Bosnia and Herzegovina: Religious tensions rising.

Date: Tuesday 19 September 2006
Subj: Bosnia and Herzegovina: Religious tensions rising.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.

This comprehensive posting on the rising ethnic-religious tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two parts: an examination of the present situation, and an overview of the history that has created its context.

While the recent religious incidents that triggered this posting might seem to be fairly insignificant, the issues and their potential to inflame conflict are not. In fact the issues emerging in Bosnia and Herzegovina today are reminiscent of those that led to war in 1992. When sparks appear in the midst of an incendiary environment, then regardless of how small they appear, they must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly with the goal of preventing an explosion.

This posting submits that Bosnia and Herzegovina warrants the immediate, diligent attention of religious liberty monitors, advocates and intercessors, as well as peace-makers who can recognise romanticism, embrace realism, and care more about protecting flesh-and-blood than illusory political ideals.

-------------------------------------------------------
BOSNIA: RELIGIOUS TENSIONS RISING
-------------------------------------------------------

On 11 August, an explosion damaged the tomb of Bosnia's 1992-1995 war-time Muslim President, Alija Izetbegovic.

While portrayed by his Western allies as a moderate, Izetbegovic was actually an up-front Islamist backed by Iran. His "Islamic Declaration", first published in 1970, was republished in Sarajevo in 1990 just as Yugoslavia was starting to break apart. Izetbegovic was awarded the King Faisal Award in 1994 and the Figure of the Year in the Islamic World in 2001.

Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration clearly expresses his worldview: "There can be no peace or coexistence between Islamic faith and non-Islamic faith and non-Islamic institutions. The Islamic movement must and can take power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough, not only to destroy the non-Islamic power, but to build up a new Islamic one." And, "Panislamism always came from the very heart of the Muslim peoples, nationalism was always imported stuff."

This is doubtless why, as conflict was escalating in Croatia and Yugoslavia was tearing apart, Izetbegovic withdrew his signature on 28 March 1992 from the 18 March 1992 Lisbon Agreement that had been constructed to prevent conflict in Bosnia by dividing the state into three autonomous entities: Bosniac, Croat and Serb. Two days after withdrawing his signature Izetbegovic illegally called for a referendum on secession despite the objections of the Bosnian Serb minority.

For a critique of Alija Izetbegovic and his role in instigating the Bosnia conflict see "Alija Izetbegovic, 1925-2003", by Damjan de Krnjevic-Miskovic, a Senior Fellow at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. (Link 1)

Izetbegovic's tomb is located in the Kovaci (Martyrs) Cemetery in Sarajevo's Old Town. Nobody was injured in the bombing, which occurred a little after 3 am, and damage to surrounding buildings was slight. Dejan Anastasijevic reported from Belgrade for TIME magazine (29 August), "Most Muslims blamed the Serbs, who for their part insisted that Muslims staged the explosion; the ongoing investigation has so far proved fruitless."

The following week, a group of Muslims forced their way into a Serbian church which has been built on the site of a mosque in eastern Bosnia. (Link 2)

MINOR INCIDENTS - SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The issues fanning tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina today bear a striking resemblance to the issues of 1992 that triggered the Bosnian war. In 1992, war was triggered by calls from Bosnian Islamists, led by Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, for Bosnia to secede from Yugoslavia and become an independent, single, undivided state. This would have placed some 1.3 million Bosnian Serb Christians of the Eastern Orthodox tradition under Muslim and Croat domination in what Islamist openly planned would become an Islamic State. Serb resistance was met with jihad. Fighting was halted through the Dayton Accords (December 1995) which created the independent state of Bosnia and Herzogovina, but divided it into two autonomous entities: the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska (Serb Republic), each with its own government, parliament, army and police.

The issue today is that the West led by the US is agitating for Constitutional reform in Bosnia that will strengthen the central (Muslim dominated) government at the expense of the entities. Ekrem Krasniqi in Brussels and Anes Alic in Sarajevo, wrote for ISN Security Watch in November 2005, "In essence, the constitutional changes aim to reverse the international community's quick-fix measures to end the war, which entailed making ethnic division a political reality - a reality that is no longer feasible in a country hoping to join the EU." (See ISN's "Redefining Bosnia": Link 3)

While the US is not calling for the dismantling of the Republika Srpska, some Bosnian Muslim leaders are. Nicholas Wood reports for the the New York Times, "Haris Silajdzic, a Muslim, a former foreign minister and a presidential candidate, has campaigned against the proposed changes, saying they would leave the Serbian republic in place. The Serbian entity should be abolished and absorbed into a stronger Bosnian state, he contends. That idea, diplomats here say, is unrealistic, but it appeals to nationalist Muslim voters." (Link 2)

Prime minister of Republika Srpska (RS), Milorad Dodik, has said he will never agree to reform police and security forces as demanded by the European Union as a condition for EU association talks. Serb leaders have responded to Islamist calls for the abolition of RS by saying that if moves are made to dissolve RS, then RS will hold a referendum on secession. It is estimated that around 90 percent of Serbs in RS would vote to secede from Bosnia if a referendum were held.

Sulejman Tihic, the Muslim member of Bosnia's three-man rotating presidency said that Serbs wanting to secede could pack their bags and leave but they could not take one inch of Bosnian territory with them.

AKI reports: "RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik retorted that Tihic's statement represented a drastic example of 'hate and chauvinism' which will only further inflame ethnic passions in Bosnia. 'In Tihic's statement one can easily recognise an Islamic concept which sees Bosnia as its exclusive right,' said Dodik. 'Serbs are constituent people in Bosnia [and] claim the same right to the country and to live in it,' said Dodik." (Link 4)

The Islamist principle that "Islamic lands" cannot be seceded is why Bosnian Islamists regard any RS move towards a referendum or secession as unacceptable and doubtless as grounds for jihad. As in 1992, the Serbs would rather face jihad rather than be returned to dhimmitude (the subjugated state of non-Muslims living under Islamic domination).

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

The stated aim of the Constitutional reform is to move Bosnia from "stabilisation" to "transition". The Dayton Accords which ended the 1992-1995 war stabilised Bosnia by separating warring constituents into two entities: the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Republiska Srpska. Now, the West alleges, it is time for Bosnia to transition toward EU membership by strengthening its State institutions at the expense of the entities.

While the Islamists are anxious not to cement any degree of Serb autonomy, the Serbs are anxious not to lose their autonomy. Most Serbs are concerned that the Constitutional reform could simply be a slow road towards the dissolution of RS.

The appeal of Mr Dragan Cavic, the President of Republika Srpska, is simply that the stability brought by the Dayton Accords' division of Bosnia should not be sacrificed in the transition process. "We are committed to success [of transition into Europe] and we need success, but a clear prerequisite of our support should be keeping the Dayton's Entity Status of the Republic of Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . European phase can not replace the Dayton phase. . . . These two cannot confront each other, they can supplement each other." (Link 5)

While economics is the primary subject being openly discussed by EU and US advocates of constitutional reform, behind the scenes the talk is equally of unity, democracy, eliminating ethnic divisions, religious tolerance and other fine-sounding ideals.

ECONOMICS

Bosnia's present set up of two autonomous entities, each with its own parliament, government administration, courts, police force and services, as well as a central government makes for a very expensive system. In fact, around 60 percent of Bosnia's GDP is spent simply maintaining state and entity apparatus, and this is contributing significantly to the weakness of the Bosnian state.

IDEALISM

The less talked about reason behind the US-led drive for constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina is more idealistic. The West still has a desire to "prove" that Muslims and Christians can live together in harmonious, tolerant, democratic, golden Islamic societies, as allegedly in history(!) and in Lebanon(!). And as they will in the new Iraq! It is important to Europe and the US that this human experiment, which is little more than a forced marriage, not fail. If the Bosnia experiment fails, then the prospects for London, Paris and other multicultural, pluralist democracies with rapidly growing Muslim populations are grim.

A hugely important address on this subject was given by Bat Ye'or on 31 August 1995 at the International Strategic Studies Association's Symposium on the Balkan War - "Yugoslavia: Past and Present". Bat Ye'or's address, entitled, "Myths and politics: Origins of the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society", is essential reading for understanding the politics of and international ideals behind Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Link 6)

While intended to unite Bosnian Muslims (Bosniacs), Croats and Serbs under Bosnian nationalism, the proposed constitutional reforms are actually dividing the constituent peoples. A March 2006 nation-wide survey conducted by the International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (Ljubljana, Slovenia) revealed that only 29.3 percent of those surveyed supported the constitutional amendments while 59.8 percent disapproved. (Link 7)

Serbs in the Republika Srpska generally reject the reforms as they strengthen the Muslim-dominated central authority at the expense of the entities, lessening Serb autonomy. The Croats also reject the reforms and are voicing their preference to carve out their own autonomous ethnic entity. Most Bosniac Islamists either support the reforms or want them to be more radical because they conform to Islamist aspirations to strengthen the central (Muslim-dominated) government and extend its powers to all corners of Bosnia.

But Bosniac Islamists who advocate the forcible abolition of the Republika Srpska do not do this with shouts of jihad or with the language of Islamic imperialism. They do this by denouncing ethnic and religious separation and by extolling the virtues of unity, tolerance and democracy, in much the same way that Arab nationalism did. They do this by crying victim and saying the murderous, evil, demonic Serbs should not have any right to self- rule on "Bosnian" (read "Muslim") land.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS: 1 OCTOBER

The proposed constitutional reforms failed to pass a vote in the Bosnian parliament on 27 April, so further discussion has been put off until after the 1 October 2006 parliamentary elections. However, constitutional reform is now an election issue. As the tension and rhetoric escalates, international voices are calling for calm. (Link 8)

------------------------------------------------------------
CREATING CONTEXT: HISTORY'S WEDGES
------------------------------------------------------------

ISLAMIC ERA

From the early 14th Century to the early 20th Century the Serbs and other Southern Slavs lived as persecuted dhimmis, cruelly subjugated under the Islamic imperialism of the Ottoman Empire. During that era most Bosnian Slavs converted to Islam.

As the Ottoman Empire started to crumble Christian Slavs fought for and won their liberation from Islamic rule through the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Yugoslavia was created in 1918 as a Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - all Southern Slavs. But the long history of Islamic repression and persecution and the trauma of the bloody wars that brought it to an end left a wedge between Christian Slavs and Muslims.

(Muslim Slavs live predominantly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They accounted for 8.9 percent of Yugoslavia in the 1981 census but are around 44 percent in modern-day Bosnia.)

WORLD WAR TWO

World War Two saw Yugoslavia split apart. The Axis powers annexed modern-day Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovenia, creating the fascist state of Croatia. They also occupied Serbia which was aligned with the Allies. The "lesser races" - the Serbs, Jews and Gypsies (Romas) - were targeted by the Nazis for extermination.

Some two million Serbs lived in Croatia at the beginning of WW2. Of that number, around one million were killed, around half the remainder were expelled while the other half were forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism under threat of death. Of the Serbs killed, multitudes were murdered by the 20,000-strong Waffen-SS "Handschar" (scimitar) division. This was established in Bosnia by SS head, Heinrich Himmler, and the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, and consisted of Bosnian and some Albanian Muslims.

Around 390,000 Serbs were murdered by the fascist Croat "Ustasa", while between 300,000 and 700,000 Serbs, Jews and Romas, including 20,000 known, named children, were executed by Croat forces in Camp Jasenovac .

The barbarity and horror of the WW2 holocaust in Yugoslavia is concisely documented at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (with an excellent search engine). The terror of those days created a deep wedge between Serbs, and Bosnian Muslims and Croats. Nowhere is this wedge more evident than in Bosnia where Muslims, Croats and Serbs have lived interspersed for centuries.

Most Bosnian Serbs have been raised by parents or influenced by grandparents who are remnant survivors of the Bosniac-Croat attempted genocide of Serbs during the World War Two holocaust in Yugoslavia.

COMMUNIST ERA

After WW2, Josip Broz Tito's Partisans, a Communist-led, anti-Axis resistance movement, recreated Yugoslavia as a federal republic. Tito drew the Bosniacs into his Communist Partisan forces and fostered the creation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a separate Muslim republic.

Serbs were by far the largest ethnic group in Yugoslavia and Tito, a Croat, was determined to destroy Serb hegemony. While Tito was hailed for uniting the warring Slavs under Communism, he actually carved up Yugoslavia, primarily along ethnic lines, but in a way that deliberately weakened the Serbs by ensuring that the republics had large Serb minorities. In fact 42 percent of Serbs were left outside Serbia proper. As Tito advanced his policy of decentralisation, Serb minorities grew anxious. Tito's carve-up of Yugoslavia deliberately created artificial, geographical wedges between Serbs.

ISLAMIST ASCENDENCY

In the early days of the Bosnian war, terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky and Vaughn S Forrest wrote "Iran's European Springboard?", a report for the task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare, the House Research Committee. This report is as hugely significant and relevant today as it was in September 1992. (Link 9)

Bodansky and Forrest describe in detail how Tito's pro-Arab policies unintentionally contributed to the radicalisation of Bosnian Muslims as early as the 1970s. After the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Izetbegovic "renewed his call to implement his Islamic Declaration, began organising an Islamist political movement, and within a few years was thrown in jail for subversion." By the 1980s Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian groups were using Yugoslavia as a base of operations, and Bosniacs were undergoing terrorist and ideological training in Lebanon and Iran.

"Meanwhile," wrote Bodansky and Forrest in 1992, "Iran has also consolidated a Muslim leadership network supportive of Tehran's world view. At the centre of the Iranian system in Europe is Bosnia-Hercegovina's President, Alija Izetbegovic, 'a fundamentalist Muslim and a member of the Fida'iYan-e Islam organisation,' who is committed to the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Bosnia-Hercegovina."

According to Bodansky and Forrest, Izetbegovic developed close cultural and economic ties with Iran. Bodansky and Forrest described the Bosnia War as " . . a proxy battlefield for the future and fortunes of the growing Muslim community of Western Europe".

Terrorism experts including Bodansky assert that the Balkans is integral to Islamist plans for escalation of conflict against Israel, Europe and the USA. According to the experts, Muslim Slavs are being recruited to a "white al-Qaeda" (also known as "white devils") that can be easily deployed for terror operations in the West. (Link 10)

THE CONSEQUENCE OF UNHEALED WEDGES: DIVORCE

It was the deep and valid fear that Serb minorities had of Muslim and Croat domination that led Serb minorities in Croatia and Bosnia to react against Croatian and Bosnian calls for independence and secession. As Yugoslavia broke apart in the early 1990s, around 2 million Serbs faced the prospect of living as minorities under Muslim and Croatian rule.

Civil war erupted as Serbs sought to guarantee their future liberty and security by redrawing the borders to form a Greater Serbia. The Bosniacs and Croats, not believing a Greater Serbia had a right to exist, fought against the Serbs to ensure no territory was lost. As is common in war, atrocities and criminal acts were committed by all sides.

For a Bosniac Islamist such as President Alija Izetbegovic the fight was not primarily about nationalism but about Islamic lands. This was a jihad for which they had the support of their allies in Iran, Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda. According to Bodansky, on 29 July 1992, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Hussayn Khamene'i gave a sermon in which he described the war in Bosnia as a US-led Western/Christian campaign "against the Islamic wave throughout the world", and he exhorted Muslims worldwide to mobilise and join the jihad for Islam in Europe.

And join they did, by the thousands. The Dayton Accords gave the foreign mujahideen 30 days to leave Bosnia. However, it appears that multitudes of mujahideen did not leave but instead were granted citizenship.

Today a Bosnian state commission is reviewing 1,500 citizenships granted post-war to foreign mujahideen. The commission head, Vjekoslav Vukovic, says many names on the list are linked to al-Qaeda and international terrorist organisations. So far 400 of the 1,500 names have been reviewed and 50 citizenships have been revoked. AKI reports, "Kadrija Kolic, a lawyer for several naturalised citizens, has said that it was a 'crime' to revoke the citizenship of the former fighters, as they had been granted by the wartime government of Bosnia's late president Alija Izetbegovic." (Link 11)

DEMONISATION: A WEDGE WITH THE WORLD

The Serbs as a people have been collectively demonised. This has resulted in a pervasive anti-Serb mindset that is irrational and unjust. Much like modern anti-Semitism, anti-Serbism has been built on the exaggerations, lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda professionally churned out by expert Islamist PR and media agents to lazy, gullible, predominantly left-wing journalists.

It was primarily through strategic disinformation and propaganda the Islamists also managed to win the support of a US regime that was keen, (according to the opinion of some analysts), to repay debts incurred to Iran after supporting Iraq in the Iran Iraq war.

According to Bodansky and Forrest, the Serb siege on Sarajavo caused Izetbegovic to become convinced "that it was necessary to undertake drastic measures of a kind that had long been advocated by Tehran. The Iranians had argued that before any escalation in the fighting could take place, it was imperative to either gain the sympathies of the West or at the least to ensure that there existed a legitimate excuse that would enable the presentation of any action undertaken by Muslim forces as justifying revenge for Serbian atrocities.

"To that end, beginning in May 1992, a special group of Bosnian Muslim forces, many of whom had served with Islamist terrorist organisations, began committing a series of atrocities, including 'some of the worst recent killings,' against Muslim civilians in Sarajevo 'as a propaganda ploy to win world sympathy and military intervention.'

"A UN investigation concluded that several key events, mostly strikes against civilians, that had galvanised public opinion and governments in the West to take bolder action in Bosnia- Hercegovina, were in fact 'staged' for the Western media by the Muslims themselves in order to dramatise the city's plight. Investigations by the UN and other military experts count among these self-inflicted actions the 'bombing of the bread queue' (May 27), the 'shelling' of Douglas Hurd's visit (July 17), the 'explosion in the cemetery' (August 4), and the killing of ABC producer David Kaplan (August 13). In all these cases, Serbian forces were out of range, and the weapons actually used against the victims were not those claimed by the Bosnian authorities and the Western media."

The popular narrative of Srebrenica is just as fictional. "The Srebrenica Report" is essential reading for those seeking to understand Srebrenica, "the politics of war crimes" and how Islamists have turned strategic disinformation into both a weapon of war and an art form. It is a high-level report conducted over three years by professional researchers and former UN officials. The following information comes from various reports on their site. (Link 12)

According to General Sefer Halilovic, Commander of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 5,500 soldiers of the Muslim Army's 28th Division were stationed at "safe-haven" Screbrenica with sophisticated arms, including anti-tank weapons. He also confirmed to The Hague Tribunal that when the Serb force of some 200 men and five tanks entered the town on 11 July it was nearly empty.

In the weeks before the Serb capture of Srebrenica, the Bosnian government of President Izetbegovic in Sarajevo withdrew Srebrenica's most significant Islamist militant leaders (including the infamous mass-murderer, Naser Oric, who liked to be filmed torturing, beheading and mutilating his Serb victims) and sent them for retraining in Zenica. This left the 28th Division virtually leaderless.

Muslim soldiers were then ordered to launch provocations against surrounding Serb villages. When the Serbs responded, advancing from the south, the Muslim soldiers retreated north. Former UN Deputy Director of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, reports: "Muslim forces did not even try to take advantage of their heavy artillery . . . Military resistance would jeopardise the image of 'victim' which had been so carefully constructed, and which the Muslims considered so vital to maintain." Many UN and other observers concluded that Izetbegovic sacrificed the town for political purposes.

The Muslim claim that 8,000 unarmed civilian Muslim men and boys had been executed in Srebrenica by Serb soldiers triggered the American and NATO bombing raids on the Serbs. This in turn gave motivation for the Muslim-Croat alliance which effected - with US sanction - the August 1995 ethnic cleansing of up to 250,000 Serbs from western Bosnia in Operation Storm.

Today, 11 years after the Srebrenica massacre, that claim still stands despite the fact that the figure of 8,000 was only the Red Cross' list of "missing", the majority of whom were simply displaced. After 11 years of searching and of forensic investigations led by teams of international experts around 2,000 bodies have been found buried in Srebrenica, and that number is made up of victims of US and NATO bombs, Muslim Bosnian Army soldiers who died of battle wounds, Serbs, and Muslim victims of execution-style killing. (Between 200 and 300 blindfolds and ligatures were exhumed with bodies.)

Quoting former UN Civilian Affairs Co-ordinator Phillip Corwin, the senior UN civilian official in Bosnia at the time of the capture of Srebrenica, "What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Muslims by Serbs, but rather a series of very bloody attacks and counterattacks over a three-year period which reached a crescendo in July 1995. Moreover it is likely that the number of Muslim dead was probably no more than the number of Serbs that had been killed in Srebrenica and its environs in the three preceding years by Naser Oric and his predatory gangs. But my point here is not to argue equivalence, but to expose distortion."

According to Corwin, the official version of events at Srebrenica has been a "campaign of disinformation that has all but buried the facts along with the bodies".

The American government perpetuates the myth of a massacre of unparalleled evil to justify its alliance with Islamist forces. It is highly probable though, that if the Islamic terror attacks of 11 September 2001 had occurred a decade earlier the US may have been less hasty to enter a conflict as allies of Iran and al-Qaeda- backed Islamists. They may have been less quick to bomb European Eastern Orthodox Christians based primarily on reports churned out by the same Islamist propaganda machines that have since given us "Genocide in Jenin" and other tall tales.

CONCLUSIONS

While the sectarian incidents that triggered this posting seem relatively insignificant, the issues are in fact highly significant and reminiscent of those that led to war in 1992.

If Tito's borders are inviolable and a Greater Serbia is not to be, then the Serbs of Republika Srpska need the assurance that they can maintain a high degree of autonomy in this forced marriage and not be returned to dhimmitude. They will face jihad (again) rather than be returned to dhimmitude.

The strategy of the Islamists on their road to the creation of an Islamic State, is to use disinformation to collectively demonise the Serbs so as to isolate them from those who should be their friends and allies. The Islamist aim is to ensure the world regards Serb peace as undeserved and Serb suffering as justice, establishing the foundation for Western support of the Islamist agenda.

Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au

Links

1) Obituary: Alija Izetbegovic, 1925-2003
by Damjan de Krnjevic-Miskovic, The National Interest, 22 October 2003

2) Ethnic tensions rising as Bosnian vote nears
By Nicholas Wood, The New York Times. 27 August 2006
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/27/news/bosnia.php
BOSNIA: late Muslim leader's tomb blown up. Sarajevo, 11 August (AKI)
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.329887870&par=

3) Redefining Bosnia. 15 Nov 2005
By Ekrem Krasniqi in Brussels and Anes Alic in Sarajevo for ISN Security Watch.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13521

4) BOSNIA: Serbs deem Muslim leader's comments 'irresponsible'. Sarajevo, 25 August 2006 http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.334008026&par=0

5) Welcoming speech of The President of the Republic of Srpska,
Mr. Dragan Cavic, At the opening of the Scientific Meeting,
"The Republic of Srpska - 10 years of the Dayton Peace Accords" 12 May 2005 http://www.predsjednikrs.net/engleski/stranice/govori/Dayton-2005.htm

6) BAT YE'OR, 31 August 1995
Myths and Politics: Origin or the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society
For the International Strategic Studies Association
Symposium on the Balkan War - "Yugoslavia: Past and Present"
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/pre-wwOne/Ye_Or.html

7) B-H Constitutional changes without citizens' support!
Author: IFIMES. Uploaded: Tuesday, 25 April, 2006
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2193

8) BOSNIA: Top envoy appeals for calm ahead of poll. Sarajevo, 18 August 2006 http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.331777836&par=0

9) IRAN'S EUROPEAN SPRINGBOARD?
Yossef Bodansky and Vaughn S. Forrest. 1 September 1992
Task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare, House Republican Research Committee,

10) Terrorism: Local manpower key to new al-Qaeda strategy, expert. Belgrade, 30 August 2006
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.334824252&par=0
Terrorists from Balkans could reach into Europe. 13 Sept 2006
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51954

11) 50 Al-Qaeda sympathizers lose citizenship. 5 Sept 2006
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.336787118&par=0
Bosnia rules to revoke citizenships
By Anes Alic in Sarajevo for ISN Security Watch (14/07/06)
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=16390

12) Srebrenica and the Politics of War Crimes
Findings of the Srebrenica Research Group into the allegations of events and the background leading up to them, in Srebrenica, Bosnia & Herzegovina, in 1995.
http://www.srebrenica-report.com/

India: Laws leave Church vulnerable to Hindutva intolerance.

Date: Thursday 24 August 2006
Subj: India: Laws leave Church vulnerable to Hindutva intolerance.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.


Some further clarification can be offered concerning the recent Supreme Court ruling in India whereby the Supreme Court, in one ruling, clarified two issues: that police do not require a warrant to arrest those accused of proselytisation; and that while courts may not take cognizance of an offence without a warrant, a magistrate's remanding an accused to judicial custody does not amount to taking cognizance of an offence. (For background, see earlier WEA RLC posting: "India: Supreme Court ruling will greatly advance persecution." Link 1)

Some Indian dailies reported quite erroneously that no sanction was required to try a conversion case. Some advocates claim that the ruling cannot be used a precedent as it only applies to the Karnataka case of Pastor Raju, while others note that in case law any ruling may be used as a precedent. Some analysts believe that because the law has not actually been changed, only clarified, it can be assumed that nothing else will change and Christians will not be adversely affected. Many observers wonder why the issue of conversions is even relevant in Karnataka when there is no anti-conversion legislation in that state.

There have been many question and varied opinions and I will endeavour here to expand and clarify my analysis – that the ruling will serve to advance persecution – on the basis of the further information and opinion received. Two submissions have been added as an appendix to the posting.

------------------------------------------
INDIAN PENAL CODE

Pastor Raju was not charged under State anti-conversion legislation as none exists in Karnataka. He was charged under Article 153B of the Indian Penal Code which is applicable across all India. (Link 2)

Under Article IPC 153B it is a criminal, jailable offence to make or publish any assertion concerning religion (or race or caste etc) that causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons.

These kinds of religious laws can be easily exploited and abused to make the victim indictable for the hatred and disharmonious, unsettling, even violent acts of an intolerant aggressor. In the present hostile climate, those who engage in peaceful religious expression will need to be pro-actively protected from the schemes of the intolerant.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

The Supreme Court ruling simply clarified two elements of Section 196(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): No Court shall take cognizance of an offence involving inducement for conversion unless the prosecution has obtained previous sanction of the Central government or of the state government or of the district magistrate.

FIRSTLY: the Supreme Court ruling clarified that Section 196 (1-A) clearly refers to court procedure and not to police procedure. Courts require warrants before they can take cognizance of an offence, but police do not.

As noted in the previous WEA RLC posting on this issue, the police have until now followed the procedure laid down for courts and sought warrants. The Supreme Court has simply clarified that the police are not required to do that. The police may legally arrest an accused, and, according to the CrPC, have 24 hours to present the accused before a magistrate who will rule as to whether the accused should be release on bail or remand to judicial custody.

SECONDLY: the Supreme Court ruling clarified what it means to "take cognizance" of an offence. The Supreme Court has declared that a magistrate's remanding of an accused to judicial custody is not the same as taking cognizance of an offence. Therefore the magistrate does not require a warrant in order to remand the accused to judicial custody.

Normally it has been assumed that a magistrate makes the decision to release on bail or remand to prison on the basis of their consideration of several factors, such as the degree of threat the accused poses to the community and the risk that they might flee or hinder the investigation. This decision is presumably made on the grounds of evidence. One would assume that such a decision, made on evidence, would require some degree of taking cognizance of the offence.

So the situation is: police do not require a warrant to arrest anyone accused of hurting religious feelings or creating religious disharmony. The police may then hold the accused for 24 hours before they have to present them before a magistrate who may then, without a warrant and without (allegedly) giving cognizance to the offence, remand the accused to judicial custody.

In essence the law has not been changed. However, misconceptions that had served to restrain police, slow down procedures and prevent abuses, have been removed. So in reality, while the law has not changed, the heat on the ground surely will, especially in the present climate of resurgent Hindutva and anti-proselytising hysteria – a hysteria driven by the fear-inducing, anger-inciting disinformation and propaganda campaigns of Hindutva forces that equate Christian gospel witness and service with an alleged American conspiracy to subvert and control India. (See "The Hindu Nation and its enemies", in the current edition of the Hindutva journal, The Organiser, Link 3)

Now that India's laws concerning religion have been clarified, it is difficult to imagine that those with malicious intent to hamstring and silence Christians will not rush to exploit and abuse these laws to further escalate the persecution of the Church in India and reap the political gain that comes from fear mongering.

Elizabeth Kendal

Links

1) India: Supreme Court ruling will greatly advance persecution.
WEA RLC News & Analysis. 10 August 2006.
http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/view.htm?id=659

2) Indian Penal Code: http://www.indialawinfo.com/bareacts/ipc.html
Article 153B is one of several sections in the IPC that refer to promoting enmity between religious groups and hurting religious sentiments. See also 153A, and Chapter XV : Of Offences Relating to Religion

3) The Hindu Nation and its enemies
By Sandhya Jain. 27 August 2006
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=145&page=33

--------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX

To assist those following, and trying to make sense of this situation, I have copied here two submissions

The first submission comes from the Global Council of Indian Christians, who, motivated by the numerous enquiries they received after the news of the Supreme Court ruling broke, obtained a copy of the Supreme Court ruling and elicited a legal opinion upon it from a senior counsel of the High Court. Here, copied in full, is the legal opinion of that senior counsel.

"Opinion regarding Judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court of India

Dated: 4-8-2006, Case # 814 of 2006.
(Pastor Raju, Channapatna, Karnataka (Respondent) Petitioner- State of Karnataka)

"The following points arise for the purpose of rendering an opinion regarding the judgment.

"At the outset it may be noted that the said judgment has considered the effect of Section 196(1-A) CR.PC. The court has not gone into the merits of the case and has proceeded to give a finding on two aspects; firstly, whether sanction of the central government, state government or district magistrate is required to prosecute a person under section 153-B IPC and secondly, the court has proceeded to give a finding whether an order remanding an accused to judicial custody amounts to taking cognizance of an offence.

"It is noticed that the said judgment pertains only to this particular case and since the settled position of law has been referred to in the body of the judgment. This order may not act as a precedent. Moreover the Honorable Supreme Court has made a categorical statement that the observations made in the said order are only for a limited purpose to decide the appeal. Since the matter was decided in a narrow compass and the trial being still open, the said judgments may not have any repercussions on the merits of the case."

---------------------------------------

The second submission is from the Christian Legal Association of India which explains, without analysis or comment, the legal meaning of the ruling.

Legal opinion on Pastor Raju vs. State of Karnataka

Many national dailies, referring to a recent judgment the Supreme Court of India claimed that "No sanction was needed for trying conversion cases", leading to wide scale speculation on the implications in the event of arrest of person under sections 153 B of the Indian Penal Code. Most papers have, however, reported the judgment erroneously.

Contrary to newspaper reports, the Supreme Court has not negated the need for sanction as required under section 196 but has decided a very narrow point of law. First, that an order of remand does not amount to taking of cognizance of the offence and second that the High Court ought not to have interfered with and quashed the entire proceedings in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the matter was still at the investigation stage.

Section 196 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates sanction from the central or state government or of the district magistrate concerned for prosecution of offences under Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 482 Cr.P.C. gives inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court.

In the present case, the Supreme Court was merely making a distinction between taking cognizance of an offence by the court and registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation.

The judgment states that "a plain reading of Section 196 Cr.P.C. will show that no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of Indian Penal Code or a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate. The opening words of the Section are 'No Court shall take cognizance' and consequently the bar created by the provision is against taking of cognizance by the Court. There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. If a criminal case is registered, investigation of the offence is done and the police submits a report as a result of such investigation before a Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate, there will be no violation of Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. and no illegality of any kind would be committed."

Drawing on various previous judgments the Supreme Court observed that "taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. The Court further observed that it is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons."

Court has stated that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same thing as issuance of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the Court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out.

In the present case neither any complaint had been filed nor any police report had been submitted nor had any information been given by any person other than the police officer before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. After the FIR had been lodged and a case had been registered under Section 153-B IPC, the respondent was arrested by the police and thereafter he had been produced before the Magistrate. The Magistrate had merely passed an order remanding him to judicial custody.

Further the court observed that in this present case the High Court had acted in haste to quash the FIR even though the investigation had only just commenced. The petition was allowed by the High Court while the investigation was still under progress. No report as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted by the in charge of the police station concerned to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.

Christian Legal Association of India
c/o Evangelical Fellowship of India
805/92, Deepali Building,
Nehru Place, New Delhi
Pin: 110019
India
Tel: +91-11-26431133
Fax: +91-11-26285350
Email: cla@airtelbroadband.in
Email2: christian.lawyers@gmail.com

India: Supreme Court ruling will greatly advance persecution.

Date: Thursday 10 August 2006
Subj: India: Supreme Court ruling will greatly advance persecution.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.


On Friday 4 August 06, India's Supreme Court ruled that police do not require warrants in order to lodge First Issue Reports (FIRs), arrest and detain anyone accused of involvement in religious conversion activities.

HINDU TALIBAN

Clearly this ruling opens the door for police with Hindutva sympathies to act as Hindu Taliban. It also opens the door for Hindutva forces to employ corrupt and sympathetic police as their agents of persecution.

Nuns, pastors, bishops and evangelists, as well as Christian aid workers, teachers and social workers, are all immediately at risk of arrest and imprisonment because of their Christian witness. In fact every Christian, actively witnessing or not, is at risk from hostile elements that may exploit the opportunity to bring false charges against them, inspired by a variety of motives, in the same manner that the blasphemy law is exploited for personal gain in Pakistan.

NO SANCTION REQUIRED

The Times of India reports: "Despite the bar on courts to take cognizance of an offence relating to proselytisation without the prosecution obtaining prior sanction either from the Central government, state government or the district magistrate, the police can lodge FIRs and arrest those indulging in such activity, the court has ruled." (Link 1)

"A Bench comprising Justices G P Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari said police do not require prior sanction of anybody in lodging an FIR or arresting a religious leader, if there is a complaint of proselytisation against him."

Previously the practice had been that police would follow Section 191(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Times of India explains, "Section 191(1-A) of CrPC says that 'no court shall take cognizance' of an offence involving inducement for conversion unless the prosecution has obtained previous sanction of the 'Central government or of the state government or of the district magistrate'." This protected religious leaders from harassment at the hands of police.

By its ruling, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between courts taking cognizance of an offence pertaining to proselytisation, and police lodging FIRs and arresting the religious figures alleged to be proselytising. So courts require a warrant before they hear a proselytism case, but police do not require a warrant to file criminal charges or to arrest and detain those so accused – those who should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

TRIGGER

In January 2005, Pastor Paulraj Raju of Kanartaka state was beaten by local Hindus and later arrested by local police on charges of attempting to convert Hindus. A criminal case was registered against Pastor Raju on 15 January 2005. His wife filed a petition against the arrest on 27 January 2005 and the proceedings were quashed by the Karnataka High Court on 23 February 2005, while the investigation was continuing, on the grounds that police had arrested Pastor Raju and registered the case without first obtaining a warrant and therefore the proceedings were illegal. Pastor Raju was released on 3 March 2005. However, the Karnataka government then appealed against the High Court order which quashed the case against him.

FAMILIAR WITH PERSECUTION

Pastor Paulraj Raju is familiar with persecution. He was attacked also on 1 May 2005. On that occasion he was so badly beaten he required hospitalisation. According to Compass Direct around 60 people were meeting in Pastor Raju's home in Mangalwarapete village near the Mysore district in Karnataka state when a 500-strong mob of Hindu militants and nationalists entered and violently attacked Pastor Raju, his wife, and other Christians, leaving both Pastor Raju and his wife bleeding profusely.

SUPREME COURT EXPLAINS RULING – DENIES MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

The Times of India reports: "The [Supreme] court explained that absence of prior sanction, a mandatory pre-requisite for a court to take cognizance of such offence, would not prevent a magistrate from remanding to police or judicial custody of an accused arrested by the police for the offence of proselytisation.

"There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a chargesheet against the accused in such cases, Justice Mathur, writing for the Bench, said.

"Mere production of the arrested accused before the magistrate and the latter remanding him to custodial detention does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence, for which alone prior sanction is required, the Bench said."

IndLaw.com reports: "The apex court further ruled 'The specified authority empowered to grant sanction does so after applying its mind to the material collected during the course of investigation. There is no occasion for grant of sanction soon after FIR is lodged nor such a power can be exercised before completion of the investigation and collection of the evidence. Therefore the whole premises on the basis of which the proceedings have been quashed by the high court is wholly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside." (Link 2)

IndLaw continues: "The Supreme Court in its concluding remarks observed, 'Power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any court but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. This being the settled legal position, the high court ought not to have interfered with and quashed the entire proceedings in exercise of power conferred by section 482 Cr P C when the matter was still at the investigation stage.'

"The apex court also described as wholly unjustified the sweeping remarks made by the High Court that initiation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of the courts process court and miscarriage of justice."

That a person can be arrested and detained without warrant is indeed a gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of human rights. It will certainly advance the Hindutva agenda and the persecution of Christians in India.

Elizabeth Kendal

Links

1) SUPREME COURT'S NEW RULING ON PROSELYTISATION
Proselytisation FIR needs no sanction
by Dhananjay Mahapatra. 7 August 2006
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1863281.cms

2) Don't Quash Criminal Proceedings Till Probe Complete: SC To HC
6 August 2006
http://www.indlawnews.com/D9D8A6563E6C58013B1D68E8EA1D2E38