South Asia Through American Glasses


Written by S.G. Jilanee • Cover Stories • April 2010

While the United States tries to dictate to almost the entire world, its view of South Asia makes a particularly fascinating study. With the widespread death and devastation wrought by its two atomic bombs in 1945, America instantly soared to the pinnacle of power. The only other country that could still look it in the eye was the Soviet Union. But it was badly bruised by the War. America had lost only its troops and military hardware. But its resources were intact. In contrast, the USSR had suffered not only in men but also a massive destruction of its resources. Europe was mauled beyond recognition. And Japan had been reduced to "dust."

The colonial powers, busy raising their homes from rubble and licking the deep wounds of the War could no long sustain their empires. The sun that never sank in the British Empire was now free to do so anywhere. Britain had to part even with India, the prize Jewel of its Crown.

Only the United States was equipped to fill this yawning power vacuum. And so it tried to do. It was, now, "lord of the fowl and the brute" all over the wide world. It took over "charge" of the colonies vacated by European powers in Asia and the Middle East, particularly, owing to their importance in its cold war with the Soviet Union.

America's economy was sound; it doled out dollars. Where that did not work, it dealt death, openly as in Vietnam or covertly, through terrorism as in the Caribbean states and Africa. In fact it assumed the role of the world's sole policeman, though that was more like the Orwellian, "Big Brother is watching you" type. It cajoled, bullied or threatened developing countries all over the world from Chile to Angola to Vietnam and elsewhere, to bring them to heel and punished those which defied its diktat.

America makes loud claims about supporting democracy and about human rights. But, as Gary Younge pithily put it, "The U.S. supports democracy when democracy supports the U.S. (Ouster of Democracy; Guardian 30 March 2004). Thus, when a democratically elected government does not suit its interest, America would engineer its overthrow even by violent means.

The ouster of Iran's prime minister, Mossaddegh in 1953 and his replacement by the Shah as an absolute monarch; the assassination of Chile's elected president Salvador Allende in 1972 and the support for the dictator Pinochet, the support for the Arab rulers and, for the successive military dictators in Pakistan are some of the more glaring examples of America's unabashed duplicity and unscrupulousness.

Flush with power, after the WWII, and intent on expanding its hegemony, the U.S. established an institution, called the "School of Americas" or SOA at Fort Benning, in Georgia, in 1946. (Since 2001 it has been renamed as "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). The ostensible purpose of the School was to train people in counterinsurgency. But, in practice, it was a virtual "terrorist training camp."

Among the SOA's alumni were "forty percent of the cabinet ministers who served the genocidal regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores in Guatemala" as well as "two-thirds of the army officers," named by the UN Truth Commission, who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war in El Salvador.

In Chile, the School's graduates ran both Augusto Pinochet's secret police and his three principal concentration camps. Argentina's dictators Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado and Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez, all had been trained at the School. So did the leader of the Grupo Colina death squad in Fujimori's Peru; four of the five officers who ran the infamous Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (which controlled the death squads there in the 1980s) and the commander responsible for the 1994 Ocosingo massacre in Mexico.

Thus America established its hegemony in its "backyard." But, its insatiable ambition needed "fresh fields and pastures new," both to establish its global supremacy and combat the influence of its ideological adversary, the USSR.

In Africa it supported UNITA chief Jonas Savimbi in his war against the Marxist government of Angola. And Present Reagan showered him with accolades.
In Nicaragua, Washington tried to overthrow the Sandinista government not because it was not democratic, but because it was socialist. To bypass congress restraints on funding the contra rebels in Nicaragua, Reagan even triggered the infamous Iran-contra scandal.

In Asia, the subcontinent appeared to offer the ideal answer to such aspirations. In its awesome size and its immense resources were opportunities galore for interaction in all fields. Besides, who could stake a stronger claim to the Crown Jewel left behind by Britain than its "cousin" America? Even though India had been split into two independent States and, therefore, things were not the same as before, yet it was worth a try.
In Pakistan nostalgia for the Raj days was strong. It felt orphaned and abandoned after the Brits left and eagerly offered itself for adoption by their Anglo-Saxon cousin. This translated into the Baghdad Pact (CENTO) and SEATO. As early as 1950, just three years after its independence, "the Pakistani government had effectively ceded remote areas of its northern provinces to the Central Intelligence Agency and to the National Security Agency."

In India, however, the situation was different. The old hostility towards Britain had transformed into love, thanks to Edwina Mountbatten's clever "stateswomanship." Yet, India was not going to allow the United States, readily, to substitute Britain in its affection.

As a Fabian, India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had socialist leanings. Besides, Moscow was a close neighbor. He, therefore, swung towards the USSR. It was a policy that earned him good dividends, especially in setting up heavy industries and bolstering its defence potential.

While, America, like a forlorn lover, pined for India's affection, the latter treated its amorous overtures with calculated disdain. The window of the opportunity, however, opened for America propitiously in 1962, with China's pseudo-invasion of India. Almost before Pundit Nehru had made a formal request, the U.S. had flooded it with a tsunami of arms supply. Having thus proved itself as friend in need, America won India's confidence.

As the affair developed, more vistas opened. America discovered a smorgasbord of openings. Its burgeoning economy was an el dorado for U.S. investors. Bangalore became the prototype of the Silicon Valley as Americans outsourced their microchip industry to India.

The size of the Indian armed forces, the second largest in the world, with a staggering active force estimated to total 1,325,000 personnel also fitted into America's "Great Game" plan on the world's chessboard. The Soviet Union had ceased to pose a challenge to America's bid for global hegemony. But China was to use India as an effective counterpoise to China, America has lately made it the focus of its favors. Other South Asian countries; - Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, seldom appear on U.S. foreign policy radar.

While it courts India, the United States treats Pakistan like a mistress that is passé. On other hand Pakistan has behaved all along, like a typical spouse of the East who, despite being pushed and kicked, remains unflinching in her fealty to her lord.

America pursues its self-interest ruthlessly. It has no friend or foe as such. How it abandoned the Shah of Iran when he lost his usefulness is a classic example of American perfidy. Not surprising therefore if it is suspected in some Pakistani circles that America wants to keep Pakistan perpetually destabilized in order that it remains permanently dependent on U.S. "charity."

That is why Obama began with talking of helping Pakistan and India resolve their festering disputes but ended up with lobbing Pakistan and Afghanistan together into his ‘Af-Pak' policy, while treating India with deference.