Talk:Radhabinod Pal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Neutrality

I wish to challenge the neutrality of this article. It clearly looks upon Pal's dissenting opinion from the very same 'Western' worldview that he was seeking to highlight and dismiss as being inapplicable to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.98.24 (talk)

[edit] International Law?

I am reading an article by Ashis Nandy, called "The Other Within," and it states that Pal was not trained in international law and whatever he did know about it, he acquired in Tokyo. Therefore should the line about Pal being an expert in international law be taken out?

There is one idiot in every crowd. We save this guys country from having to learn Japanese and this is the thanks we get. This is why I am against the International Criminal Court. Too many third worlders with strange concepts of law and order.

It seems to me that many lawyers involved with the post-WWII Far Eastern war crimes trials found them to be more about revenge than justice. I suggest looking at the circumstances surrounding General Yamashita's conviction and execution on highly spurious charges that would never have stood in a fair court. Such "justice" throws mud on the reputation of the West. And sign your comments. Kensai Max 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the so called Tokyo Trail was more or less victor's justice. Saving a country from invasion by an agressor is undoubtly a noble act, but the motivation for America to join WWII was pretty much a result of self-interest thinking (yeah right, I forgot, America was "forced" to join the war 'cause it was "ambushed" "without any reason" by the "evil Japs" - and hey look, there's Santa Clause riding Rudy the Reindeer...^^). As a matter of fact, the Japanese committed quite a lot of crimes against humanity during WWII (not only the Nanking Massacre or experiments involving biological warfare in Korea and China), as did the Germans or the Italians. BUT believe it or not, also the American Forces, the Russian Red Army in Europe or the British committed war crimes (raping women and children, annihilating whole cities without any (!) military reason or importance just as an act of retaliation - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Cologne,... -, building concentration camps for Japanese residents in the US - where they were forced to vegetate under worst circumstances and quite many of them died due to the inhuman treatment by the american officials - an so on...). Sure, this doesn't fit the Hollywood-image of the "good" american GI or british rifleman risking his life to battle the "evil" Axis-powers - but unfortunately, the world isn't only black and white and as I stated above those crimes did happen and there were many of them (of course, they don't cover hardly any negative aspect of the angelic allied armies in Hollywood-movies, nor do they teach them in history class in the US or in the UK).

So I think, it is of course necessary to put people, who committed crimes against humanity during any war, on trial, BUT this includes also people on the winning side. You cannot claim them to stand above the law or even above humanity (also see -> Abu Ghraib). The bombing of Nagasaki just 3 days after the - arguably war-shortening - bombing of Hiroshima was in NO way justifiable. People who know of the laggardness of the chain of command in the military as well as in politics and bureaucracy (and I am pretty sure, the American Authorities knew) also know that it was simply not possible for the Japanese leaders to gain information on what happened in Hiroshima, proccessing it, discussing the result and handing in the unconditional surrender within only 3 days, especially if you consider that the whole infrastructure e.g. telephones and the like were completely destroyed, so that it took Tokyo more than 24 hours only to realize what happend there! But, ' hey we still got this plutonium-core type nuclear weapon, so what the heck... let's test it too. Hundreds of thousands of civilians dying...? Ahh, c'mmon - they're only Japs, so what...?! ' - right? ' And those evil Nazi-civilians in remote Dresden... What? Not only Nazis living there? Also democrats, socialists and people from the resistance; evil Nazi-women, evil Nazi-children and evil Nazi-babies; people who actually hated the regime and hoping for a quick end of the war...? So what! They bombed London and Coventry so let's pay it back! Yeehaw! ' Well, is that how the morally superior victors of WWII were thinking during the war? Doesn't sound very morally superior to me...

Another example? Here you go: Due to the specific (!) policy of Gen. Eisenhower, about one milion german soldiers died during their imprisonment in allied POW-camps! One million POWs! Additional to approximately 5,7 million civilians who were not provided with enough food to survive even though the food actually was there. But it was held back on orders by the american military officials. Ahhh rrrhight must have been all Nazis of course, so what?! American military governor Lucius Dubignon Clay (who later helped the Germans a lot because then, they were needed during the cold war against the Soviets) on that: "Let the Germans suffer!" A truly blazing example of humanitarianism... Other examples can be found easily, well, if you are not afraid of the inconvenient truth, that is.

So, of course, hang the soldiers, general officers, politicians and bureaucrats who committed war crimes and crimes against humanitiy, but deal with them in this way on BOTH sides. Hang Tojo Hideki, hang Kimura Heitaro, hang Hermann Goering and hang Ernst Kaltenbrunner. But then - also do so with the war criminals on the allied/soviet side (Truman, Eisenhower, Patton, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, Georgy Zhukov,...). According to my understanding of the term "justice", anyone who committes crimes has to be put to trial, not only people from the other side, am I wrong? I don't think so, maybe only a little naive ;-)

But, as we all know, they did not bring them to trial - they never do. War trials are always based on victor's justice, no matter what country won the war. That's just the way it works - just don't assume that the allies during WWII have all been gleaming knights in shiny armour fighting "the evil" in a holy war...

And maybe that's just what Mr. Pal was thinking (by the way: Mr. Pal - an idiot?! He was not just an eminently respectable jurist and scholar but also the ONLY (!) judge in the whole trial who had some experience in international law; all the others allied jurists were ingenuous on that field of law and were vastly influenced by the american administration and the US Army - mainly Gen. MacArthur, who basically decided by himself who was to be sentenced to death and who was still needed by the US after the war and was therefore to be spared. So I ask you, who were the idiots? Ah, I forgot, anyone who dares to criticize impeccable America must, by some myterious law of nature, be an idiot, right?! Especially when he's from a third world country with all their "strange concepts of law and order"... What a profound attitude, Sir^^) Btw, I am neither Japanese, German or Indian nor an Arabian - and I am also not a third worlder, sorry ;-) --134.96.76.227 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He wouldn't have ruled the way he did if Japan had actually invaded India and burned a couple villages. The guy's a joke, especially when it comes to comprehending an "invasive" war. Blueshirts 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They did. I am startled by the extent of your knowledge. Hornplease 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Motive"

The article specifically says that the "high procedural standards" of Pal's jurisprudence as displayed before and after this decision indicates that narrow politics are not a useful explanation. Please do not reintroduce the segment without drastic re-editing to indicate that. Hornplease 08:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Much of it is in any case based on Roling's recollection, which is somewhat self-serving. Pal never confirmed the 'just war'-sympathy with Japan theory, except in general terms about admiration for Japan, which was common among that generation of Indians.Hornplease 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the article specifically says "[Pal] used legal arguments to excuse the charges against Japan's orders, but it was a political logic of anti-imperialism that directed him to do so". And "as an Easterner was to support the East in its struggle to resist and separate itself from the West". His anti-western imperialism stance was very clear in his dissenting opinion. Blueshirts 08:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that reporting a mistaken view. The conclusion is that "high procedural standards" are at least as likely. Please do not keep re-inserting this. Hornplease 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article goes into detail on Pal's politics behind his highly legal arguments and you can't possibly exclude this from the article. "While delcining to find Japan guilty of waging aggresive war, [Pal] indicated that the Allied Powers were guilty of committing aggression in Asia". Blueshirts 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, part of an argument which you are quoting out of context. Please. The point being made was that Pal's concern with the legality of the tribunal provided a possible reason for what may appear contradictory statements. Quote from the conclusion rather than the middle of the article. That is simple, basic research methodology. Hornplease 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of context? Yes the article is about the inadequacy of a ex post facto military tribunal but also goes into length about the motivations behind his seemingly highly legal but not exactly moral or just dissent opinion. Trying to whitewash this fact does not cut it. Blueshirts 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It reports the political context as one of anti-imperialism. It reports that Bose and the INA were popular in India. All this is for, presumably, the underinformed who did not already know that. It further reports that one of Pal's fellow judges made a claim about his motives. Yes, that's a reliable source. That's the extent of the basis of your re-insertion, and it is insufficient. The article starts off by indicating it wishes to specifically discredit the crippled viewpoint you appear to wish this article to espouse. Hornplease 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the article merely states that Pal's legal reasonings in this landmark decision should more or less offset any political leanings. Blueshirts 18:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote to substantiate. From the conclusion. You have paraphrased a tiny passage poorly in your interpolated section. Pal's politics were completely mainstream for Indians, as the article spells out, and to claim that was 'motive' is selective, misrepresentative, and OR.Hornplease 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"the high procedural standard to which Pal worked should more than balance the charge that he dissented over the Rape of Nanking for narrowly political reasons" and also the previous quote are both from the conclusion. Blueshirts 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The 'charge'. Which the author points out on p 677 is unfair. Please read that page. If necessary I will quote the entire passage, but I don't see why I should if you have the paper with you. Hornplease 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

look, I have reinstated both his political background balanced with his presumed technical "excellence" in his legal reasoning. If you are so bent on removing such information I have nothing else to treat it other than vandalism. Blueshirts 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)