Taken within days of Operation Bluestar, the caption expressed the hope that such would be the future of Amritsar, and the bitterness and bloodshed would be forgotten. There are other great Rai images—of Mother Teresa, of India’s great classical musicians in an inspired series with Inderjit Badhwar for India Today magazine [Disclosure: I was their colleague at that time, between 1988 and 1991.] and the haunting image of a child being buried in Bhopal, his lifeless eyes admonishing the viewer, symbolising the thousands who died in Bhopal after the methyl isocyanate leak from the Union Carbide plant in December 1984.

A Rai photograph is unique in the way it is interested in the human being—especially the eyes, as Alam points out in his essay for the book. He is able to get close to the subject and focus on the eyes, centering stories around individuals; but through this approach, his photographs suggest ways in which events affect the lives of those who have no control over larger forces.

Rai first went to witness the story of refugees from East Pakistan in August 1971. As he notes, in August “the monsoon was at its peak. The skies were deep grey and it was raining all the way. The border was not just porous, it was overflowing from all sides. The refugees with their meager belongings were pouring in ... they were drenched by the rain, suffering and fatigued. There was a kind of a silence—nobody was talking. There was nothing the others did not know.” Their lives were now lived in public; they were part of a human drama the world was meant to witness. Rai was among those who made sure it did.

What the refugees didn’t speak about was how their crops were burned (Rai shows us scorched land), their homes razed (we see shells of homes), their women raped (in a moving photograph, Rai closes in on a young woman lying on a cot, wearing a sari without a blouse, her eyes still and dry, her belly bigger than her slender frame, indicating the child she is carrying but did not want, personifying the harrowing saga of rapes during that war; by some estimates, there were more than a quarter million rapes). And even though you only see her in the photograph,  you get her sense of loneliness—she is possibly shunned because the father of that child she is carrying is a Pakistani soldier. The relentless violence and humiliation the farmers and fisherfolk and boatmen faced are visible in the exhausted faces of the refugees, their wrinkles pronounced, their tears glistening.

The photographs are in black and white. Rai goes close enough to a man’s face to let you count the whiskers on his face. His camera stops near the bloodstains on a sari. The head looks up in another image, and you want to caress the wounded brow. He sharpens the focus on the human being at the centre of the image, separating him from the detritus of what remains of the possessions that he carried with him across the border. The queue of refugees shows some who are wizened, some determined, carrying their children on their shoulders, their possessions on their heads. A little boy walks, wearing only a buttonless shirt, smiling and talking to older boys, oblivious to his surroundings. They are leaving their past, walking to a different future.

Future’ and ‘safety’ lie across the river, to cross which the boatman may demand the last bag of rice the refugee is carrying. Times are bad, but business is business. There are ten million of them, overwhelming the Indian state—for some time, Tripura has more refugees than residents. They live in large pipes and in makeshift tents. Rai shows a stack of pipes, their interiors dark, except for the men who raise their heads and stare back at this odd man taking their photographs. They live on rations, forming orderly queues which go out of focus as Rai fixes the lens on the few in the front of the queue. Children are bathed, old people die, rain lashes the landscape, diseases spread easily and are fought by stubborn nurses and doctors working selflessly, round-the-clock, in the camps.

In many ways, Rai brings to life Allen Ginsberg’s haunting poem, September on Jessore Road:
Millions of babies watching the skiesBellies swollen, with big round eyesOn Jessore Road – long bamboo hutsNo place to shit but sand channel ruts Millions of fathers in rainMillions of mothers in painMillions of brothers in woeMillions of sisters nowhere to go
The lives of these “millions” are lived in the open: nothing is confidential, nothing secret. Rai witnesses it, clicks the image, preserves it, recording it for posterity.

However close to reality a photographer gets, essentially he stays aloof, detached, distinct. Susan Sontag reminds us in On Photography (1977) that while real people are out there killing other real people, the photographer remains firmly behind the camera. Non-intervention is critical. She writes: “Part of the horrors of such memorable coups of contemporary photojournalism as the pictures of the Vietnamese bonze reaching for the gasoline can, of a Bengali guerrilla in the act of bayonetting a trussed-up collaborator, comes from the awareness of how plausible it has become, in situations where a photographer has the choice between a life and a photograph, to choose the photograph. The person who intervenes cannot record; the person who records cannot intervene.”

To intervene or not is a moral choice: the veteran Newsweek correspondent Edward Behr had a point when he titled his memoir of reporting from the war in what was then Belgian Congo, Anyone Here Been Raped And Speaks English? (1978). For the photographer, as it is for the reporter, the story is more important than finding relief for the victim. Kevin Carter, the South African photographer who took the Pulitzer Prize-winning shot of a starving child in Sudan crouching, bent, almost supine on the ground, while a vulture waited, took his own life a year later. And in his suicide note he wrote of how he was tormented by images of war and starvation.

There is a human narrative in the dry statistic that ten million refugees crossed the border and came to India. This book tells some of those stories. What would Sontag make of Rai’s images? To be sure, they are intrusive. To be sure, the photographer is in control, not the subject. To be sure, the subject’s narrative will now be public in a manner that Rai chooses to depict the story. And yet, Rai honours the subject, photographing her with humility, so that the hero that emerges is not the photographer, but the refugee. And this is not because Rai hasn’t tried hard—the composition is impeccable, as is the way Rai lets natural light fall on a face to illuminate it, the way he allows shadows to darken moods, and the way eyes glisten and shine in the images.

In Regarding The Pain of Others, Sontag’s 2003 book that can be seen as a follow-up to On Photography,where she continues her arguments about photography, but brings them to a closure with provocative questions, she wrote: “Neither is the photograph supposed to repair our ignorance about the history and causes of the suffering it picks out and frames. Such images cannot be more than an invitation to pay attention, to reflect, to learn, to examine the rationalizations for mass suffering offered by established powers. Who caused what the picture shows? Who is responsible? Is it excusable? Was it inevitable? Is there some state of affairs which we have accepted up to now that ought to be challenged?”

Wars affect everyone, but women and children bear the brunt because they are rarely among the combatants, and they face the consequences of decisions others have taken on their behalf, without asking them. Rai’s triumph lies in how well he shows the effect of war on women. There is the woman with her head covered, gnarled fingers resting on her knees, over which she places her chin. A woman carries her sole surviving pot in her right hand and the breastfeeding infant in the left, a gamchhacovering her torso. Another woman, older, sitting in a tattered palki, is being carried by two men with taut muscles. A windswept rice field with a coconut tree in the background, and an old woman walking, with her back bent at a right angle, a stick guiding her forward, her feet bare. Another girl, not yet a woman, bare-chested, stirring a pot, her hair wet. A naked child lying on the ground, between the large pipes in which families have taken shelter. And that image, of the mother holding tight her child whose ribs you can count. The child looks at the mother’s emaciated breast. The mother herself is skeletal and realises she can’t feed her child. Pathos has rarely been captured so movingly; and yet, responses vary—in Dhaka, those young men at the art gallery giggled when they saw her. 

RAI Is A STORY-TELLER, who likes to focus on the human drama. If Associated Press’s Joe Rosenthal took the memorable picture of six determined soldiers valiantly raising the American flag on Mt Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945, consecrating a military conquest by endowing it with patriotism, Rai shows his soldier spending a quiet moment in a village playing with a rabbit. Does that make Rai’s soldier more human? Or is this tranquil moment what the soldier needs before he can knock down the doors of collaborators’ huts, and beat the hell out of the men who have acted as informers for the Pakistani army? Rai’s photography sidesteps that question.

Rai’s great contemporary, the late Kishore Parekh, who went to the same war, and was often at the same place shooting the same people, saw the war differently. In Bangladesh: A Brutal Birth (1972), which collects Parekh’s photographs of the war, there are several images similar to Rai’s—but many are more brutal. Parekh’s book is now out of print, but a dedicated fan has uploaded it on the website Scribd, from where it can be downloaded free of cost. Rai shows hungry children crying out for food; Parekh shows a dead boy lying on the road, the bottom half of his body soaking in blood. Parekh’s soldiers don’t play with a rabbit; they knock down doors, beat up people, look inside the lungis of men to see if they are concealing any weapons. Rai’s Mukti Bahini guerrillas ride a cycle-rickshaw with their guns, smiling at the photographer. Parekh’s are meting out instant justice to those who helped the Pakistani army during the war. In Parekh’s universe, death is real: a crow picks at the open wounds of a dead body.

Parekh’s soldiers are loading weapons, ready to battle. Rai shows the cloud of dust that the army trucks emit as the convoy leaves for the battlefront. Both show wounded soldiers carried by their comrades; the resignation in the eyes of a Pakistani soldier who is unsure what the enemy will do to him, as he is being laid on a stretcher with Indian soldiers carrying him to a field hospital; the anxiety of an Indian jawan, being calmed by his compatriots as medics treat him. And there are ghastly images of dead bodies—adults and children, lying in ponds and along riverbeds. Faced with that finality, Rai doesn’t hesitate—he shoots. But in the way Rai has composed that specific shot, it seems as if he has paused to consider lighting, and shot the bodies with sunlight resting on their torsos, granting them some dignity as they lie in a ditch. Parekh, too, shows dead bodies, but he horrifies you by bringing you closer to a dead face, reminding the viewer that there is nothing glorious in such a death. The contrast between Rai’s vision and Parekh’s is clear: for Parekh, photography is the means to record reality, however unpalatable; for Rai, photography is imbued with a purpose, to capture the human spirit.

Rai ends triumphantly, taking us to the public surrender ceremony, where a confident General Jagjit Singh Arora strides purposefully towards the desk, alongside the Pakistani General Niazi keeping his eyes low, unable to look at the camera, trying hard not to betray any emotion. (In Parekh’s book that photograph appears only once, taken from some distance, as the men walk to the tent). Later Parekh takes us to the streets of old Dhaka, where the Mukti Bahini guerrillas have some unfinished business to deal with. Parekh is right behind them as they crouch and move stealthily towards abandoned homes from where snipers have fired, as they remain unwilling to surrender. A single shoe lies abandoned in the lower right corner of the photograph, suggesting someone escaped in a hurry. Surrender or not, we are at war.

Parekh’s book ends with a beautiful image of two boys chasing a calf in a mustard field, almost presaging Rai’s image of the Hindu and Sikh boy in Amritsar 13 years later, seeking to remind the viewer of a happier, more innocent time. A pastoral, more pleasant past will become the future; the future won’t mean an escape from the past. Parekh’s image is black-and-white and you can’t see the shining, overpowering yellow of the mustard set on a bright green field, but the sun does the trick, making the mustard shimmer even in a black-and-white image. Rai’s focus is on people, though, and his final image is of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, greeting his people from atop a flower-bedecked truck, flanked by Tajuddin Ahmed who had run the government-in-exile. Over a dozen supporters have crammed the top and the truck tries to make its way to a political rally, amid what can only be described as a sea of humanity.

There is a story in these pictures—a neat beginning, middle and end. Both Rai and Parekh witnessed the war. Parekh, more the journalist, wanted to ensure that nothing he saw would get forgotten; Rai, more the artist, wanted his pictures to tell the human story. Both chose to record, not to intervene. But what they recorded forced the world to intervene. And it is stories of such interventions—of George Harrison and Ravi Shankar packing Madison Square Garden at the Concert for Bangladesh, of the international community’s warm-hearted relief for the refugees, of the courage of Indian soldiers and Mukti Bahini warriors—that ended the tyranny the Pakistani army had unleashed.

Sontag implored her readers to react to the images they saw—to reflect, to pay attention, and to learn from the mass suffering. What caused it? Where did the responsibility lie? “Is there some state of affairs which we have accepted up to now that ought to be challenged?” she asked. Parekh’s photographs forced us to think 40 years ago; the discovery of Rai’s negatives, and indeed the publication of this volume, remind us why those questions are still relevant.

First appeared in The Washington Post, 1 May 2013

Salil Tripathi is a Contributing Editor at The Caravan. He is a columnist at Mint, and a London-based author who writes for major international newspapers