Gujral 'Vindicated'

AS the war clouds loomed large over the Gulf once again, Indian prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral was unequivocal in his stand. Addressing an election meeting in Calcutta last month, he pointed out that a strike against Iraq would "endanger the peace" in the whole of West Asia, where more than 2.5 million Indians live. "If there is an attack on Iraq, their lives will be in danger, and we cannot tolerate this," he declared. But other than sending letters to the five permanent Security Council members and UN secretary-general Kofi Annan explaining India's position, he failed to explain what exactly India would do in case the US did go ahead with the strike on Iraq.바카라 웹사이트

Unlike the 1991 Allied attack on Iraq, when the Chandra Shekhar government controversially allowed US warplanes to refuel in Mumbai, this time New Delhi has clearly spelt out that India favoured a diplomatic solution to the crisis and would not get involved in a military strike against Iraq.

In fact, addressing an election meeting in Gulbarga on February 21, Gujral reportedly claimed that he had categorically rejected a telephonic request by a "big power" for the use of Indian air space and refuelling rights for a possible strike against Iraq.

But a day later, while admitting that an unnamed country had suggested this during the "normal course of diplomatic interaction", a Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesman claimed that the reference to the telephone call by a "big power" was "a misquote".

However, while the MEA still stays tightlipped about naming the power, Prof Brahma Chellaney of the Centre for Policy Research points out that the only country which would need such permission to reach the Gulf under the circumstances would be the US. Meanwhile, following the agreement negotiated by Annan, the spokesman said that it vindicated India's stand, and hoped that efforts would now be made to ease the situation with the Gulf, a region which has "close ties and deep cultural affinities" with India.