Focus 580; The Idea of Pakistan

In this hour of our program we'll be talking about Pakistan some about its past and reflecting on its future or possible futures. And our guest for the program is Stephen Cohen. He has been following the history and the politics of Pakistan for a long time Pakistan and India both he has been a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. Since 1998 before that he was a faculty member here at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He was one of the founders and former director of the program in arms control disarmament and international security before his coming to the University of Illinois. He was scholar in residence at the Ford Foundation in Delhi and before that he was a member of the policy planning staff of the US Department of State where he dealt with South Asia. He's written a good deal about India and Pakistan. A recent book titled India emerging power that was published in June of 2001 He's also written about both the Pakistan army and the Indian Army. He has a new book that's just out which is titled The Idea of Pakistan and it's published by the Brookings Institution press and he's been good enough to spend some

time with us this morning to talk about Pakistan from Brookings as we talk. Questions are certainly welcome the only thing we ask is that people who call in are brief if they can be brief as they can be just so that we can keep the program moving along and also include as many people as possible but of course anyone who is listening is welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 is our Champaign-Urbana number. We do also have a toll free line and that is good anywhere that you can hear us. Eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 at any point feel free to join the conversation. Steven Cohen Hello. It's great to be back with you. Great to be back in Illinois. Only by remote remote broadcast Well we appreciate you giving us your time you've been pretty generous with us over the years both since you've been in Washington. And going back to the time that you were actually here in Champaign Urbana So we're always glad to have the opportunity to talk with you and I guess I should say I think Stephen Cohen is someone who is generally regarded as being one of the best informed observers of politics of this region in the United

States. That's why we continue to ask him to be on the show and talk and that may mean only that I think I know what I don't know. Well the book The Idea of Pakistan is focused on Pakistan and perceptions of Pakistanis particularly people who are in leadership positions over time how it is they think about their country before looking at that though just to step back a little bit I think that it is true that if you ask people who are somewhat informed about the world and world events. Ask them where are the places around the world that are potential flash points. I'm sure that a lot of peoples less Pakistan will be near the top because of the longstanding tensions with India because of the fact that both Pakistan and India have demonstrated the capability to build nuclear weapons because of the fact that there are a number of militant Islamist groups operating in Pakistan and also because of the fact that in recent years even the leader of the country of more than once there

had been attempts on his life. All of that taken together you would have to say there is certainly potential for problems there that could spread further. Now having said all of that do we over state the danger that this country poses to itself its neighbors in the rest of the world. I think we I think the estimates and you've listed the big issues I think they're slightly skewed in that I wouldn't argue that say an attempt on Musharraf a successful counter Musharraf would threaten American vital interests. But the other issues are that important I think. I think Pakistan is more stable than people let it let on to be in fact the Pakistanis. You know the Pakistan government said it has an interest in exaggerating the instability and the danger of the country. But Cliff but you are generally right in the 9/11 Commission and its report indicated three countries of primary concern to the United States and they were Afghanistan of course where the Taliban were located and where al Qaeda was based. Saudi Arabia which funded much of this and which is a big oil producer but also potentially very unstable state

and in Pakistan which as you said is not only in a potentially unstable state but the propagator of it radical Islam and terrorism and also possession of at least 30 or 40 nuclear weapons. In fact even since I've written the book or as I was just concluding it there's this you know we've discovered that Dr. AQ Khan the you know the mad genius of Pakistani nuclear program has been going around the world sharing nuclear technology with with other countries. The book one of the raise large questions the book raises is has that how how close has Pakistan come to fulfilling its promise. Going back to the kinds of the sort of vision articulated by Muhammad Ali Jinnah the man who was the first head of state and who was generally considered to be the founder of the country going back then to do what he and people at that time were talking about what was what was their idea of what Pakistan could be.

You know I think that it's often misunderstood and certainly misrepresented. Both by Pakistanis by Indians and misunderstood by Americans. I think you see you know the founding idea of Pakistan and the idea in which the movement was based it was really similar to the idea of two other countries or perhaps three if you add Bosnia. And then as Pakistan was to be a homeland for what was thought to be by them at least as a persecuted religious minority and two other major states have had that same origin. One of course was Israel where which was founded. Not so much on the basis of Zionism but really in the basis that Jews have been persecuted throughout the world in Israel was the logical place for for persecuted Jews or fearful Jews to move to and the other of course was America. America was founded by religious minorities or threatened religious groups largely from Great Britain both Protestant and Catholic and they saw in America a place where they could practice their religion unhindered by the state. Of course America then became a home and to other rather persecuted groups around the world and that you know that's one of our defining characteristics. But Pakistan really was founded as a homeland a separate homeland for persecuted

in half this has to be put very carefully because it's often misunderstood. It was founded as a homeland for Indian Muslims who felt persecuted or threatened by a dominant Hindu majority. Now the irony of this of course is that not all. Indian Muslims went to Pakistan and not all felt persecuted in fact more. More and almost as many Indian Muslims in India today as are Pakistanis today. And that's one of the that's one of the ironies of pockets of the very identity. Well I think one of the observations you make is that there really. Yes indeed there was that idea and perhaps various people did have some ideas about what Pakistan was supposed to be and yet it seems that after that the country and you write as much in the book After the country became independent there really was no consensus about what Pakistan was to be. And that in that vacuum stepped the military and the military essentially has run the country ever since. That's right. And the military had its own notion of what Pakistan should be or the idea of Pakistan. But the you know the again the analogy with Israel and with the United States is very interesting. In Israel

there's a contest among Israelis as to what Israel should be and the degree to which Israel should be a Jewish state that is guided by the basic precepts laid down in the Old Testament. In America of course there's there's those there are those who argue that America is a Christian state or a Judeo-Christian state to be guided by the Bible or old in the New Testament. And I think this this is one aspect of the debate in Pakistan. The original idea of Pakistan as a homeland for persecuted Indian Muslims was that twist it was to be a democracy a democratic state where minorities would live freely and openly and Jenna was very very strong on emphasizing the importance of protecting Pakistan's new Christian Hindu and and Buddhist minorities. The military has a different view. And then the third group that's of significance is of course is the Islamists with a more radical view of what kind of country Pakistan should be. Why is it I guess I'm again moved to ask about why it is that there wasn't sufficient sort of. Strength or cohesion among people who weren't associated either with the military or

with the Islamists that to you to manage to create some sort of consistent vacation and then and leave that vacuum that allowed the military to step in. I mean what really was happening. I think that the the chief factor is the instability that hit Pakistan as soon as it was born unlike And I hear the comparison with India is appropriate unlike India which had strong powerful leadership a narrow narrow living until nineteen thousand nine hundred sixty nine thousand sixty four. Jenna died very quickly and Jenna had no you know large Qadri of followers who could really step into his shoes and perpetuate his dream. Secondly the Pakistanis engaged in and were involved in a war with India itself. Over Kashmir and this drained their resources and also brought the military to the forefront. And thirdly the Pakistan government decided that because it was such a weak country and India was really doing its best to ensure that Pakistan would not survive that it had to turn to the west and to other countries particularly American and

United United Kingdom for military support. So the military and defense issues became very important in Pakistan very early and was not there was no significant civilian counterparts to the way that you know to come to counterbalance that military influence. So as the as the Pakistan army grew in maturity and grew in age they became politically more important until I have constantly declared a coup d'etat took over in the 1950s despite the the admittedly very difficult and divisive issue of religion. It is there it is there a sense in which Pakistan is culturally distinct from India or would you have to say in all other ways aside from aside from the fact that it was created to be this refuge for four Muslims that in all other respects there really is no significant difference between which we need in Pakistan. Well you know that's a that's a view that's often asserted by Indians and I've been at meetings where Indian politicians and in spokesmen have stood up and say well you Pakistanis and we Indians were just pretty much the same kind of people at which I look at the Pakistanis which I mean look at the

Pakistanis and they cringe because they desperately want to have their own separate identity. In fact in fact Pakistan does have significant overlap with India but not as significant as some Indians would assert. Obviously the Punjab is as a culture in a language common to both India and Pakistan in the partition Punjab was divided into two. And there's an Indian portion in a Pakistani portion. But some of the other Pakistani provinces are quite different and there's no exact counterpart in India. For example the northwest frontier provinces is primarily a tribal society and there's no there's zero overlap with India. The overlap in the NWFP of course as with as with Afghanistan where the tribes spill over into Afghanistan. Cintas sand has some overlap with India and of course in Karachi there's modulars that is émigrés from India and they do have cultural and cultural civilizational overlap with India. So I do think there is some overlap. But clearly the Pakistanis have tried to create a separate identity. And this is often seen in the area of popular culture. And this tension between what is Indian and what is Pakistani and what perhaps

is Islamic is seen very much in popular society and popular culture. For example the cricket matches are in a sense a mini war between India and Pakistan. Yet in this last round of cricket matches when the Indians came to Pakistan they were greeted with great hospitality by the Pakistanis who also graciously lost to the Indian Indian team in films the Pakistanis are crazy about Indian films they just love them in their own film industry sort of stagnating. But the mullahs don't like Indian films and Indian culture and have declared kite flying. Which is I think there was some continental practice to be un-Islamic So you do get this tension in these debates going on in Pakistan and I think I'd say that's pretty much the case of Israel. Then again there's analogies between Pakistan and Israel as to what kind of criteria should be applied. And of course many Israelis overlap culturally with some of their neighbors although also with also with the Europeans. Our guest in this hour focused 580 is Steven Cohen he's senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. and for a long time he's been following the politics of both India and Pakistan. He's author of the book India emerging power which is

published by Brookings in 2001 and now a new book that he is a sort of companion but not really a book entitled The Idea of Pakistan. It's also published by Brookings It's out now and questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. In what ways has the United States made Pakistan the place that it is. That's the that's a that's the right way to ask the question it's hard to answer in fact it deserves a book of its own. Many Pakistanis assume that we control everything that happens in Pakistan. I think many American officials are sort of sort of stand back in wonder and figure out trying to figure out how we can influence Pakistan at all. In fact the American government has had a long and deep influence in the development of Pakistan a particularly important role in Pakistani politics. And that's primarily because we've seen Pakistan as a frontline state first against communist China in red and the Soviet Union then in Afghanistan

against the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan and now we see a Pakistan as a frontline state in the war into a war in terrorism in each of those alliances the Pakistanis have used us. You know it would knowingly and consciously. While while we wait we've been aware of how they've used us but I don't think that there's been a deep close relationship with between the U.S. and Pakistan at the strategic level even though these into these intermittent marriages what has happened however is that over the years Pakistanis turn to the United States perhaps more than Great Britain in recent years for education for culture for investment and a place to send their children and so forth. And I think there's been a cultural influence of the United States in Pakistan which is quite impressive yet in the past three years after 9/11 that's been broken and Pakistanis are deeply estranged from America. They no longer see us as their friend and their ally in fact they're very hostile to the US and particularly to the way in which we treat it which they think we've treated as the Muslim world and Pakistanis in particular. It certainly is criticism has been made of the United States and in the sense that our policy has

been inconsistent to the degree that we might indeed have our own agenda that we also have this idea that stability in that country in that region is a good thing and that here and he now again we've pressed whatever advantage that we've had and yet other events have have come have come into the mix and we have decided that we needed the cooperation of the government Pakistan and so then we would lay off. So it seems to. Has there indeed been any sort of consistent policy of the United States in regards to Pakistan. I think it's a legitimate accusation against the U.S. I think our policy has been to get along with whoever is in power and then not really push Pakistan towards democratization. And ironically many in the military would like to see Pakistan democratized you know they they just don't think Pakistan is capable of doing it. But I do think various admin American administrations have not pushed this hard enough but really you know the problem is that a Pakistan you know you know you can't you can't unsee can't impose a democracy. And when a

society has refused to undertake major land reform when it's really governed by an oligarch you have perhaps a thousand people at the top and democracy doesn't isn't going to work terribly well. You know Pakistan is sort of stuck between wanting to be a democracy and being a functional functional establishment or oligarchies. And there's there's not much the U.S. can do to change that but there is there are things we should be doing I think. And I my only quote quibble with the with the present Bush administration is that they're not quite doing enough and I think much of the bunch of our programs aimed towards towards the democratization and Pakistan development of Pakistani institutions especially education really are not really not enough we should be doing much more in that area. You talked earlier we talked about the fact that the military in Pakistan has always been the most powerful group organization in the country. Just recently we passed the fifth anniversary of the takeover by General Musharraf who continues to be both the leader of the military and the president. Even though he says he has said that he was going to he was going to be

stepping down as the leader of the military now just recently I think there has been some legislation passed that would allow him to continue at least if he had a couple of years. But he had at one point promised that by the end of this year he would quit as the as the head of the military so now looks like that's that's not going to just in in what I guess the question I'm going for is in in what sorts of ways does the Pakistani military exercise control and influence over the the government. Well it's they've they've increasingly penetrated into Pakistani society after every coup. You know they've been for major military governments in Pakistan are you. Yeah yeah. Zeal Hakan was shown in after each time it after each military intervention the military find itself deeper and deeper involved in Pakistani society and politics. The recent development has been that the army itself

has been drawn into business and commercial affairs. The washer if the civilian brought them in in some significant ways in the Army's increasingly equivalent to the Pakistan economy. There's large government or military foundations run by military officers and furthermore the Army has weakened the power of the civilian bureaucracy systematically and particularly this has been accelerated under Musharraf. So I think that the and finally the final role of way in which the Army exercises its influence besides directly taking over is through the operation of its intelligence services. He needs Pakistani district especially with their army units the local area commander and his intelligence apparatus has a lot to say about what happens in that district. They can determine who's going to get elected who's going to be powerful who's going to be weak. So the Army has a vast network of intelligence and political influence within Pakistan itself. And that's that's you know that's not. Excuse me. That's not exceptional that's happens in a lot of other countries but few other countries have

the weaknesses that Pakistan faces and I don't think the Army has the qualifications of the ability to really you know run a country they can reckon run an army fairly well but to run a country requires a different set of skills and different a different outlook on life which I don't think most officers have. Generally speaking how do you think that Professor pres Musharraf has done as leader of the country. Oh if I were giving a grade it say when I teach you as a student you give him. Oh C-plus B-minus. You know he's he's a disappointment in a sense but maybe he's operating up his full capacities he's not he's not a far sighted thinker. He sort of found himself in a situation which I think perhaps beyond his capabilities but on the other hand his instincts seem to be right yet he's unable to really make a break with some of the past in both in Pakistan. He talks a good game and I. Perhaps the best measure of his pre-performance is that the Islamist are very much against him because he remains in power but Pakistanis

liberals moderates and liberals are really divided about him a lot of them actually believe that he is Pakistan's last hope. So are there others believe that he's just another general who's coming on to him in. You intervene in politics it is not doing the country any good. So there is that's why give him a middling grade not neither a high grade or low grade. There was certainly it certainly is a difficult position in the sense that there are all that there are a number of competing interests and powers that he I suppose he has he can't come in he can't completely eliminate them but he can't completely satisfied an idea he has we has one he has one great asset and that is nobody wants him to really fail except except a few radical Islamists. The Chinese don't want him to fail. The Chinese want stability in South Asia and China of course is Pakistan's major military supplier. The Saudis don't want him to fail and they of course are pock they poured a lot of money into Pakistan. The Americans don't want him to fail because we see him as a bulwark on the so-called war on terrorism. And if even the Indians now. Who really don't like him at all because he's the man who invaded across the Line of Control. They don't want him to fail because they're afraid. I

think quite correctly that if Musharraf goes it might be chaos in the country. And then who knows who would control Pakistan's loose nuclear weapons at that point. Recently the Pakistani army has been involved in fighting against al Qaeda or people who are said to be al Qaeda in the areas there in the border between the two countries between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's also said that in the past the Pakistani army was involved in supporting the Taliban because they were interested in having a regime that they could and could perhaps control or at least have influence. That's right over next to the country next door in also given the fact that there was that support for the Taliban in the past and now Pakistan is actually fighting against it. And perhaps also some remnants of Taliban what exist what exactly. Where does the Pakistani what's going to stand you know and what exactly is going on. Well that's an that's a mystery I mean I've been in Pakistan for some time I'm going to for a couple months at least almost a

year. I'm going back for it shortly. But there are little bits and pieces of evidence in a in the book I really can't discuss some of these but others have just come to light which make you wonder is exactly what's going on up there. That is this large area between Afghanistan and Pakistan the straddling the border where that where the where Osama and other other al Qaeda presumably took to rescue a refuge and also the leader of the Taliban leaders of the Taliban are located. Now Musharraf said that Osama was up there that al Qaeda leadership was up there and they let it be known that a high value target was located in the area in Pakistan adjacent to Afghanistan. And then then shortly afterwards the Pakistanis launched a military operation in that area. Now just a week ago two weeks ago the corps commander for that area general software said there is no Taliban up here and there's no al Qaeda up here. He said We've gone through the area we've combed it can't find anybody. So you and there's been other newspaper reports at the end that the Americans are reducing. Their presence in Pakistan you know we have at least two or two

military bases in Pakistan and from which we've been been flying combat missions and other kinds of operations in Afghanistan and these apparently are being redrawn down in numbers so it could well be that everybody's decided that there's no al Qaeda up there after all. There's a coach course Osama has not been caught. And that from looking at the video it doesn't look as if he's hiding in a cave someplace. That film was probably taken in a studio or at least a house set somewhere else either in Pakistan my guess is probably in the Middle East. So I think that this war on terrorism may be winding down for Pakistan and the purpose of the book really is to look to the period after the war on terrorism or the so-called war on terrorism when we don't need Pakistan strategically when Pakistan plays no significant role in Afghanistan or or in or in Taliban or al Qaeda related issues. But then we then we still can have to deal with Pakistan in the I think the major argument of the book is that the next American administration whether it's Bush 2 or Kerry will find that out tonight or tomorrow perhaps in a week from now if the courts handle it. That they're going to have to deal with a Pakistan that's far more dangerous far more important than than we ever dreamed it was and which

would make Iraq look like child's play. I think that's that's the burden the major argument of the book The as I remember it this most recent tape of Osama bin Laden someone dropped it into a letter box and Pakistan you know has done so so some people I suppose that led some people to leap and I don't know why that should be the be but to suggest that well perhaps he was in Pakistan. You don't do you think that there's. That's possible. Or it's not likely. If he's in Pakistan he well I get I get I don't I I don't know it's like trying to predict the election you know tomorrow tonight and it's I just I just I just want to come down on one side or the other side. But there's enough evidence to indicate that he's possibly not up in that area that he may there be in a major Pakistani city which has it's had raises other questions or else simply outside of Pakistan completely. Or else you know the other people propose that he's actually in safe key safe keeping by the by the Pakistan government I don't believe that I think if they had him they would turn him over and they certainly wouldn't want to make those kinds of tapes. So it's to me it's still a

mystery and the big issue is whether if he is not there then what. What would our relationship with Pakistan become because I think the al Qaeda threat is really diminished and. And was perhaps exaggerated to begin with once when after we took most of their facilities out in Afghanistan. But clearly Pakistan's capabilities have not diminished. The cornering more and more nuclear weapons and is a state is a potential for it to be extremely unstable in the next five or six years of things don't turn around. We're a bit point here in this part of focus 580 Our guest is Steven Cohen. He's a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. And before that was a faculty member here at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He's one of the founders and former director of the program in arms control disarmament and International Security. His most recent book is titled The IDF Pakistan and it's published by the Brookings press also back in 2001 he wrote a book about India title India emerging power that's also published by Brookings and has done a lot of other writing over

time about the politics of both India and Pakistan and questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Going back to the beginning and when I just talked about the fact that. There are a lot of people who do have concerns about Pakistan and regarded as a potentially difficult and dangerous place. One of the reasons that they do is that it is home to a number of radical militant Islamist groups that seem to pose some sort of a threat not only to the stability of the country but also to the possibility of being involved in terrorist activity outside of Pakistan. What is it. What is important to know about them and also about those those two concerns both there the challenge to the government of Pakistan and also the possibility that they would move out and would be involved in terrorist activities outside of Pakistan. Yeah I do. DAVID I don't think that the groups that exist today are really a great

threat to the United States as such I mean some of them are very hostile to America but on the other hand others get along quite well with us. Nope no real problems with us. They may dislike us because of our Middle East policy or for our support for the generals in Pakistan but other than that there's no significant anti-Americanism among among those groups. So all that does that still it's saying a lot I think to me the group that I'm most concerned about in Pakistan. Are not the organized radical Islamic groups but the potential Pakistani counterparts of al Qaeda. If you look at the social economic class of al Qaeda it turns out that almost all of them are educated. Very few of them were extremely you know in very few of them. You could you could say were blown to radical Islamic groups as such but they were recruited along the way into a sort of a Salafi sort of simplistic Islamic radicalism. They were recruited both in Saudi Arabia in Egypt also in Europe lot of other places. And to me the group to look out for in my most concerned about in the long term in Pakistan

are those educated Pakistanis who feel that their life is not going anywhere is that immigration doesn't sic seem to play a role that the U.S. is the chief enemy of the of the of Pakistan and of Islam who turned to radicalism in order to take their revenge both on the Pakistan government but also against the United States. For example I met a young woman in a in a slum about a couple of years ago she was working for a foreign organization. So she was highly westernized educated in the West. And she looked at me wit we have been meeting together an evening dinner she said to me. You know Professor if I had to a child or if I had to become an Islamist I would if I could get rid of you. That is the American government and get rid of this government that is the Pakistan government. So she was a she was a potential I won't use the term radical but pent potential potential recruit for an al Qaeda type organization. And there were ties between al-Qaeda and some middle class Pakistani professionals. Al Qaeda was seen as sort of a sympathetic proper organization by the by few Pakistanis and what concerns me the most is that if Pakistan's social and economic

civilizational qualities begin to continue to deteriorate then you see the rise of al-Qaeda movements as well as more simplistic. Madrassa based radical groups there's been a lot of talk about the madrassas in Pakistan. They teach hatred and so forth and that's true. You know that that is a problem and it's a significant problem but mostly for Pakistan. But I'm more worried about the educated Pakistani elite the children the grandchildren of the elite of Pakistan who if they decide that Pakistan is being abused by the Americans they're abused by the generals that that radical Islam or some kind of radical movement is the way out then I think those people could become a threat obviously to a lot of different countries analogous perhaps to the Red Brigades and the other group European radical groups of the 1960s 1970s. I think we see people like that also other places who really because of economic stagnation the limited possibilities of their for their futures become really despondent and turn to these kind of radical groups because they don't see any particular future for themselves.

Do you see I guess I'm interested in and having you talk a little bit about the economy and Pakistan was something we really haven't talked about at all here and about what life is like the safe say Set politics that well maybe you can't set politics aside but other than that talk about what life is like in Pakistan other sorts of ways how the country is doing what its economic health is and does that connect with the country's politics. I'm not an economist but I took a stab at running a chapter on the economics and these other demographic variables and hope it holds up. I don't many my friends read and offer comments. You know what's happened is that Pakistan was on a wild spending spree for many years and the years of democracy to Pakistan had 10 years of imperfect democracy where I where no washer Raef and Benazir Bhutto alternated as prime ministers and they just spent the country into the ground it was catastrophic. Pakistan was billions and billions of dollars in debt and what happened when Musharraf came in his he did appoint

Shaukat Aziz as his financial advisor in shock a disease who's now Prime Minister has really dug Pakistan out of this hole. He did it through good fiscal management you know good economic practices. Yet yet the economic growth in Pakistan is still very slow in a lot a lot of it is very uneven in Pakistan's per capita income has actually slipped behind that of India. The Pakistanis look across the border to India with amazement and envy as to why India which was a much poorer country has suddenly zoomed ahead especially in the high tech areas. And that's one of the great tragedies of Pakistan that had that opportunity of being a middle income country and they've just just squandered both by say the Zia regime by Garley Bhutto before him and also by 10 years of incompetent democracy. So Musharraf does get credit for trying to straighten out the economy. But again you know you can quibble with him and quarrel with him on some particular policies and you may well be that it's too late you know the frightening thing is it may be too difficult to pull Pakistan out of a tailspin that Pakistan can't catch up with globalization and internationalization become a modern state in that sense of the word.

That will just have to wait and see but right now the indicators are mixed at best. All right well we have a caller here to talk with others who are listening or certainly welcome to call in with questions here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line go to anywhere that you can hear us. 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. And here's a caller and our line number one. Hello. Hi. About Benazir Bhutto regime not just incompetent but actually corrupt and corrupt by. I think there was something about the privatization of the power system that was she apparently got those villas or whatever places in London through dealings with a major company. But that was just because you were just talking about the economic times. Right right. I don't know if you know the details of that but I actually was motivated to call and I apologize I wasn't on from the very beginning. So did you. Have you talked much about

Pakistani Indian relationships and thought as you started with that and I missed that or if you were I know not know we can get to them. Well I think I want to ask you is are you still. Band from India so that you I mean it would be helpful I suppose to be able to go there. How long is there a institutional memory as far as I think you are correct me if I'm wrong but I think you were personally non-grata because of the book you wrote about the Indian army right. No no not no that's not true at all. It's quite the other way around. Recently I was banned from India that is no American scholars were allowed to come to India to do any significant research from about nine hundred seventy one thousand one hundred seventy three and that was in revenge for the American support for Pakistan during the India-Pakistan war of 1971. So eventually the Indians relented and we all got in although the kind of such stuff we can study in India is limited however and in effect I'm now the proud possessor of a 10 year Indian visa so I can come and go as I wish that's not a problem. I was also banned from Pakistan at one

point in the 1970s I tried to go to Pakistan just to see the country and I written a book on the Indian army and wondered right look and see the Pakistan what Pakistan looks like and that was really Bhutto's government to ban me from entry or at least denied me a visa. Since that time I've been coming and going to Pakistan without any problem either. And so at least at least in my case they have relatively free entry into both countries. But you are right they did have troubles in the past. Well I just you know so I thought it was about the book on the army but well I guess I don't I just it's hard to sort out. What's going on with the Suppose a thought on pulling back from insisting on a plebiscite and all about Kashmir. So what. What can the U.S. do. Besides stopping selling weapons to both sides opposed. To help out and not have choice and I don't know he would advocate that but I'll just listen and watch him OK.

On the night you know there is there is for the benefit of the larger listenership there is a has been going on for about six months now. Very systematic dialogue between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and other issues and this is a very very good thing. I don't believe if I had to bet money I wouldn't. I don't believe it's going to come to any kind of concrete agreement. In effect you know this is all speculation and I suspect these talks will sort of break down and eventually there could be another crisis but I do think that. There's a new realisation in India that it cannot afford to leave Pakistan collapse that the you know the old Indian desire of bringing Pakistan down might down might raise some significant problems for India especially in terms of Pakistani retaliation. And I think there's a realization in Pakistan that they've fallen so far behind the Indians that they have to they may have to make some compromises on Kashmir and Musharraf you know for all of his problems and weaknesses and clearly there are many of them have spoken more out more forcefully and openly about a new kind of Pakistani policy towards Kashmir. The trouble and we don't know what the what the private negotiations are but clearly they're moving ahead at least at some pace the U.S.

role in this right now should be just to sit on its hands and applaud and or can't do that sit on its hands and say nothing do nothing except encouragement that I think we should be more encouraging than we have been. But we're preoccupied with Iraq and other issues. So I thing. That my guess is that Washington will not take an active role in the India-Pakistan dialogue until an after the next South Asia crisis takes place. And I say I think there will be one. I think these things go in cycles and I think that cycle is going to come around again. So when that happens will probably be more active diplomatically perhaps but at that time will take a more open and active role in trying to bring the two countries to some kind of agreement. The real the real change I think has to be in Pakistan. Pakistanis have not really debated the issue of Kashmir for even for ever and now bush office triggered a debate in Pakistan among Pakistanis about alternative arrangements for Kashmir other than simple accession to Pakistan. That's good enough. But I don't think that's going to be enough and I think the Indian debate is fairly well advanced. Sooner or later the two countries will have enough diversity in their views where they

can have negotiations about the future of Kashmir. Interesting It has certainly present a sharp got made news with these comments that he made recently. He apparently was talking with reporters and some diplomats. This was in Pakistan and he talked about the need for a national debate over Kashmir. He said something to the effect that he'd never stops talking like this to anybody anywhere before he went on and said things like well you know maybe there are some things we all talk about like the possibility either that the whole of Kashmir should be autonomy or it could be somehow jointly administered by I don't know how such a thing could could be worked out but jointly administered by both India and Pakistan and the Indians apparently at least the official response was was rather cool to what he had to say. It seems significant the fact that he said it at all. But David what the Indian response was significant in another way. They

chastised him for talking about these things publicly and they said we want to talk about these things diplomatically and privately but they didn't they didn't reiterate the old Indian position the Kashmir was an un an alterable and had an alter really acceded to India. So in a sense they could have been tougher in the in that than they were and secondly not only Musharraf but other generals have said privately what he's now saying publicly he said. They've said that to themselves and they said that to foreigners and to others. That in the present situation is not good for Pakistan Pakistan has to change its policies in some ways and the sort of groping around to find a politically acceptable alternative to the stalemate or another crisis. And this is going to require a lot of debate and discussion in Pakistan. Its going to have to involve the Islamists is going to have to evolve the liberals. And I think eventually its going to have to involve the United States and other countries as sort of guarantors of whatever agreement that India and Pakistan do reach. And of course he's now talking about the Kashmiris themselves. And I think it's to me that to me a solution which is based on justice. You know in the broad sense of the word is probably is probably

marketable in all three countries because all three countries are somewhat and all two countries whether India Pakistan they're embarrassed by what's happening to the Kashmiris the customers of themselves of course would like to get some relief from Indian military pressure and also terrorism sponsored by the Pakistanis I think. I think there is room for us for an agreement. But in these kinds of things that takes a long time. Attitudes have to change has to be clear inducements clear guarantees of an agreement when it is region. I think we're probably early days in that kind of process but I'm more more optimistic about that now than have been for many years. All right stop with someone else here Lie number two. Yeah I hear the smile of command the command is that Pakistan is in danger since any other nuclear power and the Middle East climb the speed and not be responsive for forty different became dangerous. I think all the masses out of poor me want to be company which if anybody else wants it and we are

denying them the opportunity by saying supporting could use this to their within their civilian idealism get on the people we have been supporting them because people want to hear some quick fix to the problems we have not taking care of the corruption or taking care of the exploitation now we can say hey this is not our business. But they become our enemies because we expect so much from us I think from the Americans. Any other comment from you. Maybe Well that's that's a that's actually a very very sound insight. I like that very much I think I should steal it. They become our enemies because they expect too much from us and I think that's that's actually quite true in the case of Pakistan. Pakistanis have expected a great deal from the United States exe you know far more than any American government's been prepared to offer and I think our

relationship with Pakistan has been sort of a fairy tale of relationship for many years. We promise a lot to them they promise a lot to us and it hasn't been put on me. I think a sound realistic basis I think it is time now for the U.S. and Pakistan to have a have an agenda in and in that agenda should be the salvation of Pakistan because I agree with the caller that Pakistan could be extremely dangerous country to the United States and to itself and of course to India. So in it but I don't you know you know in a sense that a lot of countries don't want. No country wants Pakistan to fail except perhaps for a few Indians because they feel Pakistan could be kept catastrophe for all of all of its neighbors and I think for the United States but on the other hand how do you get a country to succeed if it doesn't want to do it if it doesn't know how to do it. That's a dilemma Pakistan. Well I think the caller let's go to someone else here this would be our line number one. Hello. Last. Yes I have a two I think on and here one is that the professor

has given a clean chit to lead the operator. I mean basically he said that the extremist terrorists on the parking lot of knocked down you know to us on anybody else. I mean he physically fed us and the al Qaeda leader operative that day some of them were found in the dock erect and also a lady operating. I mean some of the girl wanted in laws in the beheading of pearl. And also in the if you remember back in I would say about 89 it on the time frame they cock up like three people and maybe had one not Regia And yes within ostomy of terrorists are a danger of Prosecco here is giving a clean get to the terrorists and the well let me let me let me interrupt the speaker.

I didn't say I said that they were not a threat to American interests. Obviously they've targeted American individuals including Pearl in the elite team particularly Lashkar e Toiba and one of the most notorious groups I think you've you've you've exaggerated my comments a bit but I agree with your point in terms of their threat to American citizens and foreigners generally in South Asia. Yeah ok the second point is that the 1971 India up against Anwar it happened because of the brutal operation of the Pakistanis by this Pakistani The current like a thumb and at that time Bangladesh was created and I what policies were wrong at the time. In doc a veto and a blind eye to the killings of yelling and the end of us Pakistanis. OK and that was a I and India had a very very few problem but if you put a lot of Peavey's gaming into

there's been all the hate of it being all right and yeah so I think really I mean it could be helpful to mention Bach basically. Then you say that 1971 India-Pakistan Why are you get abbreviated. Fuck off. Fact of the matter is that Pakistan was uprising and because 10 million people at that time you know they were on the date of the even bigger than what had happened in second or lost by the Hitler then that's OK but I'm just going to get it's going to get. Third point is that we should not be helping Pakistan anymore. Then Mark you have done already. Because I mean they are getting I mean they got something like 3 billion dollars for 4 billion dollars. Doing on Nixon era. Nixon and before that I mean offer that Reagan to some extent and then and now we are helping them buy another 3 billion dollars

and they have been nothing but I'm helpful and the out of Aunt who actually taught a Taliban they are the ones who created the Taliban and now there want to actually have a big affair and I'm going to find a bit of it even. Today I don't believe them and that they should not be helped anymore. OK let me buy it and you get all that they said that you and him you agreed that the party needs to have even more. I can hear that you like got your walking going up on a city street and somebody comes and hold the gun to your head and off your money and then you're going to give it to them and you know I get I get yeah I mean yeah that's I get the word we're getting kind of short on time a okay let's call it has made a number of points I just want to get. Still let me let me let me let me suggest to the caller that it took me four years to write the book and I've studied Pakistan for since 1971 or so and I pined

1968 and so there's a lot more in the book that I've been able to talk about here. He's absolutely correct that the 1971 war was triggered by the event ultimately by the East pocket by the oppression of these Pakistanis in fact they supported India. An opposed American that in that war but there were not 10 million people killed far fewer than that and certainly not comparable to the Holocaust in World War 2. But he is correct in terms of the Pakistans initiating that war in the military through the oppression of the spec he's been goalies in the cussed case of American aid to Pakistan. I do think we need a significant aid package for Pakistan but it should not be a military aid package and it should be an aid package which is geared to Pakistani performance and to the reconstruction and reformation of Pakistan and affect most Indian government officials that I've talked to would agree with that they have no problems with a Pakistan that accepted its role in South Asia as a as a moderate state at peace with India. And but the if you if we follow the the the caller's logic we would shut off Pakistan we would we would isolate it

we would contain it. We try to destroy it. Now if Pakistan were a weak country or Pakistan had no nuclear weapons that would be a reasonable strategy the book spends a whole chapter looking at alternative strategies. But I would hate to be living in New Delhi or Bombay if Pakistan were destroyed because I would want to know where those 50 60 or 100 nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis control are going to wind up and I hate to be in New York for that matter or Washington because the pock a truly radical Pakistan could slip those weapons to terrorist and could use them around the world. Think that Pakistan is like North Korea that it's acquired nuclear weapons far more than North Korea. And it's there's a well we don't like it and we made we may oppose it we're angry that it got to that stage. We cannot deal with Pakistan as if it's a trivial country. It's got to be it's nuclear weapons are important and we have to find strategies to meet turn it back into a more moderate state. And that's that's that's the argument of the book. I understand the caller's concern but to stereotype Pakistan is a hopelessly rogue state I think is wrong because you know many many liberal Pakistanis many sensible Pakistanis

even some in the army I think Pakistan has the material to become a moderate progressive state even in a good neighbor of India for that matter which are real quick here line too. And I get another caller hello. I guess i'm a while back David had an interview with a scholar that was here I was talking about the water policy and the situation in Pakistan and it said that rivers were controlled by India that they somehow damns have been diverted I'm not quite sure all the details about his little time at the Fed you think there's any hope of relief for the Pakistani economy or their agricultural system you seem to think that it was a dire situation. That was going to have profound effects on the economy and if nothing is done now if no agreement is a reach. What would be the effect on the future in terms of peace or the radicalization or X-Men you know. Yes I can answer that very briefly Pakistan and India have an agreement. The Indus water treaty which is internationally guaranteed and by in large it's worked very very well. It's in force by the

UN by. There's a whole international apparatus connected to it that's worked well. What's the next step has to be energy and India is an energy short country. Pakistan is now increasingly energy short. There's a lot of energy in Central Asia. The best way to get it to India is through Pakistan through pipelines. And I would hope that the next stage in India-Pakistan relations will be the opening up of gas and oil pipelines between the transit Pakistan but also have some stoppage in Pakistan that India will in turn export oil and refined oil and products to Pakistan. I think that would be a major step forward that would be as important as the Indus Valley treaty and significantly tie the two countries together. Both countries are also water short and here again there may have to be some larger geishas projects which would require the cooperation of both countries. Well there will have to leave it. If people are interested in reading more on Pakistan you can look at the book that I've mentioned the IDF Pakistan by our guest Steven Cohen it is published by the Brookings Institution press. Steve Cohen is a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution

also author of another book. If you interested in reading on India that book titled India emerging power published by Brookings in 2001. Thanks very much once again for giving us something to tell you David. Appreciate very much like a book.