The Iraqi Ransom

Full text of the talk, Letter from India, broadcast on the BBC.

A month or so before he was removed from office, prime minister Atal BehariVajpayee invited me for tea and an informal chit-chat. He was in a good moodbasking in the opinion polls which had been predicting victory in the electionsfor the coalition he was leading. "After you have gone, George will betelephoning me," he said laughingly. I thought he was referring to his defenceminister, George Fernandes, and wondered why Vajpayee was passing on thisuseless information to me. Observing the look of puzzlement on my face, he said,"George. George Bush." He then explained that the US president just wouldn’tgive up. "I keep telling him, I am the prime minister of the world’s largestdemocracy and there is no way I can send troops to Iraq against the wishes of mypeople."

As in most of South and Southeast Asia, the US-led invasion of Iraq isterribly unpopular in India. An overwhelming majority in the country, accordingto opinion polls, is opposed to the war and an even bigger majority is opposedto sending Indian troops to Iraq. An aide to Vajpayee told me: "The primeminister dreads calls from George Bush, because he always has to say ‘no’.He is a very polite man. He doesn’t like to say ‘no’."

Another polite man, the new foreign minister K. Natwar Singh went calling onColin Powell in Washington soon after he was sworn-in in May. Standing next tothe US secretary of state at a press conference, Mr Natwar Singh mumbledsomething about re-examining the American request for Indian troops in view ofnew UN resolutions. The media back home, his own party and the Opposition camedown on Natwar Singh like a ton of bricks. The foreign minister told me on hisreturn, "What else could I say? Colin Powell was standing next to me. I didn’tcommit to sending troops. I was just trying to say ‘no’ politely."Clearly, Indian politicians need to be less polite.

The never-ending war in Iraq and the return of sovereignty to the Iraqipeople courtesy of the Bush administration is generally reported on the backpages of the Indian press. This despite the fact that India has the secondlargest Muslim population in the world and also, after Iran, the second largestShia population. However, in the third of week of July, Iraq and all its woeswere back on the front pages. Non-combatant India was now very much involved.

On July 21, three Indian truck drivers were taken hostage in Iraq by arelatively unknown Mosul-based group called The Holders of the Black Banners.This shadowy group of kidnappers demanded that Indian troops immediately leaveIraq and stop assisting US forces. The kidnappers threatened to behead thehostages, one by one, if their demands were not met. The demands were bothbizarre and absurd. When it was pointed out to the kidnappers that India had notroops in Iraq and was indeed vehemently opposed to the US invasion, thekidnappers quickly moved away from the political demands to the real demand.That is the ransom. The group maintained that the war had killed 250 women andchildren in Faluja and demanded the Indian government pay compensation to thebereaved families. Why only Faluja victims? Why not Baghdad or Najaf victims?Nobody has the answer to these obvious questions. Indeed, nobody here is askingthem.

The Indian government is confronted with a huge dilemma. It cannot be seen tobe negotiating with the kidnappers, nor can it ‘officially’ pay the ransom.I use the word officially advisedly. The worst kept secret in New Delhi is thatthe Indian government is, in fact, frantically negotiating with the kidnappersthrough mediators and that it is apparently willing to pay the ransom quietlybut indirectly. The only problem is that the sole official mediator is a rathererratic Iraqi who keeps upping the ransom money. A couple of weeks ago, themedia was full of stories of how an agreement had been reached with thekidnappers for a reported sum of $350,000. The deal fell through at theproverbial last minute because the Sheikh, speaking presumably on behalf of thekidnappers, upped the sum agreed upon. And then, he went silent.

The mediator is a colourful and flamboyant Baghdad-based Iraqi called SheikhHisham al-Dulaimi. He heads what is described as the National Group of IraqiTribal Leaders. He has three wives and 12 children. He smokes cigars. He has hispersonal well-armed youth militia protecting him. When a correspondent for mymagazine Outlook met Sheikh Dulaimi in his Baghdad office, he was clearlyenjoying the limelight surrounded as he was by journalists and TV crews. Hismobile rang incessantly.

Sheikh Dulaimi has one other passion: Bollywood. He loves Bollywood films andBollywood film stars. The Sheikh told the Outlookcorrespondentthat if big Bollywood stars like Amitabh Bachchan, Asha Parekh and Dharmendramade a personal call to him pleading for the release of the three hostages, thethree, in his words, "would be released today itself."

The impact of his interview was instant. Amitabh Bachchan, who was once amember of Parliament, responded by saying that he would call Sheikh Dulaimi "100times, not once" if the government of India gave him the green signal. Theageing and retired actress Asha Parekh, delighted at some rare media publicity,also got in on the act and offered her services. The Indian government,incidentally, has not yet felt the need to use the assistance of film stars.

The central problem in this drama is the Sheikh himself. The Indiangovernment is extremely wary of dealing with him because, and I quote, "hedoes not keep his word." He also has the habit of announcing that he iswithdrawing from the negotiations but reinstates himself 24-hours later. TheIndian government candidly admits that it is completely and thoroughly fed upwith the unreliable Sheikh. Unfortunately, they have no other mediator to turnto. As I speak to you, it is not entirely clear what status the Sheikh enjoysvis-à-vis the Indian government. There is talk of looking for a new mediator,but where in chaotic, war-torn Iraq do you find another mediator? For better orfor worse, India is stuck with Sheikh Dulaimi.

The politics of hostage-taking and hostage release has obscured the real,tragic, human story behind the kidnapping. This is the story of impoverishedIndian truck drivers, cooks, assistant cooks, cleaners lured by big dollars intoIraq. My magazine, Outlook, ran a coverstory from Baghdad on their plight earlier this month. It is estimated thatthere are over 5,000 semi-skilled Indian workers in Iraq and out of these over athousand drive trucks on the dangerous Kuwait-Baghdad highway. Most of them didnot even know they would end up in Iraq, they thought they would be employed inKuwait. The drivers brave gunfire, ambushes, landmines from disparate Iraqiradicals - former Baathists, jehadis, nationalists or plain kidnapping gangs ina swathe of militant acreage extending from Abdaly in Kuwait all the way toBaghdad.

These 5,000 workers comprise cheap Indian labour from Punjab, Maharashtra,Kerala. Indeed they come from across the country. They work for Americancompanies like Kellogg, Brown and Root, trucking supplies to US military basesin Iraq. "The dogs of Saddam are everywhere and we cannot afford to becareless," says Harjeet Singh from Punjab. Harjeet is clocking thousands ofkilometres on Iraqi roads weighed down with 25 kilograms of body armour andhelmet. He cannot roll down the windows of his Mercedes truck or talk to Iraqisor even halt for an urgent piss. He earns close to $1500 a month. In India, ifhe could find a trucking job, he would be earning $150.

The Indian truck drivers have some nominal security in the shape of Iraqiguards. Unfortunately, the guards are hopelessly trained. At the first sound ofgunfire they usually run away. Sheikh Mehboob of Celdon Transport, a US-basedtrucking company whose drivers are 90 per cent Indian, is lucky to be alive. Theincident happened 20 kilometres from Basra. Driving the 14th truck in a15-truck convoy, Mehboob came under fire. He recalls: "My Iraqi security waspathetic. I shouted at him that if you cannot fire your gun yourself, teach mehow to do it. I am also a Muslim. I am ferrying goods for the Iraqis. It’s fortheir good." Mehboob’s complaint against private Iraqi security is widelyshared. British security guards are more professional, but they charge a muchhigher fee and prefer trucks with air-conditioners and cassette players. Driverslike Mehboob seldom get them.

If the three hostages are held captive in Iraq, their families are heldcaptive by the media. TV crews are perpetually camped outside their villages inthe Punjab and almost every evening at prime time tearful wives, mothers,fathers, sons, daughters berate the Indian government for not doing enough toget the hostages freed. But what can the government do? The Prime Minister, DrManmohan Singh, told parliament last week, "We cannot say the hostages will bereleased tomorrow."

The hope, indeed the prayer, in New Delhi is of fatigue overtaking thekidnappers. They have held their prisoners captive for nearly five weeks now andmust surely be getting tired of the prolonged haggling. Meanwhile, there is aslender chance that the kidnappers will listen to a gentleman from Chennai whois walking backwards, hoping that this extraordinary gesture will persuade thekidnappers release the hostages for ‘humanitarian reasons."

New Delhi is keeping its fingers crossed. There is little else it can do.

Postscript

Mercifully, the hostage drama has now ended and it has proved once again thatthere are some crises in the life of a government which cannot be anticipated.You just have to live with them and hope for the best. The only losers in thisextended drama are the media. They have lost a cracker of a story.