Why truth is a casualty in Syrian War

Rashōmon, the 1950 masterpiece of Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa, is a film revolving around the philosophy of truth presented through alternative, conflicting and self-serving versions of the same incident by different characters. The present crisis in Aleppo (Syria) or Yemen - for that matter, anything in this universe - has similar Rashōmon moments when there remains no single, absolute truth, but different versions of the same event.

Since the reports on last week’s takeover of the historical city of Aleppo by President Bashar al-Assad’s armed forces and their allies - Russian air force, Iranian revolutionary guard, as also Hezbollah and other Shia militias - came, two contrasting versions have appeared in different discourses. While one termed the event as the “liberation” of Aleppo after nearly four years of siege, the same incident is seen as recapture of the rebel-held Aleppo, a defeat of US supported Free Syrian Army by the Assad regime.

When there is war, truth is often the first casualty. Hence, there is nothing new in how the two sides are using their respective propaganda machine. The worrying trend, however, is that in the age of hyper connectivity with 24X7 TV and internet news industry and social media, the impact of the propaganda has multiplied beyond the imagination of most media researchers.

Events and incidents occurring at a distant place is not just news anymore. Its impact is far-reaching as the audience is not simply a passive consumer, but an active participant. The response of Indians to the battle for Aleppo, particularly the Muslim population here, is a case in point.

Sitting in the comforts of their houses, thousands of kilometres away, they appear to be as divided based on what they read and watch online and are engaged in heated arguments and counter-arguments on Facebook and Twitter choosing their own respective Rashōmon versions.

The various versions

In the crudest sense, the swords have been drawn for battle between two camps. While left liberals and supporters of Iran - which comprise mostly Shias but also some self-declared left-liberal Sunni Muslims - are on one side, the other side mainly has liberals - mostly Sunni Muslims - empathising with the huge civilian casualties in Aleppo.

As the second group shares news and graphic visuals of small children immediately after bombing, condemning the alleged massacres, the first camp accuses them of sympathising with Sunni rebels that have been infiltrated by different factions of the al Qaeda and other extremist groups, the most loathsome being the Daesh or ISIS.  

They, in return, share articles that question the western version, trying to put things in ‘perspective’. “Yes, Assad has committed some mistakes, but the war was imposed on Syria by foreign mercenaries and Islamic terrorists,” the more sensible among them grudgingly acknowledge, although implying that Assad regime is only defending themselves.

While pro-Assad cheerleaders share explanatory articles questioning the credibility of those who shared their "last-moment'' videos before Aleppo was recaptured fearing death, adding they are all activists belonging to different rebel factions. They, however, do not hesitate to share widely circulated video of an "independent" Canadian journalist and activist exposing lies about Aleppo and Syria. It a different matter that on Facebook and Twitter, she describes herself as “co-founder and member of the steering committee of Syria Solidarity Movement”. So much for independence!

The western media and Al Jazeera are rightly critiqued for their lopsided coverage. But can it be countered with another set of propaganda by Russia Today TV or Press TV to produce contradicting Rashōmon like narratives? In fact, even the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations has been caught using an old photograph from Iraq to make false claims that the Syrian army has been very cooperative with the citizens. 

Rebels or terrorists?

The trope of al Qaeda/IS has become a recurrent theme by different regimes to discredit all forms of opposition - from Uzbekistan to Syria, Turkey or Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood has been banned, to Saudi Arabia, where atheists have been declared terrorists.

Besides, for long it has been used to cover up the other side of the same militants who are used by respective regimes. Thus, all rebels are Islamic terrorists but not Hezbollah or Shia militias fighting on the side of Assad. Even those who criticise the US/West’s play of ‘good’ terrorist, ‘bad’ terrorist is now buying into the same argument as it suits them.

In Iraq-Syria region, while the two respective regimes see every opposition as illegitimate and terrorists; for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, West, Russia those with them are the good guys and the rest of the opposition are terrorists. 

No doubt a large number of opposition groups in Syria-Iraq is extremist and terrorist groups who have not only committed all forms of atrocities on civilians, but have also used them as human shields. But does it wash away the bloods of a dictator only because in past he has been "secular" even in his high-handedness?

What about Malda?

Whenever there is any human rights violation in the country, particularly when minorities are victimised and concerned citizens condemn it, right wing Hindutva trolls question what they term the "selective" outrage, asking "What about Malda?" In the Malda district of West Bengal, Hindus were attacked and their shops burnt by rouge Muslims who had gathered for a protest, although police denied any communal angle to the incident.

As one still struggles to formulate a response to conjectures of sympathising with terrorists or for giving sectarian colour to the geopolitics, pat comes even a sharper inventive, “Where have you been all this while when Saudi Arabia-led forces have been murdering innocent civilians (and rebels) in Yemen? Why such deafening silence on Yemen?”

The contrast with Yemen - where Saudi Arabia-led Sunni forces are trying to dislodge the Houthi Shia rebellion, exact opposite of Syria wherein most rebels are Sunnis while Assad is an Alawite Shia - is interesting. Of course, the conflict is all about power and geopolitics, but the sectarian angle to it cannot be completely whisked away.

Last week, a senior journalist brought to my notice Fergal Keane’s “powerful but deeply saddening and disturbing report on the dying children of Yemen” on BBC, I responded to him, saying, “I always wondered how did the Germans and Europeans remain silent during the Holocaust? Seeing Myanmar, Yemen, Syria et al breaks me. Saw the visuals of dying and malnourished children of Yemen, and interestingly as there is no (powerful) IS yet, the world is silent.”

Crisis in Muslim majority countries and hypocrisy of Indian Muslims

On November 18, a few hundred Muslims gathered near Parliament demonstrating against the week-long visit of the Israel President to India. Indian Muslims' - and many others' - contestation remains over the status of Palestine and if they had the option, they would not want any relations with Israel unless the Palestinian crisis is solved.

The stand appears very principled, considering the fact that Israel has continued unabated expanding settlements despite all concerns by international communities and the rampant human rights’ violations that they have been accused of committing against Palestinians. Move beyond Palestine, however, and you will see Indian Muslims falling in all directions similar to the futile attempts of making a castle from a pack of cards. 

In fact, it is not just about Yemen. It has been observed that Muslims in India who generally (rightly) make a lot of noise when fellow Muslims are at the receiving end - such as the Palestinian crisis or most recently against the reported genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar - but when the perpetrators (and also victims) are Muslims, they appear confused at best or condemn in a hushed manner.

If we discount the reactions of the past few days, the response to the five-six years of crisis in West Asia has largely been meek, except strong condemnation of the acts of terrorism by Daesh. When was the last time, you heard Muslims or rights activists gathering in sizeable number to protest outside the Saudi Arabian, Syrian or Turkish embassies?

Perhaps it also stems from the fact that the way the narrative has been created in the past few decades, it is considered perfectly normal to criticise Saudi influenced Wahhabi-infested Sunni extremism, but not enough attention has so far been put on Iranian push for Shia milita in their attempt to expand the Persian influence to the Shia population of Arab states. If you dare raise a question on Iran's external adventurism, you would be quickly labelled not just anti-Iran, but sectarian and worse anti-Shia.

Fight against neo-imperialist design and Zionist movement?

On December 14, as there were widespread condemnations from different quarters for the bombings in Aleppo and alleged massacre of civilians by the coalition of Assad regime, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, posted a series of tweets, observing: “Propaganda of US & its regional allies seeks eruption of various more conflicts & introducing faith as a factor in crises is a lie. Sunni people of Aleppo, Mosul & other cities have been & are being massacred by criminal Takfiris, thus crises are not about Shia or Sunni. As I‘ve said before, if Muslims & Palestinians unite & all fight, the Zionist regime will not be in existence in 25 years.”

No doubt it is the collective failure of the international community in not being able to solve the Palestinian crisis even after more than six decades. It is high time, however, that the warring Arab states stop justifying their every crude action in the name of fighting against Zionism.

Of course, Syria for long has been under Moscow’s sphere of influence and Vladimir Putin is only serving the Russian geopolitical interests by extending help to Assad. What is intriguing though is how Russian cheerleaders, even those in India, maintain demeaning silence on indiscriminate bombing of schools, hospitals and civilian localities.

Considering the fact that Russia officially distanced itself from Communism and allowed the Soviet states to implode at the end of 1992 from within, it is rather laughable that the whole Left movement in India and the world to look upon Russia as some sort of saviour with nostalgia.

What is even more shocking is that a large number of those who protest against every neo-imperialistic design of the West, particularly the United States, and unequivocally condemn the US invasion of Iraq or western interference anywhere, seem to have no qualm in openly supporting the Russian adventurism. Did we support the US invasion of Afghanistan because of 9/11? How are we then willing to accept Russian bombs in the name of fighting against foreign mercenaries? Are only NATO/US bombs or their allies killing innocents and those killed by Russia and regime do not count?

Should we blindly accept Russia as a protector and an alternative to the US neo-imperial designs, simply because it dares to look in the eyes of the US and, ignoring the ultra-nationalist Russian ambitions under Putin?  It’s high time, we realise that the enemy of our enemy does not have to be our friend all the time.

The Mess in Iraq-Syria

Reports from Mosul to Madaya to other Iraqi and Syrian towns suggest that those being ‘liberated’ from rebels or IS or other ‘terror’ groups have mostly slid in the hands of Shia militias, except some pockets under Kurds, all of who are mutating into Afghanistan-style warlords, instead of direct control of the central government. If Afghanistan can be a lesson, this may result in short-term peace but in long run it may end up creating another round of havoc. There are already some reports of excesses on largely Sunni populations on suspicion of being members of any of the several terror groups. This may flare up the situation once again in years to come if not handled with sensitivity as it happened during the de-Baathification phase after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

I have argued earlier that sadly everyone's hands are sullied in blood in the deep mess that has been created in the Middle East. Unless the international community, who all share the blame, stop shedding crocodile tears and come to the table for peaceful resolution of the crisis, it is unlikely that any peace and stability would be possible in the region for decades to come. It is also simultaneously the failure of sham groups like the Organisation of Islamic States (OIC), Arab League, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), etc. which issue statements condemning Rohingya crisis or curfew in Kashmir, but have failed to bring any sustainable peace in the region.

Also read: Horrifying images of 'Napalm' singed children in Syria