The Hindu : Indian troops for Iraq?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 19, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Indian troops for Iraq?

By I.K. Gujral

I appreciate the Prime Minister's search for a national consensus on the response India should give to Washington's request for deputing Indian troops to be sent to Iraq under American occupation. Happily the debate is not confined to the political parties, it involves the NGOs, intelligentsia and lay citizens. This is a sign of the good health of our democratic polity that such vital issues are not entirely left to the governments. Of course, the final word will rest with the Government. But this, I hope, will not be contrary to the public opinion.

For a proper and meaningful national debate, there should be conceptual clarity. Some interlocutors have suggested that Indian troops may go to Iraq as peacekeepers. In the classical sense, peacekeeping implies the insertion of alien army units between two clashing groups of a country that may agree to stop fighting. Obviously, that is not the case in Iraq. It is argued that Indian troops will form part of the `stabilisation' force. Here again, there is some confusion. `Stabilisation' of what? Of occupation? The fact of the matter is that Iraq is under Anglo-American occupation and the people of Iraq have not accepted it. Nor is there an influential Iraqi elite able or willing to `collaborate' with the occupiers as was the case in Vichy France during the German occupation of France. Therefore, the purpose of sending Indian troops to Iraq, if at all, will be to assist the Pentagon in maintaining the occupation. As occupation was begotten by aggression, assisting in the occupation is tantamount to endorsing the aggression.

We may also understand why mighty America is asking for our assistance. The felling of the Saddam Hussein regime was the easier part. The Pentagon is eminently qualified to undertake such tasks. To pacify and to administer Iraq is not a task America is particularly competent to undertake. As of now, the situation in Iraq is fast deteriorating. The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (The ICG) has a credible team of observers in Iraq. They found that "Baghdad is a city in distress, chaos and ferment. It is on issues Baghdadis care about most — security and welfare — that the occupying forces have done the least". In order to facilitate a national debate with a proper knowledge base, the Government of India should come out with a paper on its own assessment of the situation in Iraq, the progress or lack thereof towards the creation of an interim Iraqi authority and related matters. Our political parties do not have access to reliable information on what is happening in Iraq.

Some interlocutors have argued that we should send our troops so that we might get contracts as part of the reconstruction of Iraq. Such `contractomania' has assumed even illogical proportions. Recently, the media reported that the FICCI's estimate was that over a period of eight years the reconstruction package would amount to $500 billion. MEES (the Middle East Economic Survey) and others knowledgeable about Iraq have estimated that if everything goes well in the next five years, Iraq will have about $100 billion from oil exports. Obviously, not the whole amount can be set apart for reconstruction contracts. More than half the amount will be required for import of food and other essential materials, not to speak of the investment required to restore the oil industry.

In any case, there is something un-Indian and undignified in becoming a subcontractor to the Pentagon in order to become a subcontractor to American multinationals. Our decision must never smack of `mercenaryism'.

It has been argued by some that if there were a U.N. cover, it would be perfectly in order for India to send troops to Iraq. The argument is not flawless. The fact of the matter is that under Security Council Resolution 1483, all personnel sent by governments such as India that are not part of the occupying powers will, all the same, be under the authority of the occupying powers. Washington might agree to some cosmetic arrangements by dividing Iraq into various zones under the control of Indians, Poles and others. But such cosmetic operations would not dodge the underlying reality.

Some with influence in the corridors of power argue that we should send our troops to Iraq as a quid pro quo to America's pressure on Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism and even come to a settlement on the question of Kashmir. The argument is extended further to say that by sending troops to Iraq India would be enhancing its credentials to be a permanent member of the Security Council. Such illusions need careful examination. First, it is rather naïve to expect America to make a radical change in its policy towards Pakistan for the sake of getting some battalions of Indian troops to Iraq. The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, will be George Bush's guest at Camp David next week. It is possible that they might agree to enact a drama and make noises giving the impression that as a result of American pressure Pakistan will cease to promote cross-border terrorism. Having watched Musharraf's recent TV interview, it would be credulous on our part to be taken in for such a ride. In any case, the question whether Indian troops should be sent to Iraq or not should be examined on its own merits.

A fact of history may be worth recalling. The British rulers had sent Indian troops to Iraq after the first great war to suppress a widely spread Iraqi revolt there. It ultimately ended in the Baathist revolution and dethroning of an imposed King and emergence of Saddam Hussein.

It is now becoming clear that ill-perceived American plans for Iraq may end in dismay. This seems to be the assessment of many world powers. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igov Ivanov, was in Delhi this week. As a friendly power, he has advised his interlocutors here to be cautious since within six preceding weeks the U.S. policy objectives have changed from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation Desert Scorpion" that has unleashed a reign of terror on Shias and Sunnis alike. The Christian Science Monitor says, "The U.S. Army has changed from being a liberator to an offensive occupier... " According to the Lexington Institute of Washington, the situation has taken this ugly turn because "we have been operating on two assumptions: that once the war was over the Iraqis would rapidly move into peaceful mode; and second, that there would be a new political and economic spirit in the country. We discovered neither of these assumptions is true".

It should be clear to our policy makers that the neo-conservatives' agenda is eager to expand the `war on terrorism in various directions that may drag us along unless we are careful.

In my childhood at the end of the first great war, I had heard a Punjabi folk song: "Darling please don't go to Basra, let us live happily at home."

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Something better than nothing

Transgenic crops and approval

Vajpayee's Himalayan bridge

Bhindranwale's martyrdom

Indian troops for Iraq?

Thapa for strong Indian ties