| |
US steps up pressure on
India
By Sultan Shahin
NEW
DELHI - India is again under heavy United States
pressure to dispatch troops to war-torn Iraq. Embattled
US President George W Bush called Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee on Monday, but tightlipped External
Affairs Ministry (MEA) officials would only confirm that
Iraq was discussed.
In mid-July, India, after
foot dragging for over two months, said that it would
not send its troops to participate in a "stabilization
force" in Iraq. Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said
that such a deployment could be considered only under a
United Nations mandate.
Vajpayee and Bush are
also learnt to have briefly exchanged views on the
ground situation in the country, particularly in the
context of several terrorist attacks on major targets in
Iraq and the almost daily killings of American troops
there.
As the situation appears to be developing
into a Vietnam-like quagmire, Washington has stepped up
diplomatic efforts to secure maximum international
backing for obtaining a fresh resolution from the United
Nations on deploying a large multinational force in
Iraq.
Bush's telephone call was followed the
very next day by the visit of Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon. He is also believed to have advised India
to help the US in its hour of need and in doing so
emerge as a major player in the new world order,
particularly if it wants to buy Israeli defense
equipment that can only be sold with US permission.
India is keen on buying several Israeli defense
systems, including its Arrow anti-missile system. A deal
for Phalcon is soon to be finalized following US
approval. Moreover, Sharon is said to have argued that
India would get a strategic foothold in Iraq, and this
could lead to a greater role for the country in the
region.
Of course, diplomatic and political
reverses for the US in Iraq also mean a setback for
Israel. Indeed, the neo-conservatives in Washington that
are known to have pushed the Bush administration into
the Iraqi quicksand are close allies of Sharon's Likud
Party.
A day later, US Assistant Secretary of
State for South Asia Christina Rocca, visited India for
talks specifically on the issue of 20,000 Indian troops
for Iraq. If New Delhi agrees, it would be the second
largest military contingent in Iraq after the US, even
larger than that of Britain, which was part of the
invasion force.
The Indian parliament has
already passed a unanimous resolution deploring the
invasion of Iraq. Though Rocca claims to have discussed
with Indian officials the entire gamut of bilateral
relations, official sources added that the Iraq issue
figured prominently during her meetings, and she made a
strong pitch for Indian troops.
With
international diplomatic exchanges on the issue of a new
UN resolution on Iraq gathering pace, New Delhi, too,
has started efforts to remain abreast with developments
in major world capitals. While rejecting the US request
earlier, New Delhi had held out the hope that India
might reconsider its decision with an "explicit UN
mandate" for an international peacekeeping force in
Iraq.
Sinha spoke to his counterparts in
Germany, France and Russia on the draft US-backed
resolution over the past weekend. The leaders agreed to
keep in regular touch on the matter. France and Germany
have already sought significant changes in the draft
that seeks to set up a multinational force under US
control in Iraq. The matter is now under discussion at
the UN Security Council.
An official
spokesperson refused to elaborate whether in the Indian
view the draft resolution fits into the mould of an
explicit mandate, and said that he could not go beyond
the text of the July 14 decision on the matter by the
Cabinet Committee on Security.
An indication of
the Indian thinking on the issue, or at least the
present Indian orientation towards the US, came on
Thursday when, speaking on the second anniversary of the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, Deputy Prime
Minister Lal Krishan Advani asked the international
community to at least stop helping terror-sponsoring
countries like Pakistan and "terrorist" organizations
like Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Disappointed with the lack of US help in India's
decade-old fight against cross-border terrorism in the
state of Jammu and Kashmir, Advani said that India did
not need any help from anyone, but it expects that those
who claim to be fighting international terrorism will at
least not help organizations like the ISI, which, he
says, sponsors terror strikes against India. He also
indicated to his colleagues on Thursday that he has
"never been in favor of sending Indian troops to Iraq",
as has been persistently reported and commonly believed.
Earlier, sources in the MEA told the media that
India did not believe that the US had put enough
pressure on Pakistan to curb terrorism. They said that
there was a "genuine difference of nuance" as far as the
Indian and American perceptions of putting sufficient
pressure on Pakistan was concerned. "If Pakistan can
hand over 500 al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists, why can't
it hand over even one or two persons from the list of 20
persons wanted by India?"
The situation, they
believe, could have been different if the US had applied
the same kind of pressure on Pakistan that it had done
in the case of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. "We are the
victims of Pakistani terrorism, not the United States,"
the sources stressed. Maintaining that there was a
genuine difference of opinion, they said that there was
no question of "bad faith on either side". They said
that Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf was
willing to face the wrath of extremists by rolling back
his policies on Afghanistan, as became apparent in the
latest Osama tape released on al-Jazeera television on
Thursday, calling Musharraf a traitor, but he was
unwilling to do the same when it came to India.
Highly-placed government sources told the media
on Thursday that Rocca is likely to return home
disappointed. She has been told that India may not send
troops to Iraq despite an explicit UN resolution
authorizing a multinational peacekeeping force for Iraq
as it "simply cannot afford to send troops to Iraq given
the situation in our northwest sector".
According to top-level official sources, it was
explained to Rocca that the 1.1 million strong Indian
army is "heavily committed" along the volatile
India-Pakistan border and Line of Control that divides
the Indian and Pakistani sections of Kashmir. Some of
the formations, which moved to the western front from
the India-China border during last year's Operation
Parakaram - (in which India kept its million-strong army
in an eye-ball to eye-ball confrontation with Pakistan
for nearly the whole of last year) - are yet to return
to their earlier positions. Also, almost a third of the
army is engaged in relentless counter-insurgency
operations in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast, where
insurgency is rife.
Noted strategic analyst
Brahma Chellaney, considered close to the ruling Hindu
fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was even
more explicit in his condemnation of US policies.
Writing in the large-circulation daily the Hindustan
Times on September 11, he said, "The war on terror - a
grueling long haul - can be won only by inculcating a
secular and democratic ethos in societies steeped in
religious and political bigotry. Despite the daunting
challenge, the US cannot afford to lose this war. Nor
can India, for the sake of its own security, see the US
lose. The Islamists would swell their ranks by trapping
the last great superpower in Iraq and Afghanistan after
having routed the Soviet Union in the latter state.
Their resurgence would bring India under greater
terrorist pressure.
"Yet, this does not
constitute sufficient cause for India to dispatch an
army division to Iraq, even if there is the UN's
imprimatur. A beleaguered India has to help itself
before it helps the US, which last year tricked New
Delhi into calling off Operation Parakaram with
assurances it never meant or intended to keep. The
Americans released their pet dictator in Islamabad from
Indian military pressure as part of a deal that has
given their special units continuing operational freedom
within Pakistan and secured some Pakistani assistance on
the Afghan front in return for Musharraf's keeping of
what he euphemistically calls his 'Kashmir policy'."
Earlier, a Sangh Parivar (the family of several
Hindu fundamentalist organizations, including the ruling
BJP) ideologue Sandhya Jain wrote in a column in the
daily newspaper, The Pioneer, "India has no legitimate
reason to help America eat its cake [Iraq] as well. Our
delicately nuanced opposition to the US action in Iraq
has been vindicated by its outcome. There is no
justification for making a volte face and openly
abetting the American occupation. Despite the fig leaf
of Security Council Resolution 1483, India will have no
meaningful role in 'assisting' the people of Iraq to
reform their institutions and rebuild their country. As
the recognized 'authority' in Baghdad, the US-led
coalition will control all levers of power. Hence, it is
only right and proper that they police the country with
their own citizens. Dispatching Indian troops in Iraq's
present troubled circumstances would be tantamount to
serving as mercenaries of the US."
Similar views
are also being expressed by the mainstream media, though
some columnists cite other reasons. The Hindustan Times,
for instance, wrote in an editorial on Wednesday, "It is
clear that all that Washington wants is to use the UN's
involvement in Iraq as a fig leaf to persuade other
countries to send their forces so that they may clear up
the mess created by the Americans. This is a trap that
India must avoid. It is obvious to all impartial
observers of the Iraqi scene that the US forces are
regarded as invaders. What is more, they are deeply
unpopular because of their failure to restore the basic
civic amenities like water and electricity and ensure
security for the ordinary citizens. Any country which is
seen, therefore, to be supportive of the Americans will
also court unpopularity and become the target of
attacks. Like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region,
Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorists, keen on
pursuing their anti-American jihad. As it is, India is a
target of such fundamentalists. An involvement in Iraq
will simply make the situation worse for India in
Kashmir and elsewhere."
There were several
advocates for the idea of sending troops to Iraq
earlier, both in the government and in the media.
Indeed, the BJP is a traditional advocate of close
strategic ties with the US and Israel. India's
uncharacteristically swift and effusive response to
Bush's national missile defense (NMD) plans in May 2001
had taken the country's political class, security
experts and strategic analysts by surprise. September 11
had given them hope that the US would now embark on a
"war against terror" with fellow-victim and
fellow-democracy India as a strategic partner. That hope
was belied as the Bush administration felt it needed
Pakistan's help more in fighting the Taliban and
al-Qaeda.
The result is that not one person,
either in government or in the media, appears now to be
supporting the idea of sending troops to Iraq. However,
there are factors other than disenchantment with US
policy towards Pakistan. Various industry lobbies, for
instance, had mounted pressure on the government earlier
following the blandishment of lucrative contracts for
Indian companies in the midst of seductive pledges of
support from the White House soon after the war. They
believed that a deal on Iraq would produce
reconstruction contracts running into tens of billions
of dollars for India. Government officials, too, argued
that financial and economic benefits would follow after
India sent troops to Iraq. The US had clearly hinted
that sub-contracts running into millions of dollars
could come to India soon.
But it now transpires
that even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the
staunchest US ally, who has put his own job on the line
for the sake of his buddy Bush, is not able to wheedle
out any major contracts for British businessmen. The big
contracts will be first given to US giants like
Halliburton and Bechtel, and then perhaps to a few
British firms, leaving small crumbs for bit players like
India. Huge contracts are in any case unlikely to
materialize unless the Americans can pump much more oil
out of Iraq, with which to finance large-scale
reconstruction. They are hardly going to spend their own
money on building what they have destroyed in Iraq. With
resistance to US occupation raging and even oil
pipelines not safe, this has become unlikely for several
years now. Business lobbies have naturally become
silent.
With Iraqi resistance mounting and
taking a daily toll of American and occasionally British
lives, in all parts of Iraq, even the arguments about
"helping" the "Iraqi people" by facilitating Iraq's
transition to pluralist democracy, has lost much of its
appeal. Former diplomat and now a popular media analyst
G Parthasarthy had made a passionate plea for sending
troops to Iraq on the basis of "the strategic importance
of Iraq and its neighborhood for our welfare and well
being".
His facts are impeccable. Three and a
half million Indians reside and work in the region. They
remit home around $6.5 billion annually. The bulk of our
oil imports come from Iraq and its neighbors. The
Asia-Pacific region in India's neighborhood will soon
emerge as the largest consumer of Persian Gulf oil with
30 million barrels per day flowing across the Straits of
Hormuz and the Indian Ocean by 2020. Our dependence on
oil imports will significantly increase, as our oil
consumption will be over 150 million tons annually by
then.
While Saudi Arabia, with oil exports of
7.7 million barrels per day, is the largest exporter of
oil in the world, Iraq can easily step up its production
to 6 million barrels per day within three years. Given
the growing potential for instability in the Gulf and
particularly in Saudi Arabia, stabilization and the
return of normalcy in Iraq are crucial for India's
energy security. "We cannot achieve this," Parthasarthy
argued, "merely by rhetoric and resort to legalistic
quibbling. Clerks quote past precedents as excuses for
inaction, not statesmen."
But ever-growing
resistance in Iraq has put paid to all such seemingly
lofty arguments about Indian troops going there to help
Iraqis. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the only Muslim
country that unhesitatingly supported India on
controversial issues like Kashmir or the Indian role in
dismembering Pakistan to help the creation of Bangladesh
in 1971. India should certainly help the Iraqi people by
delivering food and medicine to the country. But sending
troops to support its occupation by Western imperialist
forces with whom India had itself fought for its
liberation is hardly the way to do that.
Well-known writer Amitav Ghosh is appalled at
the prospect of Indian troops having to fight common
Iraqi citizens. He points to other dangers for Indians
living and working in the Middle East in the light of
past precedents, "Let us make no mistake about the role
that Indian troops will serve if they are deployed in
Iraq: they will not be 'policing' the country; they will
be fighting a war. No matter what the spin, it is clear
that the war in Iraq is far from over; in a sense it has
only just begun.
"Suppose there were a
circumstance in which Indian troops had to open fire on
an Iraqi crowd, killing a number of civilians. It is
quite likely that every Indian in the Arab world would
feel the repercussions. This is surely one of the most
elementary lessons of our sad history of military
deployments abroad. There is the example of the uprising
of 1930 in Burma [now Myanmar]. Led by Saya San, this
movement was, in its origins, directed against British
rule. The British suppressed it with great brutality,
using Indian troops, and the rumors generated by the
campaign led to savage reprisals against Indian
civilians, of whom there were then more than a million
in Burma. This in turn resulted in a situation that
allowed the British to present the uprising as being
directed against Indians, rather than against the Empire
itself. This was one of the more remarkable achievements
of the accomplished tradition of spin-doctoring to which
Tony Blair is heir."
Perhaps the clinching
argument for the BJP-led government will be the question
of Indian sensitivity of body bags from Iraq in an
election year. It is because of the bodybags of soldiers
reaching the US every day and the likelihood of its
going on until his re-election day that the Bush
administration is desperately searching for troops from
other countries to sort out the mess it has created in
Iraq. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in late
July that the administration was looking at the
possibility of securing a UN resolution to make it easy
for India and other countries to send their troops to
Iraq. Rumsfeld said that a new UN resolution on Iraq
should be done in such a way "that it is useful and
makes it easier for people like the Indians to provide
troops".
Bush and Rumsfeld must have a very low
opinion of India and its leaders if they think that
regular bodybags of Indian soldiers coming from Iraq
with general elections slated for next year will not
matter here politically. By dismantling Saddam's
oppressive and ruthless but secular and nationalistic
regime, Americans have opened the proverbial Pandora's
Box. It is difficult to imagine the ground situation in
Iraq improving quickly. No one can be sure how long the
occupying forces would need to fight it out in the
war-torn country. No country is going to replace Indian
forces once they are posted there. Even the staunch US
allies from Europe are reluctant to send their troops.
Even those who are willing have not committed more than
a few thousand troops. It is this reason more than
anything else which will probably ensure that the Indian
political leadership does not rethink its rejection of
the US offer despite all the blandishments and all the
arm-twisting. Politicians in all countries have great
survival instincts.
The US strategists should
have noted that sending troops to Iraq was the only
issue on which Vajpayee thought of evolving a political
consensus. Ruling just two of the 28 states in India,
the BJP is facing a rather tricky situation. Its
alliance with the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) broke down
only last week. The BSP commands the unswerving loyalty
of Dalit (untouchable) voters in several states, four of
which are slated to go for polls in about three months'
time. Dalits constitute over 20 percent of the
electorate. A general election to elect the central
government, too, is not far away.
It seems
highly unlikely in the circumstances that the BJP will
gamble with the prospects of regular bodybags from Iraq
at the present moment. Vajpayee may not like to wallow
in the same deadly swamp that Bush has created for
himself so fondly in the Iraqi desert.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
