How Americans view South Asia

The grant of a major non-Nato ally status to Pakistan by the United States and the latter's frequent affirmation of its strategic partnership with India underline the increasing importance that the world's sole superpower attaches to South Asia.

On the other hand, both India and Pakistan take pride in their relations with the US and are keen to strengthen the same. The US-South Asia relationship can better be understood by looking at the American worldview and the way South Asia fits into that.

At the very outset one misconception needs to be dispelled. It is customary for American leaders and policymakers to aver that theirs is the only country whose foreign policy is guided by values rather than interests. This, however, is not correct. The mainspring of the American policy is national interest and not morality, pragmatism or idealism.

In a pragmatic philosophy, whatever works or is useful is right. Take an example. The US is the world's chief exponent of democracy but has been a big supporter of undemocratic regimes in the Middle East, because its interests dictated such a policy. When a popular set-up was established in Iran after the Islamic revolution, the US opposed it tooth and nail, because it was perceived to be antagonistic to American interests.

If values were the mainspring of American policy, it would neither have supported autocracy in the Middle East nor would it have opposed democracy in Iran. Of late, the US has called for political reforms in the Middle East. Again, the call for reforms is rooted in interests rather than values: Washington believes that a major cause of the surge of fundamentalism among Muslims is their growing discontent with autocratic regimes and that the introduction of democracy will dampen the same.

Thus it is on national interests, rather than values, that the American worldview is based. To begin with, the US wants to preserve the existing unipolar global order based on the philosophy of liberalism. America realizes that although it is the lone superpower, it cannot control world affairs independently. It needs regional partners or allies, particularly those believing in economic and political liberalism, to control the world.

The political expression of liberalism is democracy, while its economic expression is free market economy. Democracy is advocated mainly because it is useful for promoting American interests as autocratic regimes are more likely to breed extremism and terrorism - at present the most potent threat to the US-dominated global order - than representative ones. Free market economy is advocated for the world because it best suits American companies engaged in international business. Promoting political interests of the US government and the economic interests of US firms is the pivot of American policy.

Countries - Iran, North Korea - that have the potential to threaten American security or that of its allies are to be dealt with sternly, while those that can back American interests, particularly in the fight against terrorism, have to be supported. In such a worldview, a country is either America's friend or enemy. If a nation is not with the US, then it is against the latter. There is no middle position.

Before the 9/11 attacks, nuclear non-proliferation was at the top of the US foreign policy agenda as it was considered vital to preserving the global order. However, after 9/11, its place has been occupied by counter-terrorism. Non-proliferation is still important, but only next to counter-terrorism. While nuclear proliferation was hardly a direct threat to US security - only a threat to American-dominated world order - terrorism is a direct threat to US security. And nothing is more important to a country that its own security.

The 9/11 attacks also re-defined US relations with South Asia, particularly Pakistan: Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda, whom the US regarded as the prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, were believed to be based in the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The Taliban were the creation of Pakistan and until then had enjoyed friendly relations with Islamabad. In fact, Pakistan was one of the few countries which had recognized the Taliban regime.

American policymakers knew well that without Pakistan's support it would not be impossible for the US to crush the Taliban or the Al Qaeda. In the words of US secretary of state Colin Powell, "To get at Al Qaeda, we had to end Pakistan's support for the Taliban. So we had to recast our relations with that country." That is why immediately after the 9/11 strikes, the US presented to Pakistan a hard choice, "Either you are with us or against us."

It was a defining movement in Pakistan's relations with the US. Either the country would help the US crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda - for whom there was a lot of support in religious circles and border areas and at least some measure of support in the upper hierarchy of the military itself--or be dubbed its opponents. Pakistan decided, and wisely so, to side with the US.

Given its fragile economy, a negative international image and strained relations with India, Pakistan could ill afford not to side with the US against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. Besides, the growing menace of sectarian violence in Pakistan had much to do with the extremists living on the other side of the border under the Taliban umbrella.

Continuing support to the Taliban would not only have isolated Pakistan completely but also increased the threat of the Talibanization of society. Pakistan would also have been declared a terrorist state with all the attendant consequences.

Since then, South Asia has been the frontline region and Pakistan the frontline state in the US counter-terrorism campaign.

As acknowledgment of Pakistan's vital role, US president Bush announced a $3 billion aid package for Pakistan over five years, in addition to debt relief of $1.5 billion, and subsequently lifted sanctions clamped on Pakistan in the wake of nuclear explosions and military takeover.

A major portion of the assistance will be spend on poverty elimination and socio-economic uplift as the US believes poverty and underdevelopment to be the breeding ground of extremism. The US has also realized that sanctions imposed on Pakistan for nuclear explosions and military coup deprived the former of the leverage required to influence Pakistan.

The high importance that the US attaches to Pakistan's role in countering Al Qaeda activities also explains why it adopted a soft stance on alleged proliferation by some Pakistani scientists. Had Islamabad not been a member of the coalition against international war on terrorism, Washington would certainly have adopted a tough stance on the issue.

The grant of a major non-Nato ally status is also an acknowledgment of Pakistan's contribution to the anti-terrorism campaign. In the words of a state department spokesman, the new status is "a recognition of our close and continuing cooperation with Pakistan in the global war on terrorism." Obviously, the greater the American involvement with Pakistan, the greater will be the former's influence over the latter.

America's relationship with India, however, goes beyond counter-terrorism efforts. The US regards India as central to the balance of power in Asia. Hence the repeated statements from the US leadership that India - the largest democracy, the world's second largest market, and a nuclear and a rising economic power - is their strategic partner and a natural ally. Washington believes that New Delhi has to play a leading role in achieving durable peace and stability in the region, which is necessary for preserving the global order.

The US sees the militancy in Kashmir as an expression of religious extremism and simply winks at human right abuses in the disputed territory. It wants a solution to the Kashmir problem in the interest of regional peace but not at the expense of instability in India.

US-South Asia relations have also an economic dimension. The US is among the largest trading partners of both India and Pakistan. Annual trade between Pakistan and the US is $2.6 billion, while that between India and the US is $18 billion. The US accounts for nearly 25 per cent of Pakistan's global exports and 20 per cent of India's global exports. The share of the US in the global imports of Pakistan and India is 11 and 10 per cent respectively.

US multinational companies (MNCs) are also a major source of foreign direct investment in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan need foreign investment to supplement their scarce domestic resources. The MNCs, on the other hand, are looking for new markets. Foreign direct investment inflows from the US constitute more than 26 per cent of total FDI in Pakistan, while the US share in total FDI inflows into India is nearly 30 per cent.

US MNCs are attracted by large size of the South Asian, particularly Indian, markets. The auto manufacturing giants General Motors and Ford have established their subsidiaries in India. India's information technology potential is enormous. The country's software exports are growing at a brisk rate and are projected to reach $50 billion by 2008. To benefit from the country's software potential, the Microsoft Corporation of Bill Gates has entered the Indian market.

With the liberalization of trade and investment regime in both Pakistan and India, US-South Asia economic relations are likely to get better.

Jinnah House: revisiting the Indian pledge

Islamabad: "Mr. M. A. Jinnah possessed a house on Malabar Hill in Bombay, in which he lived for many years...Recently, there was a proposal to auction it together with other evacuee property. The rehabilitation ministry, however, agreed to postpone this auction.

"This matter has attracted considerable attention in Pakistan and much pleasure has been expressed at the postponement of the auction of this house. With this is expressed a hope that the house will be used in future as some kind of a memorial of Mr. M.A. Jinnah.

"I think that we should decide first of all that this house must not be sold or auctioned. I think that we should further be prepared to make a gift of it to the Pakistan government, should they desire to use it as a memorial..."

This was, according to the recently published "Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru", the advice given by the Congress leader and the first prime minister of India (Nehru) to his cabinet on March 7, 1955 on the issue of Jinnah House, the one time residence of the founder of Pakistan.

Half a century later, the issue remains unresolved. India continues to drag its feet on its pledge to lease or gift the property to Pakistan. Since 1979 India has made various commitments at the highest political and bureaucratic levels to lease out Jinnah House to the Pakistan government. Pakistan has reminded India of its pledges on several occasions but India has only dilly-dallied in response.

Jinnah House has immense historical significance besides its sentimental value for the Pakistani nation. The house was designed by the Quaid and built under his supervision in 1939. It was there that he lived right up till his last day in India in 1947. The Gandhi-Jinnah talks were held there in September 1944, as were the Jinnah-Jawaharlal Nehru talks in August 1946.

The British deputy high commissioner was the first occupant of this palatial house after partition. It remained as the residence of the UK deputy high commissioner.

In February 1980, the Indian ministry of external affairs told Pakistan that after the expiry of the lease, the British high commission would be asked to vacate the premises and Jinnah House would be handed over to Pakistan.

On September 3, 1981, and then on March 25, 1982, the Indian foreign minister reiterated this commitment in statements in parliament. In February 1982, the Indian chief of protocol told the Pakistan high commissioner in New Delhi that the lease could be signed with Pakistan before April 30, 1982.

On April 30, 1982, the British deputy high commission vacated the premises, but the house was not leased out to Pakistan. In August 1982, during secretary-level bilateral talks, Pakistan's secretary raised the issue again. He was told the matter was being discussed between the Indian ministries of external affairs and works. Later, in November 1982, President Zia-ul-Haq took up the matter with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

In December, the Pakistan foreign secretary was informed by his Indian counterpart and principal secretary to the Indian prime minister that she needed a little more time as she was under political pressure not to lease Jinnah House to Pakistan.

In June 1983, Pakistan's foreign minister, Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, reminded Indian foreign minister Narasimha Rao that Jinnah House had still not been made available for the residence of the Pakistan consul-general or deputy high commissioner. On December 3, 1983, the Indian external affairs ministry in response to a question told parliament that "it has not been found possible to accede to the (Pakistani) request."

The issue remained in a limbo for almost half a decade. Then in July 1989 the Indian prime minister during his visit to Islamabad told the prime minister of Pakistan that, as promised, he intended to give Jinnah House to Pakistan. However, he said Pakistan would have to wait a while, pointing to considerations of election and the threat of communalism in India.

Islamabad was informed through diplomatic channels in January 1990 that Jinnah House would be handed over to Pakistan for the residence of the consul-general provided Pakistan agreed to putting a plaque stating that the property had been gifted by India to Pakistan. Apparently, Pakistan did not have any problems with that.

Pakistan's foreign secretary twice raised the issue with India in 1991 but was told that such a move would trigger protests by Shiv Sena, the BJP and other extremist Hindu organizations.

Following the re-opening of consulates by the two sides in Karachi and Bombay in August 1992, Pakistan's foreign secretary raised the issue of Jinnah House with his counterpart once again. Another reminder was made in 1993 but India was not forthcoming.

Pakistan was compelled to close down its consulate in Bombay (Mumbai) only after 19 months in March 1994 due to a hostile environment and accommodation problem. Landlords were not willing to rent out their premises to house Pakistani diplomats and the consulate. A Pakistan National Day function in Mumbai had to be cancelled at the last minute because of threats from the Shiv Sena to the management of the hotel where it was to be held.

In February 1997 the property was handed over to the Indian Council of Cultural Relations, an autonomous body administered by the external affairs ministry. Reportedly it will "soon" be converted into a Saarc cultural centre.

After a decade the issue of Jinnah House has resurfaced with the recent thaw in Indo-Pakistan relations. Since the summit-level meetings in January, the matter has been informally raised with India a couple of times. The last time it came up was in March when the Indian premier's principal secretary, Brajesh Mishra, was in Lahore for the one-day cricket match.

Apparently, when Mr Mishra advocated the opening-up of the Indian consulate in Karachi with senior Pakistani officials he was told that leasing Jinnah House to Pakistan holds the key to the re-opening of the Karachi consulate shut down in 1994. Mr Mishra, however, remained non-committal.

In the renewed spirit of cooperation between the two countries, handing over Jinnah House to Pakistan will be a gracious and meaningful step towards trust-building by the new Congress government to honour the longstanding commitment of its leader.

Mukhtar Masud steals the show

According to the dictionary, calligraphy means beautiful handwriting. It further describes it as 'fine penmanship' and also as a 'characteristic style of writing'. Since art also goes to produce something beautiful, hence calligraphy can well be considered an art. Apart from being a time honoured heritage, it is a millennium-old tradition. Widely practised in Lahore since the Ghaznavid period, it has seen the flowering of many scripts, thereby adding to the variety of penmanship.

It is unfortunate that this old tradition is facing extinction today because of modern technological advancement. There is hardly any school of calligraphy in the city today although it could boast of over 150 at the time of partition. It was, therefore, to save it from total collapse that a welfare organization under the name of the Pakistan Calligraph-artists Guild was conceived and established in 1997. It has since been doing whatever it could to embrace and look after this important tradition of human endeavour.

It was under the auspices of this guild that an evening was arranged with the intellectual-cum-bureaucrat, Mukhtar Masud. It was during his tenure as commissioner of Lahore that the Minar-i-Pakistan and Masjid-i-Shuhada came up in the city and it was he who ensured calligraphic work at both locations.

I have never seen such a good response to an invitation for a function in the Alhamra Cultural Complex as every seat seemed to be occupied in the large hall that evening. Apart from the main speakers, the guests of honour on the occasion happened to be the noted Urdu and Punjabi writer, Farkhanda Lodhi, who is also the recipient of the Pride of Performance Award, and the noted artist, Prof Zubaida Javed, TI.

The programme started with recitation from the Holy Book, followed by an introduction of the chief guests and the guest speaker to the audience. The latter part was hardly necessary, specially when the two chief guests did not have to speak a word. Anyway, the person deputed to introduce Mukhtar Masud to the audience was totally inept for the purpose. His pronunciation, enunciation and intonation left much to be desired. And while enumerating the books written by the genius, when he said Awaz Dost instead of Awaz-i-Dost, I felt like pulling him down from the stage. That was inexcusable.

That torture over, Mukhtar Masud was finally requested to wield the mike. As usual, he was at his brilliant best that evening as well. He kept the audience riveted to every word that he uttered. No one was prepared to miss any part of his illuminating talk which was interspersed with light humour. In fact, he started off by passing a remark about Athar Tahir, a bureaucrat posted these days as livestock secretary.

He happens to be the patron saint of the guild. Pointing towards the front row where he was sitting, he said it is indeed strange that a refined person like him who even writes English poetry should have been chosen to look after the livestock of the province.

Well, space does not permit me to recount all that the learned speaker said. He spoke of the stages through which calligraphy had passed. He made an oblique reference to Sir Shah Muhammad Suleman as well and bemoaned that many people today had not even heard of that eminent personage. And being an ardent fan of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, he made special mention of his book Aasar-o-Sanadeed in which details have been given of the inscriptions on old mounds and graves which, evidently, was the work of calligraph artists.

* * * * *

Although the printed programme of the literary organization, Adab Serai, clearly says that its sitting would be held on the second Monday of the month between the Asr and Maghrib prayers, I find people coming there at their own convenience. Most annoying is when someone turns up when the proceedings are being wound up and, taking advantage of the courtesy of the host, sits down nonchalantly and starts reading his verses as if all those sitting there earlier were longing for his arrival.

The sitting this time at the residence of Shahnaz Muzammil was quite the usual kind except that the attendance was rather sparse. Senior poets like Munir Saifi and Karamat Bukhari have been missing for long but that evening even regulars like Abdul Ali Shaukat, Syeda Tauqir Naqvi and the blind poet, Prof Muhammad Iqbal, were missing. Even Tainoosh left early as she had to attend another mushaira.

The poetic round that evening was mostly devoted to naats because of the sanctity of the month. However, some good ghazals were also heard. Asnath Kanwal seems to have developed into a real good poet as she stunned me with an opening verse:

Paas hota heh door hota heh
Dil main koi zaroor hota heh

I saw another young lady there that day but would not call her a first-timer. Mehr Naseem used to attend these sessions when the Adab Serai met in the Model Town Library. As such, I saw her at the present location for the first time. However, that evening she only managed to bore everyone with not one but two lengthy and meaningless pieces which she chose to call poems.