IN THE last two weeks, we have witnessed a dampening of mood amongst those who opposed war against Iraq. As we are bombarded over and over again with images of British or American troops pulling down Saddam’s statues, and Iraqis dancing on them, we are told that the coalition’s stance has been vindicated, and that these images represent the reality in Iraq.

How do we make sense of these images of euphoria in Iraq? Was it really a victory for Rumsfeld and company? Were the people of Iraq really ‘liberated’ by the Americans? Were we really wrong to oppose this war?

Far from it. Before digesting uncritically any of the reportage ‘proving’ the wisdom behind the attack on Iraq, we must remember that this is coming from ‘embedded’ or ‘in-bed’ journalists; that events such as pulling down Saddam’s statues and wrapping an Iraqi flag around it are planned; that a few hundred people dancing on Saddam’s statue may be celebrating the fall of a tyrant but not the invasion; that the few dozen people waving to American soldiers hardly form a majority among the 250 million Iraqis; that the reporting has been highly biased, with the most illustrative example being the sacking of a star journalist by NBC for ‘unpatriotic’ reporting, and that we were denied an alternative source of news.

This would include the bombing of Al-Jazeera’s station in Baghdad after they had notified the Pentagon at least twice of their location and been reassured by the US army. Al-Jazeera has the honour of losing another station to US bombing in Kabul just before the Americans entered that city. It would also include the unprovoked tank attack on Palestine Hotel in Baghdad where several non-embedded journalists were staying.

In critically examining the reportage from Iraq, we are not denying reality. Rather, we are being prudent. After all, we can hardly be expected to trust this coalition of “The Bought and Bullied”, as Arundhati Roy calls it, after they presented fake documents as proof of Iraq’s WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability. Seymour Hersh’s investigative article in the New Yorker outlines how both the highest levels of the US and UK governments are implicated in presenting what has been called a cut and paste job from the internet, as irrefutable proof of Saddam’s evil intentions.

Our understanding of far-away events depends on how they are narrated. Colonizers have long depended on selective, decontextualized reporting for maintaining support within their home constituencies. Such reporting is a powerful way of disassociating the present from the past — thus enabling these governments to paint pictures of the colonized societies that are far from actual reality. As soon as we put the images on TV in their proper historical context, a different picture emerges.

We remind ourselves that just a few months ago, similar scenes of Afghan joy at being ‘liberated’ by the Americans and British from the Taliban were relayed to tell us that the war in Afghanistan had ended. But it has become clear by now that neither the war has ended, nor is the peace sustainable. In fact, a facade had been created, which has since fallen apart, but by then the corporate media had discovered new interests.

An exercise similar to this one about to be conducted in Iraq was carried out in Afghanistan. Karzai was imposed on the country as the people’s choice. It soon became apparent that his government could not even claim to have full jurisdiction over the city of Kabul, much less Afghanistan. Robert Fisk is perhaps the only famous journalist who has taken the trouble of going back to Afghanistan after the media spotlight moved away from there to Iraq. He reports not only increased lawlessness, looting and war and drug lordism but that Al Qaeda operates a radio station inside Afghanistan; that US troops have had to retreat from five positions of which they have admitted only one; that new landmines have been laid not only by Afghans but by a fresh crop of Arab fighters; that Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami has joined hands with other groups, including the remnants of the Taliban.

The devastation wrought by this even more gruesome than declared war. Children, and adults die of hunger, civilians get blown up by land mines, but worst of all there seems to be no end to it. The past holds only painful memories, the present is unbearable and the future is a void.

Perhaps there were a few people who embraced the American soldiers when they first entered Kabul, but we can be sure that they are regretting that moment today. Just as the Catholics in Ireland today regret the ‘help’ of the British army in the 1960s. Continued bloodshed in imperial England’s first colony, Ireland, owes much to their ‘liberation’ by the British.

With each passing day, it is becoming evident that the reality in Iraq is much different from the images flashed on corporate media. The ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ is all about creating and maintaining a facade, behind which the real war on the Iraqi people is only beginning. The horrendous assaults on their lives by cluster bombs will pale into significance compared to the wholesale deprivation that is in store for them through the privatization of not just their oil resources but health care, water, electricity, transport, education, drugs and phones. Under the cover of ‘reconstruction’ large US corporations are already signing deals to gain control over Iraq.

The democracy being imposed on Iraq by the US is meant to legitimize this control. The Pentagon’s favourite candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, definitely has the right kind of credentials. He was convicted in 1992 by a Jordanian court for embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and currency speculation regarding his role in the $200 million scandal at the Petra Bank. All these skills will, no doubt, stand him in good stead in the post-war, US-controlled Iraq that the Pentagon envisions.

Meanwhile corporate media is flooded with statements of pontificators like Geoff Hoon, British defence minister. He has asserted that Iraqi mothers will thank the cluster bombs in later years. Tony Blair similarly claims that the loss of life is less than it would have been under Saddam’s regime, without revealing the complex calculus through which he has arrived at this result. Finally, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has interpreted the looting of the cultural treasures of Iraq, and medical supplies from hospitals as an expression of new-found freedom for the long-suppressed Iraqi people.

Thus, no wonder that to some extent this media coverage of Iraqi people ‘welcoming’ the Americans and British has had the effect desired by Bush and Blair. Many who demonstrated against the war are feeling disheartened, almost let down by the electronic media. More than that, the images of jubilant Iraqis are supposed to have provided ex post facts justification for the attack, although none is forthcoming on the much-touted WMD front. Those who were unsure or against the war are now convinced that it would help Iraqis build a better future without Saddam. According to a poll carried out by ICM between April 11 and 13, support for war has risen in the UK from 38 per cent in March to 62 per cent in April.

These images of cheering Iraqis, the drama of the Iraqi boy (whose limbs as well as his family were blown off by the coalition bombing) being helped by the ‘liberators’, and other such machiavellian tricks have also saved Blair’s government, while putting France and Germany in an unfavourable light. Above all, far from imposing sanctions on the coalition for a war that Kofi Annan explicitly termed as an act of aggression, the UN is priming itself for a role to act as the US government’s very own janitorial service.

The politicization of the diverse groups of protesters against the American incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan represents a giant leap forward. This is the first time that many Muslims have been exposed to the non-Muslims who are opposing the war on Iraq not because they feel persecuted as a group, but because they understand that this war is an imperial undertaking motivated by corporate interests. Similarly, many of the left groups that had paid lip service to minority rights and issues are now learning to respect Muslim activists for their work.

Rather than Blair or Bush, it is becoming apparent that it is these activists, whose stance is being vindicated in Iraq. Every day now we hear of protests in Iraqi cities and the US forces’ brutal response to those protests. We hear of pockets of resistance where Iraqis are still fighting the invaders. We find out that while the US stationed large number of troops to protect the offices of the ministry of petroleum in Baghdad, none were available to protect the ministries of education, interior or agriculture. No troops could be spared to protect the hospitals that were being looted of vital supplies as people lay dying.

Ultimately, news from Iraq, emerging despite attempts at media clamp down and spin doctoring, is bound to fuel the anti-US feeling already running high in the world, especially the Muslim world. The anti-war movement needs to harness the power of information, and it is aided in this respect by the fact that the movement has drawn people from all walks of life and all strata of societies. The Bush and Blair governments have underestimated people’s intelligence, their ability to see through the so-called images of celebration in Iraqi streets and to continue to organize themselves better in order to take on the might of the unilaterist imperialism.

On April 12 there were anti-war demonstrations again around the world. In the US there was a demonstration of several thousand people in Washington demanding that American troops be brought back home. Also in the US more than 10,000 people have decided to withhold tax that would go to support the war. The London demonstration had around 200,000 people who marched in defiance of their government’s continued support of the carnage in Baghdad.

IT would be unrealistic to assume that a resumption of talks between India and Pakistan, proposed by India’s prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and welcomed by Pakistan, would take place without running into snags and hitches at various stages. Going by the past record of such bilateral exchanges, the chances of a smooth beginning of another round of talks, are very slim.

However, any scepticism arising out of Indian foreign minister Yashwant Sinha’s repeated assertion that Pakistan deserved to be treated like Iraq for its role in promoting cross-border infiltration of militants into Indian held Kashmir seems unnecessary. First, Prime Minister Vajpayee has offered the talks quite a few days after Mr Sinha had voiced his allegations and insinuations. Seasonally, the US, to whom Mr Sinha addressed his entreaties for Iraq-like action against Pakistan, has made it quite clear that there is no parallel between Iraq and Pakistan.

What is important is for both countries to realize that there is no alternative to a dialogue. It is also important that neither side lays down any preconditions for the resumption of talks. Many eminent Indian observers of the Kashmir situation have repeatedly stressed that the only meaningful way for India to tackle the problem of cross-border terrorism is to make peace with the Kashmiris. A brief for the American policymakers, developed by the Brookings Institution at the end of a 10-month long military stand-off between India and Pakistan along their common border last year, categorically stated that New Delhi urgently needed to “respond to the Kashmiris’ legitimate grievances and institutionalize political mechanisms and processes to ensure democratic governance.”

The incidents of violence in Kashmir on Tuesday, resulting in the death of a large number of people and 13 ‘militants’, are most deplorable but would, hopefully, not upset the plans for talks. For the present, this seems unlikely, in view of the fact that the Indian authorities continue to stand by their offer of talks despite the incidents. India’s junior foreign minister, Digvijay singh, confirmed on Tuesday that the offer of talks was by no means “flippant” and that they could begin as early as June if there is a positive response from the Pakistani side. He told an Indian daily, Asian Age that even a “one-line statement from the Pakistani side shunning violence” would be helpful in getting the talks started.

Not surprisingly, the only discordant note was struck by the Indian Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani, who, speaking in the Lok Sabha, said that “guerillas from Pakistan” could use the turbulence in Iraq as a “smoke screen” to hide infiltration into Kashmir. This makes little sense, as there is no possible linkage between Pakistan and Iraq. Contrary to what he implies, the international community, particularly the US, is likely to react very strongly to any over acts of terrorism.

The coming visit of the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, to South Asia in early May clearly indicates that US feels, the situation between India and Pakistan needs to be closely watched. US state department officials have indicated that Washington has remained engaged in South Asia since early last year when India massed its forces on the Pakistan border and the two countries came very close to fighting yet another war.

According to a report, a US State Department official, commenting on Indian prime minister’s call for the resumption of a dialogue with Pakistan, has said, “It’s good to hear leaders from both sides talking about a peaceful settlement” of their bilateral disputes and differences.

The proposed talks, if and when they take place, will need to be viewed with cautious optimism. The outcomes of such talks in the past have not been very encouraging. There was a great deal of optimism at the time of the Agra summit meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in July 2001. According to most reports after the summit, the two leaders came quite close to an agreement. But in the end, the summit ended quite abruptly even without the issue of a joint declaration or statement. The breakdown occurred at the final stage of drafting of the joint declaration over the semantics of the language. Since then the leaders the two countries have been drifting apart. At a SAARC summit afterwards, President Pervez Musharraf walked up to Mr Vajpayee and shook hands with him but the latter remained impassive and aloof.

The contacts between India and Pakistan at the people-to-people level, which have taken place over the past several years, have been quite promising. They have been attended by delegates representing various schools of thought and social activity from both sides. Praful Bidwai, one of the top Indian journalists and an indefatigable peace activist, believes that these initiatives indicate “a confluence of different concerns, radically questioning not just the war-like hostility between India and Pakistan but also the structures and belief systems that sustain such hostility.” However, these efforts have not had any discernible impact on the official policy in either country. The sticking point has been Kashmir.

Coincidentally, the real hardliners on both sides are the bureaucrats connected with the formulation of foreign policy. A classic instance is the incident quoted by Dr Mubashir Hasan, in his article in this paper on Wednesday. According to him, at a SAARC summit some years ago the Indian prime minister asked the then Pakistani prime minister about the progress on a proposal for India to buy electric power from Pakistan. The then Pakistan prime minister (Nawaz Sharif) expressed his willingness to accept the proposal but a senior Pakistani bureaucrat (whom Hr Hasan has not named), present at the meeting, bluntly said that there was no question of such a deal taking place. That was the end of the matter.

On occasions it has been suggested that Pakistan and India should adopt a step-by-step approach the resolution of their disputes, including Kashmir, without insisting on its “centrality”. The idea is that too rigid an adherence to the relevant UN resolutions for a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine the wishes of its people there can create problems. For instance, in the context of the plebiscite in the original resolution there was no provision for the state’s opting for self-determination which now seems to what the majority of the Kashmiri people really want. The original resolution is thus not quite relevant any more.

On the eve of the Agra summit, President Musharraf, in an interview to an Indian journalist, said something to the effect that there could be a composite dialogue with India dealing with all outstanding issues but the centrality of the Kashmir has to be recognized. He then said: “I would say the end game really is to do something that will improve the condition of this economically deprived region of the world, the most poverty-stricken region ... We can do that if we remove the causes of tensions between India and Pakistan ... We have to do that by resolving the Kashmir dispute.”

Incidentally, Gen Ziaul Haq, during a visit to New Delhi in the early 1980s, said at a press conference that a dialogue between India and Pakistan did not necessarily have to start with Kashmir, adding “we could start with less contentious issues.”

Perhaps Mr Vajpayee could start the proposed resumption of talks by reopening the road, rail, air links between the two countries which have been suspended since December 2001. The two countries could also consider having free trade and cultural exchanges, and even perhaps by abolishing the need for a visa to travel between the two countries. If nothing else, such steps could improve the atmospherics for bilateral talks, opening up the possibilities of peaceful solution of all outstanding problems and differences, including Kashmir.