Home >> South Asia >> India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal

     Email   Print 

Indian View of Iraqi Elections and Increased Support for Bush

S K Modi - 2/7/2005

Like elsewhere in the world, the US attitude towards Iraq has become somewhat more acceptable, or less unacceptable, in India too. An official statement described the elections as "a noteworthy development." Editorials in leading dailies did offer some applause by calling the voter turnout "surprisingly large," though most went on to caution against excessive optimism.

Opinions in India too are about as diverse as anywhere else in the world. There are those who consider US policies too unilateral and big-brotherly. Some believe the US wants to control the mid-east oil. Some believe the US wants to be seen as constantly sharpening its fangs to keep the terrorists at bay. Some say that the US economy needs a war every now and then for sustaining its growth momentum. All sorts of views are there.

One underlying common feature amongst proponents of different theories is a certain degree of indifference. Iraq is simply not important enough for Indians to bother about. Let Bush do what he wants to. Who cares?

Another common feature among political and social thinkers in India is resentment towards the cocky continuance of the US reliance upon Pakistan. In India, even those who do not miss a single opportunity to advocate a more friendly attitude towards Pakistan privately believe that Pakistan is the biggest breeding ground for terrorists in the world. Immediately after the war in Afghanistan, many thought that the US was 'using' Pakistan for temporary strategic reasons and the sheer magnitude of 9/11 would eventually make the US see the reality. Those hopes have since been belied and most have come to believe that economic and political reasons are as much behind the US decision to invade Iraq as the 'concern' for democracy and human rights. The US call for democratization of states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt has failed to raise even restrained optimism because President Bush chose not to mention Pakistan.

The big difference between the Indian line of thinking (no, there is no implied suggestion of unanimity of any kind) and the convictions in the US is that Indians understand socio-political attitudes in the developing world a lot better than the Americans. Indians understand that food, clothing and shelter always get precedence over the cherished principles of democracy, freedom and human rights in most cases and that includes the United States of America, where most of the poor do not exercise their right to vote!

It is possible for a nation which is in a position to provide social security to all its citizens to put freedom before food, culture before clothing and civil rights before shelter. Suffice it to say that the hungry and the deprived look at things a little differently.

For one thing, Iraq is hardly 'rich,' as those accusing the US of being interested in oil like to believe. Per capita income in real (Purchasing Power Parity) terms of Iraq is about one half of India's!

Besides, the complexities of psychological preferences are simply too complex. Social history, religious beliefs, political antecedents and perceptions about neighbors are some of the factors that determine sustainability of democracies. One study has determined that democracies survive only in nations having per capita incomes in excess of $ 6,000 but democracy in India, having a per capita PPP income of less than $ 3,000 has flourished. There can be no hard and fast rules. In this complex little world, there is no such thing as a whole truth. Or a whole untruth, for that matter. There is always the proverbial other side of the coin.

President George W Bush, and the US administration, in that order, do not have an adequate understanding of the nuts and bolts of democratic forms of governments. They do not seem to have grasped the big picture. The US is too young a democracy. It has seen either occupation or democracy. It has not seen other forms of governments, one example being what political scientists call enlightened monarchies. It has not seen democracies functioning sans universal franchise. It has not seen rule of law prevailing in apparently autocratic regimes. It has not seen monarchs displaying greater sensitivity to public opinions than democratically elected heads of governments.

The most important phenomenon that the US has not experienced, and has chosen not to see (happening) elsewhere in the world, is archaic democracies. Chaos in societies not equipped to handle democratic forms of government has helped more terrorists than all the stable autocratic societies taken together. History is replete with examples of de jure democracy sans de facto freedom having resulted in horrendous horrors for humanity. The difference is that humanity suffers slowly in such cases. Public money gets swindled. Common men are forced to bow to a motley of vested interests that include unscrupulous politicians, ruthless businessmen and, of course, thugs and criminals of all hues. They are sucked drop by drop. The tyranny is of many, instead of one single autocrat.

For democracy to be stable and productive, the necessary ingredients have to be put in place 'before' elections become a norm. An independent judiciary has to be in place. The academia has to be strong and insistent. A competent and efficient bureaucracy, complete with the necessary skills and training mechanisms has to be built. An independent media must develop. Crime must be contained within limits. Inequities beyond certain limits must be eliminated. Elections should be held after creating the necessary infrastructure. The pillars and the beams have to be built before building the roof.

Perhaps the US would have done well to pour in massive aid into Iraq for building schools and hospitals, for promoting independent media organizations, for exposing the Iraqi people to what's happening in the world and for creating adequate employment opportunities. The US has enough resources to transform a relatively small nation like Iraq within a short period of two or three years. If the average Iraqi citizen first experiences effective freedom for a year or two and then goes for casting the vote, the resultant government would be more stable. And more democratic.

Democracy can last only if the institutions are in place and rule of law prevails in practice, rather than on paper. President Bush has unequivocally declared that the US forces would not leave Iraq until it is satisfied that democracy is firmly in place - that is one inference one can draw from his pronouncements. One can only hope that the extended stay would be utilized for building the institutions that are critical for survival of democracy.

The very fact that among an electorate of 14 million, as many as 19,000 candidates have contested the polls makes one feel frightened. The sharp divide between the Shias and the Sunnis and the equally sharp difference in voting behaviors of the two sects should give cause for worry. Coalition governments in mature democracies like India, Israel and Japan are working but to expect coalitions to work in Iraq would be going a bit too far.

Has the threat of terrorism declined? Most Indians feel only amused by the notion. If the US believes that the only way to keep terrorists at bay is to keep flexing the muscles (implying Iran, Syria and North Korea being next on the list), so be it. Some political thinkers even believe that the US administration is fully aware of precisely where Osama bin Laden is but isn't interested in eliminating him because somebody would have to replace him and the new occupant of the 'office' would feel compelled to establish his credentials with something as ghastly as 9/11. So what if ad hocism continues to be the hallmark of the US policies? Is there a politician on planet earth who doesn't prefer expediency over the long and tortuous path to lasting solutions?

The US intelligentsia must understand that anti-Americanism isn't as much of a hobby for Indians as it is for the Europeans. But if Bush would like India to feel boisterous after having heard "the voice of freedom from the middle-east," all he can expect is contempt disguised in indifference. As far as India is concerned, elections in Iraq imply anything but Tony Blair's "a blow right to the heart of global terrorism" or "a moving and humbling experience." Elections in Iraq do not imply any perceptible threat to terrorism in the immediate, medium or long term. Nor do they represent the dawning of a new democratic era in the middle east. The issues involved are simply too complex for the simple-hearted Mr George W Bush, to understand. The US believes carrots and sticks work, irrespective of the composition, whereas ancient Indian scriptures not only preach 'the right' mixture but two additional components as well - Sam (persuasion) and Bhed (divide), besides Dam (carrots) and Dand (sticks).