This is a great book by Stephen Cohen “The Idea of Pakistan”
India never accepted Pakistan: Cohen
By Khalid Hasan
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-11-2004_pg7_41
WASHINGTON: One reason for Pakistan’s difficulties lies in the fact that India never accepted Pakistan, and vice versa. Another factor was the early death of the country’s founder, according to Stephen Cohen, who has often been described as the “doyen” of America’s South Asia experts.
In an interview published this week in India Abroad, a New York-based paper, Cohen, who is head of the South Asia programme at the Brookings Institution, says, “The idea (of Pakistan) was contentious, but it does not mean Pakistan cannot evolve, and even by going back to its original idea, as a lot of it is compatible with a secular, democratic India and even with Afghanistan,” he argues. He fears that a major war with India will go nuclear and in the event of a defeat, Pakistan in keeping with its history, could change dramatically. However, he does not foresee a war with India on a major scale that could turn nuclear.
Cohen, who has just published a book on Pakistan – The Idea of Pakistan – answering a question said that had he believed that Pakistan was a “lost cause,” he would have written a different sort of book. He said he disagrees with Jaswant Singh who says that Pakistan is “Taliban East or Taliban West”. He said there was “space for a moderate and progressive Pakistan at peace with its neighbours and not just India, but also Afghanistan,” which he sees as “as big a problem as India is in some ways.” He said it was the “last opportunity” for the United States to help Pakistan become a moderate and progressive state. He also argued that if “India and Pakistan agree on a series of measures, the US is irrelevant.” He said “so much of Pakistan’s identity is wrapped up in India that India has tremendous leverage in that country. If India decides it will manage Pakistan in a way which suits its interest but also was compatible with that of the Pakistani leadership, the US has no role to play. That will be great.”
Cohen believes that President Musharraf has “broadened the range of the debate” on relations with India “especially on Kashmir and the idea of Pakistan.” He has spoken about issues “more than perhaps any other Pakistan leader has in recent years,” he adds. He does not agree with those who maintain that Gen. Musharraf is “the only game in town” as far as the US is concerned. According to him, “Nobody should put all their bets on Musharraf. But he has shown movement in his views. I know some things he is saying about Kashmir, he said a number of years ago privately. I welcome that. The fact he feels he can say these things publicly is good in terms of alternative solutions to Kashmir. That’s the right direction.”
Cohen, however, is not supportive of the President in some other respects. According to him, “What is wrong with his (Musharraf’s) notion that Pakistan can be run like the army. That will not work. The first time I met him after the coup – I had known him earlier – I strongly advised him to reset Pakistan’s priorities, straighten out the rascals but let politicians take over. He should do that. I don’t think the army can run the country, but it’s an oligarchy. Pakistan is not a democracy. It has to move, step by step, in that direction.” He is of the view that the army should withdraw gradually from the country’s political scene, but for that to happen, the country’s security will need to be stabilised. That can be done by normalisation with India, to which he adds, “But I don’t think the army us going to get out of politics.” He argues that while stabilising Pakistan’s external relationship is necessary, it is not a “sufficient condition”. He considers it ironic that while the civilians cannot do so without the army, the army has to come first. “But I hope the army will move as quickly as it can to reduce its role domestically in running the economy,” he adds.
Cohen considers Nawaz Sharif a “catastrophe” in his second term. “He was becoming a dictator. I don’t blame the army for many of Pakistan’s ills. It’s really as much in the hands of civilians.” He calls Benazir Bhutto a “tragic figure” who did a lot of things right and liberalised the press and began to transform Pakistan in some ways. “But she allowed family loyalties to override her good political judgments. She claims – and she is correct – that she never got a chance to govern because the military kept intervening. But she provided the army with the opportunity to do that. She carries some responsibility,” he adds.
