FuturePAF
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
Sorry for the misunderstanding. By west, I meant America (Americans tend to do that, another lapse on my part as well)
independence marked self-rule by the muslim majority elites, this is when they could for an identity, an image, before that it was muslim majority areas under British rule, but in 1947, it became Pakistan (relations with individuals started to become relations with institutions and the heads of those institutions in the newly independent country, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Chief of Army Staff, Etc.)
yes many soldiers served in the army of the British Raj, and participated in the trenches of world war 1, and the battles in Burma, etc.
this martial history did shape the image of Pakistan in American/British/European Eyes, and by independence, this martial prowess, coupled with their image of being anti-communist brought america, reluctantly, to view Pakistan in its camp.
Quaid-i-Azam and Ayub Khan were probably the two best examples of what America thought of when they thought about Pakistan, Western Educated and Culturally Muslim (how "Muslim" that is, we can leave to the historians)
The early impressions were made during the 1950 visit by prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan
Liaquat Ali Khan's state visit to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The British were all to keenly aware of their imperial past, and knew the country well
but as Britian declined, and America Ascend in the 1950s and 1960s, and America tended to dominate, by might of economy and military, the world stage.
also the "mullah" never really played a major part in pakistan's history, and even in our current culture, they still don't
but a few loud people can drown out the voice of the large majority
most pakistans will say "we know how to be muslims, thank you very much to the mullahs"
having said that, while the nations muslim identity is not a dominating part of the national image in the west in 1947, the lack of development and misgovernance and wars with india, let many in the establishment to do things in the name of islam (a quick fix) without planning for the consequances, they are the ones that opened the door for the "mullahs"
(this is why the contributions of many great non-muslim pakistanis like Wing Commander Mervyn Leslie Middlecoat of the PAF are not known nowadays by the majority of the nation (Mervyn Middlecoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but that whole other topic)
I digress,
but being muslim for the majority of pakistanis, is part of their cultural identity.
Jinnah and Ayub Khan were the elites, but as members of the middle classes and eventually working classes moved up into positions of power; with some not having reconciled their conservative backgrounds and being diplomatic on the world stage. In the aftermath of partition, the large population of young people that came after, had fewer interactions with non-muslims than before, and their limit interactions with western foreigners led to misconceptions. These misconceptions, of how and why western countries do what they do, led these new young leaders to take harsher stands (a reaction). seeing this, the west viewed Pakistan has more "islamic" (counter reaction). but all this happened over decades.
BUT, this gets away from my original point which is the US didn't care about india or pakistan in the way it cared about israel and europe. so, not being adjacent to these areas of the world, pakistan was not "managed" as heavily, and it go to develop down its own path. culturally and militarily.
Btw; interesting article on what the views of the americans diplomats in the early days
Establishing Ties with Pakistan — 1947 | Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training
"In 1950, I went to the U.S. as one of her escorts for a trip she took to this country. One thing she always wanted to do was to go to Hollywood. So we arranged for her visit to the “Movieland.” We were very conscious of the conservative Muslim society from which she came; we structured the visit so that there would not be any embarrassing occasions."
"We learned that the projection of the U.S. was not nearly as important as how U.S. policy was received by the local population."
"In May 1948, when Israel was created, Pakistan, as a strong Muslim country, reacted very negatively. We had demonstrations in the streets in front of the Embassy. I was sent by the Ambassador to confront the demonstrators and to invite the leaders up to meet with the Ambassador. That was something that probably could not have been done in later years when demonstrations became more hostile and virulent. But in 1948, we were able to have a dialogue with the demonstrators. We had an imaginative administrative officer who sensed that the demonstrators might move to the residence. So we got the Pakistani police to move its kiosk from the residence to the front of the house occupied by the Parsi, who lived next to the Ambassador. Those were the days when things could be done more informally or imaginatively.
But U.S. support for Israel as well the perception that the U.S. was not doing enough to get India out of Kashmir limited our influence in Pakistan, although I never encountered the open hostility that I experienced later in Iraq.
American policy towards anti-colonial revolutions was at that time very ambivalent."
"Washington liked to stress in this period, which I always felt was of dubious validity, was that we had been a colonial subject at one time and therefore we could sympathize easily with those who were still under the yoke. 1947 and 1948 were very much different from 1776. Our revolution was essentially one against members of the same race. In the post-World War II period, race was a significant factor and American support for Europeans was viewed through that prism. There was a general recognition that Roosevelt had tried to convince Churchill to give independence to India, but whatever benefits we got from that were tempered by some of our actions in the immediate post-War period. It is my recollection that it was a continuing effort to separate in people’s minds from the U.S. from the European colonial powers…."
Last edited:
