should india police iraq

Iraq killings bode ill for Indian troops
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2003 08:47:39 PM ]

NEW DELHI: The killing of six British soldiers by an angry mob of civilians in Majar-al-Kabir near Basra in Iraq on Tuesday is a grim reminder of the dangers that await Indian troops should the Vajpayee government agree to their deployment in aid of the US-UK occupation of that country.

The British soldiers -- all military police -- were killed in circumstances that are still unclear. The Associated Press reports that the town's population was seething over intrusive searches for weapons conducted by the British and that the killing of civilians by the soldiers finally led to revenge attacks. The British defence ministry says it has no information of civilians killed but is still investigating the circumstances of the firefight.

Either way, the incident has underlined that 'peacekeeping' -- or more accurately, the enforcement of foreign occupation -- in Iraq is no tea party. "The Americans have assured us Indian troops will not be used for combat-related situations", said a senior Indian official familiar with the region, "but what happens when the situation chooses you?".

Given the frustration that the lack of basic civic services throughout Iraq is causing, Indian soldiers could well find themselves at the wrong end of an angry demonstration. And without the means to do anything about their complaints.

Officials here say Indian soldiers are "much better prepared to deal with crowds" than their US or even British counterparts (i.e. are less trigger happy) and will also have the advantage of being from a country which has traditionally enjoyed good relations with Iraq. "But all it takes is one bad incident for the mood to change", said a source.

"And once we're batting for the Americans, there'll be people out there who'll want to take pot shots at us". There are also concerns about how any untoward incident involving Indian troops would affect the Indian population elsewhere in the Arab world.

If its troops go, India will also have to overcome an additional burden, that of history. The British used Indian troops to put down the large uprising which convulsed southern Iraq, especially the lower Euphrates region, in 1920. In his book, British air power and colonial control in Iraq, 1920-1925, University of Hull historian David Omissi has chronicled that 'pacification' campaign: Winston Churchill, who was minister of war and air at the time, believed that Mespopotamia could be "cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops".

Though the Royal Air Force was used with deadly results, Indian soldiers -- so crucial to Churchill's "cheap policing" -- were also pressed in to suppress the Iraqi freedom struggle, and many died in the fighting.

Article from "The Hindu"
U.S. role in Indo-Pak. ties
By Rajindar Sachar

WHAT GAME is the U.S. playing in India-Pakistan relations? The query has become relevant in the context of the sudden freezing of relations after the optimism generated by Atal Behari Vajpayee's Srinagar speech.
For no apparent reason, we have Pervez Musharraf on television making two very damaging statements. One, that notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan was "pushed into" Kargil by the `mujahideen,' it could happen again. And two, he challenged the validity of the Kashmir elections, which have been acknowledged as fair and free even by international observers. Inevitably, Mr. Vajpayee talked of a "fourth defeat" for Pakistan.
Gen. Musharraf was perhaps tempted by the strategy of L. K. Advani in appealing to the U.S. to "rein" him in — it seemed to suggest that India was helpless in controlling cross-border terrorism, which is contrary to New Delhi's stand.
Did Washington take it as a sign of weakness and introduce a not-so-subtle trade-off? Has the U.S. demanded Indian troops for Iraq as a quid pro quo for restraining Gen. Musharraf?
Our answer to the U.S. ploy should have been a categorical `no'. Instead, Mr. Advani prevaricated and suggested that Pakistan's restraint across the borders could be helpful in making up New Delhi's mind in favour of sending troops to Iraq. Did this give U.S. strategists the opportunity to nudge Gen. Musharraf to talk tough? That is one way of rationalising the bellicosity of Gen. Musharraf's interview.
As it is, Gen. Musharraf is mired in serious domestic problems. The apparent support he has within the Pakistan Army apart, all the Opposition parties in the National Assembly want him to give up his uniform — which he will not because his survival depends on it. The General has deliberately and cleverly increased the pitch of India-Pakistan tensions.
So that, while on his current tour of the U.S., he can pretend to be misunderstood and use dove-like language to get Washington's `approval' to keep his job as both Army Chief and President.
As for the U.S., it is reeling under the response of Iraqi nationalism. The Iraqis have realised that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not the only item on Washington's agenda. The real agenda was what was spelt out by the U.S. Secretary of State over a decade ago to I. K. Gujral, who, as India's Foreign Minister, met him in 1990 to discuss the evacuation of Indians from Iraq.
His response was direct and acerbic: "Oil is our civilisation, we will not let demon (meaning Saddam Hussein) sit on it". This is public knowledge. If, in spite of this, India wants to burn its fingers by sending troops to Iraq, it will be an accomplice in aggression. Indian troops cannot be allowed to spill Iraqi blood — we have thousands of years of civilisational contact and amity.
The Iraq venture is not going to be a picnic for the U.S. There are no welcome hugs or arches as there were at the time of the breach of the Berlin Wall. In a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, the U.S. Army Chief made it clear that Washington needed a large peacekeeping force and that conditions in Iraq were more serious than in Bosnia. The U.S. forces have, after all, been in Bosnia for over eight years and there is still no end in sight. Are our politicians ready to do the dirty work of the neo-conservative group controlling George W. Bush?
The BJP may not be sensitive to the compulsions and the sacrificial spirit of nationalism. Surely, the Congress should be sensitive and appreciative of the hostility to foreign troops. The presence of British forces in our country during the World War II period generated tremendous anger and resentment.
Must our young soldiers, besides falling victim to Iraqi bullets, also be demeaned and disgraced by being treated as an occupation army? There is another angle to the U.S. request for Indian troops. Apparently, it has been suggested that the troops will be posted in the Kurd-dominated area where there is massive resentment against Saddam Hussein. The Kurds are fighting for separation from Iraq.
Neighbours Turkey and Iran, which have sizeable Kurdish populations, would not want any trouble. But Kurds are waiting for an opportunity and will not sit quiet. In such a situation, the Indian troops may have to fight them and would not Pakistan exploit the situation, though illogically, as an excuse to foment terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir? The implications of sending Indian troops to Iraq are thus horrendous and unimaginable. The chapter must be closed at once.
I am surprised at the attitude of the Congress and the BJP (Vajpayee-Sonia meeting) on the issue — working for a consensus and holding consultations with Iran. Do they seriously believe that Iran would want Indian troops to be sent to the region when it is being accused by the U.S. of forming part of the "axis of evil" and is mischievously being targeted for a regime change? The Congress spokesperson and the Foreign Minister made the same noise about developing a consensus. This when millions of people in the U.S. and Europe have already demonstrated against a war, which, as has been well established, was fought by the U.S. and Britain on the basis of lies, deception and forgery.
Why this temptation to send troops? Is it the hope of pocketing dollars from reconstruction money already guzzled by U.S. multinationals? Or is it the fear of legislation banning outsourcing being contemplated in the U.S.? It is misplaced and not based on an understanding of the inner logic of capitalism. Let us not sell Indian honour for a pot of silver. Our heritage is noble. Our young generation deserves better. Or has neo-liberalisation, backed both by the BJP and the Congress, made us so impervious that self-respect and honour have ceased to be the measure in Indo-U.S. relations?
After a Pakistan parliamentary delegation visited India as part of unofficial diplomacy and returned with better people-to-people understanding, the journalist and Rajya Sabha member, Kuldip Nayar, managed to collect a dozen MPs, from the BJP and the Congress included, for a reciprocal visit. It is understood that Mr. Vajpayee appreciated it as a logical extension of his efforts to improve relations with Pakistan.
But then, those in the BJP leadership who want to exploit India-Pakistan tensions to their electoral advantage pulled out their MPs at the last minute. The Congress, which is becoming a soft Hindutva party, followed suit with equal vigour. It is a pity that the political parties cannot rise above petty electoral considerations.
Fortunately, non-official groups in Pakistan have not fallen for the trap and have welcomed the delegation. There is no doubt that peace-loving people in both the countries will view this reciprocal exchange as a beneficial one. Let people of both the countries rise above petty manoeuvrings and give a valiant push to India-Pakistan friendship.

as an indian I personally feel that it would be stupid to send indian troops to iraq on a peacekeeping mission...firstly india didnt start the war...secondly the US or UK didnt seek india's persmission to reduce iraq to rubble....thirdly india might be a third world nation but we will never be a thrid rate nation to wag our tails and go behind america to take care of their dirty work wherever they please whenevr they please..esp when we know what wonderful relations bush maintains with our close friends across the border...america can bloody well clean its own mess

one line really tickled my funny bone....

"Officials here say Indian soldiers are "much better prepared to deal with crowds" than their US or even British counterparts (i.e. are less trigger happy) "

What kind of an army does america or britain have that cannot handle crowds and ends up shooting them instead of handling innocent civillians who are angered because an unwelcome stranger walked into their house and tore it into shreds in the name of world peace.....

also makes me wonder if the US and UK recruit their soldiers from institutions for the insane...because if a soldier cannot handle a crowd what the hell is he going to handle?...do they join the army expecting to just keep killing people from day one?.....