sikh genocide, nanavati commission, crimes against humanity

aug 9th

i am reminded of the great, classic film 'z' by costa-gavras, which is based on real-life events. a fascist right-wing conspiracy murders a leftist candidate for president, and a judge of great integrity and courage unravels the mystery and sentences a large number of the perpetrators to jail sentences. however, the witnesses mysteriously begin to die. the photographer who unearthed crucial evidence 'leaps to his death' from a 10-storey building while in police custody. in the end, there is a coup d'etat and the judge himself, although he escapes being killed, loses his job.

i am sure this salutary experience was in justice nanavati's mind as he wrote the report of the commission. the indian state acts as a fascist leftist state (i once wrote about the predatory indian state, which is a direct descendant of the predatory muslim state and the predatory christian state which we have endured: for instance, ask yourself why the local administrator is called a 'collector'. his job is to collect taxes, not to serve the public), and there is no telling what the consequences could be to the judge and others. therefore, nanavati treads lightly.

nevertheless, a case for crimes against humanity should be filed in the international criminal court against the perpetrators and their friends in high places. according to official numbers, 3,000 sikhs were massacred. going by the way the press has multiplied official estimates in other cases, this may mean 5x, ie 15,000 sikhs were actually killed. this is not an insignificant number in absolute terms for a small community such as the sikhs.

if there could be an international enquiry into rwanda and into bosnia-serbia, there is no reason why there shouldn't be one into this.

i have always been highly respectful of the sikh contribution to india, see an old column of mine 'remember jallianwallah bagh'. they were the great patriots, the 'first-born innocents' who were always there to defend mother india. for the ruling party of the state to have turned against them in this genocidal manner is historically unforgiveable. it is true that there was sikh terrorism incited by, as usual, the pakistanis, but that is no reason for this deliberate and pre-meditated pogrom against a defenseless, easily identified minority group. unlike muslims and christians, who are majority groups worldwide and have powerful godfathers abroad, the sikhs are a classic minority group. the fact that genocide against them went unpunished ipso facto supports that claim--powerless minority.

in ethics, there is the concept of deontological analysis: that is, how a certain act affects the most deprived and powerless constituency. in this case, the sikhs, a small and numerically powerless group whose vote-bank value is minimal, were severely affected. from a deontological perspective, this implies a major ethical failing. heads should roll for this. if the government had any sense of ethics, they would resign; certainly they would not attempt to protect the specifically accused ministers. otherwise they are no better than the british eulogizing general dyer after jallianwallah bagh: colonial masters intent on theft, with no sense of responsibility for the colonized.

if so, then india is clearly a pseudo-democracy. in fact it is a kakistocracy, rule by the very worst.