Print

Mail

wiki links

India debates helping US suppress Iraqi resistance

Opponents say it would betray the legacy of India's 60-year struggle against British colonial rule, or worse, send Indian soldiers home in body bags.

Supporters say it would help India protect its energy supplies, exorcise its colonial demons and cement the good will of the world's colossus.

For more than a month, Indian officials have debated sending more than 17,000 Indian troops to help US forces suppress Iraq. The detachment, a full Indian army division, would be larger than the 14,000 British soldiers now deployed in southern Iraq and make the Indians the second biggest military force in the country.

Slated to control the relatively stable northern third of Iraq, the Indians would free a sizable chunk of the 145,000 US soldiers now there to return home. They would also allow the Bush administration to claim broader international support for the US occupation of the country.

But a week after a special team from the Pentagon made its case here, no final decision has been made by Indian leaders. Instead, New Delhi has adopted a go-slow approach and asked the US to issue several "clarifications" of US policy in Iraq.

Indian officials say their soldiers will not serve under direct US military command and have asked for the creation of a joint command structure. Citing concerns that Iraqis will view them as occupiers, Indian officials have also asked for a specific timetable outlining when an independent Iraqi government will be formed.

"The political process that is going to be followed is of concern," said a senior Indian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "What is going to happen? How long is it going to take?"

US officials, citing resistance in the country, have declined to give specific dates. In the past, they have said the process could take up to two years.

With his government divided on the issue and the opposition Congress Party so far not taking a position, the final decision rests with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Officials said no decision would be made until after Vajpayee returns from a state visit to China yesterday. Deliberations could extend beyond that.

An example of the new realities of US diplomacy after the invasion of Iraq, the debate here has largely turned into a litmus test of people's trust of Washington.

Supporters tend to take Washington at its word, and say India would be part of an effort to create a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Detractors call it an open-ended, oil-inspired occupation.

Public opinion in India generally opposed the US' invasion of Iraq. The country's Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution criticizing the attack.

On Tuesday, two left-leaning former prime ministers issued a statement urging the government not to deploy Indian forces. "We believe irreparable damage will be done to India's reputation and good name, if Indian troops were sent to prop up the occupation of Iraq," wrote V.P. Singh and Indar K. Gujral. "Above all, it will be unwise and unfair to our army to send them on a mission to risk their lives where no national interest is at stake."

But other current and former officials argue that India does have national interests at stake, from receiving an estimated 61 percent of its oil from the Middle East, to lucrative reconstruction contracts, to about three million Indian workers who live in the Persian Gulf region. Talk of colonialism, they say, ignores reality.

"That is history -- I am not bothered," said Gopalaswami Parthasarathy, a political commentator and retired senior diplomat. "We have a stake in Iraq. If we can help, we should go ahead and do it."

Indian skeptics also point to history. The last major Indian military expedition into Iraq ended in disaster in World War I when Ottoman troops wiped out a British-led force that was two-thirds Indian. Supporters say the comparison is outdated.

Other critics warn that Indians know from their own experience of British colonial rule how resentment of foreign rulers can grow. And they know the difficulty of crushing guerrilla forces after weathering various separatist insurgencies over the last two decades.

"Anyone who like me has lived with insurgency for twenty years and grew up with nationalism understands what is happening in Iraq," said Prem Shankar Jha, a newspaper and magazine columnist. "This is only the beginning."
This story has been viewed 1798 times.