Daily Times - COMMENT: Rationalising anti-American angst — I —Elf Habib
The perception of our clergy about American policies being guided and governed by their Christian faith is utterly unfounded. The American forefathers, having fled religious violence, persecution and discrimination, were determined to keep the bloody line of religious bouts and battles off their soil
The mullahs and a major part of the media in Pakistan, together with a vocal part of the population — poisoned by a bewildering anti-American tempest and tirade blown by them — blame the US for all the terrorism, troubles and trepidation in Pakistan. Their grudge and grouse range right from the Americans being Christians, and hence innately anti-Muslims, being intimate with India and Israel and consequently against Pakistan, their determination to dismantle, capture or neuter our nuclear arsenals, to the fuelling and funding of fissiparous factions and insurgencies, leading to the disintegration of the existing entity rather than tearing away Kashmir from India and handing it over to us. Some accuse it of sheer duplicity and covertly fomenting terrorism through clandestine Blackwater-like cadres, contrary to its avowed efforts and assistance to extirpate it. Even some educated and liberal segments steeped in western culture suddenly burst out reeling a long hysterical account of American lust and manipulation to capture the world’s, particularly Muslims’, mineral and energy resources. Some denounce it as a decadent society citing dissidents like Chomsky to slate its foreign policies. They rather tend to judge the ethics and ethos of an independent nation instead of concentrating on its commitment and performance in the context of a bilateral relationship.
Studies and surveys, in the global context, have cited several reasons for this angst. Various factions in Pakistan, however, seem to have another roster rooted in their psyche and circumstances. The clerics hate the US for renouncing the Cold War relationship redolent of special funds, favours and foreign cruises. There were the days when merely having a beard and battering the parties and persons striving for democracy and social justice were a passport for American pleasure and paradise. The lives of Left-leaning luminaries, even like those of Faiz, Zaheer Kashmiri and Hassan Nasir were made hell. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the most popular and most visionary leader to have fired the hearts and minds of the majority on this soil, was thrown to the wolves belonging to Zia, the vilest of dictators anxious to revive mediaeval and macabre edicts, penal codes, sectarian strife and tribal systems. Another evident resentment is why Bhutto could not be rescued from the clutches of a dictator, like Nawaz Sharif, a known derivative, darling and devotee of dictatorship. This persistently nonchalant attitude, nurturing, promotion, prolongation and protection of dictatorship in preference to democracy was again evidenced in the special favours and privileges provided to Musharraf. The covert destabilisation of the present fledgling civilian structure through Kerry-Lugar manipulations and kindred activities may be viewed in a similar context. Many cautious analysts feel that the stipulations intended in the Act could be better realised through some oral, implicit understanding rather than the explicit written restrictions ruffling our proud and powerful commanders. The Americans might well have known the simple truth that the ‘divine right of kings’, having receded from the world, has been concentrated and embodied in our generals, granting them an inherent right to act as supra-constitutional curators, arbiters and terminators of presidents, premiers and parliaments. Marginalised somewhere far below the generals’ god-like Olympian heights, the majority of the ordinary masses aspiring to end their miseries similarly fret over why even some tiny bits — unlike the billions given unconditionally to generals — have not trickled down to them.
Yet, whatever the extent and nature of the rancour, resentment, perceptions and feelings, they must be fairly and rationally analysed and understood in the context of American constraints and predicaments as well as prevailing global trends, thoughts and realities. The perception of our clergy about American policies being guided and governed by their Christian faith, for instance, is utterly unfounded. The American forefathers, having fled religious violence, persecution and discrimination, were determined to keep the bloody line of religious bouts and battles off their soil. Hence, an explicit clause that the “State shall establish no religion nor shall it prevent the establishment of any”, was enshrined in their constitution.
Even traditional prayers are prohibited in schools and teaching of the Biblical accounts of Genesis that the “Lord God created the universe in six days” are also banned in science education. The thrust of religious and related lobbies to have the idea about the involvement of a Creator included in such courses was turned down four times by the federal courts. In view of these patent constitutional strictures against patronising any specific religion, the notions of American animosity against Islam are hardly tenable.
Even in international affairs, many Muslim countries were included in the SEATO and CENTO-like treaties. Kuwait was defended against Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative and fundamentalist Muslim monarchies, has long enjoyed quite cordial relations with the Americans. Clinton’s campaign to protect the Muslims against genocide in Bosnia Herzegovina by bombing the Serb Christians, despite Soviet wrath, certainly cannot be classified as an anti-Muslim crusade. Even in the context of Pakistan, American support has been quite vivid for the independence of the subcontinent, plebiscite in Kashmir in the United Nations and warning India to keep its hands off West Pakistan when Indira Gandhi had ordered her commanders to sweep over the territory following our 1971 surrender in East Pakistan. The US intervention to extricate us from the mess made by Musharraf and Nawaz in Kargil and defusing the post-Mumbai carnage crisis, similarly, were no small favours. The American aid to Pakistan has exceeded all other donors. Over $ 12 billion was provided merely during the Musharraf regime. Dr Borlaug’s bequest to boost the per acre wheat yield through Maxipak hybrids, the troves of training, scholarships, technical, defence and humanitarian assistance unfolds another chapter of this chequered, yet protracted, partnership.
The perception of our clergy about American policies being guided and governed by their Christian faith is utterly unfounded. The American forefathers, having fled religious violence, persecution and discrimination, were determined to keep the bloody line of religious bouts and battles off their soil
The mullahs and a major part of the media in Pakistan, together with a vocal part of the population — poisoned by a bewildering anti-American tempest and tirade blown by them — blame the US for all the terrorism, troubles and trepidation in Pakistan. Their grudge and grouse range right from the Americans being Christians, and hence innately anti-Muslims, being intimate with India and Israel and consequently against Pakistan, their determination to dismantle, capture or neuter our nuclear arsenals, to the fuelling and funding of fissiparous factions and insurgencies, leading to the disintegration of the existing entity rather than tearing away Kashmir from India and handing it over to us. Some accuse it of sheer duplicity and covertly fomenting terrorism through clandestine Blackwater-like cadres, contrary to its avowed efforts and assistance to extirpate it. Even some educated and liberal segments steeped in western culture suddenly burst out reeling a long hysterical account of American lust and manipulation to capture the world’s, particularly Muslims’, mineral and energy resources. Some denounce it as a decadent society citing dissidents like Chomsky to slate its foreign policies. They rather tend to judge the ethics and ethos of an independent nation instead of concentrating on its commitment and performance in the context of a bilateral relationship.
Studies and surveys, in the global context, have cited several reasons for this angst. Various factions in Pakistan, however, seem to have another roster rooted in their psyche and circumstances. The clerics hate the US for renouncing the Cold War relationship redolent of special funds, favours and foreign cruises. There were the days when merely having a beard and battering the parties and persons striving for democracy and social justice were a passport for American pleasure and paradise. The lives of Left-leaning luminaries, even like those of Faiz, Zaheer Kashmiri and Hassan Nasir were made hell. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the most popular and most visionary leader to have fired the hearts and minds of the majority on this soil, was thrown to the wolves belonging to Zia, the vilest of dictators anxious to revive mediaeval and macabre edicts, penal codes, sectarian strife and tribal systems. Another evident resentment is why Bhutto could not be rescued from the clutches of a dictator, like Nawaz Sharif, a known derivative, darling and devotee of dictatorship. This persistently nonchalant attitude, nurturing, promotion, prolongation and protection of dictatorship in preference to democracy was again evidenced in the special favours and privileges provided to Musharraf. The covert destabilisation of the present fledgling civilian structure through Kerry-Lugar manipulations and kindred activities may be viewed in a similar context. Many cautious analysts feel that the stipulations intended in the Act could be better realised through some oral, implicit understanding rather than the explicit written restrictions ruffling our proud and powerful commanders. The Americans might well have known the simple truth that the ‘divine right of kings’, having receded from the world, has been concentrated and embodied in our generals, granting them an inherent right to act as supra-constitutional curators, arbiters and terminators of presidents, premiers and parliaments. Marginalised somewhere far below the generals’ god-like Olympian heights, the majority of the ordinary masses aspiring to end their miseries similarly fret over why even some tiny bits — unlike the billions given unconditionally to generals — have not trickled down to them.
Yet, whatever the extent and nature of the rancour, resentment, perceptions and feelings, they must be fairly and rationally analysed and understood in the context of American constraints and predicaments as well as prevailing global trends, thoughts and realities. The perception of our clergy about American policies being guided and governed by their Christian faith, for instance, is utterly unfounded. The American forefathers, having fled religious violence, persecution and discrimination, were determined to keep the bloody line of religious bouts and battles off their soil. Hence, an explicit clause that the “State shall establish no religion nor shall it prevent the establishment of any”, was enshrined in their constitution.
Even traditional prayers are prohibited in schools and teaching of the Biblical accounts of Genesis that the “Lord God created the universe in six days” are also banned in science education. The thrust of religious and related lobbies to have the idea about the involvement of a Creator included in such courses was turned down four times by the federal courts. In view of these patent constitutional strictures against patronising any specific religion, the notions of American animosity against Islam are hardly tenable.
Even in international affairs, many Muslim countries were included in the SEATO and CENTO-like treaties. Kuwait was defended against Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative and fundamentalist Muslim monarchies, has long enjoyed quite cordial relations with the Americans. Clinton’s campaign to protect the Muslims against genocide in Bosnia Herzegovina by bombing the Serb Christians, despite Soviet wrath, certainly cannot be classified as an anti-Muslim crusade. Even in the context of Pakistan, American support has been quite vivid for the independence of the subcontinent, plebiscite in Kashmir in the United Nations and warning India to keep its hands off West Pakistan when Indira Gandhi had ordered her commanders to sweep over the territory following our 1971 surrender in East Pakistan. The US intervention to extricate us from the mess made by Musharraf and Nawaz in Kargil and defusing the post-Mumbai carnage crisis, similarly, were no small favours. The American aid to Pakistan has exceeded all other donors. Over $ 12 billion was provided merely during the Musharraf regime. Dr Borlaug’s bequest to boost the per acre wheat yield through Maxipak hybrids, the troves of training, scholarships, technical, defence and humanitarian assistance unfolds another chapter of this chequered, yet protracted, partnership.
