Announcement of Bill Clinton’s visit to the Indo-Pak subcontinent generated lot of euphoria in Kashmir. The euphoria was partly generated by American President’s pre-visit statements and partly by magnified versions of his interest in Kashmir projected by some overseas Kashmiri Outfits. People here expected that Bill Clinton is likely to persuade India and Pakistan to resolve this dispute. All hopes however dissipated once US President came to the subcontinent. He went out of way in praising India and found every fault with Pakistan. He did this in spite of the fact that India remained identified with Soviet Block during the Cold War and Pakistan sided with USA.
Some attribute this biased attitude of Bill Clinton to absence of democracy in Pakistan. But this view seems to be erroneous. Americans were the ones who forced Nawaz Sharief to withdraw his forces from Kargil. Americans couldn’t go along with Z. A. Bhutto( 1927-1979). Both Nawaz and Bhutto were elected Prime Ministers. Americans seldom give sermons of democracy to Saudi Arabia although even under martial law Pakistan has always remained much more free and liberal as compared to Saudi Arabia.
End of Cold War and diminishing strategic importance of Pakistan is also cited as a reason for vindictive US attitude. This view also seems to be wrong in view of the fact that Americans attitude was in no way different during the Cold War era. They didn’t support Pakistan sincerely even during the Cold War. In 1965, as soon as hostilities started between India and Pakistan, Americans imposed a ban on export of arms to Pakistan. Since Pakistan military machine was exclusively dependent on the spare parts and hardware from US, the ban exhausted its fighting potential, thus creating conditions conducive for division of Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan despite arms embargo became the facilitator of US, China communications and annoyed Soviet Union. Soviets pampered India to manipulate creation of Bangladesh so that Pakistan is penalized for bringing US closer to China. While Russians actively supported India in 1971 war, American support to Pakistan didn’t proceed beyond verbal pronouncements and dispatching of 7th fleet of its Marine Forces to the Bay of Bengal.
Strategic importance of Pakistan is in no way diminished. Russian and American rivalry has resurfaced. The situation has been compounded by Russian proposal of creating an anti-American front by forging an alliance with India and China. In such an eventuality, Pakistan is the only hope for Americans in Asia.
Bill Clinton’s attitude is also attributed to some economic reasons. Since India is a big market as compared to Pakistan and economy is one of the most important factors that orients foreign policy of a nation, nowadays Americans seem to have tilted towards India because of this reason. This reason does not seem to be instrumental in context of Pak-US relations in view of the fact that Pakistan in itself may not be an important market but it is a key to oil rich markets of middle East and Central Asia.
The basic reason however transcends beyond economic, strategic and democratic considerations. Basic “fault” of Pakistan is that it aspires to lead a civilization that is rival to the Western Christian Civilization. Islamabad is assuming same position viz-a-viz western powers as was assumed by Baghdad and Istambul during the era of crusades. On contrary, India is perceived to be an adopting civilization. It does not pose any challenge to the West but is in process of adopting western value system. This makes India and USA `natural allies’. President Bill Clinton didn’t give any sermons of tolerance to India in spite of the fact that its government is indirectly controlled by a fascist organisation i.e., Rashtriya Soimsavek Sang (RSS). Members of the Indian Cabinet continue to be ones who were in forefront of demolition campaign of Babri Masjid. Some frontal organisations of RSS actively patronize those who killed the Australian missionary Grahm Steins along with his children in Orissa. Bill Clinton didn’t perceive thirty percent increase in Indian defense budget as an aggressive posture.
The tragedy with Pakistan is that it often repeats its mistakes and supports Americans at the time of their need. This attitude of Pakistan is in conflict with its ideological goals. Aspiration to lead a rival civilization demands a price. The price may take the form of diplomatic isolation or economic deprivation. This price has to be paid at all costs because it is not only Pakistan from which such a sacrifice is demanded. Chinese remained isolated for decades after their nuclear explosions. They were not even members of United Nations and few countries had diplomatic relation with them. Once they managed to emerge as an economic and military power, whole world had to reconcile with existence of China as a VETO holder of UN Security Council. Pakistanis have to pursue the same path and show the same type of resilience to external pressures as they have shown in context of their nuclear programme for past two decades.
Kashmiri political outfits, be they local or the ones working overseas, should not harbour undue expectations from US nor should beg meetings with their officials. Americans after all are not indispensable for resolution of Kashmir dispute. Most of the Asian and African nations achieved their freedom overcoming American opposition. Americans always tried to block the de-colonization process because colonizers, be they Britishers or French, happened to be their allies. For decades they consistently supported the racist regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) yet these regimes crumbled under the pressure of their own society and forces of change. Kashmiri masses behave in a much more mature manner than their political outfits. The unprecedented Hartal observed after departure of Bill Clinton shows that masses are indifferent to American postures. Hurriyat Conference gave a call for one day strike, people observed it for four days simply because they wanted to demonstrate their commitment to the ongoing movement–--commitment that transcends beyond Hurriyat and Clinton!
Some attribute this biased attitude of Bill Clinton to absence of democracy in Pakistan. But this view seems to be erroneous. Americans were the ones who forced Nawaz Sharief to withdraw his forces from Kargil. Americans couldn’t go along with Z. A. Bhutto( 1927-1979). Both Nawaz and Bhutto were elected Prime Ministers. Americans seldom give sermons of democracy to Saudi Arabia although even under martial law Pakistan has always remained much more free and liberal as compared to Saudi Arabia.
End of Cold War and diminishing strategic importance of Pakistan is also cited as a reason for vindictive US attitude. This view also seems to be wrong in view of the fact that Americans attitude was in no way different during the Cold War era. They didn’t support Pakistan sincerely even during the Cold War. In 1965, as soon as hostilities started between India and Pakistan, Americans imposed a ban on export of arms to Pakistan. Since Pakistan military machine was exclusively dependent on the spare parts and hardware from US, the ban exhausted its fighting potential, thus creating conditions conducive for division of Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan despite arms embargo became the facilitator of US, China communications and annoyed Soviet Union. Soviets pampered India to manipulate creation of Bangladesh so that Pakistan is penalized for bringing US closer to China. While Russians actively supported India in 1971 war, American support to Pakistan didn’t proceed beyond verbal pronouncements and dispatching of 7th fleet of its Marine Forces to the Bay of Bengal.
Strategic importance of Pakistan is in no way diminished. Russian and American rivalry has resurfaced. The situation has been compounded by Russian proposal of creating an anti-American front by forging an alliance with India and China. In such an eventuality, Pakistan is the only hope for Americans in Asia.
Bill Clinton’s attitude is also attributed to some economic reasons. Since India is a big market as compared to Pakistan and economy is one of the most important factors that orients foreign policy of a nation, nowadays Americans seem to have tilted towards India because of this reason. This reason does not seem to be instrumental in context of Pak-US relations in view of the fact that Pakistan in itself may not be an important market but it is a key to oil rich markets of middle East and Central Asia.
The basic reason however transcends beyond economic, strategic and democratic considerations. Basic “fault” of Pakistan is that it aspires to lead a civilization that is rival to the Western Christian Civilization. Islamabad is assuming same position viz-a-viz western powers as was assumed by Baghdad and Istambul during the era of crusades. On contrary, India is perceived to be an adopting civilization. It does not pose any challenge to the West but is in process of adopting western value system. This makes India and USA `natural allies’. President Bill Clinton didn’t give any sermons of tolerance to India in spite of the fact that its government is indirectly controlled by a fascist organisation i.e., Rashtriya Soimsavek Sang (RSS). Members of the Indian Cabinet continue to be ones who were in forefront of demolition campaign of Babri Masjid. Some frontal organisations of RSS actively patronize those who killed the Australian missionary Grahm Steins along with his children in Orissa. Bill Clinton didn’t perceive thirty percent increase in Indian defense budget as an aggressive posture.
The tragedy with Pakistan is that it often repeats its mistakes and supports Americans at the time of their need. This attitude of Pakistan is in conflict with its ideological goals. Aspiration to lead a rival civilization demands a price. The price may take the form of diplomatic isolation or economic deprivation. This price has to be paid at all costs because it is not only Pakistan from which such a sacrifice is demanded. Chinese remained isolated for decades after their nuclear explosions. They were not even members of United Nations and few countries had diplomatic relation with them. Once they managed to emerge as an economic and military power, whole world had to reconcile with existence of China as a VETO holder of UN Security Council. Pakistanis have to pursue the same path and show the same type of resilience to external pressures as they have shown in context of their nuclear programme for past two decades.
Kashmiri political outfits, be they local or the ones working overseas, should not harbour undue expectations from US nor should beg meetings with their officials. Americans after all are not indispensable for resolution of Kashmir dispute. Most of the Asian and African nations achieved their freedom overcoming American opposition. Americans always tried to block the de-colonization process because colonizers, be they Britishers or French, happened to be their allies. For decades they consistently supported the racist regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) yet these regimes crumbled under the pressure of their own society and forces of change. Kashmiri masses behave in a much more mature manner than their political outfits. The unprecedented Hartal observed after departure of Bill Clinton shows that masses are indifferent to American postures. Hurriyat Conference gave a call for one day strike, people observed it for four days simply because they wanted to demonstrate their commitment to the ongoing movement–--commitment that transcends beyond Hurriyat and Clinton!
No comments:
Post a Comment