A lost Nation
Comments in that page:A lost Nation
Saturday, 10 March 2012
The Future of Pakistan
Author : Stephen P Cohen (ed)
Publisher: Oxford University Press,
Price: 695
Stephen Cohen's book raises great expectations which, says Ved Marwah, are not fully met. There is inexplicable hesitation in calling a spade a spade
The future of Pakistan is of vital concern not only to India but also the entire world. The time for doublespeak on Islamabad’s role in supporting and sponsoring terrorism is over. The US can no longer have the luxury of looking at its role only in the regional context.
Not very long ago, instead of treating Pakistan as an epicentre for terrorism, the US was calling it as a “frontline state in its fight against terrorism”. Instead of taking Islamabad to task for what it had been doing for a long time, it used to lecture Delhi to settle its disputes with its western neighbour, even if it had to be done on the latter’s terms. That perception is now slowly changing, but not quite. Many contributors in this volume, The Future of Pakistan, are still harping on that line, though the assessment about the role of Pakistan in sponsoring, training, financing, equipping and even spreading terrorism across the world has radically changed, especially after the gunning down of Osama bin Laden by the US Navy Seals near Islamabad last year.
A book edited by Stephen Cohen, a well-known authority on Pakistan and its army, coming as does only a few years after he published his masterpiece on this very country, raises great expectations. These expectations, I am afraid, are not fully met. Even after what has happened in the past few years, there is inexplicable hesitation in calling a spade a spade. The reader will find all sorts of materials in this extremely informative book, but not all the answers to his questions about the future of Pakistan. Instead of giving their considered views about where Pakistan is likely to head, many contributors still hedge by laying out various scenarios and leaving it to the reader to make his or her own judgement. Of course, no prediction can be 100 per cent correct in such a complex scenario, but ducking the issue neither helps the reader nor the policymakers.
Pakistan has a history of fomenting religious extremism inside and outside its national border. It has expansionist designs from the very beginning. There is a perceptible consistency, a method in its madness, in its internal and external policies irrespective of who ruled that country. There is no evidence that this is going to change in the foreseeable future. If the authors had analysed these trends and their possible consequences on what these mean for Pakistan and the rest of the world, especially India, this volume could have been more interesting.
It has taken a long time for the US to “see Pakistan as a deceitful partner”, states Bruce Riedel in the ‘Foreword’. While there is no easy answer to the question as to what the future holds for Pakistan and the rest of the world, it is still a useful addition to literature on this important subject. Whether the events in the near future will push Pakistan over the edge — edge being variously defined (at the minimum as another military takeover, and at maximum as the break up of the state) — is no longer the thinking only of the so-called Pakistan-bashers but also its well-wishers. The difficulty, as rightly pointed out by Cohen, is that while its capacities are limited its “ambitions are too great”. The all-powerful army finds it difficult to get down from its high horse and the Frankenstein it has created in the jihadi infrastructure refuses to back down. It continues to flaunt its muscles to bully its eastern neighbour because it is convinced that “India understands only the language of force”.
Unfortunately, “India bashers” like Christine Fair has little hesitation in putting the blame on Delhi. According to her, “India for its part is appallingly short-sighted. India demurs from making any policies towards Pakistan that may be conciliatory.” It is time such scholars realise that giving in to Pakistan’s demands under threat of jihadi terrorism will only embolden Islamabad to make more impossible demands. She would do well to read some of the most recent anti-India speeches of Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed and other extremist leaders who enjoy popular support in Pakistan. Their target is not just Jammu & Kashmir but the Indian Union. Even Steve Coll makes the similar mistake when he says that Kashmir is at the root of the problem, exhorting the outside power to bring about a settlement.
Identity crisis that Pakistan has been struggling with right from its birth has only worsened. The India bogey and the jihad against Jews, Americans and Hindus are a clever ruse by the venal ruling oligarchy to maintain its hold over power. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. This is not to say that India should not continue its dialogue with Pakistan and do all it can to reassure Islamabad that Delhi holds no animosity towards it, as security expert B Raman, one of the contributors, states.
Unfortunately, “Pakistan’s India-focused security concerns will continue to provide a powerful driver for its geopolitical behaviour, including its not so deniable support to radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan,” says Aqil Shah. He, however, does not say the obvious that Pakistan has become the epicentre of Jihadi terrorism across the world. Cohen quotes one of the Pakistani scholars residing in Britain, Farzana Sheikh, saying that the problems of a “country on the brink” or “failed state” will not go away unless the army reviews its policies. Pakistan’s problems stem from its very origin and that its identity has never been clear nor has consensus been developed on the purpose of the state.
The trends where Pakistan is heading are clear. There is no evidence to suggest that these are likely to change in the foreseeable future. The world has to ensure that it is not allowed to continue on this disastrous path. Sidestepping the issues will neither help Pakistan nor the rest of the world. This book — like Cohen’s earlier ones — should be a compulsory reading for all interested in Pakistan and its army.
The reviewer, a retired IPS officer, is former Governor of Jharkhand and Manipur
0 #1 Roucheforte 2012-03-11 04:10
All organisms, that is, until they are able to evolve more deep insights and thought, are fundamentally programmed to self-preservation. We may not expect others to act in altruism or with inspired insight and intelligence, but beyond the lobbies, beyond the material allures etc., at the very core of the biological programme is self-preservation. It is very apparent where our neighbour intends to take itself and the rest of the world, terrorism of the kind that we are witnessing is not new, look back at Timur and Ghazni, or even in the conquest of Persia, the methods are the same, the strategies the same, the goals the same, and the cruelty and decisiveness of the perpetrators and the clumsiness and foggy indecision of the victims the same. The question is why India has not been able to communicate the existential threat, backed by clear contemporary evidence and historical patterns, to the world at large?
0 #2 Roucheforte 2012-03-11 04:18
There are compromised individuals, who have provided advocacy for our errant neighbour, the reasons for their being compromised may be many, some driven by a fuzzy pseudo-intellectual haze at the cost of the real processes of history and dynamics of power, some because they are compromised more directly by various failings, including being prey to inducements. That is to be expected, the dynamics of power, political economy, social ideologies that sustain or thwart societies from achieving various aims, intrigue etc. are all a part of history. The question, is why, have we been found wanting in communicating the existential threat to the world at large directly at the level of their self-preservation instincts? Why have we been historically ambivalent for the larger part, hoping somehow to avoid responsibility and ensure survivability when knowing that in doing so we imperil our own existence and achieve precious else always and every time?
#3 Krishan 2012-03-11 12:34
Every American is NOT a friend of India. Every American is not a friend of Israel, either. But unlike Indians, Israelis are not timid and use every lever they have to expose him/her. Should Indians be concerned about the welfare of Pakistan - a country which has given nothing but misery to India from the day it was given by the British on a platter to Muslim League Leadership? Jews do not feel concerned about the welfare of Nazis, why should Indians feel concerned about Pakistan? The sooner it disintegrates, the better for the peace in the world.
Also read Air Cdre. Jasjit Singh's article on IAF where he writes that TSP tested their bomb in 1983 and were going to occupy Siachen and got pre-empted by India.
And until 1998, TSP was the only power to have tested nukes. And its terrorism expanded without controls and egged on by tacit US silence and pressure on India.