Mihir S Sharma: Partition's dusty telegrams

Perhaps the most tangled of relationships in international relations is that between India, and Pakistan. America is allied to India on principle - as long as India likes America best. America is allied to because it's expedient - and will stay allied even when it isn't. India wants America to never mention Pakistan to it unless India needs help; Pakistan wants America to ignore India completely, and pressure it on Kashmir simultaneously. Got that? Also, there's China.

It would be easy to think of this complexity as a product of the recent geopolitics of the region, or of (what is thankfully no longer called) the (GWOT). And, in the absence of decent diplomatic histories of the region, such thinking might continue.

But that big gap in our understanding is beginning to be filled. The most notable new arrival on most people's bookshelves is Gary Bass' Blood Telegram (Random House), a diplomatic history of the 1971 war. But, last week, I also read Husain Haqqani's Magnificent Delusions (PublicAffairs, 2013). True, Magnificent Delusions relies extensively on secondary sources; but the pointed manner in which Mr Haqqani has arranged his quotes helps overturn a couple of cherished assumptions.

Mr Haqqani, an academic and former ambassador, is, of course, both Pakistani and a liberal. We are often comfortable thinking of that charming, endangered hothouse flower, the Pakistani liberal, as particularly threatened by forces set in motion by the most powerful Stephanian ever, Zia-ul-Haq. Islamisation and a confused relationship with America followed, along with a turn to the Arab world as an exemplar and ally - and a persistent ability to turn postcolonial anti-imperialism into a puzzling and self-defeating sympathy for the Islamists in their own society.

The facts and conversations marshalled by Mr Haqqani reveal that, far from being a post-Zia/phenomenon, the precariousness of the Pakistani liberal and the confusions of the Pakistani state were born in 1947, with the actions of the country's founders, and through the personality of himself - and only gathered strength as time went by. There is much in Mr Haqqani's book that underlines this fact, and I urge you to read it yourself. I'll just mention some facts he records - with a most undiplomatic relish - about Pakistan's initial years.

First, Pakistan's blatant blackmail of America - politely, "geostrategic rents"; impolitely, holding a gun to its own forehead and threatening to shoot unless everyone pays up to avoid the blood splatter - is a policy that originated with that visionary Quaid-i-Azam himself. Jinnah told Margaret Bourke-White of Life as much in 1947; and she wondered whether he "considered his new state only as an armoured buffer between opposing major powers".

Second, even before Partition, when American diplomats asked Jinnah why the tone in the Muslim League's paper, Dawn, was so anti-American, he insisted that Dawn's liberal editors "had to make a living" and so their editorials "reflected" the attitude "most of their readers" had about America.

Third, Jinnah would claim a liberal mantle thus: "Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the 13th century." Naturally, this claim to liberalism can reassure neither Mr Haqqani nor Jinnah's American contemporaries.

Fourth, even 1948's cash-strapped government in Karachi proudly allocated three-fourths of its budget to the army, in response to an imagined Indian threat.

Fifth, Pakistan's elite confidently expected that this military expenditure would be paid for by the US - and, in fact, thought of it as their right. Mr Haqqani is scathing about how early Pakistanis viewed Americans as mobile wallets, noting that even Muhammad and Fatima Jinnah tried to hawk their Karachi house to the US for use as its embassy.

Sixth, in response to a critical obituary of Jinnah in Time, Dawn published a senior civil servant who blamed it variously on "some wicked malicious Hindu"; "the sex life of American reporters in New Delhi"; "American female editors in the land of sexy 'dates'"; and "Jewish money and influence". Mr Haqqani, forced out of the Washington embassy by similarly personal attacks in the Pakistani media, says with savage pleasure that "Pakistani public was being shaped against the US long before US foreign policy provided Pakistanis a reason for anti-Americanism".

In Mr Bass' Blood Telegram, the story of how the US stood aside as Pakistani Punjabis killed Bengalis is retold; readers are given a full account of the horrors of that near-genocide, and of the cynicism of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. It is a remarkable achievement, and deserves to be on every shelf. But, in a way, Mr Bass' book underlines the importance of the scale of the task Mr Haqqani took on, too. Nixon viewed Pakistan as dependent on its army. Yahya Khan viewed America as a manipulable source of support of Pakistani elite's misrule. In these we can detect the original sins, diplomatic and otherwise, Mr Haqqani lays out. Of 1971, Mr Haqqani says, "US support gave Pakistan a sense of false confidence, which encouraged its leaders to march into a blunder." The lessons are obvious. Here's another lesson: we need more diplomatic histories.

Postscript: A few months after Partition, Mr Haqqani reminds us, Pakistan's leaders realised their agrarian country was cut off from its traditional markets across the new border but with customary brilliance decided more military spending was the only answer to this problem, since trade would lead to "Indian dominance". Meanwhile, Nehru reminded the world that he wanted a natural drift towards "closer association" between the two states. Today, Pakistan's civilian leaders might have changed their mind on trade. But in all of New Delhi, the only Nehruvian on this point is Manmohan Singh, so it doesn't matter, does it? A historic opportunity, never once on offer since 1947, will be squandered.

image
Business Standard
177 22
Business Standard

Mihir S Sharma: Partition's dusty telegrams

Mihir S Sharma 



Mihir S Sharma

Perhaps the most tangled of relationships in international relations is that between India, and Pakistan. America is allied to India on principle - as long as India likes America best. America is allied to because it's expedient - and will stay allied even when it isn't. India wants America to never mention Pakistan to it unless India needs help; Pakistan wants America to ignore India completely, and pressure it on Kashmir simultaneously. Got that? Also, there's China.

It would be easy to think of this complexity as a product of the recent geopolitics of the region, or of (what is thankfully no longer called) the (GWOT). And, in the absence of decent diplomatic histories of the region, such thinking might continue.



But that big gap in our understanding is beginning to be filled. The most notable new arrival on most people's bookshelves is Gary Bass' Blood Telegram (Random House), a diplomatic history of the 1971 war. But, last week, I also read Husain Haqqani's Magnificent Delusions (PublicAffairs, 2013). True, Magnificent Delusions relies extensively on secondary sources; but the pointed manner in which Mr Haqqani has arranged his quotes helps overturn a couple of cherished assumptions.

Mr Haqqani, an academic and former ambassador, is, of course, both Pakistani and a liberal. We are often comfortable thinking of that charming, endangered hothouse flower, the Pakistani liberal, as particularly threatened by forces set in motion by the most powerful Stephanian ever, Zia-ul-Haq. Islamisation and a confused relationship with America followed, along with a turn to the Arab world as an exemplar and ally - and a persistent ability to turn postcolonial anti-imperialism into a puzzling and self-defeating sympathy for the Islamists in their own society.

The facts and conversations marshalled by Mr Haqqani reveal that, far from being a post-Zia/phenomenon, the precariousness of the Pakistani liberal and the confusions of the Pakistani state were born in 1947, with the actions of the country's founders, and through the personality of himself - and only gathered strength as time went by. There is much in Mr Haqqani's book that underlines this fact, and I urge you to read it yourself. I'll just mention some facts he records - with a most undiplomatic relish - about Pakistan's initial years.

First, Pakistan's blatant blackmail of America - politely, "geostrategic rents"; impolitely, holding a gun to its own forehead and threatening to shoot unless everyone pays up to avoid the blood splatter - is a policy that originated with that visionary Quaid-i-Azam himself. Jinnah told Margaret Bourke-White of Life as much in 1947; and she wondered whether he "considered his new state only as an armoured buffer between opposing major powers".

Second, even before Partition, when American diplomats asked Jinnah why the tone in the Muslim League's paper, Dawn, was so anti-American, he insisted that Dawn's liberal editors "had to make a living" and so their editorials "reflected" the attitude "most of their readers" had about America.

Third, Jinnah would claim a liberal mantle thus: "Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the 13th century." Naturally, this claim to liberalism can reassure neither Mr Haqqani nor Jinnah's American contemporaries.

Fourth, even 1948's cash-strapped government in Karachi proudly allocated three-fourths of its budget to the army, in response to an imagined Indian threat.

Fifth, Pakistan's elite confidently expected that this military expenditure would be paid for by the US - and, in fact, thought of it as their right. Mr Haqqani is scathing about how early Pakistanis viewed Americans as mobile wallets, noting that even Muhammad and Fatima Jinnah tried to hawk their Karachi house to the US for use as its embassy.

Sixth, in response to a critical obituary of Jinnah in Time, Dawn published a senior civil servant who blamed it variously on "some wicked malicious Hindu"; "the sex life of American reporters in New Delhi"; "American female editors in the land of sexy 'dates'"; and "Jewish money and influence". Mr Haqqani, forced out of the Washington embassy by similarly personal attacks in the Pakistani media, says with savage pleasure that "Pakistani public was being shaped against the US long before US foreign policy provided Pakistanis a reason for anti-Americanism".

In Mr Bass' Blood Telegram, the story of how the US stood aside as Pakistani Punjabis killed Bengalis is retold; readers are given a full account of the horrors of that near-genocide, and of the cynicism of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. It is a remarkable achievement, and deserves to be on every shelf. But, in a way, Mr Bass' book underlines the importance of the scale of the task Mr Haqqani took on, too. Nixon viewed Pakistan as dependent on its army. Yahya Khan viewed America as a manipulable source of support of Pakistani elite's misrule. In these we can detect the original sins, diplomatic and otherwise, Mr Haqqani lays out. Of 1971, Mr Haqqani says, "US support gave Pakistan a sense of false confidence, which encouraged its leaders to march into a blunder." The lessons are obvious. Here's another lesson: we need more diplomatic histories.

Postscript: A few months after Partition, Mr Haqqani reminds us, Pakistan's leaders realised their agrarian country was cut off from its traditional markets across the new border but with customary brilliance decided more military spending was the only answer to this problem, since trade would lead to "Indian dominance". Meanwhile, Nehru reminded the world that he wanted a natural drift towards "closer association" between the two states. Today, Pakistan's civilian leaders might have changed their mind on trade. But in all of New Delhi, the only Nehruvian on this point is Manmohan Singh, so it doesn't matter, does it? A historic opportunity, never once on offer since 1947, will be squandered.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Mihir S Sharma: Partition's dusty telegrams

Perhaps the most tangled of relationships in international relations is that between India, America and Pakistan. America is allied to India on principle - as long as India likes America best. America is allied to Pakistan because it's expedient - and will stay allied even when it isn't. India wants America to never mention Pakistan to it unless India needs help; Pakistan wants America to ignore India completely, and pressure it on Kashmir simultaneously. Got that? Also, there's China.It would be easy to think of this complexity as a product of the recent geopolitics of the region, or of (what is thankfully no longer called) the Global War on Terror (GWOT). And, in the absence of decent diplomatic histories of the region, such thinking might continue.But that big gap in our understanding is beginning to be filled. The most notable new arrival on most people's bookshelves is Gary Bass' Blood Telegram (Random House), a diplomatic history of the 1971 war. But, last week, I also read Husai Perhaps the most tangled of relationships in international relations is that between India, and Pakistan. America is allied to India on principle - as long as India likes America best. America is allied to because it's expedient - and will stay allied even when it isn't. India wants America to never mention Pakistan to it unless India needs help; Pakistan wants America to ignore India completely, and pressure it on Kashmir simultaneously. Got that? Also, there's China.

It would be easy to think of this complexity as a product of the recent geopolitics of the region, or of (what is thankfully no longer called) the (GWOT). And, in the absence of decent diplomatic histories of the region, such thinking might continue.

But that big gap in our understanding is beginning to be filled. The most notable new arrival on most people's bookshelves is Gary Bass' Blood Telegram (Random House), a diplomatic history of the 1971 war. But, last week, I also read Husain Haqqani's Magnificent Delusions (PublicAffairs, 2013). True, Magnificent Delusions relies extensively on secondary sources; but the pointed manner in which Mr Haqqani has arranged his quotes helps overturn a couple of cherished assumptions.

Mr Haqqani, an academic and former ambassador, is, of course, both Pakistani and a liberal. We are often comfortable thinking of that charming, endangered hothouse flower, the Pakistani liberal, as particularly threatened by forces set in motion by the most powerful Stephanian ever, Zia-ul-Haq. Islamisation and a confused relationship with America followed, along with a turn to the Arab world as an exemplar and ally - and a persistent ability to turn postcolonial anti-imperialism into a puzzling and self-defeating sympathy for the Islamists in their own society.

The facts and conversations marshalled by Mr Haqqani reveal that, far from being a post-Zia/phenomenon, the precariousness of the Pakistani liberal and the confusions of the Pakistani state were born in 1947, with the actions of the country's founders, and through the personality of himself - and only gathered strength as time went by. There is much in Mr Haqqani's book that underlines this fact, and I urge you to read it yourself. I'll just mention some facts he records - with a most undiplomatic relish - about Pakistan's initial years.

First, Pakistan's blatant blackmail of America - politely, "geostrategic rents"; impolitely, holding a gun to its own forehead and threatening to shoot unless everyone pays up to avoid the blood splatter - is a policy that originated with that visionary Quaid-i-Azam himself. Jinnah told Margaret Bourke-White of Life as much in 1947; and she wondered whether he "considered his new state only as an armoured buffer between opposing major powers".

Second, even before Partition, when American diplomats asked Jinnah why the tone in the Muslim League's paper, Dawn, was so anti-American, he insisted that Dawn's liberal editors "had to make a living" and so their editorials "reflected" the attitude "most of their readers" had about America.

Third, Jinnah would claim a liberal mantle thus: "Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the 13th century." Naturally, this claim to liberalism can reassure neither Mr Haqqani nor Jinnah's American contemporaries.

Fourth, even 1948's cash-strapped government in Karachi proudly allocated three-fourths of its budget to the army, in response to an imagined Indian threat.

Fifth, Pakistan's elite confidently expected that this military expenditure would be paid for by the US - and, in fact, thought of it as their right. Mr Haqqani is scathing about how early Pakistanis viewed Americans as mobile wallets, noting that even Muhammad and Fatima Jinnah tried to hawk their Karachi house to the US for use as its embassy.

Sixth, in response to a critical obituary of Jinnah in Time, Dawn published a senior civil servant who blamed it variously on "some wicked malicious Hindu"; "the sex life of American reporters in New Delhi"; "American female editors in the land of sexy 'dates'"; and "Jewish money and influence". Mr Haqqani, forced out of the Washington embassy by similarly personal attacks in the Pakistani media, says with savage pleasure that "Pakistani public was being shaped against the US long before US foreign policy provided Pakistanis a reason for anti-Americanism".

In Mr Bass' Blood Telegram, the story of how the US stood aside as Pakistani Punjabis killed Bengalis is retold; readers are given a full account of the horrors of that near-genocide, and of the cynicism of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. It is a remarkable achievement, and deserves to be on every shelf. But, in a way, Mr Bass' book underlines the importance of the scale of the task Mr Haqqani took on, too. Nixon viewed Pakistan as dependent on its army. Yahya Khan viewed America as a manipulable source of support of Pakistani elite's misrule. In these we can detect the original sins, diplomatic and otherwise, Mr Haqqani lays out. Of 1971, Mr Haqqani says, "US support gave Pakistan a sense of false confidence, which encouraged its leaders to march into a blunder." The lessons are obvious. Here's another lesson: we need more diplomatic histories.

Postscript: A few months after Partition, Mr Haqqani reminds us, Pakistan's leaders realised their agrarian country was cut off from its traditional markets across the new border but with customary brilliance decided more military spending was the only answer to this problem, since trade would lead to "Indian dominance". Meanwhile, Nehru reminded the world that he wanted a natural drift towards "closer association" between the two states. Today, Pakistan's civilian leaders might have changed their mind on trade. But in all of New Delhi, the only Nehruvian on this point is Manmohan Singh, so it doesn't matter, does it? A historic opportunity, never once on offer since 1947, will be squandered.
image
Business Standard
177 22

Most Popular Columns

  • Akash Prakash Akash Prakash: A world of ice

    Given the rise in populism globally, get ready for more fiscal support, which will lay the ground for inflationary pressures

  • Nitin Desai Nitin Desai: Beyond liberalisation

    The real challenge facing the Indian economy now is the restructuring of public institutions and regulatory systems

  • V S Krishnan V S Krishnan: Model GST law and dispute resolution

    Creation of a technical secretariat, doing away with the distinction between suppression and non-suppression cases, and subjecting minor procedural infringements to non-appealable levies could help create a world-class dispute resolution system

Widgets Magazine

More News

Latest columns

Widgets Magazine

EDITORIAL COMMENT

» More
Widgets Magazine

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard