The Iraqi Fifth Column

After years of sparring with each other on everything from the Kashmir dispute to the Gujarat riots, many Indian and Pakistani correspondents have at last found a common cause. With Indo-Pak bonhomie bubbling over and cricketing ties restored, they have switched their attention to the Bush administration’s alleged inadequacies.

Ever since US-led coalition forces entered Iraq in April 2003, many of the leading English-language newspapers of the Gulf have been bombarded by letters from angry Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis blasting President George W Bush for the invasion and the ensuing bloodshed. Conspicuously absent from the debate were Iraqi voices — or even contrarian Muslim voices.

That is, until recently. When two expatriate Iraqis, Taqi Mahmoud and Emad Turkman, reacting to the sub-continentals’ monopoly on the discussion, launched their own spirited defence of the invasion.

‘‘Most of the letters published in your columns are from… India and Pakistan who don’t have a proper idea of ground realities in my country. For them, any attack on Saddam Hussein is tantamount to an attack on Islam itself,’’ Mahmoud wrote in a follow-up to a similar letter by Turkman.

‘‘Only a few days ago a letter said that Saddam was a creation of the US to wage war with Iran, a brotherly country. Facts on the ground, however, don’t bear this out. Even if for a moment we accept that Saddam was created by the US, can the writer of the letter explain why he did gas thousands of Kurds and Shias who dared to stand up to his dictatorship?’’

Mahmoud continued, ‘‘Iraqis can’t thank the US enough. The insurgents, whom most Muslims are strangely calling freedom fighters, are doomed to fail… These people are nothing but terrorists who want Iraq to be a battleground for a meaningless jihad, much like Afghanistan was.’’

To be sure, Arabic newspapers of the region receive a lot of such mail from Iraqis, Arabic still being the only language most people of that country are at ease with. And in these letters, they regularly join issue with fellow Arabs who overwhelmingly are critical of Washington’s foreign policy in general and the Iraq invasion in particular.

But because few Iraqis probably follow the discussions in the ‘‘Letters’’ sections of English-language newspapers in the Gulf, their opinions have gone largely unrepresented in the one-sided debates raging in these columns.

Incidentally, next to Taqi Mahmoud’s letter was a rejoinder by one Faisal Hanif, presumably a Pakistani, to an earlier letter from Arindam Basu, who had engaged in a war of words with Hanif over the justification for Saddam’s overthrow.

Hanif had this to say: ‘‘Basu’s letter sounds like one written by any dictator’s propaganda minister: the UN sanctions were aimed at Iraqi civilians; the sole goal of any military means to force the Iraqi dictator to disarm was also a plot to kill civilians; the leader of Iraq was not the cause of sufferings of the Iraqi people…’’

Hanif went on: ‘‘Humanity and human rights are universal terms. When one hears that someone is systematically tortured in Iraq, one should think this is his or her own brother or sister… Dictators shouldn’t be tolerated anywhere on earth, not at your own doorstep, not in your neighbourhood, also not 2000 miles away from you. Moreover, dictators are the sole cause of all wars, and peace and freedom can only prevail when such tyrants are eliminated.’’

The scandalous gap between the opinions of foreigners and Iraqis was first illustrated by the failure of the leading Arabic satellite channels to sense the imminent defeat of the Saddam regime at the hands of US and British forces. In the first flush of regime change, many Iraqis blurted out to TV and print journalists their heartfelt gratitude to the coalition forces and their relief over the demise of the Baathist dictatorship — much to the chagrin of Arab TV channels and anti-war European news networks.

However, following the outbreak of the Sunni insurgency and the wave of terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians and foreigners alike, liberal Iraqis — both at home and abroad — have become noticeably reticent, unsure of the longevity of the embattled, US-backed new civilian order.

Still, as the unabashed defence of the invasion and the interim government by people like Mahmoud and Turkmen proves, not all Iraqis are content to let officious foreigners speak for them.

Their moderate views may not be fully representative of Iraqi Street wisdom, and certainly do not reflect the sentiments of the restive towns of Falluja, Ramadi and Baquba. But they do demonstrate that even in a population brainwashed for decades by totalitarian rule and now subjected to horrific levels of violence, there are individuals who know exactly Iraq’s need of the hour. As Emad Turkman said, ‘‘Please help in rebuilding Iraq with both words and deeds. Send Iraq aid, not terrorists like Zarqawi. Neighbouring countries should stop meddling in Iraq. It’s the last thing we need.’’

Nonetheless, for Indians, whether the Gulf NRI or the resident Marxist variety, the reality of post-war Iraq — where the Communist party receives funding from US democracy groups and ‘‘friendly’’ nationals are fair game for kidnappers — is evidently too confusing to understand. So no one should expect the stream of pro-Saddam letters in newspapers to dry up soon, much less the Leftist picketers of US consulates to hang their heads in shame.

The writer is a senior Indian journalist working in the Middle East