| |
India hush-hush on Saddam's
capture
By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - Unlike most of the world, the Indian
government's response to the capture of Saddam Hussein
has been measured and guarded. This probably has less to
do with India's traditional affinity with Iraq and more
to do with being cautious in its dealings with the
United States.
When US Secretary of State Colin
Powell called Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha on Monday
to discuss the capture of Saddam, whom Washington has
named a tyrant, Sinha is said to have reacted in a
manner that did not echo the effusion flowing from the
rest of the world. In the words of an official with the
foreign ministry, Sinha "maintained a stiff upper lip".
Sinha, in his brief conversation with Powell,
merely expressed hope that such developments would
contribute to the stabilization of Iraq. Powell told
Sinha that the capture would bring "a change in the
existing situation and lead to greater respect for the
Iraqi Governing Council".
On late Sunday night,
Sinha gave an equally terse reply to reporters after a
cabinet committee of security meeting, attended by the
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Deputy Prime
Minister L K Advani, saying that "we have taken note
that Saddam has been arrested in Iraq. It is only a
question of taking note of a development. That's all."
In contrast, on Tuesday Vajpayee chose to
personally congratulate the Indian cricket team that won
a historic win against Australia, while skipping over
Iraq. While cricket and Iraq are of course a world
apart, there is an element of concern here about the
fate of Saddam among various political outfits that have
kept their reactions muted. The opposition parties have
pleaded that New Delhi should do its best to ensure that
the former Iraq leader and a great friend of India, is
treated humanely and faces trial under United Nations
jurisdiction.
Congress leader Jaipal Reddy said
in parliament that India must do its best to see that
Saddam is treated in a humane manner. Bahujan Samajwadi
Party leader Dharamraj Singh Patel said there were
apprehensions that Saddam may be killed by US forces.
Even earlier, soon after the US launched its
invasion of Iraq, the opposition parties had demanded
that the government take a categorical position against
the war in Iraq. The opposition insisted that the Lok
Sabha (lower house parliament) pass a resolution on
Iraq, but the government refused, saying that it had to
retain flexibility on the issue and a resolution could
not be the suitable answer on India's official position
on the Iraq crisis.
Former Indian envoys and
politicians who had interacted with Saddam recalled with
nostalgia, even a touch of sympathy, the demonized
dictator's great regard for India. "His attitude towards
India was always very positive, friendly and warm. He
had tremendous respect for India and its leadership,
particularly former prime minister Indira Gandhi," said
Kamal Bakshi, who served as ambassador in Baghdad
between 1985 and 1991.
Romesh Bhandari, a former
foreign secretary who served as the Indian envoy to
Iraq, said: "He was a great admirer of Indira and
extremely respectful towards India."
The
reaction to the arrest of Saddam has been different in
the media, though, which has unanimously welcomed the
end of a chapter in Iraq and minced no words in calling
Saddam a tyrant and a vicious dictator who violated
every civil norm. The editorial of The Telegraph reads:
"The arrest of Mr Saddam Hussein signifies the end of a
vicious dictatorship in Iraq. It is now certain that Mr
Hussein will never again rule in Iraq. The war in Iraq
may not be over but the capture of Mr Hussein means that
the coalition forces have won. The scattered bits of
resistance owing allegiance to the former tyrant can now
be easily cleared up since they will be without a focus
and a nominal leadership."
While it is no secret
that Saddam was a great admirer of India, speaking
highly of India from time to time, the current reaction
of the Indian establishment has more to do with the way
the larger intentions of the US are perceived here, than
with Iraq or the welfare of Saddam himself.
According to observers, the phone call by Powell
is an attempt to tell India that matters are under
control and fast returning to normal in Iraq. In this is
a veiled hint that India could now be expected to accede
to the US's now long-standing request that India send
troops to Iraq, which would provide the much needed
succor to the beleaguered US troops, as well as lead to
follow-up action by other countries. It's clear the US
is very serious about this request, apparent as India is
still stinging following the move by Washington to
exclude it from bidding for the US$18.6 billion in
contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Clearly, the Indian government is circumspect.
For one, it is not yet sure how the aftermath of
Saddam's arrest will play itself out. If the resistance
continues over a period of time, it will reveal that the
roots of the guerrilla war lie in a deep-seated
resentment against the occupation forces and are
unrelated to Saddam.
Then, India does not want
to change its earlier position on Iraq, such that New
Delhi disapproved the use of any unilateral force in
violation of the United Nations charter. With Saddam now
captured, it does not want to make it apparent that the
US-led war was a thumping success in any manner,
particularly given New Delhi's refusal to send troops to
Iraq, as requested by the US for the reconstruction
process, even after a direct one-to-one request by
President George W Bush to Vajpayee. The ministry of
external affairs had stressed that the UN Security
Council in resolution 1483 merely recognized the US and
United Kingdom as occupying forces and said countries
were free to send their troops under the overall command
of the occupation authority.
"With UN not coming
with a mandate for the creation of a multinational,
UN-led peacekeeping or stabilization force, India was
not ready to send troops to Iraq," foreign ministry
officials had said. The government decided, after
careful consideration, that it could consider deployment
of troops in Iraq only when there was an explicit UN
mandate for the purpose.
Another important
factor that has come into play is that the present
dispensation under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) is riding a high, post state elections in the four
states of Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Rajasthan and
Delhi. The BJP won three of the four states and lost
only in Delhi. The general elections are now less than a
year away and the central government will be averse to
trying out anything drastically new, and focus on
building on the current momentum. The last thing that
the BJP-led government will want is a flow of body bags
from Iraq, in an election year. But with Bush facing his
own possible demise at the hands of America's voters in
the looming US elections, he will want to end matters as
quickly as he can.
Siddharth
Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
