Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: June 17, 2003
The innate decency of the Hindu
ethos precludes India from ever subscribing to Prof Samuel Huntington's
vulgar formulation regarding the clash of civilisations. Essentially a
euphemism for armed conflict between the White Christian and Arab- dominated
Muslim worlds to conclude the unfinished medieval Crusades, this simplistic,
yet vituperative doctrine would be laughed out of court in any civilised
society; it succeeds in America only because it is an intellectually immature
and emotional society.
American academia, somewhat like
that country's media and entertainment industry, owes much of its success
to corporate-style marketing of slogans masquerading as ideas and theories,
which curiously coincide with the geostrategic perceptions of the regime
of the day. I personally distrust much of it.
India's problems with Islamic fundamentalism
pre-date the United States's current obsessions by more than two decades.
But, as the post-9/11 events show, even that grisly tragedy has not brought
about a convergence of interests and perceptions between the two nations.
Other than some meaningless prattle, Washington's insensitivity towards
India's problems is simply indecent. Hence, amidst growing indications
that the ruling National Democratic Alliance may succumb to US pressure
to send Indian troops to maintain law and order in war- ravaged Iraq, it
may be worthwhile to dispassionately examine the issues at stake. This
is all the more urgent as the Congress President, Ms Sonia Gandhi, seems
to have accorded tacit consent to the Government's decision to deploy Indian
soldiers.
This is truly unfortunate as India's
civilisational ethos is essentially insular, not given to brash external
adventures. Hindus do not have the compulsive itch to convert the world
to a single way of life, much less to impose their view of order upon it.
That is a pretension of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) Americans;
hence, it is just as well that they pick up their own tab as they go about
burdening the world with blunderbuss solutions to perceived or self-created
problems.
The first phase in their much-touted
war against terror saw Osama bin Laden and his Taliban airlifted to the
safety of Pakistani territory even as Mr Hamid Karzai's unstable regime
struggles for existence in Kabul. The second phase saw the hated establishment
of Saddam Hussein turn phantom before the eyes of an astonished world,
while the high profile weapons of mass destruction faded imperceptibly
into the desert sands.
Of course, America got its cake.
Sitting pretty on the world's second-most viable oil reserves, it has already
made it clear that it will also keep most of the reconstruction pie to
itself. The latter has become a source of considerable embarrassment to
loyal ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but the Bush Administration
is serenely unconcerned.
India has no legitimate reason to
help America eat its cake 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 recognised "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. Iraq is in a poignant mess. Saddam and his evil regime have
vanished in thin air, leaving a power vacuum that Washington is ill-equipped
to fill. The main Opposition leader, Mr Ahmed Chalabi, has discovered that
the people were not exactly waiting to roll out the red carpet; surviving
relations of the last monarch may well come to the same conclusion.
The largely secular citizenry is
aggrieved at the possibility of Shia clerics seizing power and condemning
them to live in an Islamic paradise, a la Ayatollah Khomeini. The presence
of the racially different and religiously (perceived to be) inimical American
troops aggravates local tensions. On their part, the Americans are edgy
and unwilling to take the sniper fire that daily leads to body-bags that
have to be airlifted back home and fuel public unrest over a war regarded
as unjust and unnecessary.
New Delhi has no good reason to
take the heat off the Bush Administration in this regard. A White House
that can't brave public opinion while pursuing a policy it perceives to
be right for the American nation, should pause a moment and reflect on
the endless "cuts" endured by India in its fight against Pakistan-sponsored
terrorism and Saudi-aided fundamentalism.
India has no geostrategic interests
at stake in the Gulf, though I personally feel that a regime change in
Saudi Arabia could trigger off beneficial reforms in Islam across the globe.
But we are not the ones who can effect such a change, so we can only wait
and watch how the situation develops in that part of the world.
However, with Islamic fundamentalist
networks so well-entrenched in the country and across three borders (Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Nepal), India has no good reason to further invite the rage
of the Muslim world upon itself by serving as the handmaiden of the new
US imperialism. The "pacification" of a turbulent population in Sri Lanka
should have taught us to look before we leap in the quest for the Nobel
Peace Prize-that eternal and elusive goal of secular Hindu Prime Ministers.
Given the mounting pressures at
home, India should in fact decline to send troops even under the United
Nations auspices, as there is a huge mess to be cleaned up here. Soldiers
and civilians die daily in Kashmir, General Pervez Musharraf sends veiled
threats of another Kargil, terrorist plots are hatched and unearthed virtually
every day. So where are the surplus men we can afford to send abroad?
An Indian leadership itching for
a military adventure should shake off Oval Office pressure and firmly tackle
the issue of cross-border terrorism and Pakistan- occupied Kashmir. It
should also stop closing its eyes to the continuing atrocities against
Hindus in Bangladesh, and the burgeoning madarsas on the Nepal border.
A leadership that lacks the gumption
to confront these issues should not dare to treat brave Indian soldiers
as cannon fodder for America's chocolate cream soldiers who try to win
wars by the disproportionate use of force (not to mention unacceptable
weapons such as depleted uranium shells), and shy away from real combat
on the ground. If the Americans can't hold Iraq, they should hand it over
to the UN and leave. New Delhi should be under no illusion that the Indian
people will allow America to handcuff India when it comes to grappling
with Pakistan and then accept its "request" to clean up the mess in Baghdad.
There is some talk that, without
appropriate gestures to the Americans, India may not get the expected share
in the Iraqi reconstruction pie. We should not be blackmailed by this talk
because even Britain is having a problem getting into Baghdad. Besides,
as one commentator has pointedly observed, the demands for Indian skilled
labour, technical manpower and middle level professionals will remain regardless
of our stance on the occupation. Hence realpolitik, not phony economics,
should drive our decisions.
