Anwar Ahmad

What lesser mortals in Pakistan had been screaming from the rooftops without catching the ear of the policy-makers is now official, certified by Richard Armitage, the US deputy secretary of state. In May this year, Armitage chose his first Indian visit to fire a broadside at Pakistan by including it in the "rogues' gallery" from whose "irresponsibility" the National Missile Defence programme would shield the US and its allies (in this case, India). Islamabad had then hummed and hawed, as is the custom after such insults by US officials.

The first impression of the barrel-chested weight lifter turned diplomat, thus, was of yet another gung-ho Yankee who would claim to know what is best for us and twist our tail to make us do what is best for Uncle Sam. But after his blunt description of 50-years of Pak-US relations as "false", Pakistan must see in Armitage a somewhat different pedigree. Possibly even a real friend who, unlike his peers and predecessors, can shed the double speak which our rulers have been so adept at twisting around to shield the nation (actually, themselves) from the raw reality. Even now, our never-say-die foreign office has tried to do just that. The problem is, Armitage has left little wiggle room for optimistic imaginations.

Elaborating the falsity of Pak-US ties, he said, "It's been a relationship that wasn't based on Pakistan. It was based against someone else - in the first instance India and their relationship with the Soviet Union, and later against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan." It was, in the local maxim, never Huub-e-Ali (RA), but always Bughz-e-Moavia.

Can things be put more succinctly than that? Yet, the foreign office spokesman laughed (sheepishly? sardonically?) before declaring "You cannot call history false." True, but Armitage hadn't done that. He had only exploded the self-serving myths both sides had spun around Pak-US relations - all the bilge (viz "Pakistan is the cornerstone of US foreign policy") that Washington had so liberally dished out in the times of its need and our rulers had so eagerly lapped up in the time of their need.

The pathetic history of Pakistan's doormat relationship with the US and the latter's "Kleenex" treatment of its "most allied ally" only underscore what Armitage has articulated now and what even a Pakistani Khokhewalla has known all along. The US never was, and never will be, Pakistan's well wisher. The two have diametrically opposed ethos, and worldviews. If our US-fixated 'elite' thought otherwise, and continues to do so even after Armitage's candidness, it is only because their (and their offsprings') future is tied to Uncle Sam's apron strings.

Dilating on the changing dynamics of US policy towards South Asia, Armitage added, "with India we have a lot going for us" as both are "multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies, democracies and indeed federations" while with Pakistan "we lack that commonality (and) we've got a long way to go." But, barring democracy, Pakistan too foots the bill. It is also multi-ethnic and multi-religious, and is roundly rebuked by Uncle Sam and the West for mistreating its minorities (softly, softly when the Hindu zealots burn churches and priests and rape nuns). And, thus far, Pakistan is a federation as well.

As for dame democracy, American preference for potentates is too well known to be repeated. Besides, American-anointed adventurers have been as, if not more, instrumental in undercutting Pakistan's quest for democracy as any other individual or institution. Bill Clinton's pal, Nawaz Sharif, almost became a Caliph in the garb of enforcing Shariah in the "Islamic Republic." Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq were the earlier US favourites.

Now that Richard Armitage has spoken the bald truth, let's stop pretending. The main, if not the only, difference between India and Pakistan is the latter's "wrong" religion. The rise of Hindu fundamentalism, and the trauma it has inflicted on India's minorities, does not cause a ripple in the West because the Brahmin-dominated creed fits snugly into the similarly elitist free-market capitalism and Western liberalism. Besides, Hinduism's colourful rituals fascinate the superficial and increasingly despiritualised Western psyche.

Not so, Islam - even the moderate version. It offers no song-and-dance frills and, more importantly, has a fundamental conflict with Western permissiveness as well as the unfettered and exploitative free-market capitalism. It may still be struggling with where, and how, to draw the line against the increasing and aggressive Western cultural onslaught and there may still be no consensus on an alternate socio-economic model. But as long as Islam shapes the collective psyche of Pakistanis, the country cannot be at ease with Western dispensations - and vice versa. Increasing debt and poverty, and the increasingly obvious linkage between the two is only exacerbating the tensions.

So the foreign office spokesman was forgetting history and flying from reality in invoking "the close and friendly relationship between Pakistan and the US" and hoping "that the US will cease using different approaches on the lifting sanctions" against India and Pakistan. It will not, and forget the "friendly relationship" and "services rendered" routine.

Much before the world's oldest democracy (excluding the Afro-Americans and the native Americans, of course) had fallen in love with the world's largest democracy (excluding the "untouchables," naturally), sanctions were slapped on Pakistan through the Pakistan-specific Pressler amendment within days almost of the Soviet ouster from Afghanistan. George Bush (Sr) was then the US president.

Pressler is still in place, Pakistan's 11-year democratic interlude, such as it was, having made no difference. Many Pakistanis still remember the insult of the F-16 fighter planes suddenly being seized and, then, instead of refunding Pakistan's half a billion dollars (plus interest, as is standard practice in the US), much of the money being brazenly deducted for parking-charges and advance payment for future wheat sales!

"Friendly relationship" and "cease using different approaches," whines the foreign office. The sanctions are not going anywhere. Had we had democracy, other pretexts would have been found (which doesn't, of course, mean that we shouldn't hurry back to the democratic path).

While the Armitage home truth is not a cue to tell Uncle Sam to go to hell, it is certainly another reminder of the long overdue recalibration by Pakistan of its ties with the US at a more realistic, reciprocal and dignified level. The military relationship is over for good. If we make peace with India, we won't need US weapons. If we can't, we won't get them.

The priority now is to down scale the political interaction as well. Pakistan could begin by pronouncing that nuclear weapons are a white elephant gifted to us by the Indians which we will happily part with (on payment, of course, like North Korea) once Kashmir is out of the way. As India seeks to bury Kashmir in a sudden surge of unilateral magnanimity on other "issues," this could be a good initiative in the pre-Agra manoeuvres.

To take away another whip with which Pakistan is lashed, it should be possible to secure a consensus announcement by the Islamic parties that violence is not a part of their domestic or international agenda. Their known commitment to democracy must also be stressed. The Afghan spill over needs also be acknowledged as a grave domestic issue which Pakistan will combat in its own way, without homilies form Washington.

As for the economic sanctions, when it suits the Western moneymakers, these will be lifted or sidestepped as the Europeans have done in Iran and India. If the climate is not conducive, foreign investment will not come even after the sanctions - just as succumbing to Western pressure on the exploitative power-deals has not opened the promised floodgates of dollars.

To redress the imbalanced Pak-US equation, our ruling elite needs to rediscover the tremendous strength that flows from national honour and harmony. To secure these, the angry voices must be heeded. Those who have a grouse, justified or not, need to be brought in from the cold. In a national emergency, all shoulders must bend to the task. When that happens, there will remain no need to worry about what Uncle Sam might say or do. It is our country our mess and we have to clean it up ourselves.

The author is a freelance columnist