If there was a Nobel Prize for bootlicking, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif would win it hands down.
At a gathering in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt organised by US President Donald Trump to mark the ceasefire in the Middle East, the Pakistani PM joined other leaders in welcoming the Gaza peace plan. But Sharif went further than the others in prostrating himself before Trump.
“I again would like to nominate this great President for the Nobel Peace Prize,” he began. “He is the most wonderful candidate. I salute you Mr President for your exemplary leadership.”
There was more in a similar vein, and the overall effect was reminiscent of the time-honoured trope of the subservient brown man sucking up to the great white sahib.
The difference between India and Pakistan
We are familiar with this trope in the subcontinent, of course. To our eternal shame, too many of our ancestors indulged in this sort of behaviour to curry favour with our former colonial masters.
But from the time the freedom struggle began, Indians rebelled against such sycophancy.Eventually, we threw out the imperial rulers and became a proudly independent nation beholden to nobody, let alone powerful white men.
In the West, they often claimed that we had taken this too far, and that Indian leaders were arrogant in their dealings with Europeans, especially Americans, who then believed they ruled the world.
Jawaharlal Nehru snubbed the US by refusing to join CENTO and SEATO — two alliances promoted by Washington to expand its influence and counter the USSR. Then-US President Dwight Eisenhower regarded Nehru’s refusal as hostile and arrogant, and efforts to change his mind by the powerful Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, were rebuffed by Delhi.
Pakistan, meanwhile, joined both alliances obediently, signing on the dotted line as instructed by Washington.
In 1970-71, Islamabad cultivated President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, serving as a go-between in America’s rapprochement with China.
So successful was this chamchagiri that the US ignored its European allies, who begged it to reconsider, and turned a blind eye to the genocide in what was then East Pakistan.
When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi refused to accept the US’s advice not to respond to a genocide on India’s doorstep, Nixon referred to her as a “bitch” and turned against India. In any case, as Kissinger would later write, Nixon felt that Indira Gandhi spoke to him like a teacher lecturing a backward child.
That perception continued for many years. A hot microphone once caught President Jimmy Carter complaining about Morarji Desai’s attitude during a bilateral meeting, saying that he intended to return to Washington and write Desai a very “cold letter”.
It was because Indian prime ministers refused to supplicate before Washington that Ronald Reagan and later George HW Bush treated our leaders as equals and accepted that Delhi and Washington would never agree on everything.
The US was unhappy with Indira Gandhi’s refusal to loudly condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but it did not let that colour the entire relationship. When Rajiv Gandhi succeeded his mother, the overall understanding remained.
Pakistan, on the other hand, not only echoed US policy on Afghanistan but obligingly turned over much of its territory to the CIA to mount a covert campaign against the Russian-backed Afghan regime.
Why Pakistani leaders indulge in chamchagiri
What did all this sycophancy get Pakistan? Almost nothing. SEATO and CENTO refused to intervene when it lost the 1965 war with India. Nixon’s hatred of India did not prevent the breakup of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh. Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghanistan campaign made millions for its generals, but it also turned the country into a bankrupt terrorist haven — which it remains to this day.
So why are Pakistan’s leaders so willing to fling their self-respect out of the window and throw themselves at the feet of the great white master?
It’s a mystery to me. Do they not understand the lessons of history, and recognise that thissubstitution of diplomacy with chamchagiri has led Pakistan to its present state?
The only explanation I can find is that this use of sycophancy in foreign policy stems from the nature of Pakistani politics. No Prime Minister lasts very long. They are thrown into jail, assassinated, or overthrown by the military. So there is nothing to gain by pursuing a long-term policy based on Pakistan’s interests. Better to make friends abroad while the going is good — and to stash away a few hundred million dollars to spend when the inevitable exile comes.
Even military leaders have no real job security. Yahya Khan may have ordered the slaughter of thousands, but when the end came, it was nasty and unplanned. Zia ul-Haq was blown up in mid-air, and Pervez Musharraf died in disgrace in Dubai.
When you rule a banana republic, it’s best to eat up the bananas while you still can.
It’s this kind of calculation that explains Sharif’s embarrassing display of chamchagiri in front of Trump. Sharif is not a fool. He knows that a US President’s term is only four years, while foreign policy is a long-term affair. He also knows that Trump’s support will not alter the mess that Pakistan is. He is aware that if Trump’s feud with China continues, Pakistan will have to choose between the two — and that, in the long term, China is the more reliable ally. And he knows that Trump is mercurial: his policy towards the subcontinent could change overnight.
But none of that worries him too much because he won’t be in power for long. And as he massages Trump’s feet, he can claim he has altered Pakistan’s place in the world — that the US now prefers Pakistan to India.
Yes, it’s a lot of sycophancy for a very short-term objective. But in Pakistan, the short term is all its leaders ever get.
Vir Sanghvi is a print and television journalist and talk show host. He tweets @virsanghvi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)