08-08-2006, 09:43 PM
Pakistan Army uses fundamentalists,but scorns them, says Cohen
WASHINGTON: âThe fundamentalists are not really that strong in Pakistan; the army has contempt for them, but uses them. A restored democracy would put them â and the Army â in their respective places, but thatâs a big leap across a chasm, and at least in the US, people are risk-averse to regime change,â said Stephen Cohen.
The South Asia expert Rolling Eyes, who heads the South Asia programme at the Brookings Institution, told Indian journalist Harinder Baweja that Gen Musharraf has delivered to the Americans âjust what he has to in order to keep the relationship moving aheadâ.
Pakistan, he said, has tremendous leverage over the US, so it can pursue policies which are definitely not in the US interest â or Pakistanâs for that matter. Asked if it would make sense for Musharraf to give up the army uniform and what its impact might be, Cohen replied that Gen Musharraf ought to give up the uniform and, as the politicians fill the vacuum, and withdraw further.
This can be a slow process, but it has to begin and it has to move continuously. He stressed that this will also depend on the quality of the politicians who hope to supplant the army. The army believes, with some justification, that the politicians would prefer the army in power to a political rival.
Cohen said that Gen Musharraf is in very good shape, as none of the party leaders seems to be eager to take to the street in protest against him. However, this could change quickly in the next year, especially if elections are thought to be âover-riggedâ. Asked how serious the threat to the life of the Pakistan president was, he replied that Musharraf is well protected, while pointing out that he has moved Pakistanâs position on Kashmir a great distance â without any apparent Indian response â and he has allowed a degree of press and political freedom that is apparent.
Asked how far the Pakistani leader could be pushed on âcross-border terrorismâ, Cohen said, âThe big question is whether Pakistan can do more. We are in trouble if they are doing this, we are in greater trouble if they cannot prevent some of the terrorist groups from operating on their soil. Certainly, there have been many documented cases of where they have averted their eyes.â
He said there are elements in Pakistan which would like to derail the peace process. India could theoretically finish off the issue by accommodating Kashmiri interests. He wasnât sure whether it was too late for a grand reconciliation in Kashmir. The Mufti Mohammed Sayyed government had moved in this direction, but it is a process that is easy to subvert, and is tied up with larger Islamic movements, and, <span style='color:red'>most dangerously, with non-Kashmiri Indian Muslim grievances. Question
</span><i>
Indian Muslims in UP and Delhi are playing with the kashmir movement to keep their grievences alive and noticed.</i>
To the question if peace with India is possible without a significant structural change in the Pakistani polity, state-society and military-society relations, Cohen replied that there are enough sensible people in Pakistan now and the two states can reach an accommodation on a wide range of issues. He added that India seems to be in no mood to offer any concessions, and some Indians would prefer to see Pakistan become âa lesser stateâ.
The Pakistanis also are divided between doves and hawks, he pointed out. The situation remains critical, one atrocity away from another crisis, and these crises can get out of control very quickly.
Cohen was of the view that the hardliners want to disrupt the India-Pakistan peace process, but in order to isolate the hardliners in Kashmir, India would require assistance from Pakistan. â<span style='color:red'>I do see some movement in this direction, but the hardliners want to disrupt this process â hence the blasts,â he added. Asked if the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is an âindependent entity,â Cohen said the ISI is a branch of the Pakistan government. It does what it is told to do, and many of its members are professionals.</span>
<i>He is lying.</i>
<span style='color:red'>
However, what is often most problematic are the âalumniâ of these organisations, those who used to be in intelligence or covert services but have gone off and joined the very groups that they used to direct. Thereâs not a lot of evidence to support this theory in Pakistan, but there are elements that are not under the governmentâs control, he said. </span>
khalid hasan
WASHINGTON: âThe fundamentalists are not really that strong in Pakistan; the army has contempt for them, but uses them. A restored democracy would put them â and the Army â in their respective places, but thatâs a big leap across a chasm, and at least in the US, people are risk-averse to regime change,â said Stephen Cohen.
The South Asia expert Rolling Eyes, who heads the South Asia programme at the Brookings Institution, told Indian journalist Harinder Baweja that Gen Musharraf has delivered to the Americans âjust what he has to in order to keep the relationship moving aheadâ.
Pakistan, he said, has tremendous leverage over the US, so it can pursue policies which are definitely not in the US interest â or Pakistanâs for that matter. Asked if it would make sense for Musharraf to give up the army uniform and what its impact might be, Cohen replied that Gen Musharraf ought to give up the uniform and, as the politicians fill the vacuum, and withdraw further.
This can be a slow process, but it has to begin and it has to move continuously. He stressed that this will also depend on the quality of the politicians who hope to supplant the army. The army believes, with some justification, that the politicians would prefer the army in power to a political rival.
Cohen said that Gen Musharraf is in very good shape, as none of the party leaders seems to be eager to take to the street in protest against him. However, this could change quickly in the next year, especially if elections are thought to be âover-riggedâ. Asked how serious the threat to the life of the Pakistan president was, he replied that Musharraf is well protected, while pointing out that he has moved Pakistanâs position on Kashmir a great distance â without any apparent Indian response â and he has allowed a degree of press and political freedom that is apparent.
Asked how far the Pakistani leader could be pushed on âcross-border terrorismâ, Cohen said, âThe big question is whether Pakistan can do more. We are in trouble if they are doing this, we are in greater trouble if they cannot prevent some of the terrorist groups from operating on their soil. Certainly, there have been many documented cases of where they have averted their eyes.â
He said there are elements in Pakistan which would like to derail the peace process. India could theoretically finish off the issue by accommodating Kashmiri interests. He wasnât sure whether it was too late for a grand reconciliation in Kashmir. The Mufti Mohammed Sayyed government had moved in this direction, but it is a process that is easy to subvert, and is tied up with larger Islamic movements, and, <span style='color:red'>most dangerously, with non-Kashmiri Indian Muslim grievances. Question
</span><i>
Indian Muslims in UP and Delhi are playing with the kashmir movement to keep their grievences alive and noticed.</i>
To the question if peace with India is possible without a significant structural change in the Pakistani polity, state-society and military-society relations, Cohen replied that there are enough sensible people in Pakistan now and the two states can reach an accommodation on a wide range of issues. He added that India seems to be in no mood to offer any concessions, and some Indians would prefer to see Pakistan become âa lesser stateâ.
The Pakistanis also are divided between doves and hawks, he pointed out. The situation remains critical, one atrocity away from another crisis, and these crises can get out of control very quickly.
Cohen was of the view that the hardliners want to disrupt the India-Pakistan peace process, but in order to isolate the hardliners in Kashmir, India would require assistance from Pakistan. â<span style='color:red'>I do see some movement in this direction, but the hardliners want to disrupt this process â hence the blasts,â he added. Asked if the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is an âindependent entity,â Cohen said the ISI is a branch of the Pakistan government. It does what it is told to do, and many of its members are professionals.</span>
<i>He is lying.</i>
<span style='color:red'>
However, what is often most problematic are the âalumniâ of these organisations, those who used to be in intelligence or covert services but have gone off and joined the very groups that they used to direct. Thereâs not a lot of evidence to support this theory in Pakistan, but there are elements that are not under the governmentâs control, he said. </span>
khalid hasan