What do you think?
Rate this book
Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum
The rivalry between India and Pakistan has proven to be one of the world's most intractable international conflicts, ever since 1947 when the British botched their departure from the South Asian subcontinent. And the enmity is likely to continue foranother thirty-five years, reaching the century mark. This has critical implications for both countries and the rest of the world. Renowned South Asia expert Stephen P. Cohen explains why he expects this rivalry to continue in this first comprehensive survey of thedeep historical, cultural, and strategic differences that underpin the hostility.In recent years the stakes have increased as India and Pakistan have each acquired a hundred or more nuclear weapons, blundered into several serious crises, and become victims of terrorism, some of it from across their borders. America is puzzled by the problem of dealing with a rising India and a struggling Pakistan, and Cohen offers a fresh approach for U.S. policy in dealing with these two powers.Drawing on his rich experience in South Asia to explore the character, depth, and origin of Indian and Pakistani attitudes toward each other, Cohen develops a comprehensive theory of why the dispute between New Delhi and Islamabad is likely to persist. He alsodescribes the terrible cost of this animosity for the citizens of India and Pakistan, including the region's high levels of violence and low level of economic integration. On a more hopeful note, however, he goes on to suggest developments that could ameliorate the tension, including a more active role for the UnitedStates in addressing a range of issues that divide the nations. Kashmir is one of these issues, but as much aconsequence as a cause of the rivalry.Can India and Pakistan resolve their many territorial and identity issues? Perhaps the best they can expect in the near term is a limited degree of normalization, including bottom-up ideas generated by the peace and business communities, as well as a realisticassessment by strategic elites of the two states' shared common interests.Right now, full normalization seems unlikely, Cohen writes in the preface, so this book is suffused with conditional pessimism: normalization would be desirable, but there are worse futures than a projection of the present rivalry for another thirty years or more.
259 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2013
10 people are currently reading
243 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Philip Cohen
22 books41 followersStephen Philip Cohen is an American political scientist. He is a prominent expert on Pakistan, India, and South Asian security. He is a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has authored, co-authored or edited at least 12 books, has been named as one of America's 500 most influential people in foreign affairs, and is a fixture on radio and television talk shows. [wikipedia]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 18, 2021
If you're looking for a pithy and to-the-point summation of one of the modern world's longest-lasting rivalries, look no further. One of Professor Cohen's little tongue-in-cheek observations is that several American Presidents have taken it upon themselves to try and solve the India-Pakistan conflict, perhaps with visions of a Nobel Peace Prize dancing before their eyes. In the end, they go on to try and deal with something simple, like the Arab-Israeli struggle. This is one of those international problems that simply refuses to go away, and the causes are many: culture, territorial conflict, a long memory of real and perceived insults and defeats, religion, etc. Add a healthy dose of nuclear weapons, mutual proxy warfare and plenty of nationalist rhetoric and you have a situation that keeps people up at night, not least in the two countries involved. Cohen points out that the difference between the antagonists would seem to play heavily into India's hand, and Pakistan's weaknesses other than military place it almost in the "failed state" category; a struggle that Pakistan can't win and India can't lose. And while some Indians might be willing to simply wait until Pakistan's "inevitable" collapse takes place, Cohen is probably right to point out that Pakistan is "too nuclear to fail." Are there chances for the situation ameliorating? No, probably not, but work can be done to keep it from getting much worse.
September 12, 2013
Can India and Pakistan ever reconcile and move towards peace? The author has tried to answer this intractable conflict which he maintains is almost as bad as the Israel-Palestine issue!
Why in his opinion in our communications age of almost transparent people to people contact is the hate not disappearing? It could only mean that the people of both countries are susceptible to their respective countless propaganda which is stopping the relations from getting better.
He starts by establishing the context of the conflict. There were three forces vying for power in pre-partition India, the nationalist Congress, nationalist Muslim League and the separatist leaning Independent states, who never wanted to merge either with India or Pakistan. Cohen makes an important observation which as a Pakistani I can vouch for, 'important stories (of the great Partition) of members of both communities who helped and rescued members of different faiths are mostly undocumented. The great authors and cultural figures who recognised and opposed Partition to unmentioned. Even official history projects in both countries pay little attention to these stories and are devoted mainly to building national solidarity around negative distrust or hatred of another religious or ethnic community.' This atmosphere of mutual hate has created a strong prejudice against one another. Cohen makes very astute observations, India has taken the mantle of the Raj dominance, while Pakistan has adopted a defensive Israel like stance. While India shuns outside interference in this regards, Pakistan cultivates it actively. In fact Pakistan is expert in lobbying its defensive position, constantly reminding anyone who listens of its vulnerability and strategic position.
Cohen cites three major reasons for the animosity between India and Pakistan, water, Kashmir and Siachin, with no real tangible progress being made on either of the three issues. The only resolution achieved was on Rann of Kutch.
So what prevents India and Pakistan from peace? Cohen presents six reasons:-
Insecure and distrustful relationship.
Both sides threatened for their identities.
Time, both are sure that in time other will collapse.
Both act as victims.
Both feel morally superior to the other.
Inability to rely on outsiders to solve the impasse.
Overall Cohen is pretty pessimistic that any normalisation of relations can happen by 2047, but his last chapter is an appeal to the US government to be more proactive about initiating some meaningful dialogue between the two archaic enemies.
Why in his opinion in our communications age of almost transparent people to people contact is the hate not disappearing? It could only mean that the people of both countries are susceptible to their respective countless propaganda which is stopping the relations from getting better.
He starts by establishing the context of the conflict. There were three forces vying for power in pre-partition India, the nationalist Congress, nationalist Muslim League and the separatist leaning Independent states, who never wanted to merge either with India or Pakistan. Cohen makes an important observation which as a Pakistani I can vouch for, 'important stories (of the great Partition) of members of both communities who helped and rescued members of different faiths are mostly undocumented. The great authors and cultural figures who recognised and opposed Partition to unmentioned. Even official history projects in both countries pay little attention to these stories and are devoted mainly to building national solidarity around negative distrust or hatred of another religious or ethnic community.' This atmosphere of mutual hate has created a strong prejudice against one another. Cohen makes very astute observations, India has taken the mantle of the Raj dominance, while Pakistan has adopted a defensive Israel like stance. While India shuns outside interference in this regards, Pakistan cultivates it actively. In fact Pakistan is expert in lobbying its defensive position, constantly reminding anyone who listens of its vulnerability and strategic position.
Cohen cites three major reasons for the animosity between India and Pakistan, water, Kashmir and Siachin, with no real tangible progress being made on either of the three issues. The only resolution achieved was on Rann of Kutch.
So what prevents India and Pakistan from peace? Cohen presents six reasons:-
Insecure and distrustful relationship.
Both sides threatened for their identities.
Time, both are sure that in time other will collapse.
Both act as victims.
Both feel morally superior to the other.
Inability to rely on outsiders to solve the impasse.
Overall Cohen is pretty pessimistic that any normalisation of relations can happen by 2047, but his last chapter is an appeal to the US government to be more proactive about initiating some meaningful dialogue between the two archaic enemies.
September 27, 2013
The brilliance of Cohen clearly in evidence. Perhaps the most incisive analyses of Indo-Pak relations. Cohen also suggests the way forward and it is a plausible one. He is concerned that "For many decades India and Pakistan have been moving in the wrong direction- digging the hole deeper, talking more about insecurity than about opportunity". Despite the problems in Pakistan, he wants India to indulge because "if your neighbours house is on fire, isn't it in your interest to help put out the fire".
September 16, 2018
Daughters of the Raj
An excellent analysis and background description of political stresses between India and Pakistan, though one that often skims over technical details. Cohen begins with a map of South East Asia showing the administrative boundaries that existed on the eve of Partion on August 15, 1947. Exacerbated by wide spread violence and a massive population exchange, Pakistan (both East and West) staked its identity on being a secular Muslim state and India, primarily Hindu, was (mostly) secular and democratic.
The one major success in diplomatic relations between the two countries has been the Indus Basin Water treaty where instead of fighting over water resources, per the suggestions of the World Bank, the focus has been on managing and increasing the supply. Kashmir and Jammu are, taken together, form a major territorial point of contention. Resource rich and naturally beautiful it is mostly Muslim and contiguous to Pakistan, though it is also the ancestral homeland of both the Gandhi and Nehru dynasties and contains Hindu and Buddhist minorities. The issue of minority rights is a focal point - Kashmir as a Muslim minority in a sea of Hindus and local Hindus and Buddhists within a pool of Muslims. Cohen outlines possible resolutions however the default consensus is to muddle through using the "Line of Control", based on the 1972 Simla ceasefire agreement, which acts as the de facto border between the two states. However Kashmir dwindles in importance the further one gets from Delhi or Islamabad and local issues and identities take precedence.
Another indicator of problems is the low amount of direct trade amounting to $3B US/yr between the two, whereas Indian trade with China is $74B and Pakistani trade is $11B. But this doesn't take into account smuggling activities nor indirect trade via 3rd party shipping through ports of convenience such as Dubai. Often the transit is on paper only and the ships travel directly. Similarly Cohen finds that intra-regional telecomm traffic only amounts to 7% of the total communication going outside each country, vs. 71% for East Asia - people just aren't talking to each other.
Cohen labels India-Pakistan as typical of what he calls "Paired-Minority Conflicts" such as Israel/Palestine, Germany/France, Greece/Turkey and Tamil/Sinhalese where the minority of one or both groups is embedded in the other. Indians worry that Pakistan's passion for Kashmir sends a separatist message to other Indian Muslim majority states. The government therefore treads carefully with its 200 million Muslims so as not to encourage a 5th column. Pakistan sees itself as a small but tough Muslim David defending itself against a Hindu Goliath, fearing a second Bangladesh, such as might occur in Balouchistan. The army and intelligence services (ISI) are much more important than in India, Pakistan has had a strategy of trying to draw in outside support for their opposition against India, appealing to both national actors and NGOs. For the most part the Great Powers have shored up either one side or both in order to support their own regional goals and rivalries, but have wisely avoided entering the conflict on one side or the other.
In spite of their common history prior to Partition the overall cooperative spirit between the two countries is low, each taking pleasure in the misfortunes befalling the other. As one Indian analyst wagged, hoping to make it someone else's problem, Pakistan ought to be encouraged to become a Middle Eastern country, if it would temper its obsession with India. However now that Pakistan is a nuclear power, given the growth of Islamic terrorism and keeping the 2008 Mumbai attacks in mind, there is a growing realization that Pakistan must if necessary be allowed to flourish, if only because the potential cost of it falling apart may be too high to deal with.
An excellent read that teaches new ways of seeing international relations. 4.8*/5. Recommended!
An excellent analysis and background description of political stresses between India and Pakistan, though one that often skims over technical details. Cohen begins with a map of South East Asia showing the administrative boundaries that existed on the eve of Partion on August 15, 1947. Exacerbated by wide spread violence and a massive population exchange, Pakistan (both East and West) staked its identity on being a secular Muslim state and India, primarily Hindu, was (mostly) secular and democratic.
The one major success in diplomatic relations between the two countries has been the Indus Basin Water treaty where instead of fighting over water resources, per the suggestions of the World Bank, the focus has been on managing and increasing the supply. Kashmir and Jammu are, taken together, form a major territorial point of contention. Resource rich and naturally beautiful it is mostly Muslim and contiguous to Pakistan, though it is also the ancestral homeland of both the Gandhi and Nehru dynasties and contains Hindu and Buddhist minorities. The issue of minority rights is a focal point - Kashmir as a Muslim minority in a sea of Hindus and local Hindus and Buddhists within a pool of Muslims. Cohen outlines possible resolutions however the default consensus is to muddle through using the "Line of Control", based on the 1972 Simla ceasefire agreement, which acts as the de facto border between the two states. However Kashmir dwindles in importance the further one gets from Delhi or Islamabad and local issues and identities take precedence.
Another indicator of problems is the low amount of direct trade amounting to $3B US/yr between the two, whereas Indian trade with China is $74B and Pakistani trade is $11B. But this doesn't take into account smuggling activities nor indirect trade via 3rd party shipping through ports of convenience such as Dubai. Often the transit is on paper only and the ships travel directly. Similarly Cohen finds that intra-regional telecomm traffic only amounts to 7% of the total communication going outside each country, vs. 71% for East Asia - people just aren't talking to each other.
Cohen labels India-Pakistan as typical of what he calls "Paired-Minority Conflicts" such as Israel/Palestine, Germany/France, Greece/Turkey and Tamil/Sinhalese where the minority of one or both groups is embedded in the other. Indians worry that Pakistan's passion for Kashmir sends a separatist message to other Indian Muslim majority states. The government therefore treads carefully with its 200 million Muslims so as not to encourage a 5th column. Pakistan sees itself as a small but tough Muslim David defending itself against a Hindu Goliath, fearing a second Bangladesh, such as might occur in Balouchistan. The army and intelligence services (ISI) are much more important than in India, Pakistan has had a strategy of trying to draw in outside support for their opposition against India, appealing to both national actors and NGOs. For the most part the Great Powers have shored up either one side or both in order to support their own regional goals and rivalries, but have wisely avoided entering the conflict on one side or the other.
In spite of their common history prior to Partition the overall cooperative spirit between the two countries is low, each taking pleasure in the misfortunes befalling the other. As one Indian analyst wagged, hoping to make it someone else's problem, Pakistan ought to be encouraged to become a Middle Eastern country, if it would temper its obsession with India. However now that Pakistan is a nuclear power, given the growth of Islamic terrorism and keeping the 2008 Mumbai attacks in mind, there is a growing realization that Pakistan must if necessary be allowed to flourish, if only because the potential cost of it falling apart may be too high to deal with.
An excellent read that teaches new ways of seeing international relations. 4.8*/5. Recommended!
March 28, 2024
Reading a dated book on International Relations is great fun.
2013 this tome was penned. And it was penned by none other than a long-time, astute observer of South Asia Professor Cohen. The core plot point of this book is that even a century after partition, till 2047, there is little likelihood of any substantive change in the India-Pakistan relationship.
Terming the relationship as “paired minority conflict”, Cohen contends in this tome that the Indo-Pak bilateral differences remain implanted in culture, history and identity. There is little that is shocking or debatable in his analysis of the regional situation. Where he gets a tad carried away is in his sponsorship of policy options for Washington by advocating US efforts to promote India-Pakistan cooperation on Afghanistan and the need for the USA to give Pakistan a nuclear deal similar to the one it gave India. These policy options hardly follow from his analysis of the Pakistani malaise but from his own convictions and therefore lack the analytical heft that is the hallmark of the rest of the book.
Done and dusted Sir.
But what happened within a year of this book’s hitting the stands in 2014 was something that the author wouldn’t have been able to guess, without the powers of clairvoyance. In 2014, a certain Mr. Modi assumed the reins. Since then he has curved India into a strategic player with a decidedly operative foreign policy. Modi has done this by fluctuating India away from its old strategy of strict nonalignment, tiling the fashion for sturdier ties with great and middle-sized powers. Under his watch, India has incorporated the United States and its Indo-Pacific policy in an effort to poise a growing China and keep the region open and free from pressure.
Modi has also positively faced down his country's archrivals, Pakistan and China. In 2020, Modi instructed the Indian Army to stand its ground among lethal border clashes with China, and India even regained some lost territory. In 2019, after a Pakistan-based terrorist group's attack in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, India hit back in restrained fashion — indicating firmness while averting an acceleration of hostilities.
Remarkably, there have been no major terrorist attacks involving Pakistan-based groups since the incident.
2047 this book predicted? By 2047 India shall have scaled new global heights. Pakistan is not our trouble anymore.
2013 this tome was penned. And it was penned by none other than a long-time, astute observer of South Asia Professor Cohen. The core plot point of this book is that even a century after partition, till 2047, there is little likelihood of any substantive change in the India-Pakistan relationship.
Terming the relationship as “paired minority conflict”, Cohen contends in this tome that the Indo-Pak bilateral differences remain implanted in culture, history and identity. There is little that is shocking or debatable in his analysis of the regional situation. Where he gets a tad carried away is in his sponsorship of policy options for Washington by advocating US efforts to promote India-Pakistan cooperation on Afghanistan and the need for the USA to give Pakistan a nuclear deal similar to the one it gave India. These policy options hardly follow from his analysis of the Pakistani malaise but from his own convictions and therefore lack the analytical heft that is the hallmark of the rest of the book.
Done and dusted Sir.
But what happened within a year of this book’s hitting the stands in 2014 was something that the author wouldn’t have been able to guess, without the powers of clairvoyance. In 2014, a certain Mr. Modi assumed the reins. Since then he has curved India into a strategic player with a decidedly operative foreign policy. Modi has done this by fluctuating India away from its old strategy of strict nonalignment, tiling the fashion for sturdier ties with great and middle-sized powers. Under his watch, India has incorporated the United States and its Indo-Pacific policy in an effort to poise a growing China and keep the region open and free from pressure.
Modi has also positively faced down his country's archrivals, Pakistan and China. In 2020, Modi instructed the Indian Army to stand its ground among lethal border clashes with China, and India even regained some lost territory. In 2019, after a Pakistan-based terrorist group's attack in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, India hit back in restrained fashion — indicating firmness while averting an acceleration of hostilities.
Remarkably, there have been no major terrorist attacks involving Pakistan-based groups since the incident.
2047 this book predicted? By 2047 India shall have scaled new global heights. Pakistan is not our trouble anymore.
October 13, 2013
India - Pakistan. These two words are enough to spark many debates and fights in both the countries. Both the countries view each other as hard core enemies. What is it to do with both the countries? How did the problem turn out to be such a grave issue? Stephen P. Cohen looks into this issue in his recent book. As per the author, there are only 5% of the conflicts in the world that are not resolvable and India - Pakistan is one of them.
The author starts the book looking at the context of how these two became separate countries. The partition was done by a Britisher who never had any idea of the area, civilization and people leading to a poor border. Kashmir, an area with majority Muslims, but ruled by a Hindu Ruler was taken by India and it has become a big issue right from the partition. Result is that the South Asia region has only 5% intra regional trade which is very bad.
The author moves on to the conflicts between the states and how there are three types of issues that are mainly contributing to the conflicts. One is the visual disputes such as Kashmir, River Waters, etc. Other is the identity crisis in which the way people perceive about each other has caused lot of problems. India is considered as a giant which takes advantage and is considered to be a dominant Hindu oriented nation, while Pakistan is looked upon extreme Islamist. The strategic location of the nations has been exploited by external countries for their strategic advantage.
THe author next moves into chapters dealing with the perspectives of how Indians and Pakistanis think about each other. They have always viewed each other as negative and has always taken all the chances to impose the same in their people's mindsets. The education system of both the countries are altered in such a way that History is never taught properly. He looks at the various sects of people in both the nations and how they consider the problem widely.
Nuclearization has not done major changes, but it has been a factor that has made responsible acts from both the Governments. There is always a chance of some irrational behaviour that would lead to nuclear war, though it is very low. The changing geopolitics such as Soviet Union collapse, rise of China, Afghan Terrorism has changed the way the external nations look at Pakistan and India. They have always played a crucial part in extending the issue and never tried to help the nations bridge the gap.
Pakistan is no longer a big threat to India with growing China and Pakistan doesn't look the same way with decreased Army dominance and increased terrorism in the western regions.
Finally the author considers the prospects of the countries coming together. Though he says normalization may not come true, increased trade and mutual acceptance might come due to the increase in communication through Social Media and the changing views of the countries. He also wishes that USA plays a crucial role in helping the nations come together.
Overall, it is a well researched book that explains the problem in all angles and from everyone's eyes. The book doesn't say what would happen in the future, but gives a clear picture of what are different possibilities and how things might turn up. It is a must read book, if you are interested in Geopolitics or if you are interested in knowing about how India Pakistan problem shaped up or would turn out in the future.
The author starts the book looking at the context of how these two became separate countries. The partition was done by a Britisher who never had any idea of the area, civilization and people leading to a poor border. Kashmir, an area with majority Muslims, but ruled by a Hindu Ruler was taken by India and it has become a big issue right from the partition. Result is that the South Asia region has only 5% intra regional trade which is very bad.
The author moves on to the conflicts between the states and how there are three types of issues that are mainly contributing to the conflicts. One is the visual disputes such as Kashmir, River Waters, etc. Other is the identity crisis in which the way people perceive about each other has caused lot of problems. India is considered as a giant which takes advantage and is considered to be a dominant Hindu oriented nation, while Pakistan is looked upon extreme Islamist. The strategic location of the nations has been exploited by external countries for their strategic advantage.
THe author next moves into chapters dealing with the perspectives of how Indians and Pakistanis think about each other. They have always viewed each other as negative and has always taken all the chances to impose the same in their people's mindsets. The education system of both the countries are altered in such a way that History is never taught properly. He looks at the various sects of people in both the nations and how they consider the problem widely.
Nuclearization has not done major changes, but it has been a factor that has made responsible acts from both the Governments. There is always a chance of some irrational behaviour that would lead to nuclear war, though it is very low. The changing geopolitics such as Soviet Union collapse, rise of China, Afghan Terrorism has changed the way the external nations look at Pakistan and India. They have always played a crucial part in extending the issue and never tried to help the nations bridge the gap.
Pakistan is no longer a big threat to India with growing China and Pakistan doesn't look the same way with decreased Army dominance and increased terrorism in the western regions.
Finally the author considers the prospects of the countries coming together. Though he says normalization may not come true, increased trade and mutual acceptance might come due to the increase in communication through Social Media and the changing views of the countries. He also wishes that USA plays a crucial role in helping the nations come together.
Overall, it is a well researched book that explains the problem in all angles and from everyone's eyes. The book doesn't say what would happen in the future, but gives a clear picture of what are different possibilities and how things might turn up. It is a must read book, if you are interested in Geopolitics or if you are interested in knowing about how India Pakistan problem shaped up or would turn out in the future.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 24, 2016
I Think it is the best review of Hindo-Pak relations I ever read book is short and well prepprepared in small Headlines (Stephen us master in diving book into small topics or headongs
But I think there is some flaws in it
1) His commentary is mostly pro Indian (may be because Indian policy is Ally of America)
2) His commentry on Pakistan is very pessimistic (As was shown in Future of Pakistan)
3) He is in favour of strengthning Trade relationships which according to him would gave to good relations. (I think it is oversimplifying or exaggeration of Trade impacts or in other words applying of Western theories on South Asian States which mostly failled)
4) A person who is beginner to South Asian History will disappoint from this book because it is not history Pak -Hind relations book but just commentary on important events and issues
5) It looks from his writing mostly as if Pakistan is the main hurdle in Pak-Hind good relationships but
I THINK BOTH ARE EQUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IT (Maybe Pakistan is slightly more Responsible because of Kashmir issue but it is also the result of what India did in East Pakistan (Bangladesh)
But I think there is some flaws in it
1) His commentary is mostly pro Indian (may be because Indian policy is Ally of America)
2) His commentry on Pakistan is very pessimistic (As was shown in Future of Pakistan)
3) He is in favour of strengthning Trade relationships which according to him would gave to good relations. (I think it is oversimplifying or exaggeration of Trade impacts or in other words applying of Western theories on South Asian States which mostly failled)
4) A person who is beginner to South Asian History will disappoint from this book because it is not history Pak -Hind relations book but just commentary on important events and issues
5) It looks from his writing mostly as if Pakistan is the main hurdle in Pak-Hind good relationships but
I THINK BOTH ARE EQUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IT (Maybe Pakistan is slightly more Responsible because of Kashmir issue but it is also the result of what India did in East Pakistan (Bangladesh)
May 15, 2016
History is well covered, however author's view on the contemporary status of Indo Pak relationship as well as future recommendations have been looked through the prism of US interest.
Read
September 15, 2015I was looking for a non biased account of the situation.. I don't think this is that.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews