Following the installation of an interim government and technical transfer of sovereignty in Iraq, the new government in New Delhi must make some tough decisions. Sri Raman, in the Indian capital, reports Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government managed to refuse the United States' request for Indian troops to be sent to Iraq. That was, however, only after External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh came perilously close to saying "yes". India's new rulers have not exactly passed their first test with flying colours. But it seems that they have just about made it through. However, it will be harder for New Delhi to reject the demand from Washington again, one that could be voiced more strongly following the establishment of the interim Iraqi government. But it seems that the Indian government could be thinking of abstaining from recognising the interim government altogether. Any such refusal could only be couched in terms that would also suggest a rejection of the US-backed road map and the US-influenced United Nations resolutions on Iraq. As the government struggles to unify its policy over Iraq, the controversy over sending troops exposed the political obstacles faced by both sides of the Indian political spectrum in pressing for an Iraq policy to their liking. External Affairs Minister Singh took all of India by surprise, while on a visit to the US in the second week of June, by telling the media: "We will reconsider the US' request for sending troops to Iraq." He said India would do so because "the situation has changed." The change, as he saw it, was reflected in the unanimous UN Security Council resolution of 8 June. Back home in India, the announcement unleashed a storm of protest against committing troops. Within hours, while still in Washington, Singh was obliged to retreat. He told the bemused media that now "there is no question of sending troops to Iraq." It was evident that the retreat had been forced by reactions to his earlier remarks from within his own government and his own Congress Party. The loudest and clearest protests, however, came from the left, which supports the coalition government from outside. Spokespersons of the two major leftist parties -- the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India -- questioned the claim that the "situation" had "changed". They pointed out that Iraq was "still under US occupation", that "popular resistance to the occupation" raged on and that there was no "multinational force" in place to take over. The left found an unlikely ally in former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha. He accused Singh of talking about the subject without giving any thought to it. Listing his own reasons for not accepting the US' request -- ones which were different from those of the left -- Sinha pointed out that there was no clarity to the "command structure" of the proposed "multinational force" in Iraq. This, he argued, indicated that Indian soldiers would be forced to serve under non- Indian and non-UN control. For its part, while it was still in power, the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) first responded to the request by trying to use it to achieve a US shift against Pakistan over the Kashmir issue. It was openly suggested that the war on Iraq could lead to a recognition of India's right to carry out an avowedly anti-terrorist "pre- emptive" strike in Kashmir. It was popular pressure across the country, and not merely from Muslims -- as BBC reports, for example, made out -- that forced the BJP to retreat. An all-party parliamentary resolution asking for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq sealed the fate of the proposal. External Affairs Minister Singh has since failed in his move for a reconsideration of the proposal, and his faux-pas has come as a warning -- especially to those who thought that, now that the BJP government had been replaced, there would be no further debate over the US' request. But the coalition under former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee never formally sealed the troops- sending option, and future attempts to revive the idea under Manmohan Singh's government cannot be ruled out. While defending the decision not to send troops for now, without offending Washington, New Delhi is banking on two main arguments. The first is that concerning the country's parliamentary resolution. The second consists of the same set of caveats as Sinha's -- concerning the command and control structure of the "multinational force" in Iraq. Both these arguments can only be inadequate in the face of a demand for India's recognition, in any form, of the interim government in Baghdad. Both arguments pertain to the troops issue, and do not mention the Iraqi interim government. It is worth noting that recognition can only be refused along with a rejection of the road map plan itself. But what remains unclear is, what is the mandate of the Manmohan Singh government on Iraq? The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which has formed the government, speaks of Iraq with no clarity. "Steps will be taken to withdraw Indian mercenaries from Iraq, while further recruitment for this purpose will be banned," reads the only sentence in the CMP that is specifically about Iraq. The allusion is to reports of occupation authorities outsourcing security and hiring Indian ex-servicemen. Meanwhile, the left is more than likely to step up its opposition to any move towards officially recognising the interim government. The centrist parties in the ruling coalition may also be expected to oppose any such step. The sentiment of the Muslims -- India's largest religious minority -- is likely to back these parties' firm opposition to officially recognising the new Iraqi government. The coming weeks and months may, indeed, see the sharpening of the Indian political conflict over Iraq.
