The Hindu : Where the public is kept in the dark

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 12, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Where the public is kept in the dark

By Inder Malhotra

Even while sweltering in the sizzling heat, the denizens of Delhi have not lost their sense of humour. Many of them are still shaking with laughter over the shoddy spectacle that the BJP, core of the ruling coalition at the Centre, made of itself in recent days.

The main actor in the dismal drama unquestionably was the party president, M. Venkaiah Naidu. He wrought a minor miracle of making, in a span of 72 hours, three glaringly contradictory statements on who would lead the party during the next parliamentary poll and, with a singular lack of propriety, did so when the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, was overseas. No wonder he earned a rebuke from Mr. Vajpayee, immediately after the latter's return home, delivered in the poet-Prime Minister's inimitable style.

And yet, not just the likes of Mr. Naidu but also such leaders as the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, have been pretending that there never was any controversy over the BJP's leadership and the whole affair was an "invention" of the "sensation-hungry media". Is this a measure of the BJP's penchant to insult the people's intelligence? Or is the party leadership itself so unintelligent as not to realise the damage it is doing to its own credibility?

However, this murky episode is receding into the background, if only because the spotlight has shifted fast to the pressing demand of the United States that India should send at least a division of its Army to Iraq to help stabilise the volatile situation there. What greater indication of the American anxiety over this matter can there be than the unusual steps the American side took as soon as Mr. Advani reached Washington on a long-planned visit? The U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, called on him on Sunday afternoon and on Monday, the President, George W. Bush, talked to him when he had gone to the White House to meet Mr. Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

Early Indian participation in Iraq's stabilisation may be uppermost on the America agenda but this country is not in a position to take a lightning decision on the U.S. request. Indeed, New Delhi faces several dilemmas because of which the Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS) have been unable to clinch the issue so far. It had indeed asked the Ministry of External Affairs to seek "necessary clarifications" from the U.N., the U.S. and others concerned. Evidently, these discussions have remained inconclusive. Otherwise there would have been no need for the U.S. to rush a Pentagon delegation to Delhi next week.

Even with the best of will on both sides, it would not be easy to get out of the way the hurdles that have held up a positive Indian decision so far. At least three delicate issues of high principle are involved and each is a hard nut to crack. The first and foremost is that of Indian troops operating only under Indian command and not that of anyone else. This can, perhaps, be resolved by ensuring that the Indian division going there functions autonomously in a designated area.

But then this would raise the question to whom will the Indian divisional commander report. Certainly not to the top brass of the forces of the occupying powers, the U.S. and Britain. Appropriately, the Indian commander should report to a composite civilian authority on which India is represented adequately. The third prickly problem is that of the source of payment to the Indian troops. Under no circumstances can our soldiers be expected to accept America's dollars or Britain's pounds. Can the U.N. be brought into the stabilisation scheme for this limited purpose at least?

Overriding all these difficulties that are tough enough is the very real problem of the Indian public opinion that remains intensely hostile to giving any help to the occupying forces in Iraq in the present circumstances.

The Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi, has already written to the Prime Minister urging him not to send Indian troops to Iraq except under the aegis of the U.N. Surely, she and her advisers know that the U.N. Security Council having legitimised Anglo-American occupation of Iraq, a U.N. command in that country is unlikely to take shape anytime soon.

Should India then wash its hands off Iraq irrespective of the consequences? Never mind American unhappiness or displeasure though this might frighten those who believe that what is good for America is automatically good for India. But there is the wider danger of this country, which understandably wants to have a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and play its part in maintaining Asian and global security, being excluded from this role. NATO troops are already in Afghanistan and are being sent to the Congo. Is it desirable to make peacekeeping and peace-making the white man's exclusive preserve?

The crowning irony is that the practice of educating public opinion in the intricacies of foreign policy practically ended with the Nehru era. Successive Governments have never bothered and the present one seems most indifferent of them all.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Treading with caution

Stop smoking on screen

A tale of two Ministers

Congress, Dalits and elections

Should India do the U.S. bidding?

Where the public is kept in the dark