& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

After the election/selection in Iraq

JAVED HELALI
IRAQ, like Nigeria is basically a three-in-one country. Like the Hausas, Yorubas and Ibos Iraq has its Shias, Sunnis and Kurdis, occupying distinct geographic areas with varying
amounts of mineral wealth. Again, like the Ibos in Nigeria, the Kurdis are very restive and having failed in the past, would sure like to bring their aspiration of independence to fruition. On top of that, there are some secularists and some religionists. It is only the presence of a strong central authority, Saddam until a few months ago and now the US troops, that has kept the country in one piece so far. Iraq's neighbours, particularly Turkey and Syria, want to see Iraq remain united lest
their own Kurdis get more emboldened in their fissiparous tendencies.
The US's plan to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis by the end of June is more for Bush's election compulsions at home rather than any desire to de-occupy Iraq. Thus, while championing democracy all along he is going for caucuses rather than the chief element of democracy, namely, elections. In spite of his contempt for the United Nations he has managed to rope in that august body to find out whether elections are possible in the short time frame available. The chances are that the UN will come up with some compromise formula that will not satisfy any of the main Iraqi groups. In any case, a good number of US troops will remain in Iraq for a
long time whether the common Iraqis want them or not.
Saddam, the "unifier by force" of Iraq like Joseph Bros Tito of former Yugoslavia, is now under arrest as a POW and is expected to be tried for his crimes against humanity unless of course he happens to die before that. Irrespective of the outcome of Saddam's trial, the people of Iraq, according to Thomas Friedman, are on trial.
After the handover, the real trial of the Iraqis will begin. Whether they will be able to live amicably without the iron rule of Saddam is the moot question. Saddam had once remarked that if he was ever gotten rid off, Iraq would need seven presidents! Things are different now. The southern Shias do not need to secede as they are the
majority in the country, making up about 60 per cent of the total population. The Sunnis cannot because they will be stuck between the Shias in the south and the Kurdis in the north. The Kurdis will not be granted independence as declared by the US.
Ideally, Iraq should have a selfgoverning, multi-ethnic representative government that accepts the rights of the minorities and a peaceful transfer of power.
The transition and its aftermath are not likely to be easy. The people of Iraq , led by the majority leader, Ayatollah Sistani, want democracy through elections -- not a government of appointees' appointees. The Ayatollah himself cannot contest elections as he was not born in Iraq.
In any new setup there will have to be a lot of give and take as none of the major groups will have all its aspirations met. Besides, there are elements outside of Iraq that will try to make sure that the transition is not smooth.
The Muslims, in general, are not likely to get a government based on the Sharia as the basis of the new constitution, but are likely to have Islam as the State Religion, much like a state flower or a state fruit. Things may however change when the US troops depart i.e. when Iraq ceases to be economically or strategically important.
People with secular tendencies will not get a secular constitution because 95 per cent of the people are Muslims and their wishes must be paramount. The Ershadian ploy
of naming Islam as the State Religion comes in very handy here.
The Kurdis, whose greatest son, Salahuddin Ayyubi, inspires Muslims of South Asia, will have to give up on Kurdistan -- a country promised to them many a time by the western powers that controlled the region after the end of the Ottoman Empire. They may have to accept some form of autonomy within Iraq. The internal squabbles of the Kurdis having now subsided greatly, peace might take root in the area on a permanent basis.
The Sunnis, mostly in the central part of the country, are likely to be the unhappiest of the lot as was the case of the Muslim ruling class of India when the British started to rule there. The ex rulers are always the biggest losers! However, if there is
true federalism, they would still have a say in the parliament. A few of the ministers, except probably finance, defence, home and foreign affairs could be appointed from among the Sunnis. The Sunni experience in administration could also be used to the new government's advantage.
The Shias, in spite of their numbers will have to share power in the federal system and would have to live with the constraints placed on their majority by the new federal constitution. But in their own provinces they might set up true Islamic governments that Ayatollah Sistani would love to have.
The Turkomans, Assyrians and the Christians are all expected to be represented in the government as they are in the present US appointed Governing Council.
There are problems in Iraq inherited from history compounded due to the lack of rule of law for several decades now. Today, the Sunnis are scared of the Shias. The Shias and Sunnis scare the Kurdis. The Kurdis in their turn scare the Turkomans and others. And to top it all, there are the Al-Qaida elements and non Al-Qaida volunteers within the country's borders with their own agenda. And that makes a volatile mix. As such, the biggest responsibility of the major groups is nation building, over and above their own local interests. A lot of goodwill and statesmanship will be needed if Iraq is to survive and prosper as a single entity.