Two Differing Visions for Pakistan
By Dr Syed Amir
Bethesda, MD
In December 1961, John Kenneth Galbraith, the American Ambassador to India, came to Karachi on a brief visit to meet President Ayub Khan. The capital had formally moved to Rawalpindi, but Karachi still hosted many of the Government’s offices and the President spent much time there. Professor Galbraith, a famed economist on leave from Harvard, subsequently recorded his impressions of the city in his diary, JKG Ambassador’s Journal, published in 1969. He noted, “Karachi, once the ugliest cities, is enormously improved. The streets are clean; the pavement is improved and wall-to-wall type. Even the camels and camel drivers, of which there are many, look sprucer and better.”
Karachi was also a peaceful and tolerant city. Galbraith who had a great sense of wry humor was comparing Karachi to the Indian capital. Today, no one will make similar observations. Not only Karachi, Pakistan itself has radically changed in the half century since Galbraith’s visit.
One of the indicators of the societal change is the recent furor on the killing of a terrorist, Hakimullah Mehsud, responsible for countless deaths of innocent Pakistani civilians, hundreds of brave soldiers and military officers. Instead of expressing a sense of relief, the leaders of religious parties, denounced America for taking out Mehsud, praising him as a martyr. Even the interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, using unduly harsh, undiplomatic language, accused the US of scuttling the peace talks with the Pakistan Taliban (TTP). Since Mehsud had been in the US cross-hair for some time with a bounty on his head, it should have come as no surprise that the CIA drones struck when it was the most opportune time. Why did we expect otherwise? Until Pakistan regains full control over its territory, we can be sure that America will continue to target Taliban leaders, with or without Pakistan’s consent, as long as it perceives them as grave danger to the security of its forces in Afghanistan.
Much was made of the impending peace negotiations with the TTP, upended by the drone strike. Let’s examine what Pakistan was hoping to achieve from the negotiations. The TTP is convinced that they have an upper hand in their conflict with Pakistan. Importantly, they also have a clear vision of what their ultimate goal is, the dismantling of the Pakistani state, its constitution, and its replacement with their brand of Sharia. We have already witnessed their Sharia in operation in Swat and Afghanistan, associated particularly with ill-treatment of women and religious minorities. What kind of peace can you negotiate with an opponent who is dedicated to your demise?
Many politicians with empathy for Taliban philosophy find it expedient to blame America for the multifarious problems facing the country. America has now replaced India as the purveyor of all ills. It would appear counterintuitive for a country that has so few friends left to promote a perpetual state of hostility with a superpower on which it depends for billions of dollars of economic and military aid. The US has provided $26 billion in aid during the past 12 years alone, while recently during Mr Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington it released more than $1.6 billion to Pakistan, withheld since 2011. Unfortunately, any nexus with the West is a cause for rejection. Malala Yousafzai, who has generated world-wide admiration for her bravery, should have made her country proud of her. She embodies a singular source of goodwill for Pakistan worldwide. Paradoxically, she has become an object of vilification and derision, accused of being a CIA agent.
The history of love-hate relationship between America and Pakistan is long and complex, and may have been rooted in the inability of the two countries to be fully candid in dealing with each other. In a recent book, Magnificent Delusions, Pakistan’s former envoy to Washington, Husain Haqqani, argues "that the relationship between America and Pakistan is based on mutual incomprehension, and always has been that way” and that neither country has been realistic in its expectations of the other.
Haqqani traces the origin of the misapprehension to as far back as 1947, when Pakistan expected America to provide arms ostensibly for the containment of communism, but in reality to be used to fight and resist India. Americans, of course, had no interest in Pakistan’s dispute with India, but the transaction went ahead anyway. Ambassador Galbraith in his diary recorded an incident in 1961, when sixteen US-donated, highly advanced for the time, F104 fighter jets arrived at Karachi port, but were moved in great secrecy in the middle of night. Both Pakistan and the US had for different reasons an interest in keeping the delivery a secret. Pakistan wanted to give India the impression that the number of jets delivered was far higher than it was, while US wanted to minimize their number to avoid antagonizing India. Neither country was straightforward with the other.
The checkered US-Pakistan relationship continued into the fifties and beyond. During the cold war era, Pakistan entered various US-sponsored military pacts, all of which were alliances against the Soviet Union. Pakistan’s overriding interest,however, was entirely different -- to reach some level of militaryparity with India. Ayub Khan, perhaps, the most enlightened and able ruler Pakistan ever had, harbored a strong dislike of India. In his political autobiography, Friends not Masters, written in 1967, he expresses his sense of betrayal and unhappiness with the US, noting that “in the past decade, the US policies have undergone a change, which had operated progressively to the disadvantage of her ally, Pakistan, vis-à-vis neutral India.” However, we could have saved much hurt all around only if we remember the oft-quoted adage from Lord Palmerston, the 19 th century British statesman: Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.
Finally, the problem of drones and anti-Americanism will fade, disappearing in time; however, Pakistan today is engaged in a serious struggle, a classic, battle of radically opposite ideas and convictions. One side, a vocal minority, enthralled with the vision of a mythical era of centuries past, would like to turn Pakistan into a theocracy. In fact, they would like to do away with the modern nation state and its accoutrements. Their paradigm is simplistic, regressive, but has ready emotional appeal for impressionable minds. The other side, a majority, has a progressive agenda and would like to see Pakistan develop into a modern state, consistent with the demands of the 21 st century as envisioned by its founders.
Only time will tell to which direction the country will turn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
