The flag of civilisation

That these gentlemen can deny the ch-arges without so much as conducting an inquiry into the circumstances of the de-aths bespeaks an attitude tohuman rights which borders on the cavalier and a dangerous disregard for the articles of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Ad-ditional Protocols to the Geneva Conv-entions and the Hague Conventions that have categorically and for all time outlawed such barbarism.

Pakistan, like India, is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Exactly 50 years ago both countries, along with the other nations of the world, signed these international instruments designed expressly for the “amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field”.

The Geneva Conventions represent the first universal consensus on the right of prisoners of war to fair and humane treatment at the hands of their adversary. But before we examine them in closer detail, it would be useful to briefly revisit the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on which they are premised. Indeed, every international convention on human rights, whether it has to do with race, children or women, comes under the broad rubric of thishistoric Declaration, signed on De-cember 10, 1948. According to it, human rights are based on the “inherent dignity” of every human person, which is inalienable and imprescriptible. Human rights have precedence over all powers, including that of the State. Although the State may regulate th-em, it may not abrogate them. Further, the De-claration recognises that the use of torture is incompatible with human rights.

When the UN Gen-eral Assembly passed the Declaration by 48 votes to one with eight abstentions, it was seen as a triumph of the human spirit over political, philosophical and religious systems and traditions. The Geneva Co nventions extended this basic principle to the theatre of armed conflict. It applies in all cases of declared war or in any other armed conflict involving the parties to the Conventions, and also in cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a signatory. It makes the important distinction between personnel involved in active warfare and those who have laid downtheir arms or have been rendered hors de combat by sickness or injury. It is this latter category of people that the Conventions deal with.They are to be treated humanely until their final repatriation. Under no circumstance must they be subjected to violence, wilful killing, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. They cannot be taken hostage, nor can their personal dignity be outraged in any fashion. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without a properly constituted judicial process is also outlawed under these Conventions. The wounded and the sick are to be collected and cared for, with the help of an impartial humanitarian body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.The warring parties are also clearly enjoined, at all times, and particularly after an engagement, to immediately search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, and to search for the dead.

These Conventions are, in an intrinsic sense, the internationalcommunity’s response to the ugly brutality of war and the treatment that has been meted out to its victims both ordinary men and women who are caught in its vicious mesh by the mere fact of geographical location as also the personnel who are the main actors in the conflict. The world has had to learn some bitter lessons in the course of the last hundred years that have, according to one estimate, seen 171 million killed in armed conflict, as against the 19.4 million of the 19th century.

Every now and then images from the theatre of war, recollected in tranquility, serve as reminders that no matter what the provocation, there are universal laws that govern even a pursuit that entails the destruction of human life. N. Oshima’s classic cinematic tale, Merry Christmas, Mr La-wrence, which deals with the unspeakable brutalities perpetrated by the Japanese on British prisoners of war, was a remarkable attempt to come to terms with a disturbing legacy.

And then there is this account by an anonymous Japanese whohappened to be a witness to the summary execution of an Allied intelligence officer by the Japanese in March 1943: I glance at the prisoner. He has probably resigned himself to his fate. As though saying farewell to the world, he looks about as he sits in the truck, at the hills, the sea, and seems in deep thought. I feel a surge of pity and turn my eyes away…Major Komai stands up and says to the prisoner, "We are going to kill you." When he tells the prisoner that in accordance with Japanese Bushido he would be killed with a Japanese sword…he listens with bowed head. He says a few words in a low voice. He is an officer, probably a flight lieutenant. Apparently, he wants to be killed with one stroke of the sword….The Major has drawn his favourite sword. It glitters in the light and sends a cold shiver down my spine. He taps the prisoner’s neck lightly with the back of the blade, then raises it above his head with both arms and brings it down with a powerful sweep…’Major Komai, with his taste forsummary execution, is alive and well in several armies of the world. The only way to defeat him and his methods is to bring him to justice. If Pakistan wishes to be seen as a country that respects international conventions, conventions to which it is a signatory, it should ensure that the people behind the torture of the Indian soldiers are brought to justice forthwith. By the same token, the Indian armed forces must never stoop to such barbaric levels when dealing with captured, sick and wounded army personnel from across the border.