Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Hussain Haqqani just released second book,Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding is a searing critique of the dysfunctional relationship between Washington and Islamabad. The book has earned rave reviews for the candor with which Haqqani explains this dysfunction, sparing no one -- not even Americans who have made one mistake after another in dealing with an errant state. It has also made him a persona non grata in Pakistan with no immediate prospect of his return to a country where he is on the hit-list, not the best-seller list. Here, Haqqani explains to foreign editor Chidanand Rajghatta where he is coming from and where he is headed:
Q: The candor with which you have written this book... could you and did you express such views while you were in office as an ambassador?
A: Of course, at the operational level one chooses one's words carefully as an ambassador than as an author. But those who saw me work as an ambassador know that I tried to be as candid as possible. I am a firm believer in the need for Pakistan to overcome its contrived narratives. We cannot make progress without first recognizing the past, forget about confronting the past. Benazir Bhutto's vision for Pakistan, when she went back, was to exorcise past demons, change the culture of political confrontation, bring the jihadi menace to an end, open good relations with India, and help Pakistan realize its potential as a nation instead of being in constant fear of being eliminated.
I fully agreed with that vision and I was supposed to be the man who carried out the America-Pakistan part of that makeover.
Q: This is the same Benazir Bhutto who allowed the jihad to proceed unhindered and the same Hussain Haqqani who was part of the Jamiat at one time? Was this an evolutionary process?
A: Mohamed Ali Jinnah was the same Jinnah who was called ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. People evolve through experience. Politics also has its own constraints. India has many leaders who have wanted to give far more than they have been able to accomplish. Journalists always tend to remember who said what when. The march of history always moves forward. Things change. In my case, there is a clear trajectory. I may not have been able to understand the internal dynamics of the Islamist-Military alliance if I was not in Jamiat as a young man. Similarly Benazir Bhutto would not have understood many of the things she realized about Pakistan's structural issues if she was not persecuted the way she was by the military establishment.
Q: Who in the Pakistani military and political establishment gets this? Does Gen Kiyani understand the need to change the false narrative?
A: I can't name names of who gets it. I would say a lot more people get it in private than are willing to concede in public. Sometimes the dynamics of power are such that people recognize a problem but they do not want to acknowledge it. I think more and more people within the military are starting to recognize that the jihadi menace could devour Pakistan.
Q: Does this involve also overcoming Pakistan's India-centrism?
A: Many things. Pakistan cannot forever live as a nation that takes arms from America to confront India. At some point we have to have good relations with our neighbors. Right now the U.S-Pak relations is mostly about aid and arms. It should be about trade and investment. General Motors and General Electric should matter more than General Dempsey and General Kayani.
Q: Your book is also unsparing about American policy makers who have fed this Pakistani delusion - several of them were in the audience when you were critiquing this policy.
A: Foreign policy making is always complex. And when you are at different levels of making it you look at it differently. When you are at first secretary your ability to influence policy is different from when you are an ambassador which is different from when you are foreign secretary and then the foreign minister and so on. So circumstances change. I think a lot more Americans now agree with my analysis (of not feeding and pandering to Pakistani delusions) than when I first started making the same analysis about ten years ago.
Q: Speaking of delusions, you were talking about a Punjab university professor who has written about the United States planting microchips in the brains of Pakistanis ...
A: Yes, these are the kinds of people Pakistan is producing. Trying to forge nationhood by encouraging bigotry and prejudice always backfires. Nationalism should be based on positive ideals not on fear and hatred of others.
Q: But the military-mosque alliance you talk about seem to be the vocal majority controlling the narrative. Look at the way they have now fined Pakistan TV channels which are supposed to have excessive Indian content. How does one reverse this?
A: In many nations, narratives that have taken hold have been reversed. The narrative in Japan before 1945 was one of militarism and conquest. It changed. Circumstances will make Pakistan change the narrative too. We will have to embrace pluralism.
Q. How do you convince a Pakistani mind that believes the country's founding father fought for a country on the basis of religion and exclusivism?
A: I think Pakistan cannot remain isolated. When the rest of the world discusses Pakistan and recognizes the need for a pluralistic Pakistan, it will slowly seep into Pakistan. If it doesn't then Pakistan risks international isolation and that will have its own consequences. When I was a young man I could travel to England without a visa. Now Pakistanis cannot even go to Sri Lanka. Pakistanis have to recognize that their global stature is becoming less and less. If the hardliners gain further momentum and take over the state...
Q: You don't think that has already happened.
A: If that happens then Pakistan will be like Iran without oil.
If hardliners take over, Pakistan will be like Iran without oil: Hussain Haqqani - The Times of India
Here comes another shit from traitor slave of USA and India
Q: The candor with which you have written this book... could you and did you express such views while you were in office as an ambassador?
A: Of course, at the operational level one chooses one's words carefully as an ambassador than as an author. But those who saw me work as an ambassador know that I tried to be as candid as possible. I am a firm believer in the need for Pakistan to overcome its contrived narratives. We cannot make progress without first recognizing the past, forget about confronting the past. Benazir Bhutto's vision for Pakistan, when she went back, was to exorcise past demons, change the culture of political confrontation, bring the jihadi menace to an end, open good relations with India, and help Pakistan realize its potential as a nation instead of being in constant fear of being eliminated.
I fully agreed with that vision and I was supposed to be the man who carried out the America-Pakistan part of that makeover.
Q: This is the same Benazir Bhutto who allowed the jihad to proceed unhindered and the same Hussain Haqqani who was part of the Jamiat at one time? Was this an evolutionary process?
A: Mohamed Ali Jinnah was the same Jinnah who was called ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. People evolve through experience. Politics also has its own constraints. India has many leaders who have wanted to give far more than they have been able to accomplish. Journalists always tend to remember who said what when. The march of history always moves forward. Things change. In my case, there is a clear trajectory. I may not have been able to understand the internal dynamics of the Islamist-Military alliance if I was not in Jamiat as a young man. Similarly Benazir Bhutto would not have understood many of the things she realized about Pakistan's structural issues if she was not persecuted the way she was by the military establishment.
Q: Who in the Pakistani military and political establishment gets this? Does Gen Kiyani understand the need to change the false narrative?
A: I can't name names of who gets it. I would say a lot more people get it in private than are willing to concede in public. Sometimes the dynamics of power are such that people recognize a problem but they do not want to acknowledge it. I think more and more people within the military are starting to recognize that the jihadi menace could devour Pakistan.
Q: Does this involve also overcoming Pakistan's India-centrism?
A: Many things. Pakistan cannot forever live as a nation that takes arms from America to confront India. At some point we have to have good relations with our neighbors. Right now the U.S-Pak relations is mostly about aid and arms. It should be about trade and investment. General Motors and General Electric should matter more than General Dempsey and General Kayani.
Q: Your book is also unsparing about American policy makers who have fed this Pakistani delusion - several of them were in the audience when you were critiquing this policy.
A: Foreign policy making is always complex. And when you are at different levels of making it you look at it differently. When you are at first secretary your ability to influence policy is different from when you are an ambassador which is different from when you are foreign secretary and then the foreign minister and so on. So circumstances change. I think a lot more Americans now agree with my analysis (of not feeding and pandering to Pakistani delusions) than when I first started making the same analysis about ten years ago.
Q: Speaking of delusions, you were talking about a Punjab university professor who has written about the United States planting microchips in the brains of Pakistanis ...
A: Yes, these are the kinds of people Pakistan is producing. Trying to forge nationhood by encouraging bigotry and prejudice always backfires. Nationalism should be based on positive ideals not on fear and hatred of others.
Q: But the military-mosque alliance you talk about seem to be the vocal majority controlling the narrative. Look at the way they have now fined Pakistan TV channels which are supposed to have excessive Indian content. How does one reverse this?
A: In many nations, narratives that have taken hold have been reversed. The narrative in Japan before 1945 was one of militarism and conquest. It changed. Circumstances will make Pakistan change the narrative too. We will have to embrace pluralism.
Q. How do you convince a Pakistani mind that believes the country's founding father fought for a country on the basis of religion and exclusivism?
A: I think Pakistan cannot remain isolated. When the rest of the world discusses Pakistan and recognizes the need for a pluralistic Pakistan, it will slowly seep into Pakistan. If it doesn't then Pakistan risks international isolation and that will have its own consequences. When I was a young man I could travel to England without a visa. Now Pakistanis cannot even go to Sri Lanka. Pakistanis have to recognize that their global stature is becoming less and less. If the hardliners gain further momentum and take over the state...
Q: You don't think that has already happened.
A: If that happens then Pakistan will be like Iran without oil.
If hardliners take over, Pakistan will be like Iran without oil: Hussain Haqqani - The Times of India
Here comes another shit from traitor slave of USA and India
![[Bregs]](/data/avatars/m/148/148509.jpg?1491816884){kind=avatar}
