| |
SPEAKING FREELY
A history lesson for
Delhi
By Siddharth Srivastava
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Please click here if you are
interested in contributing.
NEW DELHI -
Should India send troops to Iraq? The issue has become a
subject of relentless debate as more and more United
States and British soldiers are killed and with Iraq
seemingly heading towards anarchy.
Those against
deployment talk of the body bag count - should it be
theirs or ours? No possible gain, due to canoodling with
the US in a unipolar world justifies Indian lives being
lost - the US has acted on its own, with its British
cohorts, so let them boil in the problem of their
making, is the stand.
The arguments question the
very basis of the "US invasion" without initial United
Nations authority and with no weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) found, the cause for action was never
there. The US pressure on India is described as a ruse
to sacrifice Indian soldiers and save American lives as
the moment Indian troops land in Iraq, the US will
reduce theirs.
The Americans will go back home
with their heads high, of a battle won, George W Bush's
ratings will soar, while the action will shift where it
matters - to corporate boardrooms, over oil and
reconstruction doles. Meanwhile, seething Iraqis will
club Indian forces with invaders, and mete out similar
treatment.
The argument of substantial business
contracts from Iraq in exchange for the sacrifice, as
well as supply of advanced military hardware from the US
to India is debunked. Given the state of civil society
in Iraq, it will take a minimum of two years before
anybody can do actual business in Iraq. The biggest
chunk of the pie will in any case go to the partners in
the war, the US and the United Kingdom, with crumbs to
the rest. The military hardware will flow, if it suits
US strategic interests, in revenues or propping up India
against China. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Those in favor of pitching in with the US,
surprisingly, belong in the majority to the armed forces
themselves. The arguments, if somewhat cynical, revolve
around higher monetary returns. Indian armed forces are
exposed to risk in any case - whether in Kashmir or on
the Indo-Pak border or tackling insurgency in northeast
India. They die unsung deaths, meriting no mention in
the media, except for a small single column item in the
inside pages, if lucky.
What is the point of
talking about body bags? They don't matter, life doesn't
matter here, unlike in the US. The extra wages if
deployed in Iraq are good by Indian standards - US$1,000
a month that the US is offering, apart from regular
salary and perks. Good money, if one can survive the
ordeal. A sniper bullet a day that finds its target is
chicken feed for soldiers deployed in Kashmir.
A
former Indian army general has even argued that there is
a learning curve in such wars, as the Indian forces are
turning technically obsolescent. He goes on to defend
the Indian peacekeeping operations in Sri Lanka of some
years ago that cost more than 2,000 Indian lives, as
important learning ground for guerilla warfare.
Meanwhile, the pressure from the US continues. A
team of Pentagon officials arrived last month for talks.
According to reports, a secret deal has been thrashed
out wherein the US favors India over Pakistan on
Kashmir.
The decision to send the troops,
however, will not be easy. Iraq could be a political
minefield, with Indian state and union elections slated
in the near future. The main opposition party, the
Congress, has made it clear that no troops should be
sent. There has been no commitment from the Indian
government, either way, as yet.
Among the
political complexities include possible action against
Muslims who form the largest minority group and a
sizeable voting chunk in India. Further, Iraq has always
espoused the Indian point of view vis-a-vis Pakistan.
A unanimous resolution in parliament has already
criticized the attack on Iraq. The political concern is
the reaction of the people. It could affect how they
vote.
Kashmir and the northeast have a history
of terrorist and insurgency problems. The killings and
terror attacks are part of everyday life and news.
Kargil, when Pakistan troops infringed on Indian
territory in 1999, was not. The brief Kargil war
witnessed an emotional outpouring of people who
sympathized with the martyred soldiers and their
heroics.
Iraq, till now, has been a distant
happening - seen only on television, peppered with
pretty anchors, toy cars and fantastic missiles. If it
turns into a reality of Indian coffins flying back, the
reactions will be different.
It is a war started
by other people who have their own interests that are
none of our business, could be the predominant thought.
Many in this country still talk bitterly about
the Sri Lanka fiasco. Former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi
was killed by a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber. To some, it
was justice delivered.
The Indian electorate can
be unforgiving. The politicians know this.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Please click here if you are
interested in contributing.
(Copyright
2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact
content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
