From India to Libya: democracy or hypocrisy?
India – an emerging economic and political ‘power nation’, a nuclear power, ally of Israel and the largest ‘democracy’ in the world – sits at the edge of the high table of world powers. Yet, as Arundhati Roy writes in September's New Internationalist magazine, thousands have been tortured and killed in ‘nightmarish interrogation centres and army camps’; others charged with sedition. Corruption is a way of life and runs through all social groups and sectors of the country (and like corruption anywhere, we are all invariably complicit).
The actions by the Indian government against its own people force us to think carefully about what we mean by democracy, dictators and other grand political narratives. Take, for instance, the anti-Qadafi narrative, which is presented in binary political terms of good and evil, making it impossible to offer any critical analysis without being labelled pro-Qadafi. The irony is that prior to last December, three North African dictators who have since been buried under the mass of people power were all on deeply intimate terms with the very powers that now cheer their demise.
We now learn that Britain and the US, while condemning Qadafi’s record of torture, had no qualms about engaging in rendition to Libya a US terror suspect knowingly tortured by the dictator. Such hypocrisy is mind-boggling. No amount of rhetoric from the West or the UN that this was a ‘humanitarian intervention’ can now be taken seriously. In the words of British human rights lawyer Gareth Pearce: ‘we put our noses in the trough and fed from it.’
The notion of democracy is seldom queried. But in what way does India really differ from Libya when it comes to repression, torture and imprisonment of political dissenters? Dictators like Qadafi should not be defended, but the simplistic ‘good versus evil’ uncritical narratives presented to us by large sections of the media should surely be questioned. NATO forces have bombed Libya for the past six months – yet no-one asks how many civilians they have killed. Nor is it mentioned that the bombing has led to the humanitarian crisis that Libyans now face. Black Africans accused of being Qadafi mercenaries have been detained, lynched and killed despite any real evidence for all but a handful: how easy it is to target vulnerable migrant workers. Yet what are those ex-SAS and private armies recruited by rebel forces and NATO, if not mercenaries?
The Libyan rebels have been taken at face value because they have overthrown a dictator, but we are now beginning to know who many of them are and it’s not a pretty picture. And something which gives me a great sense of foreboding is the fact that Libya’s new masters, the National Transitional Council, have reportedly thanked Sudan (and its own dictator) for its support.
The West has always seen Qadafi as a demon, even when they chose to add him to their ‘best friend’ list. Yet we fail to question the rebels, even though it is more than likely they too have committed atrocities and continue to do so.
I am happy to see the end of a delusional megalomaniac who far outlived his time. But in doing so is it necessary to also deny the positive things – 80 per cent literacy, free and decent healthcare provision, education and housing – that he achieved? Is it not possible to acknowledge these as well as the terrible things he did? If not, then how does India remain the darling of ‘democracy’ despite the torture and repression of millions of Indians?
Surely we should be able to question the inconsistencies and double standards in the policing of states, which results in one state being considered worthy and another as ripe for regime change. As Jon Snow recently tweeted: ‘Always be wary of regime change that is almost universally welcomed by ‘Western’ governments.’
Illustration by Vectorportal under a CC Licence.