Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright has a new book titled “The Mighty and the Almighty : Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs.” Any book by a former Secretary of State is sure to contain interesting new insights but this one also contains a bombshell in the book’s introduction (via Pickled Politics). As he is often prone to do, former President Bill Clinton steals some of the show with this statement:
During my visit to India in 2000, some Hindu militants decided to vent their outrage by murdering thirty-eight Sikhs in cold blood. If I hadn’t made the trip, the victims would probably still be alive. If I hadn’t made the trip because I feared what religious extremists might do, I couldn’t have done my job as president of the United States. The nature of America is such that many people define themselves–or a part of themselves–in relation to it, for or against. This is part of the reality in which our leaders must operate. [Link]
<
p>The incident, in which ~40 Sikhs were killed has come to be known as the Chittisinghpura massacre. The Indian government blamed it on the Pakistan-based Lashkar e Taiyba terrorist group:
Suhail Malik of Sialkot, interviewed by a New York Times correspondent in an Indian prison, has said he had no regret that he participated in the massacre, which coincided with US President Bill Clinton’s visit to India.
Malik said he had opened fire because he had been ordered to do so by his commanders and that he knew nothing about the plot to kill the Sikhs until he stood in an orchard where the 35 people were killed.
“I used my weapons when commanded… We are told what to do and not why. Afterwards, we were told not to talk about it,” 18-year-old Malik said. [Link]
But this account, if it is correct, directly contradicts what Clinton is saying in the introduction. Nitin over at The Acorn brought this to the attention of HarperCollins, the book’s publisher. The Times of India followed up on Nitin’s observation:
Clinton’s office did not return calls seeking comment or clarification, but the book’s publishers Harper Collins routed a correction through Albright’s office acknowledging the error, which was first highlighted on the blog The Acorn (http://acorn.nation alinterest.in/)
“Page xi of the Mighty and the Almighty contains a reference to ‘Hindu militants that will be deleted in subsequent printings, both in America and in international editions. This error was due to a failure in the fact-checking process,” Harper Collins said in a statement e-mailed to TNN by Albright’s office Albright herself was busy promoting her new book on CNN on Wednesday.
But despite the clarification, the howler is bound to give ammunition to both Hindu groups, which have always chaffed at what is seen as US soft-pedalling on ethnic cleansing in Jammu and Kashmir, and Sikh separatist groups, which sought to blame the massacre on the Indian Army and Kashmiri separatist renegades….In his book Engaging India, Clinton’s aide Strobe Talbott similarly expresses American misgivings about the massacre. “From the moment he got off the plane, Clinton spoke about “sharing the outrage” of the Indian people and expressing the “heartbreak” he and others felt about the latest atrocity,” writes Talbott. “He did not endorse the accusation that Pakistan was behind the violence since the US had no independent confirmation.”
What further muddied the episode is the subsequent discovery that five Kashmiri youths who were killed by the army on suspicion of being involved in the Chhatisingpora massacre were innocent of that crime. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>So it seems that regardless of what actions HarperCollins takes, the former U.S. President isn’t sold on the official story. Coincidentally, author Pankaj Mishra has a new book out that also takes a look at Chittisinghpura. The book is titled, “Temptations of the West : How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond.” Here is an excerpt from a review of the book:
A few days later the Indian authorities released pictures of the corpses of the five alleged culprits, who had apparently been killed in a shoot out. The timing of the incident, and Clinton’s implicit endorsement of New Delhi’s account of it, helped to solidify what is now seen as a critical turning point in US-India relations.
So far, so straightforward. Except that a number of sceptics, including Pankaj Mishra, a London-based writer who arrived in the village the following morning, rejected New Delhi’s account. Assisted by a court order that the five bodies be exhumed, local activists proved that the deceased were innocent local Muslims who had been picked up by the authorities, dressed in battle fatigues and then killed in cold blood.
Unusually, none of the various Kashmiri separatist and terrorist groups claimed responsibility for the first massacre. Mishra, an Indian national, is clearly in sympathy with Amnesty International and others who allege that Indian security forces staged both massacres to drive a point home to Clinton.
We will probably never know the full truth in a case that remains officially unresolved. But in a conflict where the reporting of journalists is usually coloured by the “national interest” bias of their respective countries, it is refreshing to find that Mishra does not wear those blinkers. [Link]
<
p>Here is a quick excerpt I found that quotes the Amnesty International report mentioned in the book review above:
The attackers wore uniforms of the armed forces and were led by a tall man whom they addressed as Commanding Officer (CO). All Sikh men were rounded up, ostensibly to check their identities, and made to sit on the ground in two groups against the walls of the gurdwaras [Sikh temples] a few hundred metres from each other; they were shot at point blank range. As the attackers withdrew, they reportedly shouted Hindu slogans. A small bottle of liquor was left behind by them. [Link]
<
p>One of the questions to ask here is if Clinton simply made a mistake in his introduction or if he truly believes in his suspicions regardless of what action HarperCollins takes based upon its fact-checking process. Let’s see if he offers further comment on this.
Update: Here is the Amnesty International Report following the incident.
Only Sikhs Men were killed. Means there were women left behind. Which meant they will tell the world what went on. And even then Indian Army choose to wear its own uniform. Addressed each other by their army designations. Shouted Hindu slogans. – And then you are implying that they were trying to impress upon Clinton that Muslim terrorists are commiting these crimes. I think either they though Americans are dumb or Indian Army itself is. Or may be they outsourced this operation to Bollywood.
BTW Abhi thanks for qouting from ‘Council of Khalistan’ news source. Good job as usual. Hail SantJi.
Southwest Asian, Read carefully. I quoted the Amnesty International report and was quite careful to quote NOTHING else from the Khalistani source. I can write a blog post but I can’t walk you through it unfortunately.
I do believe the Indian army is complicit in various human rights violations in Kashmir and the Northeast but shouting “hindu slogans?” And massacaring sikhs? The Army would be nowhere without Sikhs! Why would they kill them? It makes no sense.
I have updated the post with the AI report. Here is the original quote:
Abhi, So you thought that particular part of the post was credible but not rest of it? Did you try to find it on any other more credible site? I guess you did but couldnt find it. The bells didnt ring in your brain when in same article they qoute another source and start blaming GOI for Air India flight bombing? Oh well Your blog you can put up whatever you want.
Pickled Politics (which I have linked to) has a link to an Outlook Article which gives some possible motivations suggested by some.
Bill,
This is to sincerely thank you for your “bombshell” about Hindu militants killing Sikhs during your India visit. This thanks comes from all those Hindus who tirelessly supported your election and re-election campaigns. Special thanks for all those American Indian organisations who collected millions on your behalf. Not to mention the thanks from various organisations in India who feted you during your visit, wined and dined you and your wife, and presented you with bronze Ganeshas and Saraswatis.
At least you were smart enough to make a U-turn after your presidency. Your wife has already made a U-turn against us by opposing outsourcing and the nuclear deal with India. American Hindus are unfairly upset with your wife and are refusing to endorse her after her recent pronunciations. It’s all due to the new-found agressiveness of Hindus – they just don’t take it lying down anymore. Gandhism has been overshadowed by that malicious disease – Hindutva, which teaches Hindus to make U-turns against those who made U-turns against them.
All in all, I have one question to ask: “What took you so long? It’s been more than five years since you got out of the White House.”
M. Nam
Dude, what aren’t you understanding here? I quoted AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL not a Khalistani source (and I am well aware of what was on that page which is why I was so careful). Just because I linked to that website does it somehow nullify the quote? Please read comment #5 then and stop with your whining.
Moornam, I don’t understand your logic. Is what you are saying that as a Hindu you would no longer support a candidate that believes that Hindus somewhere committed a crime? Wait, never mind. I forgot it was you I was addressing. 🙂
Pickled Politics (which I have linked to) has a link to an Outlook Article which gives some possible motivations suggested by some.
Uhhh that Outlook article talks about how the Indian Army may have rounded up 5 entirely innocent Muslims and shot them as the Chhatisingpora accused (an equally heinous but different crime that has nothing to do with the slaughter of the sikhs).
But in addition to misreading the Outlook article, thanks also for linking to a Khalistani website in your haste to get to the truth (I look forward to links to jihadi websites on SM). I found this other nugget from the Council of Khalistan (aka wild-eyed crazies): “the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs and justify further repression.”
Thanks for putting in link from AI site. Lets now assume that what AI is saying is true. Which mean that it was Renegades(former MUSLIM militants turn pro govt guys) who did it with tactic approval from Armed Forces. And i guess there intention was to impress upon clinton that Pakistran is spreading terror in J&K. And they choose to do this by shouting Hindu slogans? AI is mathmatical calculation here is incomprehensible. If GOI really wanted the attack to look like one done by Pakistani Militants wouldnt they ask the renegades to shout Allah-O-Akbar?
Abhi,
When Khalistani websites claim something ridiculous, I don’t mind it so much. Rabble rousers don’t need evidence or facts to open their mouth.
But when an ex-President of USA quotes events, they must have some semblance of truth in them. They have to be known to the general public as facts, not rumours or hearsay. “Hindu militants killed Sikhs during Clinton visit” belongs in the same category as “Bush administration was behind 911 to facilitate Haliburton making war profits.” When ex-presidents sing looney-tunes, there’s usually an agenda behind it.
M. Nam
One more fact: There have been several attacks on Armed Forces Families stationed in J&K where wifes and small kids of Army men were killed by shooters wearing Army uniform. I am sure AI says that was also done with approval from GOI. Evil democratically elected leaders of India. I heard something on the same line about 9/11 and 7/7 too.
SMR, Have you read any of the comments or are you just jumping in blindly here? I hate having to repeat myself in 50 different ways.
So that I don’t have to waste my time for the next several hours I have now changed the link to point to Amnesty International’s report. Guess what? Same quote.
Any quotes without original commentary and not directly related to discussion of this post will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.
Abhi, I congratulate you for such a great job in cherrypicking passages from different sources. It is also wonderful that you mention that arch traitor, Pankaj Mishra in this context, since it is he with his wonderful investigative reporting, who first started this canard about the Indian Army’s involvement in the massacre. I guess this is why he is now sitting in NY instead of India.
It is interesting to see how easily someone can rely solely on innuendo and “theories” to insinuate things about organizations like the Indian Army. I guess there is something inherently barbaric about us Indians which makes us likely perpetrators of such atrocities.
Also, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Indian Army knows that it is a fiercely secular organization, and “shouting hindu slogans” is something no army unit would do.
This is a post about Clinton and what HE believes. Every source I quote is in order to explain what HIS beliefs may be based upon, inlcuding the one by Mishra that expresses doubt about the original explanation. I have no patience at all for Nationalists who want to read something into this and make idiotic statments based on their own agenda. This is a post first and foremost about how Clinton views a particular incident.
I don’t offer any orginal “theories” above. Everything in my post is a quote from an official source.