As for Pakistan, the concept of friendship with America has been with us for ever - diplomatic relations between the two countries were established from the day of our birth.
Jinnah spoke over the radio to the people of America in February 1948 : "Our foreign policy is one of friendliness and goodwill towards all the nations of the world . . . . . We believe in the principle of honesty and fair play in national and international dealings. He also assured them that Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims Hindus, Christians, Parsis but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan. Sadly, his followers, to a man unbefitting of his legacy, were to prove him wrong.
That same month, when the American envoy presented his credentials, in his acceptance speech Jinnah remarked: "I am glad to learn that Your Excellency and the great country and people you represent will give your cooperation to us in order to advance our economic and cultural relations for the mutual benefit of both countries. I am hopeful that the good relations and friendship already existing between the peoples of America and Pakistan will be further strengthened and the bonds of friendship between our two countries will be more firmly riveted.
Now on to 2003. President Musharraf is a courageous leader and a friend of the United States. America has a strong relationship with Pakistan, and we have benefited from the industry and talents of the Pakistani Americans. (President George W Bush, Camp David, June 24).
"... a friend of the United States. Should he not be? Should he be an enemy? Would that serve what we take as our much vaunted though sadly inadequate national sovereignty, to which we so loosely lay claim without bothering to ponder as to whether we are right now in any position to approach true sovereignty?"
The sole factor of which to be wary when it comes to friendship with the mighty US is the historical instability of such a relationship which over the years has had its highs and lows as - is the norm, for America is far more preoccupied with its 'national interest' than are we over here. Since the days of President George Washington America has unequivocally maintained that it can afford neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies.And never to be forgotten in the realm of foreign relations are the words of Lord Palmerston, the 19th century British prime minister : "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow."
When and if it has been in their national interest the Americans have wholeheartedly espoused the Pakistani cause. When not, we have been shed within the flick of an eyelid which is how it must be in the field of international relations. The many complexed souls in this country, whose lifestyles and mindsets are so felicitously imbued with American culture and yet who rail against President Musharraf's pragmatic approach to the sole superpower, those unable to rest easy with Pakistan's true standing in the ranks of the world's nations, rather than belabouring the past should look forward with the hope that Musharraf will take as full an advantage as he can of the present US need before it disappears over the mountain tops.
Two days after his Camp David visit, while addressing a gathering in Washington, Musharraf, as he is often rightly wont to do, evoked the promise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah that the country he founded should be enlightened, moderate yet modern and forward-looking, tolerant and at peace with all nations of the world. That it is none of these is entirely the fault of the Pakistani nation and the destructive varied leaderships to which it has subjected itself.
Yes, Bush is right. The general has shown courage in the go-it-alone stand he has taken post-9/11 and in facing a good deal of irrational domestic hostility. Where he has so far not shown courage is in being as firm on the home front as on the international front. He has fallen badly on his pursuit of enlightenment, moderation and toleration. The madressahs plough the old path, the literacy rate tumbles on a scale with the soaring population growth, and tolerance is an endangered attribute.
Surprisingly and unusually, exhibiting signs of selective amnesia, at a press conference in Washington on June 25, when questioned on the blasphemy laws, he declared he had been unable to deal with them as he had been occupied with other more important issues and that it was now for this new government to sort them out. How can he have forgotten that in 2000 he was given the opportunity to amend them to the extent where they would be less prone to wicked abuse and misuse, but was swiftly persuaded to backtrack to avoid causing offence to the religious extremist groups?
As for being at peace, well, he has tried to the best of his ability, given the constraints of training and indoctrination to which he has been subjected since he entered the Pakistan Military Academy, to move towards some understanding with India. Now, in an attempt to join the world and lead the blind, he has made noises about tentative recognition of a state that actually exists and is recognized by all nations of the world barring a handful that sit on its borders Israel. He is looking ahead to the inevitable, and the bigots back home are up in arms. Who do they think they are? Are they accepted in the Arab world? Is Pakistan sitting on Israels frontiers, or is it a South Asian country, a fair distance afar?
Have the Palestinians stood staunchly by us in any of our many hours of need? Why must we always have a chip on our shoulder and attempt to be 'more loyal than the king' - or as Musharraf put it, 'more catholic than the Pope' and even 'more Palestinian than the Palestinians' who realistically have no problem with recognizing Israel's existence ?
He can but admit that it is just one of the myriad of 'sensitive issues' which drag this unfortunate nation backward but that it will have to be sorted out in the future, in a sensible and realistic manner uninfluenced the senseless outpourings of the spokesmen of this dysfunctional government to whom tolerance is a foreign body.
Musharraf's own grassroots devolution representatives are showing a total disregard for tolerance. Just one instance - the fast spreading billboard bashing obsession. From the NWFP it rapidly moved into the land of the fun-loving kite-flying Punjabis and has now arrived in our multiethnic megalopolis of Karachi. A news report of June 27 tells us that Nazim Naimatullah has declared that "our culture and values are different from [those of] the West and we want to protect women's honour.
And how does he intend to do this? By pushing our assemblies to sit down and do the work for which they are grossly overpaid, to act, legislate and scrap or amend the heavy load of obscurantist laws which dishonour and discriminate against women and deprive them of their rights? No. He intends to ban the portrayal of women in advertisements and pass a law against the display of 'obscene and vulgar' billboards depicting women. Can such a law protect the gentler sex? What sort of mind is it that can dig out obscenity and vulgarity from, say, a toothpaste advertisement showing a smiling white-toothed woman?
To revert to and end with sovereignty : of late Musharraf has taken to talking about 'equal sovereignty'. No such thing exists. A nation is only as strong as it actually is and a leader is strong when he realizes the extent of his strength and of his nation's weaknesses. He says he cannot accept the Line of Control in Kashmir as an international frontier, for we have fought three wars over it. Can we afford a fourth? We must make peace with India while we have the mighty US as our friend and ally.