Radhabinod Pal was an Indian jurist, who was a member of the United Nations’ International Law Commission from 1952 to 1966. He was the only South Asian person appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East’s trials of Japanese war crimes committed during the Second World War. Among all the judges of the tribunal, he was the only one who submitted a judgment which insisted all defendants were not guilty. The Yasukuni Shrine and the Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine have monuments specially dedicated to Judge Pal.
Radhabinod Pal was born in 1886 in the small village of Salimpur, Kushtia District, now a part of Bangladesh. He studied mathematics and constitutional law at Presidency College, Calcutta (now Kolkata), and the Law College of the University of Calcutta.
Pal was a major contributor to the formulation of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922. The British Government of India appointed Pal as a legal advisor in 1927. He worked as professor at the Law College of the University of Calcutta from 1923 till 1936. Pal became a judge of the Calcutta High Court in 1941 and ViceC hancellor of the University of Calcutta in 1944.
He was asked to represent India as a member of the tribunal of judges officiating at the Tokyo Trials in 1946. In deliberations with judges from 10 other countries, Pal was highly critical of the prosecution’s use of the legal concept of conspiracy in the context of pre-war decisions by Japanese officials. He also maintained that the tribunal should not retrospectively apply (nullapoena sine lege) the new concept of Class A war crimes – waging aggressive (also known as crimes against peace) – and crimes against humanity (that had already been used ex post facto at the Nuremberg Trials). Hence Pal dissented from the tribunal’s verdicts of guilt in the cases of defendants charged with Class A war crimes. His reasoning also influenced the judges representing the Netherlands and France, and all three of these judges issued dissenting opinions. However, under the rules of the tribunal, all verdicts and sentences were decided by a majority of the presiding judges.
Pal was the father of nine daughters (Shanti Rani, Asha Rani, Leela Rani, Bela Rani, Nilima, Roma Rani, Renu Kana, Lakshmi Rani and Smriti Kana) and five sons (Prasanta Kumar, Pradyot Kumar, Pronab Kumar, Pratip Bijoy and Pratul Kumar). One son, Pronab Kumar Pal, also became a lawyer (a barrister), as did a son-in-law, Debi Prasad Pal (who also served as a judge of the Calcutta High Court and Indian Minister of State for Finance).
While finding that ‘the evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war’, he produced a judgment questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and its rulings. He held the view that the legitimacy of the tribunal was suspect and questionable, because the spirit of retribution, and not impartial justice, was the underlying criterion for passing the judgment.
I would hold that every one of the accused must be found not guilty of every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted on all those charges.
Judge Pal never intended to offer a juridical argument on whether a sentence of not guilty would have been a correct one. However, he argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan and expected Japan to act.
In his lone dissent, Judge Pal refers to the trial as a “sham employment of legal process for the satisfaction of a thirst for revenge.” According to Norimitsu Onishi, while he fully acknowledged Japan’s war atrocities – including the Nanjing massacre – he said they were covered in the Class B and Class C trials.
Furthermore, he believed that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the use of the atom bomb by the United States from the list of crimes, and judges from the vanquished nations on the bench, signified the “failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate.” In this he was not alone among Indian jurists of the time, one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than “a sword in a wig”. Fear of American nuclear power was an international phenomenon following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The American occupation of Japan ended in 1952, after Tokyo signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty and accepted the Tokyo trials’ verdict. The end of the occupation also lifted a ban on the publication of Judge Pal’s 1,235-page dissent, which Japanese nationalists used as the basis of their argument that the Tokyo trials were biased.
Judge Pal’s lone dissenting opinion, that the Japanese soldiers were only following orders and that the acts committed by them weren’t illegal in an indictable sense, was dismissed by the West as a biased judgement by another Asian judge. Pal wrote that the Tokyo Trials were an exercise in victor’s justice and that the Allies were equally culpable in acts such as strategic bombings of civilian targets. In 1966, Pal visited Japan and said that he had admired Japan from an early age for being the only Asian nation that “stood up against the West”. Regardless of his personal opinions about Japan, he deemed it appropriate to dissent from the judgement of his “learned brothers” to embody his love for absolute truth and justice.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
