Backdoor friendship
When push comes to shove, will India stand by Iraq? In Delhi, Saba Naqvi Bhaumik reads between the lines
On the face of it India is strongly opposed to any unilateral US action against Iraq. Time and again Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has made statements about respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Gulf country. Last week, Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha went so far as to say that Saddam Hussein must not be forced to relinquish his post as president. Iraq's ambassador to India told the press he is happy with New Delhi's position so far, but expects even more from an old friend.
India has always made a point of highlighting its friendship with Muslim nations, which is why the chief guest for the country's Republic Day celebrations on 26 January was Iranian President Mohamed Khatami. Republic Day celebrates the Indian constitution, which was accepted in 1950, three years after India gained independence from British rule in 1947. It is a major national holiday and only important heads of state -- and those considered friends -- are invited as guests of honour to the massive military parade that is the highlight of the day. While on his five-day visit to India, Khatami and the Indians both expressed concern about unilateral US action in the Gulf.
Among Muslim nations, Saddam Hussein has been India's best friend, and has consistently supported India's stand on Kashmir since the mid- 1970s. Foreign Office mandarins point out that the original India-Iraq friendship also had its roots in the secular ideology of the Ba'ath Party. Which is why they will be sorry to see Saddam go.
So while India was quite happy to sit back and watch the US take on the Taliban -- here considered a creature of Pakistan -- the Iraq situation is vastly different. The huge numbers of Indians working in Gulf nations is also a big factor. According to one estimate Gulf remittances to India add up to a staggering $7 billion. With so many Indians working in the Gulf and Middle East, the Indian Foreign Office has to tread carefully on the sensibilities of these nations. Just last week, India's Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani travelled to Qatar, where over 20 per cent of the population is Indian. Characteristically, Advani appealed to the Qatari regime to allow the Indians the right to practise their religion.
Yet, for all its time-honoured links with Muslim nations, India is increasingly hostage to US pressure. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, India has had no choice but to move closer to the US. In fact, India's non-alignment was first violated during the 1991 Gulf War, when New Delhi allowed US planes from the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean the right to refuel and fly over Indian territory. Soon after, India also granted full ambassadorial level diplomatic status to Israel.
Since the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the head of a coalition in 1998, India has increasingly moved closer to Tel Aviv, particularly in intelligence sharing and in the field of aviation. Indeed, many ideologues of the Hindu right consider Israel a model state and believe India should move even closer to it -- even at the cost of its ties with Muslim nations.
The heating up of militancy in Kashmir since the early 1990s has also led to Indian disillusionment with Muslim nations. Foreign policy experts complain that even countries considered friends ganged up against India at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and sided with Pakistan on Kashmir. A leading foreign policy expert, G Parthasarthy, recently complained on television that India's secular credentials were ignored when Muslim nations backed a military dictatorship like Pakistan at a forum like the OIC. "Do we have Christian countries or Buddhist countries? Why then should a group of countries get together in the name of Islam?" he asked.
What's more, those who argue for closer ties with the US point out that the superpower is now increasingly endorsing India's stand on Kashmir, particularly since scrupulously fair elections were held in Indian Kashmir in October last year. Just last week US Ambassador Robert Black stated at a public forum that "cross-border terrorism into India must end". Concurrently, Sir Rob Young, the British high commissioner landed in Srinagar, the Kashmir capital, and said: "Those who did not participate in the elections missed an opportunity to establish their democratic credentials. I want to repeat the British government's congratulations to Prime Minister Vajpayee on the holding of successful elections in Kashmir."
India was particularly delighted with the statement of US Ambassador to Pakistan Nancy Powell last week demanding that Pakistan stop being a platform for terrorism and put an end to infiltration into Kashmir. While eyebrows were raised in Islamabad and Pakistan's Foreign Office lodged its objections, in India, Powell's statement was read as a sign of waning US support for Pakistan. In fact there is a growing view in India that after taking on Iraq, the US will have no choice but to tackle regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are believed to give financial or logistical support to several militant Islamic groups. Needless to say, these are two nations with which India does not have warm diplomatic ties.
What this means is that for all the lip-service about Iraq's sovereignty, should push ever come to shove, India will go along with the US. An important factor here is the domestic electoral agenda of the Hindu right that would get a fillip from any further demonisation of the Muslim -- be it Saddam Hussein, the unknown terrorist or the familiar Indian Muslim. But since India is not a frontline player in the US's Iraq strategy, at the moment the Foreign Office line is moving along familiar territory.
C a p t i o n : Muslim and leftist groups hold a peace rally in New Delhi protesting war in Iraq
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 13 - 19 February 2003 (Issue No. 625)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/625/sc11.htm