Even after providing “face saving measures”:https://varnam.org/archives/000151.html, India has decided not to send troops to Iraq. As this blog said before, this is a very risky proposition since elections are right around the corner for the Indian Govt. Another point of resentment might have been the fact that US is still pally with a dictator in Pakistan, who is their “ally” in the war on terror. He becomes the first South Asian leader to get invited to Camp David (only to be told that he will not get his F-16s), and a democracy like India is shunned. But with the death toll increasing there is a move to get the UN cover, so that India can send its troops
bq. It has started looking to the United Nations Security Council for a much broader mandate that would facilitate India and some other nations sending troops to Iraq. The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted on Wednesday that moves were on with other governments and UN officials, but only at the preliminary stage.
[ref: “Asia Times”:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EG19Df01.html]
UN Cover for Indian Troops ?
Published
How much is this about money? Under a UN mandate, they would be compensated (mostly by the United States, by the way. Without the mandate, the Indian tax payer would foot the bill, not politically acceptable.
Niraj,
US was willing to pick up the 300 million tab for troop deployment as per the article I quoted. I think it is not about money. 2004 is an election year. If Indian soldiers start getting killed, then it will be a burden for the NDA administration, condiering the fact that there is an anti-Iraq war sentiment in the country. Also there are lots of Indians working in the Arab countries and that also is a factor. India had very good relations with Saddam and Iraqi people.
I am sure if there is UN cover, then Indian troops will be there in Iraq.