A vote for liberation

Mind you, the guests were not uneducated dunderheads. In fact they were experts in fields ranging from literature to economics. What disturbed me was their uncritical acceptance of propaganda and spin as fact. How did they know anything about what had happened in Iraq not only on January 30 but during all the two years of the occupation? There were no Indian journalists in the country. The Indian embassies in Amman and Baghdad were without ambassadors.

Let me briefly tell the story which may shed some light on the Iraq story. On April 9, 2003, instructions from Centcom headquarter in Qatar were that Saddam Hussein8217;s statue in Independence Square, facing Hotel Palestine where the world8217;s networks were staying, should be pulled down. The pulling down of the statue would coincide with Vice President Dick Cheney8217;s triumphalist speech announcing victory and declaring America8217;s powerful military machine as the instrument of subsequent foreign policy. During this speech, interspersed on TV with the pulling down of the statue, Cheney thanked some 8216;8216;Iraqi religion leaders8217;8217; for making victory possible.

Which religion leaders?

Once it was clear that neither the fall of Saddam Hussein nor that of his statue was generating TV images of mass approval, the occupation authority contacted both Ayatollah Baqar al Hakim and Muqtada Sadr.

These Shia religious leaders had influence over the Shia ghetto which at that stage was named Saddam City. Only on receiving word from the Shia clergy, did the Shias of Saddam City came out in their thousands, beating Saddam Hussein8217;s photographs with chappals, spitting on his images and so on. That is how TV networks obtained images of 8216;8216;celebrations8217;8217; in Baghdad after Saddam8217;s fall. Weeks later Saddam City was named Sadr City.

It turns out, therefore, that it were the Shia clerics that Cheney was thanking.

There is little doubt that the Shias in Sadr City, Najaf, Karbala, Naziriyah, Basra were all relieved at what the saw as the end of Saddam8217;s oppression. They had suffered during the Iran-Iraq war and they were murdered in tens of thousands after the uprising of the early nineties encouraged by the Americans.

Because the Americans had let down the Shias during the uprising, there were no spontaneous celebrations at Saddam8217;s fall. The Shia clergy had to be reassured and coaxed before public demonstrations were encouraged in Shia enclaves. This goodwill of Shia leadership soon turned to suspicion when the occupation authority turned down Ayatollah Sistani8217;s suggestions that elections be held in 2003 itself.

The UN secretary general8217;s special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, produced a hefty report detailing why elections could not be held in a hurry. In the absence of elections or any other demonstrative exit strategy, the insurgency grew, mostly in the Baath and Sunni areas.

Sunnis and the Shias adopted two distinct strategies to get the Americans out. The Sunnis, with their access to the Baathist machine and arsenal, embarked on a vicious guerrilla war. Under grand Ayatollah Sistani8217;s leadership, the Shias, 60 to 70 per cent of the population no census is available, decided on a tactics of patience. Wait for the elections. And what kind of elections have we had? First, these elections have been held in the shadow of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, prisoner abuse in Basra and, if the Ayatollah are to be believed, 8216;8216;in a hundred unreported instances, instances which the media has simply not reported because it could not reach the places where this abuse takes place8217;8217;.

Voters were asked to approve a list of 275 candidates. The names of the candidates were not given. In other words, the voters simply did not know whom they were voting for.

But people in large numbers did turn out to vote! Yes, they did. The dangerous trek to the polling booths was their way of demonstrating that they would go to any lengths to ensure that occupation of their country ends. Ayatollahs in Najaf had told me months ago that this is what would happen if elections took place.

If the Americans read the meaning of the turnout in any other way, they will face Iraq8217;s 60 per cent population turning upon them the way the 20 per cent has over the last two years.

If only they had heeded Sistani8217;s advice for early elections last year. The unprecedented horrors of Iraq would not have taken place.

Just imagine, a woman officer was asked to touch praying detainees with her breasts. If the detainee continued his prayer, worse followed. This is from a column in last week8217;s New York Times. The surprise is that neither the American people nor my pro-American guest seem to know details which would make anyone8217;s stomach turn in horror. They do not know because this story is not told on BBC and CNN. That is why the voter turnout should be seen for what it is: a means to get the Americans out.