In 1941, TIME ran a letter to the editor from a soldier named J. R. McKey who had served with Pershing in the Philippines decades before. In the letter, McKey describes using pigs in burials to deter Muslim insurgent activities, but does not ascribe the act to Pershing.
McKey wrote, "U.S. soldiers ... had a pretty good cure for juramentado [Moro swordsmen] activities. Knowing the horror of the Mohammedan for any contact with swine, and particularly with its blood, these American roughnecks, when they had killed a juramentado, held for him a very public funeral. The body of the defunct bad man having been deposited in the grave, a pig was brought, stuck, its blood sprinkled freely over the D B M, the dead pig thrown in with him, and the burial completed."
Some reports do say that Pershing was engaged in burying Muslims with pigs or throwing pig's blood on them. According to the History News Network, a Chicago Daily Tribune article from 1927 describes Pershing sprinkling prisoners with pig's blood, then setting them free to warn others of being doused with the blood. "Those drops of porcine gore proved more powerful than bullets," the article wrote.
Christopher Capozzola, a history professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also cited an incident in which Pershing brought a pig's head to a ceasefire negotiation with a Muslim leader.
Wars and conflicts should not happen in an ideal world but they do. If one can use out of the box thinking in ending wars then it should be considered a win-win. Loss of life is irreversible. Everything else can be settled by peaceful negotiation.
The stone pelting in J&K (without going into a detailed discussion of the how and the why) is clearly a Pakistani funded operation and these stone pelters are like daily wage workers for the ISI. China has outsourced their anti-India operation to Pakistanis who then have sub-contracted it out to these unemployed youths who ideally should be in schools like the rest of the angry, scared and frustrated young Indians instead of taking on a professional army.
We all saw what Major Gogoi and his troops did. Tying an Indian youth to the front of the jeep, trussed up like an animal. I am quite sure that this poor guy was scared for his life. For the observers, it invoked different feelings. For some it was an outrage and others a “paying back in the same coin” event. But no sensible Indian can really brag about it.
Having said that, the one thing that is getting lost in the story of fear and outrage is that no lives were lost, no one was hurt- neither the stone pelters nor the soldiers. From that perspective (loss of life being an irreversible reaction), it was a damned good day and Major Gogoi (who must’ve done this out of frustration) must be commended and supported for this.
The left on the social media is latching on to a statement by retd. Lt. Gen. Panag. First and foremost, the Lt. Gen. is an Indian citizen who has the right to speak his mind and should not be abused. But his being in the army should not put him above criticism either.
Civility in Indian political discourse was lost long time ago. But critics of Maj. Gogoi’s tactic should appreciate that no lives were lost because of him and that is and should be the crux of the story.
Relevant urls:
