[Reader-list] Chowkidar to the Empire?

[Harsh Kapoor]

The Hindu | Magazine Section
Jun 29, 2003

Chowkidar to the Empire?

Should India send troops to Iraq? Support for such a move fills the 
media. Terms like "rent-an-army" and "lucrative contracts" pop up 
time and again. But sacrificing our troops to serve American 
interests and the greed of Indian elite will not be just morally 
reprehensible. It will be the most dangerous and provocative act of 
folly, writes P. SAINATH.

AT least 55 U.S. soldiers have so far died in "peacekeeping" in Iraq 
since May 1. And the United States says "Iraq is not ready for 
democracy." If the Iraqis don't like it, they can lump it.

As it stands, the Americans can't lump it. Their rising death toll 
alarms them. (Well, each time one U.S. soldier dies, so do many 
Iraqis. But that's another story.) And more and more people in that 
country are confronting the occupying power.

Listen to the New York Times: "American forces are carrying out their 
largest single military operation in Iraq since the end of major 
fighting..." The Associated Press puts it this way: "an amalgam of 
shadowy resistance forces, including unknown numbers of non-Iraqi 
fighters, are carrying out almost daily hit-and-run attacks against 
the American occupation forces."

The Guardian, U.K., says: "Attacks occur daily - more than a dozen 
every day in the past week, according to some accounts." The paper 
had this to say of the British Minister in charge of "reconstruction" 
in Iraq. "Baroness Amos had to admit... that she is unable to visit 
that country." Why? Because "of the risk of guerrilla attack."

It's in this mess that India is being called up to act as chowkidar 
to the empire. The lives of Indian soldiers are more expendable - in 
American eyes. But should the eyes of an Indian government see it the 
same way? That's frightening. We are being hired to patrol the 
empire's latest outpost. To be the fall guys for its folly.

We're being asked to do this just when Bush might for the first time 
face questions in the U.S. Congress on the Iraq war. On the fake 
"intelligence" that helped him deceive his own people. When Labour 
MPs are calling Tony Blair a liar in Britain. This is when we're 
being asked to carry the can in Iraq. To legitimise a war always 
viewed as unlawful across the world. And now increasingly seen that 
way in the U.S. and Britain - the main warriors - themselves.

We'd be magnets for popular anger in one of the world's most volatile 
spots -- at a time when the Americans are contemplating a war on 
neighbouring Iran. What happens if Indian troops are stuck in Iraq 
when the U.S. moves for "regime change" in Iran? The possible 
consequences are mind-blowing. Indian jawans would then be at extreme 
risk. As always, we'll re-learn that it is far easier to get into 
such holes than out of them. Until next time.

And, as always, the decisions will be taken by those whose children 
will never fight on any front. That too, on a war Indians hated in 
the first place. One that our parliament, alone in the world, 
condemned in a resolution. Suddenly it's, "hey guys, let's be real! 
It's only the lives of our poorer classes. There's many more where 
those came from. Think of the gains to be made from carrying the 
White Man's Burden." Might give us crumbs from the White Man's 
Contracts.

It's odd that Vajpayee and Advani should seek a "national consensus" 
on sending troops to Iraq. The rest of us thought we had one. The 
Indian parliament's resolution in April, condemning America's war 
against that country, is the clearest consensus that exists in this 
nation on that issue.

But now we're being invited to make our jawans the targets of 
explosive resentment. The anger directed at American troops will then 
come our way. That, in a nation, which has had nothing but goodwill 
for our own.

Sending Indian troops there is an idea that could - and most likely 
will - go awfully wrong. For one thing, the people of Iraq have 
suffered enough, without our adding to it. For another, in the 
growing challenge to the occupation, those seen as front men of the 
empire will attract deadly fire. As innocents inevitably die, things 
will get much worse.

Meanwhile the U.S. has bullied the Security Council (June 12) into 
giving its troops a year's exemption from the new International War 
Crimes Tribunal. Only the American "peace keeping forces" have got 
that. The U.S. sees trouble ahead and will not have its military 
brought before the tribunal. So much better to have Indians face that 
music. As they will, when hell breaks loose. Note that Indian troops 
are not even being spoken of as peacekeepers. They will be a 
"stabilisation force". Words that imply an active, and if need be, 
aggressive role.

The journey to Iraq will have little in common with the over 30 UN 
peacekeeping missions that Indian troops have been part of in the 
past. This time our soldiers will be seen as front men for the 
occupiers. And will face an increasingly hostile Iraqi public.

Indian security personnel haven't had the best of times right here at 
home. In the past decade or so, we've had 15, 000 of them killed or 
wounded in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and the North East. More than 
3,500 killed in Kashmir alone since 1991. (Not to mention 11,000 dead 
civilians.) Here's the new step. Troop exports. Now the government 
might pledge even more of these lives to the U.S.

In Iraq, we will be on clearly defined foreign territory. Once again, 
we're looking at the readiness of India's ruling classes to risk the 
lives of poor Indians - which is what our jawans are. This time to 
align and ingratiate ourselves with U.S. power. And take our place in 
America's New World Odour. (The permission given this week to two 
U.S. warships to dock in Kochi is one more step in that direction. 
Both ships are involved in the war in Iraq.)

Plus, by sending our troops, we get to earn a quick buck on the side. 
So Indian companies will gain what lusting newspapers call "lucrative 
contracts". And we can sacrifice a few hundred jawans, maybe many 
more, so that our CEOs can do even better in the next Forbes and 
Fortune lists. Never mind that these lucrative contracts could place 
us morally in the ranks of contract killers. No wonder the Americans 
are seeking our help. They are body shopping in a literal sense. This 
is one outsourcing of jobs their unions won't protest. The job of 
dying for U.S. imperialism.

There is, of course, another reason why some in government are so 
keen to get into this chowkidari. Election year draws near. And the 
cynical "Back us. Our boys are dying", which we heard in Kargil could 
make the rounds again.

Kargil saw the most incompetent Defence Minister in our history cover 
up a colossal failure. And succeed because the media wouldn't call 
his bluff. Our soldiers died in hundreds. The minister, many scandals 
later - including one about over-priced coffins for dead soldiers - 
is still there. A Government with its back to the wall on every issue 
was able to make that cynical "Stand united behind the NDA" appeal.

Stoking Iraqi hatred in a new and unwarranted direction doesn't 
count. Elections do. And a diversion from the serious political and 
economic issues of the day is crucial. If you have an Indian force in 
Iraq, daily losing lives to snipers and other local attacks, that's 
the sort of mess an Advani revels in. Maybe he'll take out a rath 
yatra to rally support for the troops. Men whose lives could in the 
first place be jeopardised by his colleagues and himself.

Arguably, India should have done well as peacekeeper in Sri Lanka. 
Didn't both sides accept us, at least to begin with? Instead, our 
stint there provided Colombo with a diversion. It gave the LTTE a 
focus for their hatred. Over 1100 men of the Indian Peace Keeping 
Force (IPKF) laid down their lives in Sri Lanka. That's more than 
double the number who died at Kargil.

There will be no one happy to see us in Baghdad. There will, of 
course, be the usual bunch of regime PROs (some still call themselves 
journalists) filing those first few stories of a euphoric welcome. 
Pictures of someone garlanding an Indian soldier. Maybe one of our 
guys kissing a baby. Then reality sets in.

With all the experience of Sri Lanka behind them. With all the 
evidence of Iraq before them. Still, quite a few experts, analysts 
and editors argue it's a good idea. Take a look at the editorials in 
some of our leading newspapers.

One says it "makes sense to send a stabilisation force to that 
country". Indeed the situation "demand(s)" that we do so. Another 
says that Russia, Germany and France have now dropped their 
"principled" stand against the war for "a real time share in the 
lucrative Iraqi reconstruction pie. The moral: New Delhi cannot stand 
on principle in thinking out its foreign policy options in post-war 
Iraq." It's time to start planning, boys, for the "Baghdad Bandobast".

One newspaper is thrilled by the team from Washington that came to 
Delhi seeking a rent-an-army deal. Our soldiers may be handed a 
United Nations fig leaf. Their expenses could be borne nominally by 
that body. But the Americans will pay us a few dollars more. That 
didn't excite the paper. What did was that the team "...highlighted 
New Delhi's impeccable record in peacekeeping abroad."

Well, we withdrew battered from Sri Lanka. And scrambled out of 
Somalia in chaos. That's an impeccable record?

Think, too, of the fallout at home of our troops getting bogged down 
in Iraq. When every militant Islamic group there (and perhaps from 
Iran and elsewhere) targets the jawans as an occupation force. How 
will that tell on communal tensions here? What a tonic it would be 
for Togadia and Thackeray, amongst so many others. But that shouldn't 
upset a bunch whose careers were built on ideologies of hatred. Maybe 
as the Americans withdraw, we'll send Modi in as Governor of occupied 
Iraq. He'd be impartial in hating all the Muslims there, Shia and 
Sunni alike. Christians, too.

At the base, are crude motives of electoral and financial gain for a 
few. Pointing to post-facto UN resolutions okaying U.S. actions just 
makes it worse. Do the people of the nations voting for these 
resolutions see it that way? The Spanish government supported a war 
85 per cent of its public opposed. Far more importantly, will the 
people of Iraq view it that way? Do our own people see it that way?

Historically, the British used Indian troops as cannon fodder for 
their conquests across the globe. Close to 90, 000 Indian troops died 
for the Raj in just World War I. That's more soldiers than India has 
lost in all our wars and insurgencies since independence.

In 1915-16 alone, thousands of Indian soldiers died in Iraq, the then 
Mesopotamia. Then too, a western power was attempting a "regime 
change". Our men were sacrificed by the British in their war against 
Turkey. The year had been disastrous for the Brits. The debacle at 
Gallipoli meant the war ministry in London needed a propaganda 
success.

So they threw away the lives of over 22,000 soldiers - thousands of 
them Indians. That, in a bid to take Baghdad, as the Guardian, U.K. 
pointed out last year. Even today in the region, wrote Ross Davies in 
that paper, "...there are 22,400 graves (more than two-thirds of the 
troops who fought in Mesopotamia were Indians whose faith required 
cremation rather than burial)."

Then they died for the British empire. Now, they're being asked to 
die for the American empire. Then, it could be argued, we were a 
colony - and had no choice. Today, in the era of globalised markets, 
we'll be doing it for "lucrative contracts". An independent nation 
driven by the greed and delusions of a few to seek what might well be 
a quisling's reward.

P. Sainath is one of the two recipients of the A.H. Boerma Award, 
2001, granted for his contribution in changing the nature of the 
development debate on food, hunger and rural development in the 
Indian media.