THE much-awaited recommendations of the Iraq Study Group were presented to President Bush and unveiled to the public recently. The recommendations amount to a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. But they are not confined to Iraq alone and deal with issues relating to the wider Middle East, touching on Afghanistan as well.

In brief, what the 79 recommendations contained in the 142-page report suggest is to: (i) urge the Bush administration to withdraw all its combat troops from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008; (ii) ask the US to engage Iran and Syria in its efforts to secure a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi crisis; (iii) underscore the need to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, noting that the US alone cannot achieve its goal in the region unless it deals directly with these countries; (iv) call upon the administration to provide additional economic and military support to Afghanistan.

President Bush admitted that the report gave “a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq”, though it contained “some really very interesting proposals”, that he would consider “seriously”. The report has been welcomed by the Democrats who feel that their year-long criticism of the administration’s Iraq policy stands vindicated.

The report characterises the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating”. The only way out of the mess, the panel recommends, is to strengthen the Iraqi army and launch an immediate “diplomatic offensive” to win cooperation from neighbours such as Iran and Syria. Though it endorses the president’s goal of an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself”, the panel feels no need to echo the administration’s claim that Iraq could be the beacon for democratic change in the region.

To appreciate its significance, it would only be appropriate to recall that when this distinguished panel of five Republicans and five Democrats was constituted in March 2006, no one expected it to suggest serious alternatives to the administration’s assertion that it would “stay the course” in Iraq. However, with unceasing daily attacks on coalition forces, resulting in the death of nearly 3,000 US servicemen and civil war, the American public demonstrated during November’s mid-term elections not only its refusal to countenance the administration’s claims any longer but also that it had lost all appetite for such adventures. This radical transformation was a rude shock to the Bush administration which had launched the invasion convinced of a swift victory. Its goal had nothing to do with the fact that Iraq had a brutal regime and invaded the territory of its neighbours. Its charges of Saddam Hussein’s collusion with Al Qaeda were unfounded.

Bush’s objective was far loftier and ambitious. It was to recast the entire region as a haven of peace and prosperity, and more importantly, as a beacon of democracy, that would light the way to salvation for other countries. It was a goal loftier than anything the Caesars may have dared to dream when sending their legions into Mesopotamia.

Such was the frenzy created by the Bush administration, in particular, by the neo-cons, who had long advocated the invasion of Iraq because it was thought to represent a threat to Israel, that near-universal opposition to this adventure was brushed aside in the rush to unleash the campaign of “shock and awe”. Its initial success was so impressive that it led Bush to stage the farcical drama of landing on the deck of the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to make his hubristic declaration: “Mission Accomplished”.

The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations represent an impressive response to public concerns and misgivings of experts who recognised early that the US faced the possibility of a strategic defeat in Iraq. None of its declared objectives appear likely to be achieved, with all its hopes and expectations dashed on the shores of the Tigris and the Euphrates.

But in the process, a fairly stable country, albeit administered by a brutal regime, has now reached a state of near-disintegration. Iraq is engulfed by a civil war with large sections of the country in control of sectarian or tribal leaders who maintain their own private militias engaged in eliminating as many of their rivals as they can. Will the bells ever toll for over 600,000 Iraqis who have lost their lives in this bizarre adventure?

Washington finds itself in the unenviable position of having no real options available to it. It cannot abandon Iraq, for this would send a disastrous signal of American unreliability and lack of resilience to the region. It would definitely evoke memories of the disgraceful flight out of Saigon, further emboldening those who wish to see the US leave the region.

At the same time, the US can no longer simply stay put in Iraq, as there is no support for this policy in the US and even its faithful ally, the UK, is showing signs of increasing restlessness. This may explain the panel’s recommendation that the US step up the training of Iraqi forces while simultaneously pulling back combat brigades, a “train and retreat” scenario that will help camouflage its eventual departure from Iraq. Nevertheless, any unplanned exit of US forces runs the serious risk of unleashing major sectarian strife that could spread far beyond Iraq’s frontiers. If Saudi Arabia and other conservative states reach the conclusion that the Iran-sponsored Shias are likely to take control of Iraq, they may well decide that they have no other option but to intervene on behalf of their religious co-adherents. Hints to this effect have already been made by influential Saudis. Once this happens, Tehran will not sit idle and permit its substantial investment in the Shia groups in Iraq to go waste.

No less worrying for the US is that Al Qaeda, which now considers Iraq its favourite battleground, would see in a hasty American withdrawal the success that may catapult it into a major, credible force in Islamic countries. This would embolden it to expand its operations to other neighbouring states. Afghanistan would not remain unaffected if Al Qaeda were to succeed in driving the Americans out of Iraq.

Though the Baker Group has not included the option of dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions under the umbrella of a loose federation, this idea has been promoted by some American politicians, who believe that if carried out skilfully, it could allow the three proposed units to retain a semblance of unity and continue to owe allegiance to a federal set-up in Iraq.

Incidentally, Senator Joe Biden, a prominent Democrat, who is likely to take over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been pushing it for the past many months. Of course, Israel too favours this idea, for it would remove the only potential threat to it. But other Arab states are wary of such an idea, fearful that the precedent of breaking up a sovereign state on sectarian lines could unleash similar fissiparous tendencies inside country too.

The panel’s recommendation on the Palestinian issue is no less radical, for it goes against conventional wisdom in Washington and the fervently held beliefs of the neo-cons. As a Washington-based analyst commented, the panel recognises that what happens in Jerusalem will have a profound influence on the entire region, now that it has been established that the Israelis are unable to crush the Palestinians into submission. Israel’s recent setback in Lebanon at the hands of the Hezbollah has also dented its reputation, while greatly enhancing the prestige of the pro-Iranian forces in the region.

For Iran and Syria, therefore, this is a moment of profound satisfaction. After having been berated as members of the axis of evil and subject to sustained American efforts to destabilise their regimes, there must be great relief at the unanimous recommendation of the Baker panel that has admonished the Bush administration for ostracising Syria and Iran. As Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the group, stated, “the US cannot pick and choose; you have to deal with all countries of the region.” These old practitioners of power politics have obviously not forgotten Henry Kissinger’s adage: “You can have no war in the Middle East without Egypt, but you can have no peace in the region without Syria”.

The Group’s recommendation on Afghanistan are also significant in that it recognises that the Iraq adventure diverted US resources and the administration’s attention away from the real battlefield, Afghanistan, which the panel believes remains the foremost breeding ground for terrorists.

America’s current difficulties are not only deeply worrying to the general public. The foreign policy establishment is even more concerned, as evident from the pronouncements of many past practitioners of diplomacy who are warning that half century of US hegemony in the Middle East may now be coming to an ignominious end. Lee Hamilton echoed this in his warning that “the ability of the US to influence events is diminishing”. Former President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a most perceptive observer of the region, noted recently that the US was “facing the possibility of literally being pushed out of the Middle East”. Very similar was the view of Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former top Middle East adviser to the senior Bush, who observed that “the US will continue to enjoy more influence than any outside power, but its influence will be reduced from what it once was.”

These recommendations have been generally well received on both sides of the political spectrum in the United States. But what really matters is what the president will do. Will he accept such a radical change in policies that have been so central to his presidency? He can accept some of the findings, including a call for a five-fold increase in American trainers alongside Iraqi forces. But Bush would find it extremely difficult to bring Syria and Iran into the political equation on Iraq. Only last week, he rejected any such idea.

But as Hamilton told the president “This is the only bipartisan advice you are going to get”. The appointment of Robert Gates, a member of the group, before his nomination as defence secretary, may also be indicative of the president wanting to shift course. In any case, it will be extremely difficult for him to pursue current policies in the face of this panel’s recommendations and with the Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress. America’s departure from Iraq is now only a matter of time.

Thankfully, Pakistan is not a principal player in the Iraq imbroglio, but we are still within the ambit of its fallout. We should be extremely cautious in what we say and what we do, especially because of our very close links with the US and the growing presence of Nato in and around Pakistan. We should nevertheless promote all initiatives aimed at restoration of peace to this tormented land, while ensuring that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq are not compromised.

The writer is a former ambassador.

IT was the last sitting of India’s constituent assembly. The constitution had been passed. Chairman Rajendra Prasad was saying goodbye to the members. With pride, he said that it was the best of the constitution which “the best of minds” in the country would interpret and adjudge what was what.

But it was a pity, he said, that those who would frame the law did not need to possess any educational qualification. In reply, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said that he reciprocated Rajendra Prasad’s sentiments but his predicament was that when they were fighting for independence, “the best of minds” were on the side of the British. They were toadies. The illiterate, “the teeming millions,” as Nehru put it, were on our side and had staked everything on freedom. How could they be denied vote in a free India when their sacrifice was the most?

The ever-running debate between parliament and the judiciary to determine who is supreme reminds me of Nehru’s words. The judiciary represents “the best of minds” and parliament the “teeming millions”. The first are appointees. The second are elected. Even to think that parliament is not supreme is to betray the trust of people who return MPs. It will be a sad day when there is confrontation between the two because both have their spheres demarcated and both are independent in their own way.

The supreme court is supreme as the chief justice of India Y.K. Sabarwal says. But its supremacy ends where the supremacy of parliament begins. Lately, the judiciary, primarily the supreme court, has been violating the “lakshman rekha” (limits) and expanding its boundary and going beyond it. Partly, the executive is to blame because it is lethargic and does not do its job properly. Partly, it is the tendency of the judiciary to spread itself all over. In the name of judicial review, the supreme court is adjudging such government’s measures which are purely administrative.

There is no doubt that the judiciary has, by and large, interpreted the constitution to benefit the vulnerable sections of the society. At times, the executive has been rightly taken to task. The aggrieved party has been given relief. In cases like the Babri Masjid, the supreme court’s directive was just and categorical but the executive failed to comply with it. The unfortunate demolition took place.

However, in the process of reaching its judgment on certain cases, the judiciary has tended to arrogate to itself the authority which belongs to the executive. This violates the doctrine of separation of powers enunciated in the constitution. Perhaps, unwittingly, the judiciary has taken upon itself certain tasks which are those of the executive. It is time that the judiciary did some introspection. However superior “the best of minds”, the executive is answerable to parliament, “the teeming millions”. This is what democracy is all about.

I am not sure whether the executive’s response to expand the ninth schedule of the constitution is justified. The schedule is a lock room available in the constitution to stash any law that parliament wants to insulate from judicial review.

The provision drafted by the Jawaharlal Nehru government said that none of the laws specified in the ninth schedule “shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void”, on the ground that it was inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights, “notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary.” However faulty the ninth schedule, it should stay.

The constitution has a grey area which a determined supreme court can use to register its primacy. In the absence of the schedule, confrontation between the judiciary and parliament is inevitable.

True, the ninth schedule was not in the constitution when it was passed. But when the land reforms were challenged in the courts, Nehru added the ninth schedule to the constitution. It was a battle between the “conservative” judiciary and the “progressive” executive. Nehru did not want the courts to get in the way of welfare measures like land reforms.

The judiciary is there to ensure that the laws framed do not violate the constitution. But the courts cannot function as a kind of super-legislature or super-executive. At times, the obiter dicta by judges give the impression that they are running down the elected representatives in state assemblies or parliament. This is bad in law and bad in ethics.

In one of his lectures, Speaker Somnath Chatterjee rightly said: “In the interest of harmonious functioning, I believe that no one organ of the state should usurp the functions which essentially belong to another, nor should it abdicate its essential functions and thereby upset the well-cherished principles of separation of powers and checks and balances provided by our constitution.”

Not long ago, the supreme court caused a flutter by demanding the report of a parliamentary standing committee on a bill under consideration. The division bench which made the demand wanted parliament not to proceed with the bill until the court had considered the matter. The situation was saved when the government’s own lawyer pointed out to the bench that it could not pass such an order. Even then, the additional solicitor-general had to give an assurance that “a copy of the standing committee’s report shall be placed in a sealed cover before this court.” The judges did not realise that even if they were to make a case of judicial review, the examination was to be after the bill had been passed, not at the stage of consideration.

The independence of the judiciary is essential in a democratic country. It strengthens the pillars on which the structure of democratic India stands. But the judiciary should know its limitations. It cannot give any direction to parliament to amend any law. Nor can it intervene in any matter pending before the speaker or the House. India’s first speaker G.V. Mavalankar always stressed that parliament was the supreme lawmaking body. For him, no one was above parliament, although he wanted an effective judiciary for a meaningful functioning of democracy.

True, people have a vested interest in maintaining and sustaining a strong and an independent judiciary. But they have equal vested interest in keeping the role of parliament and the assemblies pre-eminent. People are sovereign and their representatives act with the same confidence to articulate their problems and try to find solutions. It is another matter that politicians have degraded the role assigned to MPs and MLAs. Still, the judiciary would be well advised to leave them alone.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.