7. Where Did Libya Go Wrong? Is There a Solution?

After Gaddafi's assassination, the entire world turned its curious eyes toward Libya. The country had escaped the grip of a strong dictator, and Libyans were freed from his oppression. There was hope that democracy would be established and better days would arrive for the people of Libya. The world waited with expectations, believing Libya would soon wave the flag of progress and inspire everyone with its development. However, unfortunately, chaos and unrest began to take root in Libya from the very day of Gaddafi's death. In hindsight, after Gaddafi’s demise, Libya had an opportunity to turn its transitional period into a structured and peaceful era, stepping onto the path of development. The country had abundant oil resources, was geographically close to European nations, and had examples of neighbouring countries that had followed similar paths. Yet, Libya descended into decline. Why? What were the reasons behind this? Who is responsible? Where did Libya go wrong? It is natural for such questions to arise. But before posing these questions, we must examine today’s situation in the context of the political, economic, and social systems during the times of King Idris and Gaddafi. The Story of Libya: From Colonial Rule to Chaos As we all know, Libya was under Italian control until 1943. However, after Italy’s defeat in World War II, Libya came under the administration of the Allied forces. Later, on December 24, 1951, Libya freed itself from all forms of subjugation and declared itself an independent nation. From that point until 1969, Libya was ruled by King Idris. King Idris, who became Libya’s first monarch, was not a particularly capable ruler. He was largely a puppet of the Allied forces, nodding to everything they said. Libya, with its diverse tribal population, could not find unity under his leadership. Furthermore, he was entirely dependent on Western nations for the technology required to extract oil from Libya’s oil wells. Foreign companies exploited this situation, setting oil prices to suit their interests and amassing massive profits. Libya, despite its abundant oil resources, was left in economic distress. At this point, Libyan citizens began to question when the nation would see progress. Some even voiced the idea of dividing the country into three parts, suggesting they would prefer to crown leaders of their choice to govern their respective regions. These cries for division persisted until 1969, when Gaddafi came to power. Upon assuming leadership, Gaddafi immediately renegotiated contracts with foreign companies, bringing them under his control. He issued threats to halt oil production for those who did not comply. Left with no choice, the foreign companies conceded, and Libya began to reap significant profits from its oil wealth. With vast oil reserves and a small population, Gaddafi used the revenue to uplift Libyan society. This earned him the trust of the people, who began to see him as a reliable leader. Consequently, the calls for division gradually faded, and Libyans threw their full support behind Gaddafi. Like all leaders, Gaddafi had both supporters and detractors. However, his opponents constituted only about 9% of the population. Gaddafi, a secular leader, treated everyone equally. He was notably progressive regarding Libyan women, promoting opportunities for them across all sectors of society. However, this stance angered certain fundamentalist groups. These groups, along with some others, eventually orchestrated a revolution to oust Gaddafi. How and why they succeeded is a story I have shared with you before. Regarding Libya’s social structure, I remember a conversation with a Libyan colleague during my visit there. He once remarked, “Mark my words, after Gaddafi’s death, people here will start fighting amongst themselves and killing each other.” Intrigued, I asked, “Why?” He replied, “Libya is a country of many tribes. Gaddafi somehow managed to keep them united, but there’s no guarantee that anyone after him will be able to do the same.” His words have turned out to be eerily true today. Since Gaddafi’s death, the tribes in Libya have risen against one another, vying for power. Hatred has fuelled violence, and people have been fighting and killing each other. This unrest began the day after Gaddafi’s death, starting in Benghazi, the birthplace of the rebellion against him. Gradually, the violence spread to major cities like Tripoli, Zawiya, Misrata, Sabha, and others. At the time, NATO was still present in Libya. Had it chosen, NATO could have put an end to the chaos immediately. Instead, NATO bombed several cities, temporarily suppressing the unrest, and helped install an interim government that signed agreements in their favor before leaving the country. A significant mistake was made during the formation of this interim government. Many who had actively fought on the battlefield during the revolution were denied key positions. Instead, wealthy Libyans working abroad were brought in to occupy prominent roles. This naturally led to dissatisfaction among the revolutionaries. Additionally, many Gaddafi supporters were completely side-lined, further fuelling discontent. Today, Libya is paying the price for these oversights, as the country remains engulfed in chaos and division. As we know, disputes began among people regarding the decision to invite NATO. NATO's involvement in Libya came at the very last stage, approximately when three-quarters of Libya had already slipped out of Gaddafi's control. At this point, the U.S. summoned some key leaders and suggested, "You should take NATO's assistance to bring an end to this." Without much hesitation, they agreed, which angered some factions. The disgruntled individuals argued, "Why did we call NATO when victory was nearly certain? We could have overthrown Gaddafi ourselves without their help. Now, look, we unnecessarily have to bow to NATO's agreements and hand over our oil resources to them." Their discontent grew, and one day, in a fit of anger, they even killed the U.S. ambassador.

After the revolution, the interim government, tasked with rebuilding Libya, focused on addressing immediate post-war needs. Meanwhile, some militia groups, driven by hunger for power and money, began to emerge and disrupt the interim government. Among the prominent groups were Libya Dawn, Sun Rise, Zintan, and Al-Ansar Sharia. These groups often resorted to extortion, threatening the government with weapons such as guns and artillery if their demands were not met. Shockingly, instead of countering such actions, the government chose to pay them off in an attempt to maintain peace in the country. Seeing how easy it was to extort money, more individuals began forming their own groups to compete and create similar disruptions. Tragically, instead of taking measures to suppress such groups, the government continued to appease them by paying money, perpetuating the cycle of instability. If these militia groups were mere protesters, they could have been suppressed somehow. However, they had access to weapons. The question is, how did they get these weapons? A major incident occurred during the revolution of February 17, 2011. Amidst the chaos and lawlessness of the revolution, there was no one to listen or enforce order. Around this time, when it became evident that Gaddafi was on the verge of losing, people attacked the unguarded armories in Tripoli police stations, seizing guns and other weapons. As news of this spread like wildfire, people across the country raided local armories to secure weapons for their protection. Some believe that as Gaddafi realized his defeat was imminent, he distributed guns and weapons to Libyan households, urging them to defend themselves against enemies. Consequently, today, almost every Libyan household has at least five to six guns or rifles, which people carry with them at all times for protection. After the revolution, the interim government failed to take control of these weapons. To make matters worse, people started openly selling guns like toys on the streets of Tripoli. Even then, the government did nothing. Amidst this, the decision was made to conduct elections as quickly as possible to establish a stable democratic government. However, by the time elections were held, it was too late. Newly formed militia groups had grown strong. Clashes and unrest began in Tripoli and Benghazi. Some argued that the constitution should be drafted first, followed by the formation of a government. Others insisted on forming the government first and drafting the constitution later. After much deliberation, the decision was made to form the government first. Despite widespread chaos, protests, and opposition, elections were held across Libya on July 7, 2012. Even during the elections, there were complaints. Some alleged that certain tribal groups were neglected, while others accused regional favoritism in ticket allocation. Amidst all this turmoil, the election results were declared, and a government under the leadership of the General National Congress (GNC) was formed. Simultaneously, efforts to draft a constitution began, but its implementation faced delays. As a result, the government became a nominal authority without constitutional backing. Meanwhile, the militia groups that had already emerged grew stronger and began to challenge the GNC government as well. The GNC government spent its three-year tenure trying to suppress these groups and address immediate crises, but it failed to achieve stability.

Three years later, in the last week of June 2014, elections were held simultaneously across the country to establish a new government. However, this time, a different party gained a majority. While they were focused on forming the government, certain extremists in the country did not wish for a democracy to be established. They desired a leader like Gaddafi to rule the nation. The Misrata-based organization "IIBTHICHI ACHITITI" became so power-hungry that they wanted to govern the entire nation. They participated in the elections superficially, suppressing their discontent and lying in wait like embers under ashes. At the same time, the UOA, which had previously experienced power, suffered a setback in this election and continued to crave authority. In their desperation, they joined hands with the Misrata group. As the elected members prepared to take their oaths, groups like Libya Dawn and the UOA waited for the right time to overthrow the government and seize control. Initially, the oath-taking ceremony was planned to take place in Benghazi, a city symbolic of rebellion against Gaddafi. However, just eight days before the ceremony, on July 13, 2014, the Misrata faction attacked the Tripoli International Airport. This conflict quickly escalated. Simultaneously, in Benghazi, clashes broke out among various groups, with intense fighting involving rockets and missiles. Fearful citizens fled to neighboring countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Libya became a witness to yet another war. The government, not yet formally established, was rendered helpless. As the Misrata faction captured the Tripoli airport and nearby government offices, the Ansar al-Sharia militant group began seizing government offices in Benghazi. Meanwhile, the ISIS militants, who had already strengthened their activities in Iraq and Syria, infiltrated Libya. This created an enormous crisis for the nascent government. Realizing the urgency, the elected members quickly decided to proceed with the oath-taking ceremony, relocating it from Benghazi to Tobruk due to the escalating violence in Benghazi. This relocation further enraged the people of Benghazi. By the time the government was formed, unrest had spread to major cities like Zawia and Zuwara, increasing insecurity across the nation. Kidnappings, assaults, robberies, and looting became commonplace in Tripoli and Benghazi. Consequently, countries like the United States, Egypt, the UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Canada closed their embassies and evacuated their diplomats from the capital. Prime Minister Thinni pleaded with these nations not to abandon Libya. He reminded them that they had helped overthrow Gaddafi and urged them to assist in establishing a stable government. However, U.S. President Obama responded by saying that Libya, being a tribal nation, was complicated, and further involvement could backfire. With this, the U.S. maintained a neutral stance, likely due to lingering anger over the killing of its ambassador in Libya. Other nations followed suit, choosing neutrality. While Tripoli and Benghazi were caught under rebel control, the government struggled to suppress them, as the rebel forces were twice the size of the government’s military. The interim government had previously dismissed a significant number of soldiers and police officers recruited under Gaddafi's regime, stating a lack of trust in them. They were paid salaries to remain inactive. Many of these individuals left service and pursued other livelihoods, while the government failed to recruit replacements. Furthermore, advanced weaponry smuggled in via the Misrata port from Turkey, Qatar, Sudan, and Dubai strengthened the rebels. The Misrata group eventually captured significant territories, including the capital Tripoli, and established their own government. Consequently, Libya now had two governments: the elected government and the coalition government of the Misrata faction and the UOA. The conflict between these two governments continued. Observers speculated that the nation might split into two entities—Eastern Libya and Western Libya. However, the majority of Libyans and nations like the U.S., Europe, the UK, and Egypt supported the elected government. Amid this, Libya’s Supreme Court declared that the Misrata government was more capable of leading the nation. The elected government rejected this ruling, claiming the verdict was influenced by bribes and threats from the Misrata faction. The Libyan people also alleged that the Misrata group had coerced the judges into making a favorable ruling. Looking at Libya’s political crisis, it seems unlikely that the situation will resolve soon. Either a leader like Gaddafi must emerge to unify the country, or the people must recognize the value of democracy and work together to establish it. Both scenarios appear challenging in the current situation. If nothing else works, the U.S. and its allies, who once helped overthrow Gaddafi, must intervene to establish a stable government. What will happen in Libya next? Will democracy succeed, or will another dictatorship emerge? Given the current political developments, it is too early to predict. Even Libyans themselves are uncertain about the unfolding events. In my opinion, a dictatorship is unlikely to return, as the U.S. and its allies will not allow it due to their existing agreements and oil interests. Out of fear of losing these benefits, they might intervene at the last moment. If they do, the rebels can be suppressed, and peace can be restored in Libya. Let’s hope this happens soon. I felt compelled to write this article to update you all on Libya’s current situation. From next time, I will continue my series on my personal experiences here. Kannada Original: Uday Itagi English Translation: Uday Itagi

6. Some Mistakes Made by Gaddafi

Since the revolution began in Libya, I have been writing about Gaddafi—about Libya under his rule and Libya after him. I have written directly and candidly based on what I observed. While I have been publishing these writings in various newspapers, including online platforms, and on my blog, many people who read them have asked me questions about Gaddafi, such as: “Are you a supporter of Gaddafi? Does that mean you support dictatorship? Was he really that good? According to you, did Gaddafi make no mistakes at all?” Questions like these were frequently posed to me. In response, I would often say, “I am certainly not a supporter of dictatorship. However, I do criticize the Western attitude of spinning stories about dictators who don’t bow to their interests, misleading people, and serving their own agendas. If they aim to uproot dictatorship, it should be done universally. Why do they support dictatorship in countries like Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Dubai, etc.? It’s because these nations align with their interests and offer substantial benefits. Hence, they remain silent. Furthermore, if democracy is established in African nations, they can easily invade under its guise and loot their immense natural wealth.” This explanation usually put an end to the discussions. But later, I thought, the questions they raised were valid. Why shouldn’t I write about this? So, this time, I decided to write about the mistakes Gaddafi made. For this, I gathered information from several knowledgeable Libyans I know. According to them, what were his mistakes? How many of them were personal? How many were political? How many mistakes led to his downfall? What were the mistakes recognized by the international community? And what were the flaws in his administration? In this piece, I aim to analyse all these aspects in detail. An Indomitable Desire to Unite Africa:

From 1999 onwards, Gaddafi developed an indomitable desire to unify the entire African continent. Before this, he had envisioned uniting Arab nations and establishing a coalition of Arab states. However, he did not receive the level of support he expected from the leaders of Arab countries. Consequently, he shifted his focus to uniting African nations and aspired to become the leader of such a union. This desire wasn’t entirely new—it had been conceived earlier by an Afro-American named Marcus Garvey, who coined the term “United States of Africa.” However, Gaddafi went a step further. Not only did he envision uniting the entire African continent, but he also planned to introduce a single gold currency for Africa. His vision was to conduct all trade and transactions on the continent using this “gold dinar.” Had Gaddafi succeeded in implementing the gold dinar, most African nations would have been able to demand fair value for their resources, rapidly pulling themselves out of debt and poverty. Moreover, if trade were conducted exclusively in gold dinars, nations like the United States, Britain, and European countries—which did not have substantial gold reserves—might have struggled to pay for this currency, potentially facing economic collapse. However, Gaddafi’s plan faced opposition from many African leaders. They feared that once the “African Union” was established, Gaddafi—already known as the “King of Kings”—would become its leader. His influential personality might overshadow theirs, threatening their authority and existence. They also worried that their decisions could be overridden by him. Consequently, these leaders favored establishing the “Economic Community of Africa” over the “African Union.” Despite this, Gaddafi remained adamant about forming the African Union, vowing to make it a reality. This determination unsettled Western nations, who resolved to eliminate him by any means necessary.

As for Gaddafi’s earlier ambition to establish an Arab coalition, it did not receive support because an Arab Union might unite against their long-standing adversary, Israel, and potentially cause trouble. The international community feared such a coalition, and Arab nations, realizing the potential backlash, chose to step back. At least, that’s the explanation provided by those familiar with the situation. He Raised Oil Prices: Muammar Gaddafi played a strategic role in Libya's economic development. Until 1969, Libya depended on Western nations for the technology to extract oil from its oil fields. Foreign companies exploited this dependency, setting oil prices to suit their own needs and taking a significant share of the profits. As a result, Libya was struggling economically despite its abundant oil resources. When Gaddafi came to power in 1969, he immediately reviewed and brought foreign companies' contracts under control. He issued a stern warning to companies unwilling to comply with his policies, threatening to halt oil production altogether.

Until 1969, the price of a barrel of oil was only 40 US cents. However, after assuming power, Gaddafi made a historic move to raise oil prices. He united other oil-producing Arab nations and launched a significant campaign to increase oil prices, demanding fair compensation from the West for their oil. He even threatened to stop oil production if his demands were not met. As a result, the price of a barrel of oil was promptly raised to $20. Later, during the 1973 war between Israel and the Arab nations, the price of a barrel soared to $40. This price revision policy enabled oil-rich but economically struggling nations to grow wealthy rapidly. Gaddafi's approach to oil price regulation disrupted the West, causing significant unease. Tragically, many Arab nations, which initially benefited from Gaddafi's policies, soon forgot his contributions. Instead, they eventually aligned with Western powers and conspired against him. Anti-Israel Policy: As we all know, in 1948, when Israel suddenly occupied Palestine following the UN's directive, it led to a massive bloodshed. In the Israeli attacks, many villages were destroyed, and countless Palestinians (mostly Muslims) lost their homes, fields, and livelihoods. They were left homeless and began living as strangers in their own land. Israelis claimed, "Jerusalem is our holy city, and it belongs to us." On the other hand, Palestinians argued, "This is our land, and we have lived here for centuries." This conflict continues even today, with Palestinians demanding the liberation of Palestine from Israel and its recognition as an independent state. However, this demand remains unfulfilled. This injustice not only angered the Palestinians but also provoked many other Muslim nations. Considering the treatment of Palestinians as an atrocity against their own people, nearly all Muslim nations united and declared war on Israel in 1967. However, with military aid from the United States, Israel defeated all these nations within just six days, putting an end to the war. Over time, many Muslim countries realized that Israel had the strong backing of the United States, Europe, and England. They came to understand that any action against Israel would bring them significant trouble. Despite harboring resentment against Israel, these countries adopted a diplomatic approach, outwardly maintaining friendly relations with Israel while strengthening ties with the US, Europe, and England. However, a few nations took a firm stance, vowing to expel Israel. Among these were Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Libya (under Muammar Gaddafi), Syria (under Bashar al-Assad and his father), Egypt (under Gamal Abdel Nasser), Sudan, Lebanon, and Iran. Notably, the US and its allied nations have consistently targeted those who opposed Israel. Except for Iran, most of these countries have already faced such targeting, a fact evident to all. Iran also remains on their "hit list."

As for Gaddafi, he was a staunch opponent of Israel and deeply sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians who suffered at Israel's hands. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, he joined forces with Egypt's then-leader Gamal Abdel Nasser to prevent the waters of the Nile River from reaching Israel, playing a significant anti-Israel role. In 1967, when some Arab nations declared war on Israel, they were defeated in just six days, leading to Palestine falling entirely under Israeli control. It was during this time that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed to protect Palestinians from Israeli aggression. Gaddafi provided full financial and moral support to the PLO. Ironically, the PLO and its supporters have been labeled as terrorists by the international community. Gaddafi's Association with Terrorist Activities: On June 27, 1976, an Air France flight (AF-139) traveling from Israel to France was hijacked by four individuals alleged to be supporters of the PLO. The flight carried 246 passengers, most of whom were Israeli nationals. The hijackers demanded the release of their associates imprisoned in Israel in exchange for the hostages. After hijacking the plane from Athens, the hijackers diverted it to the Benghazi airport in Libya. There, they requested fuel for the aircraft from Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi. As a staunch opponent of Israel and a supporter of the Palestinians, Gaddafi promptly supplied 42 tons of fuel. The hijackers then redirected the plane to Uganda. At that time, Ugandan leader Idi Amin initially had good relations with Israel. However, in 1972, Amin requested military jets from Israel to attack neighboring Kenya. When Israel flatly refused his request, Amin turned his full support toward Palestine, an enemy of Israel. Consequently, Amin allowed the hijacked plane to land at Uganda's Entebbe Airport, where the hostages were held. However, Israeli forces secretly launched a rescue operation at the airport, neutralized the hijackers, and freed the hostages. Due to Gaddafi's and Idi Amin's involvement in the incident, both leaders drew severe criticism from Israel's key allies, the United States and Britain.

Idi Amin and Gaddafi: In 1971, Idi Amin rose to power in Uganda with the help of Britain and Israel. Since Amin was uneducated, they believed they could manipulate him to suit their needs. At the time, many Muslims in Uganda were oppressed by Christians, and dissatisfaction was brewing among them. Recognizing this, Idi Amin began targeting Christians under the pretext of addressing this unrest, eventually orchestrating widespread killings. Without fully understanding the situation, Gaddafi supported Idi Amin, viewing him as a Muslim leader and Uganda as a Muslim nation. Through this association, Gaddafi aligned himself with Amin's actions. In 1979, when the Ugandan people revolted against Idi Amin, Gaddafi sent troops to assist him. However, these soldiers, fearing the rebels, mistakenly bombed areas in Nairobi and Burundi instead of targeting the rebels. This resulted in significant loss of life and added Gaddafi permanently to the list of individuals associated with terrorism. Another incident occurred in 1988, when Libya was accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. The attack claimed the lives of around 250 Americans. The U.S. government demanded that Gaddafi accept responsibility for the act and compensate the victims' families, warning of sanctions if he refused. Gaddafi denied involvement for a long time, maintaining that Libya had no connection to the bombing. Angered by his refusal, the U.S. imposed 12 years of strict sanctions on Libya. During this time, Libyans claimed that Gaddafi managed to sustain the country by buying essential goods from neighboring countries at three times the regular price. Many believed this entire situation was part of a calculated plot by the U.S. It was alleged that the U.S. bribed two Libyans with a significant amount of money to falsely testify that Gaddafi had ordered the bombing. Ultimately, Gaddafi was forced into a position where he had no choice but to accept responsibility, despite denying involvement. He eventually compensated the victims' families as a way to resolve the matter. Gaddafi as a Feminist and Secular Leader: Gaddafi was a genuine feminist and a secular leader who advocated for the equality of women and men. He believed in providing equal opportunities for women in all fields during his tenure. In his "Green Book," he stated: “A woman, like a man, drinks, eats, loves, hates, thinks, learns, and understands. Then why this discrimination? Except for biological differences, women are equal to men in every other aspect. In fact, women are different and more fortunate than men. Unlike men, they can menstruate, conceive, give birth, and breastfeed. Men are deprived of these natural experiences. Therefore, instead of considering femininity as a curse, see it as a blessing," he urged the women of Libya. Under his leadership, women were given equal opportunities in every sector. If they were educated and found employment, it was appreciated; if not, they were provided a monthly allowance of 100 dinars to sustain themselves. For uneducated women, Gaddafi facilitated business opportunities by granting loans of up to 15,000 dinars, repayable in instalments. If they faced losses in their business, they were given another chance with half the amount of the original loan. If their ventures still did not succeed, the debt was completely waived. He emphasized that women must be as financially independent as possible. Divorced women received monthly compensation from the government in addition to alimony from their ex-husbands. If the divorced woman was in a government job, she was entitled to 250 dinars; otherwise, she received 450 dinars. This policy also extended to widows. Additionally, women were granted 5,000 dollars for every child they gave birth to. Men getting married in Libya were required to register a house in their wife's name. If they wanted to remarry, they had to obtain mandatory permission from their first wife. Gaddafi also fought for Libyan women's status on the international stage. If a Libyan woman married a European or Englishman, Gaddafi demanded that she immediately receive citizenship in her husband’s country. In the event of a divorce, he ensured that the woman received her rightful compensation.

Gaddafi's trust in women was so profound that he appointed only female bodyguards for his personal security. He believed in their efficiency and wanted to demonstrate to the world that women were no less capable than men. He also held the opinion that military training for women would empower them to defend themselves in times of crisis. By employing women as his bodyguards, Gaddafi became the first leader in the world to highlight their competence in this way. Unlike several other Muslim nations, Gaddafi imposed no restrictions on women. For instance, women in Libya were not required to wear the burqa and could shake hands or converse freely with men in public spaces. Women in Libya were economically and socially independent to a great extent. However, his extreme feminist stance and liberal policies towards women provoked the ire of Muslim fundamentalists in Libya. This discontent culminated in an assassination attempt in 1998, when fundamentalists opened fire on Gaddafi during a public address. He narrowly escaped with his life. Gaddafi's Extreme Nationalism Gaddafi rose to power during a period of significant change in Asia and Africa. It's no surprise that many viewed him as the Che Guevara of Africa and the Arab world. True to this image, even after assuming power as the head of state, he refrained from declaring himself as the commander of the military like others. Instead, he retained the rank of "Colonel," which inspired confidence among many. Upon coming to power, Gaddafi immediately expelled the American and British military bases that had established themselves in Libya. He also abolished Libya's existing constitution and introduced his own, called the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," establishing a new governance system. He ensured that the Jamahiriya's independence was not undermined by Western powers. From the start, Gaddafi was a staunch nationalist. He disliked interference from anyone and operated as a leader who depended on no one. He maintained Libya's independence in every matter. After assuming power, he restructured Libya's foreign and domestic policies, governing with the aim of making the nation self-reliant. As a result, Libya quickly began to progress under his leadership. Unlike other African rulers who acted as puppets of Western powers, Gaddafi stood firm and opposed them. This defiance earned him the animosity of the West.

Gaddafi's Extreme Socialist Ideology Gaddafi's extreme socialist ideology is said to have been one of his downfalls. In his country, the concept of equality was implemented literally. He treated everyone equally, without distinctions such as superior-subordinate, rich-poor, or elite-commoner. Higher officials were not allowed to dominate their subordinates. From an attendant to a college dean, everyone was treated as equals. An attendant could sit in the dean’s chair without hesitation, use his computers without permission, or even drink coffee with him. Likewise, there was no rule that a dean had to command from his chair; if necessary, he would approach a clerk to get work done. If the clerk was busy, the dean would have to wait until he finished. In this system, someone cleaning a hospital today could unexpectedly become the director of the same hospital tomorrow. As a result, those in higher positions never mistreated their subordinates or became intoxicated with power. This was because they feared that their subordinate might rise to a higher position and treat them the same way in the future. However, Gaddafi’s policies created significant discontent among the wealthy elite and high-ranking officials. They questioned how it was possible to equate the rich and poor, the educated and uneducated. "Does Gaddafi not understand this?" they argued. Moreover, their desire to seize control of the country’s reins grew stronger. Exploiting this dissatisfaction, the United States, Britain, and European nations successfully incited a revolution against him, ultimately leading to his downfall. Faults in Gaddafi's Administration: Although Gaddafi was a shrewd politician, he seemed unaware of the flaws in his governance. The policies he implemented for the country's development were reasonable, but he failed to ensure their effective execution. For example, many government officials in Libya were lazy and corrupt. If he had been determined, he could have made them work harder and driven the country towards greater progress. Instead, he allowed them to operate as they pleased. A year before the revolution, he addressed a public gathering and said, "Even if you sit idle for another fifty years, I can provide for your needs. Libya has enough wealth. But you must work; if you work, the country will progress." However, he did not take strict action against those who refused to work. As a result, the Libyans lost the competitive spirit to advance the nation on par with the outside world. Furthermore, about 65% of government officials in Libya were reportedly drawing double salaries. Some were known to take salaries from four or five jobs despite working in only one. In extreme cases, there were examples of officials receiving eight to ten salaries simultaneously. Did Gaddafi know about this? Locals claim he did. Yet, why did he remain silent? Was it indifference? Or was it his generous mindset, believing, "Let my people enjoy, no matter what?" Or perhaps he feared that questioning them might jeopardize his position? Given Gaddafi’s blunt and aggressive speaking style, it’s challenging to discern his true motives. Additionally, many government officials took years of leave without reason, yet Gaddafi neither dismissed them from their posts nor withheld their salaries. Consequently, a culture of complacency took root among government officials, and there was a lack of discipline in state offices. Despite this, many Libyans still praise Gaddafi for the facilities he provided. He envisioned every Libyan owning a house and a car, and he succeeded in fulfilling this dream. Along with this, he offered free education, healthcare, electricity, and other amenities. However, he provided salaries only to the extent necessary for a family’s basic needs, which caused dissatisfaction among some. Libya’s population was only about five million, yet Gaddafi used the profits from oil exports not only for his people but also to aid other African nations like Uganda, Palestine, Lebanon, Chad, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, and even Cuba. (For instance, he helped build schools and hospitals in these countries.) While some Libyans appreciated his support for other nations, many, especially the youth, argued, "What harm would it have done if he had distributed the oil wealth among us instead of giving it away to foreigners?" This attitude of discontent stemmed from greed, as they often overlooked the houses and education Gaddafi had provided for them. Compared to other Arab nations, Libyans enjoyed unparalleled benefits. However, some young people criticized Gaddafi for not using the oil revenue to establish shopping malls and clubs like those in Qatar, Jordan, or Dubai. Gaddafi, however, prioritized fulfilling basic needs over luxury. He banned all forms of middlemen in business, ensuring a direct system. Nevertheless, with the wealth and a small population, Gaddafi could have focused on other developmental projects, such as establishing world-class schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, metro rail systems, and airports, elevating Libya to the top position among Arab nations. Although he launched several ambitious projects three years before the revolution to modernize Libya, it was too little, too late. The Pan Am Flight Bombing Incident: In 1988, Libya was accused of bombing the Pan Am flight over Scotland, killing 250 Americans. This enraged the U.S. government, which imposed a 12-year embargo on Libya, plunging its economy into crisis. During this period, Gaddafi managed to sustain the nation by importing daily necessities at three times the regular price from neighboring countries. Remarkably, he avoided plunging Libya into debt, maintaining the country without incurring a single penny of foreign loans. Major Mistakes: 1. Gaddafi banned the teaching of the English language for ten years out of anger toward Americans, depriving an entire generation of the opportunity to learn it. Even today, many from that generation have a fear of English and hold resentment against Gaddafi for this decision. 2. He invited people from other Muslim countries like Chad, Niger, Syria, Egypt, and Mali to settle in Libya based on Islamic brotherhood. These migrants could enter Libya without a visa, work there, and eventually gain citizenship. While Gaddafi was in power, these migrants did not cause significant trouble. However, after his death, they began demanding a share in Libya’s political sphere and created unrest in certain parts of the country. Despite his flaws, Gaddafi’s leadership and vision for Libya remain a subject of both admiration and critique, reflecting a complex legacy. Flaws in the Education Sector: Before Gaddafi came to power, only about 25% of Libyan citizens were literate. However, during his regime, that figure rose to 83%. Libyan schools and colleges followed a British curriculum for various subjects, including English. The English textbooks at the school level were of exceptional quality. However, there was a noticeable shortage of trained teachers to teach these subjects effectively. Additionally, in Libya, subjects that are typically taught for four to six hours a week in countries like India were taught for only two hours per week. This was insufficient to cover the required material. Furthermore, the examination system was riddled with flaws. Of the total 100 marks, 40 marks were allocated for internal assessments, while the remaining 60 marks were for the final examination. As a result, students could easily pass their exams. There was no standardized question paper pattern, and teachers were free to design their own question papers, conduct exams within their colleges, and even evaluate them themselves. This allowed students to secure high marks without much effort. Additionally, there were no proper supervisors to monitor the quality of schools and colleges. Gaddafi also provided scholarships to many youths for higher education abroad. However, he imposed a rule that those who completed their studies abroad must return to Libya and serve their country. Otherwise, they were required to repay the entire cost of their education. Unfortunately, this rule was not strictly enforced. Consequently, many Libyans who went to countries like Britain, America, and other European nations married local women, secured jobs, and settled there permanently. As a result, Libya’s human resources were drained, remaining in foreign countries instead of contributing to their homeland. This lack of skilled human capital hindered Libya's technical progress. If Gaddafi had strictly implemented his rules, Libya might have surpassed countries like Dubai, Qatar, and Turkey in development. Intense Hatred Towards America and Strong Affection for Communist Nations: Gaddafi was a staunch enemy of the Americans from the very beginning. Whenever he got the chance, he openly criticized them without any hesitation, earning their animosity. Even when other Muslim leaders warned him not to criticize America so openly, Gaddafi ignored their advice and continued to oppose them at every opportunity. This consistent opposition ultimately led to his downfall. While most countries in the world sought to maintain good relations with America, Gaddafi repeatedly antagonized them. When asked why he harbored such deep hatred for America, the explanation given was this: Gaddafi strongly opposed America's imperialist policies, their ambition to always maintain a dominant position globally, and their frequent interference in the affairs of Libya, Africa, and the Middle East. In one of his speeches, Gaddafi accused America of imperialist behavior, stating, “We strongly condemn the imperialist nation of America and its policies that threaten the independence of Jamahiriya (Libyan socialism). In this regard, we are all born enemies of America. Let history record our hatred for them.” Gaddafi’s extreme hatred for America left a profound impact on the Libyan people, who also began to share his disdain. He was particularly upset with America’s interference in Iraq and their execution of his close ally, Saddam Hussein, calling it the height of American arrogance. Gaddafi repeatedly pressured the International Criminal Court to investigate the circumstances surrounding Saddam’s execution. On the other hand, Gaddafi maintained close ties with communist nations like Cuba, China, and Russia. Libyan markets were flooded with Chinese goods, and the country’s espionage and intelligence divisions were handed over to Russian oversight. Once, when the U.S. attempted to assassinate Gaddafi by bombing his residence in Tripoli following accusations of planting a bomb on a Pan Am flight, Russian intelligence tipped him off, allowing him to escape in time. This incident highlights a critical point: democracies like Europe, Britain, and America naturally harboured resentment toward communist nations such as Russia, China, and Cuba. Their ultimate goal was to break these strongholds and establish global dominance. For this reason, they ensured that certain communist-leaning Muslim nations never united. Over time, America succeeded in dismantling the USSR and, after Che Guevara’s death, managed to sway Cuba to its side. In his first speech at the United Nations, Gaddafi boldly remarked, “You have hanged many Arab leaders who once had good relations with China and Russia. Tomorrow, I may face the same fate, and it wouldn’t be surprising.” Tragically, that turned out to be his final speech. Conflict with Chad: The conflict between Libya and its neighboring country, Chad, began in 1965. That year, when the people of Chad rebelled against their emperor, Libya's first king, Idris, supported the rebels by supplying them with weapons. However, France came to the aid of the emperor. This clash continued for four years. In Libya, in 1969, Idris was overthrown, and Muammar Gaddafi came to power. Upon assuming power, Gaddafi seized the northern region of Chad with Russian assistance and established a Libyan military base there. He continued to supply weapons to the rebels in Chad. Meanwhile, with French support, a new emperor came to power in Chad. Angered by this, Gaddafi captured a northern Chadian town in 1979. France, unwilling to tolerate this, decisively defeated Libya in 1983. Following this, Gaddafi feared that France might invade Libya through Chad. To counter this threat, he strengthened his ties with Russia and ordered vigilance at Libya’s military base in Chad, cautioning the French against advancing into Libyan territory. Gaddafi continued to apply pressure on the French, ensuring they would not cross into Libya. This conflict persisted throughout his rule. Although this conflict was initially started by King Idris, many believe Gaddafi should not have prolonged it. It was unnecessary and wasted significant time and resources, according to local opinions. Some of Gaddafi’s actions were seen as mistakes by the world, while others were perceived as errors by the Libyan people themselves. Against this backdrop, it would not be surprising if Gaddafi were compared to a Shakespearean tragic hero. Kannada Original: Uday Itagi English Translation: Uday Itagi

5. Gaddafi Girls

Gaddafi was as interesting a personality as he was controversial. He remained a contentious figure until the very end. It’s difficult to determine whether he deliberately courted controversies or if controversies naturally gravitated toward him. Additionally, the myths and legends surrounding him were as famous as the man himself. He was labeled as a cruel dictator, a libertine, a man who lived a life of luxury, a troublemaker, a womanizer, a homosexual, a bloodsucker of Libyans, and loose cannon. Accusations like these swirled around him constantly. However, in reality, most of these accusations were baseless. To be fair, Gaddafi was indeed ruthless in the early years of his rule, silencing those who opposed him. But he was never the kind of cruel dictator, selfish ruler, libertine, or bloodsucker of his own people that he was often accused of being. Instead, from the very day he came to power, Gaddafi took good care of the Libyan people and provided them with numerous facilities and benefits, as I have mentioned earlier. It is true, however, that he was a troublemaker and a loose cannon. His audacity and provocations were significant enough to plunge Libya into a decade of darkness, depriving its people of English education. I have detailed how his antics caused this situation in my earlier piece titled Muammar Gaddafi and the English Language.

As I mentioned earlier, with the exception of a few African newspapers, most media outlets around the world had portrayed Gaddafi as a villain from the very beginning. Why was this the case? These outlets often relied on rumors and hearsay about his private life, embellishing them and publishing sensational reports. Even his “girls” weren’t spared from such treatment. Stories spread that Gaddafi sexually exploited these women and kept them in his palace for that purpose. Such baseless rumors were circulated widely. Consequently, Gaddafi’s notoriety extended to his “girls” as well, and they became infamous in their own right. The media mockingly referred to them as "Gaddafi Girls." But who exactly were these “Gaddafi Girls”? What was their relationship with Gaddafi? What were the stories surrounding them? How much of these stories were true, and how much was fabricated? Let’s delve into these questions now.

Female Bodyguards: The so-called “Gaddafi Girls” were none other than the female bodyguards personally appointed by Gaddafi for his security and the Ukrainian nurses hired to monitor his daily health. These women served on a rotational basis, fulfilling their duties at his residence but did not live there permanently. They stayed in separate locations and came to his residence only when their shift was scheduled. However, for security reasons, their movements and phone calls were monitored without their knowledge while they lived outside his residence. Keep that aside, why did Gaddafi appoint female bodyguards when most leaders around the world relied on male soldiers for their security? Was it because he had a fascination with women? Or was he truly a womanizer who mingled intimately with them? Or was there another reason behind this decision? Exploring this through the lens of history, his "Green Book," and local opinions reveals the following: Although Gaddafi was a Muslim leader, he had always been a strong advocate for women’s rights. He viewed men and women as equals and provided equal opportunities for women in all areas of society. He had immense faith in women’s capabilities, which led him to appoint female soldiers as his bodyguards. By doing so, he intended to showcase to the world that women are in no way inferior to men.

Additionally, Gaddafi believed that if women were trained in military tactics, they could defend themselves in times of crisis. Locals claim this was his rationale behind his decision. By appointing women as his bodyguards—a position in the country’s military considered highly prestigious—Gaddafi became the first male leader in the world to highlight and validate women’s competence on a global stage. In 1972, Gaddafi resigned from the official position of Head of State and adopted the grandiose title of “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” During this time, he began appointing women as his bodyguards. These bodyguards numbered around 300 to 400 and were responsible for protecting Gaddafi 24 hours a day on a rotational basis. All of them were Libyan women who had to pass multiple rounds of rigorous selection tests to qualify as his bodyguards. However, Gaddafi personally made the final selection and required the chosen women to take an oath: "We are always ready to protect our leader, even if it means sacrificing our lives to ensure his safety. We also pledge to remain virgins as long as we are in service."

Among these bodyguards, Gaddafi had three highly trusted guards who were always by his side. They accompanied him everywhere and were considered his closest protectors. Whenever Gaddafi traveled abroad, he additionally selected four other bodyguards to join him on the trip. One of these trusted guards was from Taraghan, a town near Sabha. According to her, whenever Gaddafi selected additional bodyguards for his foreign trips, those chosen were overjoyed beyond measure. This was because Gaddafi would present them with a gold watch bearing his portrait as a gift, along with a bonus. This practice made many of the bodyguards eager and hopeful to be selected, waiting excitedly for their turn. Interestingly, Gaddafi often reselected those he had already taken on previous trips. There were no specific criteria for this selection; it largely depended on Gaddafi’s mood and the luck of the women involved. So, were all of them truly beautiful as most of the global media claimed? Definitely not all of them were beautiful. However, they all had to appear attractive in Gaddafi’s presence. For this reason, they always wore makeup, applied lipstick, polished their nails, and donned high-heeled shoes to maintain a striking appearance. Gaddafi, being an admirer of beauty, liked to surround himself with beautiful things and people, according to those who knew him closely. Despite their appearance, they were extremely dedicated to their duties and ready to sacrifice their lives to protect their leader. For instance, in 1998, during a public gathering in Libya where Gaddafi was giving a speech, some Islamic fundamentalists attempted to assassinate him by opening fire. One of his close bodyguards, named Aisha, shielded him by standing in the line of fire, taking the bullets herself, and saving his life.

That said, why did Gaddafi insist that all his bodyguards had to be virgins? Was there a strong reason behind it? According to foreign media, Gaddafi, being a depraved individual, often sexually exploited his bodyguards and derived a peculiar satisfaction from taking away their purity. However, locals dismiss these claims as baseless rumors. They explain that Gaddafi preferred virgin bodyguards because he strongly believed in an ancient Greek notion: virgins are more focused and attentive in their tasks and execute orders with greater precision. Gaddafi held this belief deeply, which is why he always appointed virgins as his bodyguards. So, what happened to Gaddafi’s many bodyguards? During the revolution, some were arrested, some died in NATO attacks, and others sought refuge in different countries. When Tripoli slipped out of Gaddafi’s control, he reportedly told his remaining bodyguards, “Leave me now. Escape wherever you can.” Following his instructions, while attempting to escape, some were captured, some fell into the hands of rebels and were killed, and a few managed to flee to other countries. Nurses: Gaddafi had an extreme fascination for nurses, and as always, foreign newspapers and TV media stuck to their narrative, accusing him of filling his house with nurses and sexually exploiting them. However, the reality was quite different. Gaddafi was excessively concerned about his health. For this reason, he had two experienced Libyan doctors and five Ukrainian nurses permanently employed at his residence to monitor his and his family's health. They worked in shifts to ensure continuous care. Moreover, as Gaddafi had a history of hypertension, he relied on regular medical advice and kept this team of doctors and nurses at hand. Whenever he travelled abroad, he would take them along. Using this as a pretext, English newspapers and TV channels published defamatory stories about him and his relationship with the nurses.

However, Oksana Balinskaya, one of the five Ukrainian nurses who worked closely with Gaddafi, presents a completely different picture. She says, "All of us (the Ukrainian nurses) used to call him ‘Daddy.’ Every day, we would check Daddy’s blood pressure and give him the prescribed medication. Other than that, Daddy was healthy in every way. Daddy provided us with jobs, good salaries, and a decent life. He cared deeply about us and often inquired if we were happy with our families and children. On September 1st every year (the day he came to power), he would give us expensive gifts, including gold watches with his photograph, and always treated us with respect. It’s tragic that someone spread rumours about Daddy sexually abusing us and his bodyguards. We don’t know who started these lies or why. But Daddy never mistreated us." She adds, "He had only a few rules about our attire. We weren’t allowed to wear lipstick or colourful clothes. His opinion was that nurses should focus on their duties, not their appearance. We only touched Daddy when checking his blood pressure. Yet, they spread such false stories about us. Every day, we would take him for a walk in the garden inside his residence compound. Daddy was an excellent psychologist. He was so skilled that just by shaking hands and making eye contact, he could instantly assess the character of the person he met for the first time." Oksana laments, "Daddy not only built Libya but also modernized Libyans, taking them off camelbacks and putting them in cars. How could they have had the heart to kill such a great man?" Photos: Courtesy of the Internet Photos 1-4: Gaddafi’s Bodyguards Photos 5-6: Gaddafi’s Nurses Kannada Original: Uday Itagi English Translation: Uday Itagi

4. Mohammed Gaddafi and the English Language

Muammar Gaddafi, who ruled Libya for over 42 years, became infamous not just for his unique fashion, eccentric behaviour, and stubbornness, but for his outspoken criticism of America. Despite his competence as a leader, Gaddafi's controversial actions, such as openly criticizing America without any hesitation, earned him the ire of many world leaders, especially those in other Muslim-majority countries. They warned him to avoid such direct confrontations, but Gaddafi continued to target America, eventually contributing to his downfall. In his early years, Gaddafi was an effective leader. Under his rule, Libya achieved significant progress in human resource development, education, health, agriculture, and industry, becoming a leading country in Africa in these areas. Additionally, Libya’s national revenue saw growth, placing it among the countries with the highest per capita income globally. As a result, Gaddafi was widely regarded as a trusted leader by the Libyan people. However, his political sensitivity often turned into stubbornness, which had consequences. Gaddafi's stubbornness, while largely a private matter, at times impacted his public decisions, and one such decision left a dark mark on Libya's future. His strong animosity toward America extended to their language—English. Not only did he despise the American government, but Gaddafi also harboured a strong disdain for the English language, which led him to actively discourage its teaching in Libya. He even banned English language education, depriving an entire generation of Libyans of the opportunity to learn the language for about a decade. This decision was a significant setback for the country’s educational and professional development. As a result of this decision, all of Libya was plunged into darkness for a decade. In a world on the edge of the 20th century, where people were striving to learn the English language, how would it have been if a country, for trivial reasons, had banned that language saying, "We don’t need it"? Just imagine the situation. As a consequence, the learning and teaching of English were abandoned in schools and colleges. Books related to the English language were publicly burned in the presence of the then Minister of Education. Gradually, Libya, without any contact with the English language, started distancing itself from the outside world. Meanwhile, the people of Libya began developing a strong aversion to learning English, and they turned away from the global community. The language was considered an enemy language, and the decision to not learn it was deeply ingrained. Even today, there is a clear phobia about the language among the people here. When I, a foreigner who didn’t speak Arabic, tried to speak English with the people of that generation who didn’t know English, they would apologize saying, "Malish, malish, ma'arif Englishi" (Sorry, I don’t know English) and run away. However, some educated and wealthy individuals went to neighboring countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, and Ghana to learn English and returned. But the middle-class and poor people were left behind, unable to even learn the basics of the language. As a result, the people of Libya, while praising Gaddafi for his other deeds, still curse him for this particular decision. They lament, saying, "Because of him, we were never able to learn English." So, why did Gaddafi ban the English language in Libya for ten years, from 1986 to 1996? What was such a strong reason? When asked, many people here say that it was Gaddafi’s stubbornness and his personal hatred towards Americans that led to this. Due to Libya's alleged support for terrorist activities in Ireland, Europe had already placed Libya on the list of “terrorist” countries. However, in 1986, after the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin, where Gaddafi was suspected to be involved, the United States also added Libya to its list of “terrorist” countries and retaliated by bombing Libya's capital, Tripoli. As a result, Libya was temporarily isolated. Later, in 1988, Libya was implicated in the bombing of a Pan Am flight, flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland. For a long time, Gaddafi denied any involvement. This led the United Nations to impose further sanctions on Libya. This enraged Gaddafi, and in retaliation for his anger towards Americans, he decided to ban the English language in his country, asking why his people should read, write, or speak the language of his enemies.

However, Hafid Fis, the director of the Amazigh International Council (Amazigh refers to an ethnic minority group in Libya that has been historically marginalized), says, “Gaddafi’s ban on the English language for about ten years was merely an excuse for his anger towards Americans. The real reason is different. Gaddafi was afraid of the Libyans. Since he came to power, Gaddafi gradually gained control over the Libyans and began to oppress them. He feared that if they learned English, they might communicate with the outside world and expose his oppression. Therefore, he deliberately banned the English language in his country and ensured that his people did not learn it. In fact, Gaddafi maintained good relations with many English-speaking countries, including his bitter enemy, the United States. He used this policy as a tool to prevent the Libyan people from connecting with the outside world.” If we carefully examine this statement by comparing it with the days before and after Gaddafi's ban on the English language, there seems to be no validity in his words. This is because, from the very beginning of his rule, Gaddafi sent his citizens, including those learning English, on scholarships to English-speaking countries like America and Britain. If he was afraid of the Libyans, why would he send them to English-speaking countries? Furthermore, were there no Libyans who had learned English before 1986 who could have spoken out about his oppression? And after lifting the ban on the English language, did he not fear that his people might learn English and expose his oppression to the outside world? If so, why did he encourage English education again? The answer to all these questions is clear. Gaddafi banned the English language out of his anger towards America, and there was no malicious intent behind the decision. This is supported by a Ph.D. student named Al Moghani Hassan Mohammed, who states in his thesis, “Students’ Perceptions of Motivation in English Language Learning in Libya”, how Gaddafi’s hatred towards the English language and Americans had a negative impact on the Libyan people's ability to learn English. He also describes how the citizens followed their leader in this regard. He further adds, Gaddafi once said in his speech about Americans: "We strongly condemn the imperialist nation of America, which threatens the sovereignty of Jamahiriya (Libyan socialism). In this regard, we are all enemies of the Americans. Let our hatred for the Americans be recorded in history." This intense hatred toward Americans by Gaddafi had a profound effect on the Libyan people as well. Like him, they too became enemies of Americans and began to hate the English language. As a result, every child born here became a product of hatred toward Americans. Gradually, as Libya’s relationship with America improved, Gaddafi began to realize the importance of the English language. He also understood the truth that without learning English, the business dealings of the Americans would remain unknown to them and Libya would have no bright future. As a result, he resumed the teaching of English. Some claim that Gaddafi banned English and then resumed its teaching in 1992, but it wasn’t widely implemented across the country until 1996. Others assert that for about ten years, from 1986 to 1996, Libya had no exposure to the English language. However, from 1996 onwards, Gaddafi made all the necessary arrangements to facilitate the learning of English. He hired English teachers from neighboring countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, and Egypt, and resumed teaching English. He also sought help from English-speaking countries to develop textbooks for primary, preparatory, and secondary schools. This is why the English textbooks in Libya are of such high quality. The unfortunate part, however, is the lack of good teachers to teach them properly. Meanwhile, a survey conducted revealed that Indians were equally proficient in English compared to the British. Based on this, from 2000 onwards, Gaddafi began recruiting Indian English lecturers for Libyan colleges and placed greater emphasis on the learning of English. So, did Gaddafi know English? Was he able to speak in English? The answer is definitely yes. Gaddafi learned English during his secondary school education and while pursuing his B.A. However, he had to cut short his studies to ascend the throne of Libya, effectively ending his formal education. As a result, his knowledge of English was limited. Could he speak English? Certainly, he could. While he wasn’t fluent, he could articulate what he wanted to say slowly yet precisely in English. He would speak in English only when absolutely necessary, at least until he banned the English language in his country. Even before banning English, his interviews with foreign media were always conducted in English. However, after prohibiting the language in Libya, he completely stopped speaking English. In the subsequent years, whenever he had to give interviews to English channels or hold discussions with leaders of other nations, he always had a skilled translator by his side who was fluent in both Arabic and English. This translator would interpret English into Arabic for Gaddafi and convey Gaddafi's words back into English for others. Beyond that, Gaddafi never liked speaking in English, and he largely avoided it. In 1999, the famous interviewer Daphne asked Gaddafi during a BBC interview, "So… when are you going to quit and leave the stage for someone else?" The translator, possibly due to fear, embarrassment, or not understanding the question properly, remained silent. Daphne asked the same question again, and the translator stayed silent. At this point, just as Daphne was considering asking the question in Arabic, Gaddafi, unable to speak English fluently, said without the help of a translator: "It is not about me quitting, after all – I am the head of a revolution…” Despite this, Gaddafi, on September 23, 2009, at the United Nations, made sure to prepare thoroughly and delivered his speech in English for about 90 minutes (15 minutes longer than the allotted time), setting a historical record. This was his first speech at the United Nations. However, leaders from English-speaking countries, including the United States, looked down upon him. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other prominent figures did not attend his speech. In fact, even US Secretary Hillary Clinton and American diplomats walked out before he began his speech. Nevertheless, Gaddafi persistently continued speaking in English, expressing without hesitation everything he wanted to say. Initially, he pointed out that the United States should learn from the Middle Eastern countries on how to properly host guests. He also remarked that the United Nations, according to its Charter, should treat all its members equally. However, he highlighted that this principle was not followed in practice and symbolically waved the Charter in front of the gathering. He continued, saying that the primary purpose of the United Nations was to prevent wars around the world, to preserve global peace. Yet, since its founding in 1945, 65 wars had occurred globally, and the UN had failed to prevent them. He questioned the very existence of the United Nations. Moving on, he urged the United States to stop interfering in other countries’ matters, criticizing the Iraq war as "America’s ultimate crime." Regarding the Palestinian conflict, he called for Palestinians and Israelis to live together in one country. However, those who listened to his speech found it difficult to understand his points, as it lacked coherence and logical flow, leading to further disregard for him. Unfortunately, this speech was Gaddafi’s final speech at the United Nations. Photo 1: In 1999, before the famous interviewer Daphne took Gaddafi to the studio for the BBC Channel interview. Kannada Original: Uday Itagi English Translation: Uday Itagi

What is the main cause for Iran-Israel and America War?

ನಿಷ್ಮಾ ಇರ್ಷಾದ್ ಒಬ್ಬ ದಿಟ್ಟ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತೆ. ಇವರು Kannada One News Channel ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ನಿನ್ನೆ ಕ್ವೀನ್ಸ್ ರೋಡಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಎರಡು ಚಾನೆಲ್ಗಳಿಗೆ ಇರಾನ್ ಯುದ್ದದ ಕುರಿತಂತೆ ಸಂದರ್ಶನವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೆನಲ್ಲ, ಆ ಕನ್ನಡ ನ್ಯೂಸ್ ಚಾನೆಲ್ ನ ಸಂಪಾದಕೀಯ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥರಾಗಿ ಇವರು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅವರೇ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಸಂದರ್ಶನ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು. ಅವರು ಕೇಳಿದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು ಕೂಡ ಸದ್ಯದ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ತುಂಬಾ ರಿಲೆವೆಂಟಾಗಿದ್ದವು. ಇವರು ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನವರಾದ್ದರು ಕೂಡ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ವಿಚಾರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರು ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕನ್ನಡದವರಂತೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಕೆಲವೇ ಕೆಲವು ಬರಹಗಾರರು ಮತ್ತು ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರು ಕೂಡ ಒಬ್ಬರು. ಅವರ ದಿಟ್ಟ ನಿಲುವು ಮತ್ತು ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಾವು ಪ್ರೆಸೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ರೀತಿ ತುಂಬಾ ಇಷ್ಟವಾಯಿತು. ಅವರು ನನ್ನ ಸಂದರ್ಶನ ಮಾಡಿದ ಲಿಂಕ್ ಅನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ನೋಡಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ತಿಳಿಸಿ. https://youtu.be/TAu7P8atP8k?si=rb3MVozMswKuDw4k

3. Muammar Gaddafi and His "Green Book"

In the first part, I discussed the concept of equality during Gaddafi's regime. In this context, I expressed surprise and doubt about how such equality could be possible in a dictatorship. However, one day, I came across Gaddafi's book "The Green Book" in our college library, and it provided answers to all my questions. As I read, I became astounded by his lines of thinking. After taking power as the head of the country on September 1, 1969, Gaddafi resigned from the position in 1972, assuming the title “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” and took control of Libya. This title sparked hope among many people. During a time of changes in Asia and Africa, Gaddafi, a young man who came to power, seemed to many like a liberator for Africa and the Arab world. Quickly, Gaddafi brought about significant changes in Libya, making it one of the leading nations in Africa. Like Mao's "Little Red Book", Gaddafi also abolished the constitution of Libya that had been in place for six years after he took power and published his own "The Green Book" in 1975. This marked the beginning of his rule according to his own ideas. In the book, Gaddafi outlined his new political, economic, and social ideologies, which startled the world. As usual, there was much talk about his "Green Book": some called it a book of Gaddafi’s false ideas, others saw it as a strategy to deceive the people. Some believed that with the "Green Book", Gaddafi slowly won over the Libyan people, bringing them under his control. However, it wasn’t false that his "Green Book" quickly became extremely popular in Libya. It was even adopted as a textbook in schools and colleges. Children, youth, and adults alike were influenced by his ideas. Thus, through his "Green Book", Gaddafi swiftly and firmly embedded his thoughts in the hearts and minds of the people.

Some experts have compared Gaddafi's political and economic ideas presented in the Green Book to the philosophies of Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Mao. Others have stated that he based his ideas on Islamic principles. However, in an interview given to an English newspaper in 1979, Gaddafi confidently stated about his Green Book: “America may wage war against us, the West may isolate us, but I am not worried. My ‘Green Book’ continues to speak to the world.” It is no surprise that, in this context, the Green Book was seen as an invaluable text by the Libyan people. They believed that the Green Book was their breath, and their breath was the Green Book. So, what exactly did the Green Book contain? What did Gaddafi say in it? Let's take a look. The first pages of Gaddafi's Green Book begin by criticizing the system of democracy. In a democratic system, the party that wins the most votes comes to power. For example, let’s assume there are two parties, 'A' and 'B'. If party 'A' wins 51% of the votes and party 'B' wins 49%, then naturally, the party with 51% of the votes comes to power. This means that 49% of the people do not agree with the government, but they are still subjected to the rule of the party that has 51% of the votes, and they are expected to obey whatever the government says. However, Gaddafi believed that true democracy meant there should be no parties, because creating parties would divide society like splitting it into two factions. In a democratic system, citizens should participate directly in everything, not through elected representatives. Many political experts sharply criticize Gaddafi for using this principle as a weapon against the Libyan people, claiming that he manipulated them into believing in his system of socialism while preventing any form of democracy from being established. They argue that Gaddafi made the people of Libya fall into his trap by deceiving them about the flaws of democracy, and he ensured that a true democratic system never emerged in the country. In the second part, Gaddafi discusses socialism and the economic system. In a socialist society, there are no laborers. Even if there are, they should not be called "laborers." Instead, consider them your collaborators. They are not inferior to you. They, like you, have contributed to the upliftment of society and are active participants in it. Remember, laborers are never slaves to their masters. The only way to eliminate the system of slavery is to abolish that very system. Therefore, in his view, laborers should not be looked down upon. Gaddafi argued that every family should perform its own daily household tasks. According to him, whether housewives are paid for their work or not, they are always slaves as long as they are doing the work. He compared a prisoner and a laborer as being no different, both being in bondage. His extreme concern for the plight of laborers had a deep impact on the people of Libya. For example, taxi drivers there cannot lift or unload your luggage. If your luggage is too heavy, only if you request them kindly, out of human compassion, they may help you. Otherwise, you must do the work yourself. Additionally, there is no concept of dignity of labor there. I have traveled in taxis in Tripoli many times, and I have spoken to drivers. Many of them do this as a part-time job. In the morning, they work as teachers, lecturers, or in other professions. In that sense, Gaddafi ensured that Libyans were economically independent. However, it is ironic that while Gaddafi advocated for everyone to do their own work, he employed workers in his own house. When asked by the people, they often wonder, "What is wrong with employing workers when a person takes on the responsibility of governing an entire country?"

Gaddafi dreamed that every citizen of his country should own their own home. According to him, a person who lives in someone else's house, whether paying rent or not, will always remain a slave to the owner of that house. Therefore, he proposed a plan to provide each family with a house. Additionally, he offered interest-free loans for people to buy cars, so that they could own their own vehicles. However, many Libyans would build just a few stages of their homes and then stop, never completing them. Gaddafi never questioned them about why they did not finish the construction. Some of Gaddafi's statements about workers were far from reality. Just as Karl Marx’s statement that “half of the wealth of the capitalists should go to the working class” proved to be unrealistic, many of Gaddafi’s theories were also impractical and led to dissatisfaction among the capitalists of Libya. In the third part, Gaddafi presents his views on women. He firmly believed that women were equal to men, except for biological differences. He argued that in every aspect, women were just as capable as men, and in some ways, women were actually superior. He pointed out that while men cannot menstruate, bear children, or nurse; women can do all of these things, making them more fortunate in his view. Gaddafi encouraged women not to see their roles as a curse but as a blessing. He ensured equal opportunities for women in all sectors, fought internationally for the rights of Libyan women, and even advocated for women who married Europeans or Englishmen to receive citizenship, ensuring they had the right to seek justice in case of divorce. Gaddafi went as far as to appoint only female soldiers for his personal protection, believing in their competence. He trusted their abilities and sought to show the world that women were just as capable as men. Additionally, he believed that by granting women military roles, he was demonstrating that they could defend themselves in times of crisis. Through appointing women to the highest military positions, such as personal bodyguards, Gaddafi showed the world that women could hold important roles in defence and leadership. Thus, Gaddafi became the first leader in the world to acknowledge women’s competence in such positions, making a significant statement about their abilities. Gaddafi, when writing The Green Book, was neither the most educated nor the most well read individual. However, it is believed that he was heavily influenced by the speeches of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. In 1952, when Nasser overthrew the British-backed King Farouk of Egypt, he became a role model for the young Gaddafi. Nasser's speeches, broadcast on Cairo's radio program "Voices of Arabs," had a significant impact on Gaddafi. In his 1955 book, Egypt’s Liberation: The Philosophy of the Revolution, Nasser argued that the Arab world was drifting aimlessly and urgently needed a leader to unite it and lead it forward. Gaddafi, inspired by this, believed that he could be that leader and began working toward unifying the African continent, eventually becoming a popular leader by implementing the ideas presented in The Green Book. Not content with simply gaining popularity in Libya, Gaddafi sought to spread his philosophies globally. Between the 1980s and 1990s, he spent millions of dollars translating The Green Book into over thirty languages, hosting discussions, and funding research on it. However, on February 17, 2011, Libyan rebels burned The Green Book as a symbol of their protest, marking the beginning of the Libyan revolution. This act of defiance set the stage for the subsequent turmoil in the country, the outcome of which is well known. Photo 1: Gaddafi participating in a discussion on The Green Book in Sebha on March 7, 2007. Photo 2: The Green Book Photo 3: Gaddafi's green flag, representing Libya under his leadership. Kannada Original: Uday Itagi English Translation: Uday Itagi

ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಅನೀತಿಯ ಮೂಲ US- ಇರಾನ್- ಇಸ್ರೇಲ್ ಯುದ್ಧದ ಪೋಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾರ್ಟಂ.

ಇವತ್ತು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಕ್ವೀನ್ಸ್ ರೋಡಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ಎರಡು ಯುಟ್ಯೂಬ್ ಚಾನೆಲ್ ನವರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿ ಇರಾನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇಸ್ರೇಲ್ ಸಂಘರ್ಷದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡರು. ಸಂಘರ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಮೂಲ ಕಾರಣ ಏನು ಇರಬಹುದು? ಮತ್ತು ಈ ಯುದ್ಧ ಎಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಮುಟ್ಟಬಹುದು? ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಯುದ್ಧದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಮೆರಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಇಸ್ರೇಲ್ ಗೆದ್ದರೆ ಏನಾಗಬಹುದು? ಅಥವಾ ಇರಾನ್ ಗೆದ್ದರೆ ಏನಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. 

 ಬಿಡುವು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಈ ವಿಡಿಯೋ ನೋಡಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ತಿಳಿಸಿ.

https://youtu.be/TUMIEkQdNpc?si=2x4zsOL_EvmQVtx3

2. Mohammed Gaddafi: A Popular Leader of the Arab World

Libya, a tribal country situated in Africa close to the Arab world, was where Muammar Gaddafi was born in 1942 in Sirte. His parents belonged to a nomadic tribal community. Gaddafi did not face difficulties in receiving an education. Although he enrolled in Benghazi University to study geography, he didn’t complete his degree due to his deep political sensitivities. Influenced by Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser's Arab socialism, Gaddafi played a significant role in anti-Israel movements during the Suez Crisis in 1956. His political ambitions led him to join the military.

While studying at the Hellenic Military Academy in Greece, Gaddafi planned to overthrow Libya’s monarchy, but he couldn’t execute it at that time. Later, after receiving military training in Britain, he returned to Libya and brought his plan to fruition. Historically, Libya lacked a significant monarchical legacy, with only a single monarch, King Idris. In 1969, while King Idris was in Turkey for medical treatment, a group of junior military officers led by Gaddafi placed the crown prince under house arrest. Through this bloodless coup, Libya transitioned from monarchy to independence under the control of another leader who didn’t call himself a king. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who became Libya’s supreme leader in 1969, ruled the country effectively for 42 years. Rising to power at a young age, Gaddafi became a figure of both hope and expectation for the people of Libya and the world. During a time of significant change across Asia and Africa, the young leader was seen by many as the Che Guevara of Africa and the Arab world. In line with these expectations, Gaddafi refrained from declaring himself the head of the military or taking other grand titles, instead remaining content with the rank of "Colonel," which inspired trust in many.

Muammar Gaddafi was not only politically sensitive but also played a highly strategic role in the economic development of his country. Until 1969, Libya relied heavily on Western nations for the technology to extract oil from its oil fields. Foreign companies took advantage of this dependency by setting oil prices according to their needs and benefiting immensely from the oil trade. Libya was struggling as it sold its oil without reaping substantial profits. However, as soon as Gaddafi came to power in 1969, he re-evaluated the contracts with foreign companies and took control. He threatened to stop oil production for companies that did not agree with his decisions. He also advised other oil-producing nations to adopt the same policy. As a result, these nations quickly became wealthy. Libya had abundant oil resources but a small population. Gaddafi used the profits from oil to uplift the country. As a result, Libya quickly became recognized on the world map and earned the title of "King of Kings" of Africa. Whether you believe it or not, under Gaddafi’s rule, Libya made enormous progress. In human resource development, education, healthcare, agriculture, and industry, Libya ranked first across all of Africa. Additionally, Libya's national per capita income placed it among the countries with the highest per capita income in the world. During his rule, Libya never took a single penny in loans from any country. There was no beggar in the country (and if there was one, they were not Libyan beggars; they were from Egypt, Niger, or Nigeria). Gaddafi also followed progressive policies regarding women. He had immense faith in their capabilities and demonstrated that women were no less than men by appointing them as his bodyguards. He provided equal opportunities for women in all fields. Unlike some other Muslim countries that imposed restrictions on women, he did not impose any such restrictions in Libya.

Although Gaddafi was an authoritarian leader, he was politically very shrewd. He kept Libya at the forefront of the African continent, far ahead of many other African nations. While governments in neighboring countries like Tunisia and Egypt were falling and people were taking to the streets, we all sat from a distance thinking the same would happen in Libya. However, having lived there for three and a half years (before the revolution), I observed that Libya was never as bad as those two countries. It always worked towards being at the forefront of progress. This was because, in terms of development, Gaddafi’s leadership was proactive. He succeeded in providing essential infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, colleges, banks, post offices, and good roads, to every village and town. He also helped build hospitals and schools in other poor African nations. Gaddafi provided so many facilities to the Libyans that they continue to remember him for them, and often express doubts about whether they will ever receive such benefits again. He wanted every family in his country to own a house. To this end, he gave $50,000 to newly married couples to build a home, and no interest was charged on any loan they took. He provided free education, healthcare, Wi-Fi internet, and electricity to the people. Before Gaddafi, only about 25% of Libyan citizens were literate. However, after he came to power, that number rose to 83%. Additionally, most of the country's citizens were employed by the government. If a person couldn't find work immediately after completing their education, Gaddafi would ensure that they received a salary equal to the assigned wage for the position until they found a job. He also provided scholarships to young educated Libyans to study in countries like the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, covering their living expenses and car costs until they finished their studies. Additionally, he gave $3,000 per month to the families of these students to cover their living expenses. While studying abroad in London or the United States might have been a dream for us, for them it was very easy to achieve. Although most areas of Libya were desert, Gaddafi devised one of the largest irrigation projects to help the people farm. This project became the world’s largest human-made irrigation system and is recognized as the eighth wonder of the world. He provided farmers with free land, seeds, fertilizers, and agricultural equipment. Soon, he planned to introduce train services across the country. He also planned to transform cities like Tripoli, Benghazi, Misrata, Sabratha, and Al Khums into smart cities.

Soon, a plan was set to increase the amount of petrol available from 6 liters (which cost around 36-37 rupees in India at the time) to 10 liters. He also ordered a stipend of about 75 dinars (equivalent to around 3500 rupees in India at the time) per month for college students. Car factories were set to sell cars at a fixed price. When women gave birth, they were given $5,000 USD for the care of their child. From 1986 to 1998, Libya was subjected to economic sanctions for 12 years due to accusations that Gaddafi was supporting extremist activities in various parts of the world. During this period, Libya suffered immense losses. In such times, Gaddafi sought help from neighboring countries like Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria. These nations, which had friendly relations with Libya, agreed to help and provided the necessary resources, which Gaddafi exchanged at favorable rates to ensure the happiness of the Libyan people. Despite this, he never took loans from the IMF or the World Bank. He kept Libya economically independent without taking any loans. Recently, he advised oil-producing nations not to accept payments for oil in dollars or euros, but to instead accept gold. However, including the United States, many Western countries did not have enough gold to buy oil. If these nations had followed Gaddafi’s suggestion and bought oil with gold, it was likely that these countries would have faced bankruptcy. As a result, a revolution in Libya became inevitable, culminating in Gaddafi’s assassination. Photos: Courtesy of the Internet Kannada Original: Uday Itagi English Translation: Uday Itagi