The innate decency of the Hindu ethos precludes India from ever subscribing to Prof. Samuel Huntington’s vulgar formulation regarding the clash of civilizations. Essentially an 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 civilized 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 geo-strategic perceptions of the regime of the day. I personally distrust much of it.
India’s problems with Islamic fundamentalism pre-date the US’ current obsessions by more than two decades. But, as the post-Nine Eleven 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 civilizational 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 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 Mr. 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 (sic) the people of Iraq to reform their institutions and rebuild their country. As the recognized “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 United States. Iraq is in a poignant mess. Saddam Hussein and his evil regime have vanished in thin air, leaving a power vacuum that Washington is ill-equipped to fill. The main opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi, has discovered that the people were not exacting 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 geo-strategic 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 UN auspices, as there is a huge mess to be cleaned up here. Soldiers and civilians die daily in Kashmir, Gen. 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 Occupied Kashmir. It should also stop closing its eyes to the continuing atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh, and the burgeoning madrassas 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 Americas 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 United Nations 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.
The Pioneer, 17 June 2003