Editorialising on Saddam
It was the Saddam verdict that caused a flutter in the dovecotes. The issue was whether or not it smacked of victorsø justice.
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
It is surely true that it never rains, it pours. For leader writers who specialise on foreign topics, it was raining cats and dogs last week, what with the Saddam verdict first, then the results of the US elections and finally the political agreement in Nepal. Accustomed to writing only now and then, the poor dears were kept on their dainty little toes week, even those too ill to breathe properly.
On the US election and the Nepal agreement, everyone spoke in unison with great satisfaction. Bush got what he deserved and Nepal as well, namely, a fair stab at a proper democracy where the King would be marginalized and the people, via the Maoists, would get a chance to have say in the running of their country.
But it was the Saddam verdict that caused a flutter in the dovecotes. The issue was whether or not it smacked of victors` justice. Most of our papers thought it did. The Hindu, expectedly, wrote "the verdict of a Baghdad trial court convicting him for crimes against humanity and sentencing him, his half-brother, and a former judge to death by hanging and four others to terms of imprisonment ranging from 15 years to life lacks even a fig-leaf of legitimacy...The conduct of the trial, falling far short of international legal standards, was a travesty of justice, as a widely admired human rights advocate, Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General and one of the defence lawyers, said in open court before being physically ejected." The paper also quoted Amnesty International as saying that the trial had been "a shabby affair". The Asian Age said it all in its heading, which was Victors` Justice.
The Telegraph made a different point. It said "The day the American military forces discovered the tyrant in his hideout and arrested him, Hussein was a dead man. Yet, there was a trial. The process of trying Hussein, however inadequate that process may have been, distinguishes the regime that Hussein led and the present dispensation under the auspices of a conquering army. Hussein did not believe in trying his enemies." Ergo, he thought he had received his just desserts. But it did agree that " There can be no doubt that such courts represent victors` justice."
The Pioneer was a little more analytical and pointed out three things. First, that such trials were not held in an even-handed way in that "The very Allies who have welcomed Mr Hussein`s sentencing will look the other way if, for instance, demands are made that the logic of his trial be extended to despots who are guilty of similar crimes but enjoy the West`s patronage." Second, that the physical removal of the Saddam was a pre-condition to restoring normalcy in Iraq, presumably by removing the focus of Sunnni aspirations and providing the Shias with a reason to trust the US. Its third point focused on something that others forgot to mention - India`s response. It "said a lot without saying anything all. It used the rather unfortunate expression "victor`s justice" without being entirely clear about its message. India has no direct stakes in the Iraq conflict - indeed, this Government doesn`t even have a coherent West Asia policy and would have been well advised to keep mum."
The Indian Express avoided the main issue altogether and beat about the bush as it were anxious not to annoy anyone at all - the MEA, the US, the Shias in Iran, no one. This is what comes of having leader-writers who double as correspondents covering the ministry as well. All in all, the less said about that edit the better.
Subscribe To The Newsletter