ROUND TABLE

Ladies and gentlemen, I was informed about this Symposium at a rather late date but luckily I had just received the final correction of one of my books and I was able to prepare at least something to present at this respectable Symposium. Two days ago, Mrs. Dzenana Efendic-Semiz remarked that Banjaluka could not be Serbian and, indeed, it isn’t Serbian. As we are now undergoing a period when myths and historical prejudices or facts, which for a long time had been valid, are being broken up, the example of Banjaluka and the myth that this town is Serbian, may serve to show that this myth was wrongly created in the minds of Greater Serbian hegemonists. However, for those who do not know much about Banjaluka, it should be said that this was a cosmopolitan town. Towards the end of Turkish hegemony, in 1872 to be exact, it was the first larger town in Bosnia-Herzegovina to be connected by train to Europe. During the Turkish occupation, Banjaluka had the first hotel in B-H. It was not a large hotel, but it was certainly different to the Turkish taverns of the time. It might also be said that during the Austro-Hungarian occupation, Banjaluka was strongly influenced by penetrating relations and obtained intense European characteristics mostly due to the fact that in 1891 Banjaluka had a daily direct railway connection with Vienna and Budapest. Obviously the closeness of Zagreb and the inclination of the whole of north-western Bosnia (Bosnian krajina) to that area allowed Banjaluka to progress into European courses much more quickly than other towns in Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, I would like to emphasise that the Serbs were not satisfied ever since the beginning of the Austro-Hungarian occupation, as they aspired to get the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were, however, unsuccessful in this at the time. They constantly developed the idea of Banjaluka as a Serbian town and that it had always been such. The best example of the fact that many people were involved, consciously or unconsciously, in creating such a myth, is the case of Boris Mihajlovic-Mihiz, an excellent literary critic who until this war was of a democratic orientation. I cannot say anything about his present attitudes but it is very significant that his book “Autobiography About Others” (a very interesting book with an interesting title), appeared at the beginning of the 90-ties. One of the stories in the book, entitled “Babic”, is about a young Prussian, an officer of the Austro-Hungarian Army who comes to Banjaluka on the eve of World War One, falls in love with a young Serbian girl, converts to Orthodoxy and changes his name to Babic. The author then proceeds to describe the Golghota of his subsequent calamities. In short, he ends up as war criminal and Nedic’s commander for eastern Serbia. It is significant that Mihiz uses a syntagm (as all this, indeed, took place in Banjaluka) that Banjaluka had always been a Serbian town. But this is not so, particularly not at the beginning of the 20th century. What I want to point out is that there is no way Banjaluka could be a Serbian town. I would like to tell you an indisputable truth, namely, Croat Catholics have been living here for full a l4 centuries, while the presence of Muslim-Bosniacs is centuries old. This is perhaps best confirmed by the town of Cazin (in north-western Bosnia). I was lucky to have made a monograph of this town. I know, therefore, that after the Turks threatened Knin, or better to say, when they entered it, Cazin became and remained for almost half a century the centre of the Knin diocese. This, however, is not the only fact to be respected. Maybe the best arguments are those shown in the statistics of 1910 prior to the beginning of World War One. Banjaluka at that time had somewhat less than 15,000 inhabitants. Less than half of them were Muslim; there were some 4,000 Roman Catholics, 60 Greek-Catholics, over 100 Evangelists, 422 Jews and 3,698 Orthodox. Thus, they did not even represent one quarter of the population. It is obvious that they had not even reached a significant number in comparison to other confessions and it is telling that Mihiz’s syntagm of Banjaluka as ”a centuries-old Serbian town” has no point of support.

If we look at historical sources we learn that there were hardly any people of the Orthodox persuasion in Banjaluka going back almost a hundred and fifty years. The Franciscan friar Ivan Frano Jukic, a historic figure, involved in politics and culture, who left us the first historical record and geography of Bosnia- Herzegovina, was undeservedly neglected in not only the offprint of the Encyclopaedia of Bosnia-Herzegovina, published a long time ago, as well as in the representation of cultural Bosnian circumstances. He is also not mentioned among the names of great Croats. An interesting fact which he recorded in 1840 is that on the territory of Banjaluka, that is, of Vlaski Brijeg (one hour away from the centre of Banjaluka), he found ”some kind of cabin which the people of Banjaluka call a Vlach church”. Twenty years later, Giljferding Aleksandar (Russian consul accredited in Bosnia), in his book about his travels throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and old Serbia, wrote that Banjaluka and its trading community should be ashamed for ”not having an Orthodox church forcing believers to travel to a village an hour away to pray”. Later on he came to the conclusion that there were very few Orthodox believers, although he stated that they were the busiest and the wealthiest of Banjaluka inhabitants, that they mostly came from Herzegovina, particularly from the Trebinje region and that there were - which is a significant fact - a total of 70 Orthodox houses in Banjaluka. This was 120/130 years ago. Therefore the Serbs of the Orthodox faith who arrived subsequently were in fact newcomers and a young population in the town of Banjaluka.

Let me add something more. Due to Serbian propaganda, it is common opinion that Banjaluka is a Serbian town. Even in Zagreb you may find people who say “Banjaluka is a Serbian town”. It wasn’t a Serbian town. It became a Serbian municipality only through various tricks and political games. In the town itself in 1991 the Croats and Muslim-Bosniacs formed about 60% of the population while the municipality of Banjaluka as a whole had a majority Serb population. Why is this so? The answer lies in the fact that at the beginning of the 60-ties, the authorities in B-H carried out an enlargement of the municipalities in order to allegedly develop under-developed regions. Owing to that fact, Banjaluka gained three municipalities: Krupa na Vrbasu, Bronzani Majdan and Ivanjska which had predominantly Serbian populations. There was a pretty large grouping of Muslim-Bosniacs in the municipality of Bronzani Majdan. In Ivanjska almost half the population were Croats but in total the Serbian population was high enough to give them an advantage in the Banjaluka municipality as a whole. However, it should also be said that after the catastrophic earthquakes of 1969 and 1970 a new wave of Serbs arrived with builders from Serbia. Another significant fact that influenced the number of Serbs in Banjaluka was the decision, brought in 1948, at the time of the Information Bureau of the Cominform, to transfer the Armoured Units Education Centre from Vrsac to Banjaluka. This proved a strong incentive to the Serbs and the ethnic structure of Banjaluka started to change.

Now I would like to tell you about the events of the greatest tragedy that has taken place during the last three years. Banjaluka today really is a Serbian town. Suffice it to say that 60,000 of its inhabitants have left. Among the most numerous of them are obviously Muslim-Bosniacs and Croats. Since the border-crossing at Davor has been opened, the ferry-boat is working continuously. It should also be said that about 10,000 young Serbs left the Banjaluka area in the period between 1991 and 1993. However, the Banjaluka region, which we now call north-western Bosnia and which is at some distance from the front lines, was, during that period, almost completely ethnically cleansed. More precisely, a genocide of the most terrifying dimensions was performed. According to statistics, about half a million inhabitants of that region were forced to leave their homes and go to Croatia or third countries. It must be pointed out that about 15,000 Muslim-Bosniacs were killed and somewhat less than 1,000 Croat-Catholics have lost their lives. During the mentioned time period, a genocide was performed, as well as a culturocide, ethnocide and memorycide. Serbian extremists found the way to destroy everything, every memory and remembrance of anyone who was not of the Orthodox faith. Owing to that fact, 205 mosques in the Banjaluka region have been destroyed, which I believe Mr Dedijer forgot to mention, and 81 Catholic churches and monasteries have also been demolished. I emphasise that the majority of Banjaluka inhabitants were Bosniacs and Croats. For example, all 16 mosques in the town were destroyed and some of them were of the highest cultural value, such as the beauty Ferhadija. All were destroyed within 152 days. Not only mosques were destroyed but other buildings of historic value which were a reminder of the presence of other peoples, such as the Sahat-kula (Sahat-tower) which was the first of its kind in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Five mausoleums were also destroyed. In other words, anything that might remind of some other culture was destroyed. In the holocaust which they carried out, even church officials suffered. I would like to mention just one example which occurred in Presnace a suburb of Banjaluka. A Catholic priest and a nun lost their lives when a bomb exploded in their church and it was set on fire .They really died a martyr’s death and I am of the opinion that this fact is worth taking into consideration. In all this anguish I would like to point out Banjaluka’s Bishop and peacemaker Franjo Komarica. It is worth saying how great and bright his peacemaking was as he was of the opinion that “it is better to suffer evil than to do evil unto others”. He believes that our neighbours the Serbs will not be happy without us Croats and Muslims. However, it must be said that in that period of time there was no criticism from the Serbian side particularly not from Serbian intellectuals in Banjaluka as an university centre. Not once did they protest although the society of historians has over a hundred members. They were silent during this destruction. Even institutions that normally take care of history such as the Bosanska Krajina Museum and Archives shamefully joined and supported the Great Serbian concept. This was affirmed at the beginning of last year when the exhibition “Banjaluka - the Centre of the Vrbas Banovina 1929-1941” was organised. (During the past few days we have heard about the reorganisation of the state of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes, i.e. the creation of banovinas in Yugoslavia.) Banjaluka was the centre of the Vrbas banovina. The exhibition was arranged from 1929 to 1941. Numerous exhibits were presented and thanks to the cleaning women of the Bosanska Krajina Museum I had a chance to closely examine them all after working hours. I saw quite an exhibition! On the exhibits, which were mostly photographs, not a single mosque in Banjaluka could be seen as it was simply forbidden to show that Banjaluka ever had a mosque. This is ridiculous because Banjaluka, as the centre of the Vrbas banovina, had about thirty mosques. I think this clearly confirms the shameful and dishonourable way professional people such as historians were included in this programme of memorycide. This would not have been carried out if the world’s super powers and international organisations had not been so hypocritical.

It has given me great pleasure to listen to today’s speakers from western countries. I would like to thank them for what they have said. However, I deeply regret that representatives of the foreign press or at least Croatian journalists are not present here in a greater number to inform the world of what has been said here on the policies of these western countries as this would be of great benefit to us at this time when maps and solutions for Bosnia are being tailored. I am going to show you a map, and this its first public presentation, from a new anthology I edited and is entitled “Genocidom do istrebljenja”. It deals with Serbian crimes in the region of north-western Bosnia, and it is currently being printed. It has been said that Bosnia is like “a tiger’s or leopard’s skin” due to its multiethnicism. This is not a map of a multiethnic Bosnia but a map of the territory in which genocide was carried out. The shaded areas are areas of genocide. This is the leopard’s new skin. A genocide of such proportions could not be possible without the help of international organisations and world super powers which put themselves on the Serbian side and we may therefore indeed say that they are participants in the genocide in north-western Bosnia. Why do I say this? In 1992, at the beginning of spring, a Canadian battalion arrived in Banjaluka. It did not stay as the Serbs forced the battalion to leave. If it had remained in the town, the genocidal behaviour, the threats and the reign of terror would not have been accomplished, or at least not to such a degree. I believe, therefore, and kindly beg our respected guests if they could, at this time when the world is dealing with percentages and with who is going to have control over ethnically cleansed regions and under whose jurisdiction in B-H - the federation or of those territories in which the Serbs would be a majority (because there can be no discussion about a Serbian state within a state), to inform the world of the truth and of our request that territories in which genocide was executed cannot remain under the control of those who executed that genocide. I believe that such measures would be of extreme importance to us and that should an area remain under the control of these genocidal cleaners, than these areas should be placed under international rule, for a period of at least 10 to 15 years until young generations are old enough to take over functions in proportion to the population census of 1991.

Since I was engaged in researching the history of Banjaluka Jews and since I have heard much about anti-Semitism at this symposium, I would just like to say one thing more: we are all missing a chance to say that anti-Semitism in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was officially confirmed by legal acts in 1940. To prove this let me demonstrate just one fact. The National Gazette No. 222 of 5th October, 1940 published the Regulation on the Registration of Persons of Jewish Origin for University or School of University Rank, for College, High School or any other School. According to this regulation only a certain number of students of Jewish origin could enrol at a certain school. Another regulation, also published in October 1940 and aimed against the Jews, concerned “working with human nutrition”. In other words, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia these regulations created an extremely distrustful attitude toward the Jews. For this reason we must really bear in mind that genocidal programmes and the persecution of Jews on the territory of former Yugoslavia were given impetus and were already in full swing in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Thank you.

Ante Beljo: Thank you Mr. Ravlic. Now we will hear from Father Ljubo Krasic who is going to talk about problems in terms of language and the spreading of the Greater Serbian idea through language. We heard how that was applied by Vuk Karadzic in the introduction. All this has affected the Croatian language until the present.

Fr. Ljubo Krasic