A
Deathly December:
Two Satraps And An Emperor
By Niranjan Ramakrishnan
04 January, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Three
famous people died in December 2006. Everyone knows what 'Emperor' means.
But "Satrap"?
The word, which is usually
said to be of Latin and Greek origin, actually turns out to be from
Sanskrit, via old Persian. The root is "Kshetra Paavana",
which means "region protector", which is to say, a vassal
who oversees a province or area on behalf of an emperor. Ancient empires
used satraps to manage far-flung possessions, a tried and tested technique
based on an established spoils system. The satrap, or local lord, exercised
wide powers over his subjects, unhindered by the Empire in whose name
he ruled, so long as he proclaimed fealty to the Emperor, and, of course,
forked over a suitable portion of the revenues from his region.
It is, come to think of it,
one of the oldest recorded applications of outsourcing. The Greek and
Roman empires used it, as evidenced by the word itself. Empires in India
did the same: the great Emperor Ashoka (circa 300 BC) was known to have
a great many satraps, as did the Moghuls (1526-1707).
So has the practice continued,
right down to our times, although the nature and form of the spoils
system has evolved. During the Cold War, the West and the Communist
bloc's each had their own set of satraps, turning the world into a checkerboard
of allegiances.
When Alexander the Great
invaded the Punjab, he faced a local king, Porus, who fought with great
valor before being defeated. When Porus was brought before Alexander
in chains,the story goes, Alexander mocked him, asking, "how would
you like to be treated?" Porus is said to have replied, "Like
a king treats a king!" Alexander is said to have been so impressed
by his bearing and dignity, not to mention his bravery, that he gave
Porus his kingdom back, and made him a satrap. I've always wondered
how a spirited soul like Porus could come to an accommodation that would
leave him a vassal. But then, the swallowing one's pride at the right
time is evidently a time-honored skill essential to both business and
statecraft. How many times have we seen proud CEOs of an acquired company
mutating into meek heads of departments in the new dispensation; all
it took was a few million dollars!
Things might go the other
way too. Sometimes, a satrap would get too big for his boots, and develop
notions of independence or delusions of grandeur. At other times, satraps
would attempt a well judged leap into the arms of another empire, in
search of a better deal. The task of an empire, then, became the decapitation
of that satrap and installation of a new one. Since this was a lengthy
and costly proposition, wise emperors would make sure the vassals were
kept in fair humor.
The age of Revolution's changed
this some. Woodrow Wilson's encouragement of nationality changed it
even more. Whereas "Civis Romanus Sum" was once a proud cry,
no local ruler could retain bolster the self-respect of his people any
longer by open fealty to an outside empire. Subtler ways were needed.
Nothing was more vexatious than democracy, where, by definition, there
could be multiple opinions, even on which Empire to align with. Far
easier to foster a dictatorship as with the old satrapy, where keeping
the local ruler in power was all it took to retain allegiance. As a
corollary, the more emasculated the people, the less effort required
to maintaining the satrapy.
History will note that two
former satraps of America, in two different hemispheres, died at the
end of 2006. Both ran regimes that, everyone agrees, perpetrated untold
numbers of crimes -- murders and disappearances, torture and rape.
One was sought by half-a-dozen
countries for many years, yet escaped prosecution for "crimes against
humanity", partially with the help of United States. He died of
natural causes, before he could be tried, having used every artifice
to avoid the certain prospect of the noose.
The other, was hunted down
and captured by the United States, and kept in its custody for three
years. He was tried, after a fashion, in circumstances that would hardly
be called dispassionate by any Western standard. A sentence of death
handed down, for "crimes against humanity". Following an appeals
process that was over almost before it started, he was executed by hanging.
Saddam Hussein mounted the gallows saying that he was not afraid, for
this was the path he had chosen.
Fazed less and less by irony
with each passing day, America lionized Pinochet, upon his death, as
a visionary responsible for Chile's resurgence. In Saddam Hussein's
case, it welcomed his execution as a vindication of the judicial process.
All this, too, while simultaneously heaping praise upon the recently
departed President Ford for pardoning President Nixon in advance, thereby
sparing the nation the agony of the selfsame judicial process!
It is testament to our public
diplomacy that women in India, of all places, have vowed to name their
newborn sons "Saddam".
Perhaps it is written that
he who rises by a hanging (Chad) will fall by a hanging. Sad.
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at
[email protected]. His blog is at http://njn-blogogram.blogspot.com.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights