[Reader-list] India and Pakistan - The dance of the courtesans

[Harsh Kapoor]

Dawn (Pakistan)
June 27, 2003

The dance of the courtesans
By Ayaz Amir

For all their differences and minor jealousies it's heart-warming to 
see the two great self-respecting republics of India and Pakistan 
agreed at least on one particular: their furious desire to worm 
themselves into the good graces of the United States.
Balancing the scales between a willing Pakistan--let no one accuse us 
of ever being unwilling--and a cantankerous India, that is when India 
rode the high horse of moral rearmament, was tricky enough. How much 
trickier when both parties are almost wrestling the US to the ground 
in order to plant their favour upon it. Spare a thought for the 
embarrassment of riches on America's hands.
When the Twin Towers of New York, hit by the fury of Al Qaeda (or so 
the world has been told to believe), came tumbling to the ground, 
both India and Pakistan tried to beat each other to the draw to win 
American favour.
Without bothering about terms and conditions, Pakistan quickly said 
yes when Colin Powell called (in these parts saying yes and not 
haggling over details being called old-world chivalry). India too was 
quick off the mark and even before anyone had raised the subject was 
offering all kinds of assistance, including the use of military 
bases, to the US.
Geography dictated America's choice. As the US got ready to make 
Afghanistan safe for democracy--by first razing everything to the 
ground, the same process that we are seeing at work in 
Iraq--contiguity to Afghanistan is what it wanted, something which in 
the best measure only Pakistan could provide. India's chagrin at its 
advances being ignored (not rejected) should not be hard to imagine. 
Hell hath no fury--you get the picture.
The US is facing a much trickier situation in Iraq, the occupation 
and policing of Iraq proving far more difficult than anyone around 
Secretary Rumsfeld's war table had envisioned. So difficult in fact 
that the number one problem before the US right now is not to 
undermine the ayatollahs, contain North Korea's nuclear programme or 
discover weapons of mass destruction. All these can wait. The most 
urgent problem is recruiting soldiers for hire, mercenaries who can 
do its dirty work in Iraq. Thus freeing the US military from a task 
beginning to tax its fortitude and resolve.
Colin Powell has gone to the extent of asking Bangladesh for hired 
soldiery, the US capable of any stooping in a jam. While the BD 
reaction is not known, the two great republics of India and Pakistan 
have left few doubts about where they stand. It is not just that they 
are willing; they seem desperate to be taken on board.
Pakistan's soldier-president being under no obligation to consult 
anyone--this being the beauty of one-man rule--has said in no 
uncertain terms that Pakistan was ready to send troops, for which 
read mercenaries, to Iraq. His only condition is the UN flag or the 
auspices of the OIC or the Gulf Cooperation Council. In other words, 
he is not objecting to the thing in principle. The willingness part 
is thus settled. He just wants the proper fig leaf.
India's position is not much different. Through winks and nods the 
BJP government has signified its readiness to perform guard duty in 
Iraq. In this it has the support of big business which thinks that 
with troops in Iraq, India's chances of winning fat 'reconstruction' 
contracts would improve. But there is stiff domestic opposition to 
the idea of pandering to American wishes. Since the Indian government 
lacks the advantage of Pakistan's soldier-president who has to 
consult only his own wishes, a decision on this issue appears to be 
stalled.
However, when it comes to bartering individual or national honour, 
the key thing is the initial willingness. Once that is secured, only 
the details remain to be sorted out. In other words, once you say 
yes, the rest is negotiable.
This summer then there should be no spectacle more fascinating than 
our two republics looking silly on the question of Iraq. Here's the 
whole world saying the Americans have got themselves into a quagmire 
and a mess. And here India and Pakistan, fretting to beat each other 
at the game, and ignoring every aspect of honour or long-term 
interest, are itching to fling themselves into the same mud. Courting 
universal ignominy for a stash of dollars: more than being impressed, 
even our American friends are likely to be bemused.
Far from smarting at Indian competition, Pakistan should feel happy 
it has someone to give it company. All the more so when who should be 
giving it company but high-minded India. Trafficking in the same 
goods, vying for the same favours, walking up and down the same 
promenade. Welcome to the club.
Meanwhile of course, the Camp David spectacle is behind us. Ah, what 
to make of it. Our talent for selling ourselves cheap is by now so 
well established that it's no use crying. Three billion dollars over 
five years--which comes to about $600 million a year, divided equally 
between military and economic lollipops. This is such a damp squib, 
such an anti-climax to the pre-Camp David hype and hoopla, that even 
Pakistani officialdom has been reduced to incoherent muttering if not 
embarrassed silence.
Central Command itself--that is, where the gods reside-- has revealed 
(in a report carried briefly on its website but then quickly 
withdrawn when it was threatening to turn into a scandal) that the 
economic loss to Pakistan for carrying America's bags in Afghanistan 
came to roughly $10 billion. Far from getting anywhere near that 
figure, Pakistan's soldier-president has been rewarded with another 
bag of peanuts. But he got the visit to Camp David, didn't he? Lunch 
and a bit of a chat at the US president's private mountain retreat. 
Wow, what an honour. And then to be extolled by the US president for 
"brave leadership".
The story line never varies. Pakistani leaders, right from the 
Republic's infancy, have always fallen for morsels of comfort from 
the US, small certificates of approval which very briefly puff up 
their insecure egos. Two years ago, remember, when America was still 
bombing Afghanistan, General Musharraf was almost lionized when he 
visited New York. Soon thereafter when the Taliban melted away and 
the pounding of Afghanistan stopped, much of that enthusiasm 
evaporated. A brief moment in the sun soon gone.
Not that Musharraf's usefulness is over. By God, what sentry duty, 
what yeoman service, the Pakistani military is performing along the 
Afghan border. The American military command has only to murmur 
something and a loud clicking of heels can be heard all across the 
mountains. But aren't we getting paid for our pains and our smart 
snapping to attention?
We are but, in truth, not much. Our load is heavy, our recompense 
small. Actually, for no real fault of the Americans because right at 
the beginning Pakistan's military rulers surrendered whatever 
leverage they could have exercised.
Leverage comes from a gift deferred or a gift left hanging in 
anticipation. It is the prospect of what you can give that defines 
your worth and sets a price on your expected cooperation. But when 
the gift - in this case, Pakistani assistance - is delivered without 
any questions asked, precious little leverage remains.
But perhaps the whole point of such excursions as the visit to Camp 
David has more to do with form than substance--with symbolism rather 
than tangible benefits. Many Third World leaders feel themselves 
blessed when they get a pat from an American president, feeling their 
standing at home enhanced.
It never works like this and when storm waters rise no amount of 
American backslapping is enough by itself to rescue a leader in 
trouble. But Pakistani leaders, prey to infantile notions, have 
always felt otherwise and if Musharraf is proving to be no exception, 
if he feels washed and revivified by his helicopter flight to Camp 
David, who's to blame him?