*** Good, no more assistance from the USA! Die your brown scumbags! ***
NEW DELHI (AFP) - India will not send troops to Iraq (news - web sites) even if the United Nations (news - web sites) mandates multinational peacekeeping operations in the strife-torn country, the Indian media reported.
Quoting top government sources, newspapers said the line New Delhi is now pushing is that it cannot spare any of its million-strong army for peacekeeping operations due to security threats within the country and on its borders.
However, the real reason, the reports said, was that national elections are due in India by October 2004 and the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) believes it would be politically disastrous if any Indian soldier died in Iraq.
India on July 14 rejected a US request to send 15,000 to 20,000 troops to Iraq but said it would reconsider if there were an explicit UN mandate.
Washington has since proposed a UN resolution to send a multinational force to Iraq.
However, France, Germany and Russia -- which all opposed the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) -- have expressed reservations about the UN draft resolution.
Most major newspapers Friday quoted the unnamed government sources as saying that UN mandate or no UN mandate, India will not be sending troops to Iraq.
"It's for the same reason that we turned down the (US) request to send troops to Liberia (news - web sites)," the Hindustan Times quoted one source as saying.
"We said we're in no position to spare troops because of the situation in our northwest sector (on the border with Pakistan) and the kind of terrorist activity that happens in Kashmir (news - web sites) on a daily basis."
Kashmir is in the grip of a 14-year-old Islamic insurgency which has so far claimed 38,000 lives, according to Indian figures. Separatists put the death toll between 80,000 and 100,000.
India already has committed two infantry batallions for UN peacekeeping operations -- in Lebanon and along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border, the source added.
Diplomatic sources said the BJP had recently taken a firm decision not to send troops to Iraq no matter what -- but for internal political rather than logistical reasons.
The Hindu newspaper at the weekend hinted as much when it said domestic political considerations more than anything else were likely to dissuade the BJP, which heads India's coalition government, from sending its troops.
The Hindu report said the Indian government saw "no particular merit in giving the opposition any handle" for attack.
The Asian Age newspaper Friday quoted Indian Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani as telling former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill: "What would we say to the nation if our soldiers get killed?"
The report said Advani made the remark when Blackwill, trying to persuade India to commit troops, had expressed concern over American soldiers being killed in the post-Saddam period.
NEW DELHI (AFP) - India will not send troops to Iraq (news - web sites) even if the United Nations (news - web sites) mandates multinational peacekeeping operations in the strife-torn country, the Indian media reported.
Quoting top government sources, newspapers said the line New Delhi is now pushing is that it cannot spare any of its million-strong army for peacekeeping operations due to security threats within the country and on its borders.
However, the real reason, the reports said, was that national elections are due in India by October 2004 and the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) believes it would be politically disastrous if any Indian soldier died in Iraq.
India on July 14 rejected a US request to send 15,000 to 20,000 troops to Iraq but said it would reconsider if there were an explicit UN mandate.
Washington has since proposed a UN resolution to send a multinational force to Iraq.
However, France, Germany and Russia -- which all opposed the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) -- have expressed reservations about the UN draft resolution.
Most major newspapers Friday quoted the unnamed government sources as saying that UN mandate or no UN mandate, India will not be sending troops to Iraq.
"It's for the same reason that we turned down the (US) request to send troops to Liberia (news - web sites)," the Hindustan Times quoted one source as saying.
"We said we're in no position to spare troops because of the situation in our northwest sector (on the border with Pakistan) and the kind of terrorist activity that happens in Kashmir (news - web sites) on a daily basis."
Kashmir is in the grip of a 14-year-old Islamic insurgency which has so far claimed 38,000 lives, according to Indian figures. Separatists put the death toll between 80,000 and 100,000.
India already has committed two infantry batallions for UN peacekeeping operations -- in Lebanon and along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border, the source added.
Diplomatic sources said the BJP had recently taken a firm decision not to send troops to Iraq no matter what -- but for internal political rather than logistical reasons.
The Hindu newspaper at the weekend hinted as much when it said domestic political considerations more than anything else were likely to dissuade the BJP, which heads India's coalition government, from sending its troops.
The Hindu report said the Indian government saw "no particular merit in giving the opposition any handle" for attack.
The Asian Age newspaper Friday quoted Indian Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani as telling former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill: "What would we say to the nation if our soldiers get killed?"
The report said Advani made the remark when Blackwill, trying to persuade India to commit troops, had expressed concern over American soldiers being killed in the post-Saddam period.
probably dance around in their bed sheets.
