Scripting the Saddam story

Then, three days later, I spotted a sudden change in his attitude. He sat opposite me at the table, nibbling his lunch in a sort of reflective silence. He pushed his plate aside and began to pace up and down the room.

“If Saddam is not given the death sentence,” he said leaning on the table, “Sixty five percent of Iraqis would kill him with their bare hands.”

I asked him very mildly: “Why this inexplicable mood swing?”

“Look at this,” he said, placing before me a document he had downloaded. It was a transcript of the interview given by four members of the Iraqi Governing Council, who had met Saddam Hussein after the arrest.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Governing Council member, had asked the ex-president why he had killed Ayatullah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr in 1980 and Ayatullah Sadiq al Sadr in 1999. Saddam Hussein’s response was cruel. “Sidr or rijl?” Which means, “The chest or the foot?” It was like saying “my foot” at the mention of the two revered names.

A pity, the occupiers of Iraq cannot understand the import of this mocking retort, which brought about a total transformation in my friend from Lucknow.

Let me explain.

Lucknow was once the capital of Avadh, where the dominant aristocracy until the early 20th century was Shia. This aristocracy, liberal, catholic in outlook, extremely assimilative of Hindu motifs in all art forms, determined the cultural tempo of the entire region.

The people, cutting across all strata, have also been traditionally respectful to the “ulema” or theological scholars. These “ulema” have over a century or so developed deep and abiding linkages with the major theological schools in Najaf, 100 km south of Baghdad.

Since 65 per cent of Iraq is Shia, the ayatullahs have a considerable hold on the people. This respect radiates out to the entire Islamic world. The two ayutullahs named by Rubaie in his conversation with Saddam Hussein in captivity, are names revered at a large number of Islamic nodal points across the globe.

It was Saddam Hussein’s insult of the two ayatullahs that had shifted the focus of my friend’s rage from the Americans to the captured ex-president.

The juxtaposition of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny with the “foreign” occupation makes for an excruciatingly complex global response. Two unacceptable propositions are in contest. The global response, outside the Anglo-American framework, is negative on both counts: a demonised Saddam Hussein as well as foreign occupation. But the Shias are demonstrating a temporary, tactical, tolerance of the latter, albeit only relative to what they remember as Baathist repression.

The arrest of Saddam Hussein in some ways reinvents him. People the world over had given him up as gone.

Heaven knows what script the US has up its sleeve. There is a tell tale coincidence between his apparent capture and three news items appearing almost simultaneously.

First, the Iraqi governing announced a week ago that it had set up a tribunal to try the ousted leadership in Iraq. Was Saddam Hussein’s impending capture known to them in advance?

Secondly, Washington announcing $ 18 billion of reconstruction contracts, keeping out countries like France and Germany and others, who were not part of the war effort.

Third, the sudden appointment of James Baker, secretary of state to Bush senior, as the special envoy to re-negotiate debts Iraq owed to Russia, France, Germany, and others. Baker had remarked that in the interest of the people of Iraq, the debt burden must be reduced. In other words, Russia and France must forego their claims and join in the reconstruction of Iraq which would entitle them to participate in the reconstruction bonanza.

The lack of clarity that has plagued American efforts in Iraq attends the post-Saddam arrest too.

President Bush says he will be tried by Iraqis. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told ABC News that Saddam Hussein would be “treated like a prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions”. The Iraqi Governing Council says a tribunal is in place to try him.

Each one of these statements have different implications. For example, if Saddam Hussein is a POW under the Geneva Convention, how is he being “interrogated”, when the “coercive” questioning of prisoners is banned under the convention?

For me the biggest puzzle is why has he been brought out alive. Dead men tell no tales. An alive Saddam Hussein in a courtroom may well begin to sing like a canary about all his messy involvements with Anglo-American intelligence, those conversations with Bob Dole and Ambassador April Gillespie. Or will he be put away as Jack Ruby put away Lee Oswald, Kennedy’s alleged killer.

The script seems simple enough in the short run. Like an angel, President Bush appears among US troops in Iraq with a Thanksgiving turkey. The troops in turn have delivered Saddam Hussein just in time for the first family to make for serene, angelic Christmas photographs, with a Christmas tree in the background. If someone else delivered the captured trophy to the US troops, the script will unfold, riveting and live, after the Christmas celebrations. Vying for the media’s attention will be suicide bombers and the saga of the captured dictator, carefully scripted by President Bush’s re-election team.