The Hindu : Not our war

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jul 14, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Not our war

By V.R. Krishna Iyer

If India had sent troops to Iraq, the soldiers would have lost their lives in vain -- they would have died not defending their own country's freedom but in place of U.S. soldiers as targets of desperate Iraqis.

IF INDIA had agreed to the United States' request for sending troops to Iraq, as part of a `stabilisation force,' it would have amounted to abetting the arrogant invasion of a sovereign country sans United Nations sanction in defiance of world opinion. It would also have been an act in violation of Article 51 of the Constitution, which mandates that India shall promote international peace and security, foster respect for international law and maintain just and honourable relations between nations.

The U.S. ignored the U.N., uttered falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and, in gross violation of international law, invaded Iraq. It used its awesome arsenal against an innocent population. The U.S. President, George W. Bush, is still in no mood to quit. On October 7, 2002, he had told the American people that Saddam Hussein was targeting the U.S. with chemical and biological weapons. Hans Blix, then the U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector, openly called the American bluff on WMD. Before the war, through the war, and after the war, the Bush administration totally failed to prove its case. The U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, argued that `absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.'

In short, the pre-emptive aggression by the sole superpower had no legitimacy whatsoever, except that Might is Right and Unlaw is Law, whatever the U.N. or its Secretary-General may shout in impotence.

New Delhi had initially opposed the unilateral invasion by the U.S. Several leaders in Parliament recently criticised negotiations with the U.S. on despatch of troops to Iraq; a move contrary to Parliament's unanimous resolution on April 9, 2003, which, inter alia, called upon the U.N. to protect the sovereignty of Iraq and ensure that reconstruction was done under its auspices.

Until now, the U.S. administration has refused to hand over Iraq for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to the U.N. and its agencies.

India and Iraq have been on friendly terms although Saddam Hussein was a despot. We have sent pharmaceuticals and have received oil. There is no reason to supplement the American terror rule in Iraq by sending troops to serve under the Pentagon's command. Why did India, at one point of time, even consider going to the aid of a rule by the American gun denying democracy to a broken people? Was it in the vain hope that Bush & Company would back us on Kashmir?

History teaches sanity and the people will not forgive its rulers for giving military aid against an Iraqi people who hunger for democracy.

Baghdad is nowhere near self-government. The occupying forces are no longer on a liberating mission but are operators of the opposite objective — of facilitating exploitation of Iraqi oil, and keeping the people suppressed.

It would have been unprincipled to send Indian soldiers to die to get Indian Big Business sub-contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. And it would have been a betrayal of India's moral authority in the comity of nations. Contracts for Indian tycoons can never be a bribe to barter away our international prestige.

As the former Prime Minister, I. K. Gujral, said: "In any case, there is something un-Indian and undignified in becoming a sub-contractor to the Pentagon in order to become a sub-contractor to American multinationals. Our decision must never smack of mercenaryism."

I agree with Mr. Gujral that even if there had been a pretence of U.N. cover, our armed forces would have, all the same, been under the authority of the occupying powers. Had we accepted such a role, we would have ended up participating actively in U.S. imperialism. Indian soldiers would have lost their lives in vain — they would have died not defending their own country's freedom but in place of U.S. soldiers as targets of desperate Iraqis. Every day, American and British soldiers are dying in attacks by suicide squads. If the American troops had withdrawn and Indian troops taken over, Indian casualties would have replaced American ones.

The American soldier, when he dies, defends American occupation. Every martyr has a cause to die for. But the Indian corporal would have had no honourable cause but only a cursed fate if he had fought for Americans to keep the Iraqis down. The statesman in the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the `swaraj' spirit of the Cabinet and the final accountability to the people have prevailed in turning down of the White House overture to help it suppress a free people.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Disappointing record

Synergy in communications

Congress and coalition

Bilateral trade

Water disputes