NEW DELHI, March 14 (UPI) -- The U.S. ambassador to Delhi has announced on television that India's Iraq policy is the same as America's. And the Russian ambassador to Delhi went on television Wednesday to say India's Iraq policy is exactly the same as Russia's!
Is this the apogee of non-alignment? Or are we being Janus-faced?
The truth is that the Greeks had little imagination, so they could go no further than a two-faced god. In Hindu mythology we have god as panchmukhi -- five-faced! Which is perhaps why our Iraq policy has shown at least five different faces to the world in the last five weeks.
The first is the stand taken by Jaswant Singh, India's former minister of external affairs, who made a name for himself sucking up to his counterpart in the Clinton years, Strobe Talbott. Standing in for his successor as foreign minister, who was away in Moscow the day the lower House, the Lok Sabha, debated Iraq on Feb. 19, 2003, Jaswant Singh emphasized that the world could not wait "indefinitely" for Saddam to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Asked -- by me -- whether any deadline was stipulated in 1441, Jaswant Singh had no reply, but made it clear that his view of foreign policy was to warm the cockles of the heart of American Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill.
The opposition pushed for a joint resolution to express the joint will of the House, but beyond assuring everyone that the "sentiments" of the House would be conveyed to the prime minister, no specific commitment was made.
This left Prime Minister Atal Bihar Vajpayee free to deliver an alternative version of India's Iraq policy, distinct from the near-unanimous view in Parliament, when he arrived in Kuala Lumpur a few days later to deliver his sermon at the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. There, Vajpayee lectured Iraqi President Saddam Hussian on the need to disarm or else, with narry a word of condemnation for those who, in violation of the U.N. charter, were resorting to the "threat of force" to enforce their will.
That is when Blackwill began running to every television station in town to announce that the United States and India were as two peas in a pod. It is entirely in keeping with the Brave New World in which we live that India's foreign policy requires elucidation by the U.S. ambassador.
The fact is that the NAM declaration on Iraq was quite different in tone, content and emphasis to the Indian prime minister's speech. Emphasizing the "concerns expressed by millions in our countries as well as in other parts of the world," NAM affirmed that it rejects war and that "war against Iraq will be a destabilising factor for the whole region," with far-reaching political, economic, and humanitarian consequences.
Reiterating its commitment to the non-use of force and "respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and security" of all member-states of the United Nations (which includes Iraq), NAM urged a peaceful solution to the situation, and supported efforts to avert war against Iraq while welcoming "the decision by Iraq to facilitate the unconditional return" of the U.N. inspectors which, said NAM, "will assure the world in a peaceful way that weapons of mass destruction are eliminated in Iraq."
Reaffirming the "central role of the United Nations and the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security," NAM set itself against "unilateral actions." Most significant of all, NAM called for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction, which would include Israel. Since India subscribed to this declaration, we thus have a third version of India's Iraq policy.
After the NAM summit, Iraq was once again debated in Parliament, this time in the Upper House, the Rajya Sabha, on March 7, 2003. There, the current external affairs minister, Yashwant Sinha delivered an oration which was, for once, in accord with what the overwhelming majority of Indians are saying, rather than what Washington or Moscow want New Delhi to say. Version four.
However, barely had all good men and true started breathing a sigh of relief that India was back on track than the prime minister declared that since India had good relations with both the United States and Iraq, we should, as enjoined by the Buddha, follow the "Middle Path."
An uproar ensued. How can there be a middle path between war and peace, between good and evil, between independence and dependence, between sovereignty and slavery, between adhering to the U.N. charter and flouting it, between acquiescing in Washington's insatiable lust for dominance and principled resistance to this relentless quest?
The prime minister responded to the nation-wide alarm with an anodyne statement in both Houses which said nothing and repudiated nothing. Version six. Grilled, however, to come clean, he simply threw away his written script and, from the heart, pronounced himself so vividly against the machinations of the war-mongers in Washington that it not only left the Russian ambassador giggling, even the substantial communist contingent in our parliament are besides themselves with joy. Version seven.
So, now no one knows what really is India's Iraq policy but everyone is mightily pleased that it is what they believe it to be. Did I say five-faced? I was wrong. Vajpayee is two steps ahead of the Hindu gods. He is saptamukhi -- seven-faced!
-- Mani Shankar Aiyar is a member of the Indian parliament representing the Congress Party. His column is published weekly
