‘US involvement key to normal Indo-Pak ties’

Stephen P. Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, was the other day most tellingly described by one of his s...

Stephen P. Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, was the other day most tellingly described by one of his students as Mr South Asian Security Affairs by a former student. Author of seminal works on the Indian and Pakistani armies and most recently India: Emerging Power, he is now working on a book on the future of Pakistan. He spoke to Mini Kapoor in New Delhi. Excerpts from an interview:

You’ve written that Indo-US relations have been traditionally marred by “inflated expectations”. Has that changed somewhat in recent years?
I think the expectations have actually gone up, but they are more realistic expectations. But developments have changed the relationship so that you are not going to get fluctuations — there will always be differences in interests between the US and India. But there are some factors which have changed the relationship in a permanent way, as permanent as these things are. One, the prospect of Indian economic growth. A lot of American companies look at India very carefully and they no longer dismiss it as out of hand, especially in the software sector. But this is going to depend on the rate of Indian liberalisation and the degree to which India becomes part of the international economy. That’s a factor in India’s hands. No president is going to conduct policy which runs against the interests of American companies, unless there are compelling reasons.

Second, there is the realisation that there are a lot of common strategic interests. The most common interest is stability. India’s democracy is now seen as a contributing factor to stability. If India can be a democracy, anyone can be a democracy, including the Middle East. Beyond that, India has a potential as peacekeeper. I could see times and places where there could be a ‘coalition of the willing’ where two or three countries see things similarly and conduct a joint strategic operation, military or otherwise — in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, where there are historic Indian interests. Third, there’s the growth of the Indian-American community, and they were seen by Bill Clinton and then George Bush as a domestic side to the Indian relationship.

Story continues below this ad

How do you react to the anti-American, Islamist vote in Pakistan’s elections?
I think this puts Pervez Musharraf right between the extreme Islamists and the Americans. I think we have to see if political power moderates some of the Islamist groups, particularly the Jamaat-i-Islami. We’ve always argued for constitutional means. This is going to be the real test for Musharraf, whether he can temperate, moderate these parties while still meeting the demands of international community with regard to terrorism. I could see the American military pulling out of Afghanistan, we might find other ways of supporting operations there. What I think would be unacceptable, and very dangerous, would be revival of Taliban activities from Pakistan. I suspect Musharraf knows that.

Some say this anti-American sentiment can be to his advantage.
I think that the test is going to be if they revive operations in Afghanistan — and then that becomes unacceptable to the Afghan government and to a lot of countries that are interested in salvaging Afghanistan — and if they revive or increase operations against India. That, of course, means India will put pressure on him.

For him, the real issue is going to be domestic extremism, sectarianism, and if he can contain that. If he can’t contain that, he’s going to be swept away as that’s going to be unacceptable to a lot of Pakistanis.

Is the army behind General Musharraf?
I haven’t been to Pakistan for six months, I do not know. I would assume so, but the army itself does not like to see sectarianism as it affects the army itself. It will be interesting to see how he manages these — the Americans in Afghanistan, the Indians in Kashmir and his own people in terms of sectarian violence.

Story continues below this ad

There is a perceptible consolidation of extremist elements in Afghanistan of late. Do the Americans need to shore up their operations in Afghanistan?
That’s one reason I’m concerned about the Americans getting involved in Iraq. Then we’d sort of lose interest in South Asia — Afghanistan would drift away, Pakistan would go its own way. I think we need to finish the job here, or at least manage it, before taking on the Iraqis. I’m in favour of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but I’m also in favour of addressing terrorism in America — we’ve got people in fear in Washington — and also in South Asia. I’ve argued that if Pakistan were to turn into a real base for terrorism then it would much more dangerous for everybody than simply Afghanistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, it interfaces a lot of regions.

The US and India have a common interest here. We don’t want to push Pakistan over the edge. On the other hand, it’s hard for India to tolerate a Pakistan which is slowly bleeding India to death. I think that’s a new area for common strategy — it’s common between India, America and moderate Pakistanis.

Would you say the government in Delhi has the political space to deal with Pakistan?
I think they do, and they’ve reacquired a degree of authority by conducting free elections in Kashmir.

Where do you stand on the current debate on pre-emptive strikes?
All countries have used pre-emptive strikes, when there’s been compelling national interest you strike early before you are hit. That’s been part of American policy from day one. If we strike against Iraq it’s not going to be a surprise to anybody, we’ve been criticising this guy for a long time. I personally think it was the Clinton administration that allowed him to escape from international arms inspections. Now we are making up for lost ground. But again, I wouldn’t want to go into Iraq, get bogged down there and have Afghanistan or Pakistan explode.

Story continues below this ad

Talking of sticking around in the region, is there a commitment in Washington to keeping the peace in the subcontinent?
Here, there was a major change of policy in June when Secretary of State Colin Powell said we would address the deeper India-Pakistan relationship. That’s the first time an American official has said that since 1963. Whether they will stick around or not, I don’t know, but clearly that role would be welcomed now for India and Pakistan. We have pretty good relations with both countries. I don’t think there is going to be a normal India-Pakistan relationship unless there is outside involvement.