The British Indian army occupied Iraq during World War I. Being die-hard colonialists and imperialists the British officers posted in Iraq thought that the Iraqis were like the passive Indians and could be lorded over the way the Indians were being ruled. So, they began to govern Iraq in a high-handed manner.
But soon they discovered to their dismay that the Iraqis were a bit different as they revolted against the oppressive British rule in 1920. What the British chronicles refer to as a revolt is known to the Iraqis as the Revolution of 1920. Indeed it was a revolution in that all sections of the Iraqi society from Baghdad to Basra had risen in rebellion demanding the British to leave their country. Although wounded badly in World War I, Britain was still strong enough to punish the “rebellious” Iraqis; indeed they dealt with them in the most brutal manner. The Royal Air Force, and there was hardly any thing royal about it, showered bombs and poisonous gases on unarmed Iraqis and defeated them into surrender and silence, the silence of death and destruction.
But the nationwide Iraqi revolt succeeded to the extent that it forced the British to review their policies. They decided in the Cairo Conference of 1921 to abandon the Government of India mentality and direct rule and replace it with indirect one in which pliable Iraqis, who willing to cooperate, will also be included. But it was difficult to find pliable and ‘trust worthy’ men in Iraq whose nationwide rebellion was just suppressed and bombed out. They then spotted Faysal, the son of Husayn, the Sherif of Makkah and Britain’s favourite Arab leader of the Arab Revolt fame who was then languishing in obscurity after the French had outsted him from France at gun point in 1920. He was weak and pliable and fitted well in the British scheme. He did not have any base in Iraq and, therefore, would always be dependent on the British support to survive in office. And such men surely perform what their masters order them to do. So, Faysal was installed as king of Iraq. For appearance sake a referendum was held in which Faysal secured more than 97% votes. This happened because the election was blatantly and widely rigged in favour of Faysal. So the first lesson of democracy that the Iraqis learnt from the British was how to rig elections to ensure one’s victory. When years later Saddam Husayn did exactly what his country had learnt from the British, the later along with the entire West condemned his brand of democracy as fraud and dictatorship.
To help Faysal serve the British interests well, his imperialist mentors gave him a cabinet which had only pliable ministers with British advisers whose advices were binding. Moreover, defence and foreign affairs were completely in British hands, even internal security was under their control. But despite their suffocating control over the country, the British shamelessly declared Iraq as independent. For their part the “Arab rulers of independent Iraq”, too, were very intelligent. They knew they had no base of support in the country which felt threatened by resurgent Turkey as well as by the Kurds who felt a loose Turkish rule was preferable to the suffocating British imperialism backed by the menacing Royal Air Force. But Faysal’s Iraq, which then had only the Ottoman provinces of Baghdad and Basra, needed the Kurd-dominated and “possibly” oil-rich Musal badly to be a viable state. They knew well that only Britain’s military and diplomatic support could secure Musal for them, a sort of helplessness that always compelled them to cooperate with the British willingly and without conditions. The drama staged in Iraq during the 1930s is being played again in that unfortunate country with the only difference that the actors in this first decade of the 21st century are Americans with the British in supporting role. The story line, too, more or less, is similar to the old one. The Americans occupied Iraq on false grounds in 2003. Thereafter they found amenable Iraqis, within and outside Iraq, who are willingly cooperating with them. They held elections in the occupied country, ignored its boycott by large numbers of people and proudly declared to have created a new democratic independent Iraq. The Iraqi collaborators of the Americans, too, have the temerity to call their country independent despite the presence of over 150 thousand American forces there. They also take pride in describing themselves as democrats as democracy has historically been in their blood. Today Americans have total control over the Iraqi oil, and they decide where huge oil revenues have to be spent. On their part the pliable Iraqis, like their counterparts of 1920s and 1930s, have enough intelligence to understand the value of American support without which they would not survive even a day in office. In the given circumstances these puppets have no option but to cooperate with the U.S. But the Americans do not have trust and faith in them. So, they want a treaty which would allow them to permanently keep their forces in the country with freedom to kill Iraqis without facing trial. It is to be seen what the so called new “independent and democratic Iraqi rulers” would do; they seem to have been caught between the devil and the deep sea. They had invited this American invasion and occupation of their country, and now they have to pay the price.
But soon they discovered to their dismay that the Iraqis were a bit different as they revolted against the oppressive British rule in 1920. What the British chronicles refer to as a revolt is known to the Iraqis as the Revolution of 1920. Indeed it was a revolution in that all sections of the Iraqi society from Baghdad to Basra had risen in rebellion demanding the British to leave their country. Although wounded badly in World War I, Britain was still strong enough to punish the “rebellious” Iraqis; indeed they dealt with them in the most brutal manner. The Royal Air Force, and there was hardly any thing royal about it, showered bombs and poisonous gases on unarmed Iraqis and defeated them into surrender and silence, the silence of death and destruction.
But the nationwide Iraqi revolt succeeded to the extent that it forced the British to review their policies. They decided in the Cairo Conference of 1921 to abandon the Government of India mentality and direct rule and replace it with indirect one in which pliable Iraqis, who willing to cooperate, will also be included. But it was difficult to find pliable and ‘trust worthy’ men in Iraq whose nationwide rebellion was just suppressed and bombed out. They then spotted Faysal, the son of Husayn, the Sherif of Makkah and Britain’s favourite Arab leader of the Arab Revolt fame who was then languishing in obscurity after the French had outsted him from France at gun point in 1920. He was weak and pliable and fitted well in the British scheme. He did not have any base in Iraq and, therefore, would always be dependent on the British support to survive in office. And such men surely perform what their masters order them to do. So, Faysal was installed as king of Iraq. For appearance sake a referendum was held in which Faysal secured more than 97% votes. This happened because the election was blatantly and widely rigged in favour of Faysal. So the first lesson of democracy that the Iraqis learnt from the British was how to rig elections to ensure one’s victory. When years later Saddam Husayn did exactly what his country had learnt from the British, the later along with the entire West condemned his brand of democracy as fraud and dictatorship.
To help Faysal serve the British interests well, his imperialist mentors gave him a cabinet which had only pliable ministers with British advisers whose advices were binding. Moreover, defence and foreign affairs were completely in British hands, even internal security was under their control. But despite their suffocating control over the country, the British shamelessly declared Iraq as independent. For their part the “Arab rulers of independent Iraq”, too, were very intelligent. They knew they had no base of support in the country which felt threatened by resurgent Turkey as well as by the Kurds who felt a loose Turkish rule was preferable to the suffocating British imperialism backed by the menacing Royal Air Force. But Faysal’s Iraq, which then had only the Ottoman provinces of Baghdad and Basra, needed the Kurd-dominated and “possibly” oil-rich Musal badly to be a viable state. They knew well that only Britain’s military and diplomatic support could secure Musal for them, a sort of helplessness that always compelled them to cooperate with the British willingly and without conditions. The drama staged in Iraq during the 1930s is being played again in that unfortunate country with the only difference that the actors in this first decade of the 21st century are Americans with the British in supporting role. The story line, too, more or less, is similar to the old one. The Americans occupied Iraq on false grounds in 2003. Thereafter they found amenable Iraqis, within and outside Iraq, who are willingly cooperating with them. They held elections in the occupied country, ignored its boycott by large numbers of people and proudly declared to have created a new democratic independent Iraq. The Iraqi collaborators of the Americans, too, have the temerity to call their country independent despite the presence of over 150 thousand American forces there. They also take pride in describing themselves as democrats as democracy has historically been in their blood. Today Americans have total control over the Iraqi oil, and they decide where huge oil revenues have to be spent. On their part the pliable Iraqis, like their counterparts of 1920s and 1930s, have enough intelligence to understand the value of American support without which they would not survive even a day in office. In the given circumstances these puppets have no option but to cooperate with the U.S. But the Americans do not have trust and faith in them. So, they want a treaty which would allow them to permanently keep their forces in the country with freedom to kill Iraqis without facing trial. It is to be seen what the so called new “independent and democratic Iraqi rulers” would do; they seem to have been caught between the devil and the deep sea. They had invited this American invasion and occupation of their country, and now they have to pay the price.
[June, 2008]
No comments:
Post a Comment