Become a sustaining member
of the Commonwealth Club for just $10 a month. Good evening and welcome
to the Commonwealth Club of California. My name is Farouk Ahmed
and I will today be in discussion with Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy,
whose new book is titled Pakistan Origins, Identity and Future. The book is available for purchase
outside, and Dr. Hoodbhoy will be available
to sign your copy after the event. As a Pakistani American,
it is a special pleasure to welcome back
an old friend to San Francisco. A special welcome to all of you,
including our online participants. The British colonized the Indian
subcontinent in them for a century, and they finally left in 1947. That was also the year that the
independent country of Pakistan was born. It was carved
out of the Indian subcontinent for Muslims by the departing British
in an event known as Partition, which created India and Pakistan. Boundaries were hastily drawn
by the departing British over 15 million,
otherwise ethnically similar people crossed from one side to the other
on the basis of religion. And over a million
were violently killed in the process. Pakistan today has a population of 240 million and a 2000 mile border with India. Very few people cross this border today and there is very little cross-border
trade. Pakistan and India have fought four wars
and there have been and they have been in conflict
ever since partition. More ominously, both countries have nuclear weapons. I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy to discuss his timely
and powerfully written book titled Pakistan Origins, Identity
and Future. Dr. Hoodbhoy lives in Islamabad, Pakistan,
where he has been a professor of physics
for nearly 50 years. He received his Ph.D. from MIT in nuclear physics in 1978
and is an internationally recognized public intellectual
with a long list of accomplishments and honors. In 2011, he was included
among the top global thinkers by Foreign Policy magazine. He is a promoter of science education
and a strong advocate of free speech. He has a well-earned reputation
for factually and objectively
addressing tough and sensitive issues. His earlier book touched a delicate subject
and was titled Islam and Science Religious Orthodoxy
and the Ballot The Battle for Rationality. So as you can see, he doesn't shy away
from difficult subjects. Religion and nationalism
have only grown in importance in recent years, not just in Pakistan, but also in India and the region. Pervaiz and I were both born in Pakistan about three years after partition, though
he's a year younger than I am. We overlapped as undergraduates at MIT. He returned to Pakistan,
whereas I went on to Stanford University for my graduate degrees
and then to a career in Silicon Valley as startup founder and investor. I then went back to Pakistan for a visit
three months ago after a very long time to reconnect
with remaining relatives. While I was able and fill in gaps
in my family's history before partition. It was a memorable trip and I also left with an updated view of the situation
in Pakistan. Today, we will discuss Pakistan's history,
its current situation, why India and Pakistan have diverged
despite their common origins and prospects for the future. Supervise I read your book and words like logical, rational,
well-researched came to mind. So I want to start with something
emotional. You said fairly early in the book that you wrote the book
because you were angry and not only angry now,
but you had been angry for a long time. And I assume you are still angry. So tell us what you're angry about. To get us started on the issues
that we'll be discussing. Well, I'm angry
because I was lied to about history. Of course,
a lot of people everywhere in the world are told lies by their nation states. They are told to believe in certain myths. And I, too, had absorbed those myths. So while you and I were in school,
you might remember 1965, we were told that India had attacked
Pakistan, that it was an unprovoked attack, and that we were merely repelling it. But as I grew older,
I knew that was a pack of lies that in fact, we in Pakistan, in an effort to, quote, liberate Kashmir, had sent our army
across the border and hope that the Kashmiris would rise up. And so get rid of the Indians. I didn't find this out until much later,
until I actually met people in the Army, in the Air Force, and until I read books. So that's just one thing. But that has been taught to our children, to Pakistani children, a set of lies
which creates a national narrative
that is flawed in so many ways. But I felt that really
it is now time to set the record straight. And so this is the book
that you're referring to is a very modest effort
at trying to do that. And it begins from way before Islam came into existence. When it comes to the Muslim invasion, and then it comes to how Hindus and Muslims who were very similar and who were difficult to differentiate in times
that go back to of several hundred years. I mean, eight, 900 years thereafter, that difference grew
just a little bit more. But it was with the coming of the British
that the differences really grew. 1870 was the first census that was carried
out of the Indian subcontinent. And you had to declare
whether you were Hindu or Muslim, that would determine your employment
opportunities. You had well, that set in place a whole set of events. And the the the the gap, which had been just a tiny crack. It grew into a chasm comes 1947, which is when Pakistan was formed, and that was huge. So if we want to talk about divergent
trajectories, you have to look at the history over a long period of time. So on that on that point,
I think all of us have seen the newspapers these days. And Pakistan is currently in a state
of crisis, both economic and political. If you were to give a quick
summary of what history has to do with the current crisis,
what led to this? What are the roots of it? What are the fundamental issues around partition that made this crisis? I wouldn't say inevitable,
but certainly easier to explain. In a nutshell. Pakistan today is bankrupt. It is open. It is asking the IMF for a loan of $1.1 billion,
which is a trivial amount. But even in that,
it is having difficulties. The problem
is that basically the consumption is very high, the production is very low,
and the people who are Pakistanis overseas
who are sending money back, they are great in numbers,
but they are very poorly. They're very poorly
situated in terms of their skills. And so if you were to ask me
what is the fundamental problem, it is that our people have an insufficient skill set,
they have been insufficiently educated. And that goes back to the very beginnings
of Pakistan, because Pakistan was created as, as, um, on the basis of religious identity. If you're Muslim, you go here. If you're Hindu, you go there. And as it turned out, Muslims, because of reasons
that I go into in detail in the book, had not got into the mainstream of modernity, of science, of technology. And the reasons I can come to later,
if people are interested, but that means that 1947,
we had a bad beginning. It could have been fixed. I do not believe that. You know,
what is in the past entirely determines your future,
because after all, we do have agency. And so in the first years of Pakistan,
things seem to be going well. But then, because of a certain mindset, we didn't develop ourselves. And it could all be done because we were instruments of we let ourselves become the instruments
of American foreign policy. We were aligned with the US as it was in combat with the Soviet Union
during the Cold War. Now that interest went to zero after the Taliban took over Afghanistan. So basically, the the current crisis comes from the fact that the United States
has entirely lost interest in Pakistan and the Chinese, who have come to fill the the empty space, are not too interested
in bailing out Pakistan. They don't want to step into America's
shoes and hence the crisis. So you describe in vivid detail
at Pakistan's beginning the role of the feudal class,
the military, the elite and other big, institutionally
anchored communities that essentially may explain
some of what you are discussing in terms of what didn't happen,
because other countries get a start. That's not perfect,
but there is a self-correcting process that that can be kicked off so that,
you know, you get a bad start, but then you fix it so that
why didn't that happen in Pakistan? So as you say, it could have happened. And in fact, I would say the first years
of Pakistan, the first couple of decades, looked as if we were making up
for deficiencies of the past. But then because of this alignment with the United States, the fact that more weapons than other
things were given to us, there was a reinforcement
of the warrior mindset. The Pakistan army had basically taken over
the the the politics
and the direction of the country. So we had our first war
with India in 1947. This is just months
after the new nation had been formed. Then the next war comes in 1965, which had basically
which I referred to earlier. Well, 1971 was another war,
but this was not a war of choice. But 1999, in the mountains of Kargil, that was a war of choice. And it was basically because here is a big military. It's an enormous military with a huge number of privileges and which, as you won't believe it. Sugar factories, cement factories,
they run transportation. They have banks. They even run beauty paradises. Do you know that's not the job for an army now to keep that position,
they have to be at war all the time. Okay. So essentially is, as sometimes
said, Pakistan is a country, is a military, has a country
rather than a country has a military. So let me step back. You mentioned that historically
the British played a part in dividing Muslims
and Hindus for their own purposes, and that this process accelerated towards the 1947 partition events. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because it seems that even shortly before 1947, Muslims and Hindus were actually in some communities
living in relative harmony. So I'd mentioned to you earlier
that my grandfather was a minister and chief judge in the state of Jammu
and Kashmir in the 1920s, and there was a Hindu maharajah
and they got along very well. And then ten years later, you know,
we had the movement towards Pakistan and and so forth. So this this apparently accelerated. How did that happen? What were the techniques and why? And specifically, you talk of Jinnah
as more of a politician than a statesman. And I think think it would be helpful
to position him because he is generally considered
to be the father of Pakistan. That's too much in a for one question. What we need to do is go back in history. So let's go back
to the time of the Mughal Empire. So that's something like beginning 500 years ago
and last 350 years. It's a grand period for India in the sense
that the most beautiful architecture is created. Then there is music, poetry. But the now that was a time when it was Muslim rule over India,
and yet it was one where Hindus weren't were persecuted in the sense that they weren't shut,
they weren't shut out. They weren't stomped upon. In fact, some of the biggest,
the most important generals in the Mughal armies were Hindus. And there was a lot of cross marriage. In fact, there is no moral empire. An emperor who is a pure Muslim. All are progeny of previous emperors who had married into Hindus,
into Rajputs in particular. But of course,
there was a cultural difference in the sense that the Muslims
were more interested in administration. They were
they liked music and they liked hunting. They weren't particularly interested
in keeping accounts. And that was what the Hindus were doing. And the Hindus were doing business. So well, communities
do have their particular strengths. And so these two strengths were separate. Then come the British 250 years ago. Slowly, slowly they take over India. They ruled India for 250 years
or 200 years, you could say, because didn't
have a definite starting date. But they needed locals to run their administration at the very p. They were no more than 50,000 white men, white Britishers
on the Indian subcontinent. Whereas they were
something like 300 million Indians. So you need somebody you need a class of people
who will be capable of administration. So obviously they must know English. And divide and conquer, too. Well, that comes in to
and you're right about that. But they need people who can think like them are modern minded. And so there was,
of course, self interest, but there was also a kind of desire
because you see the British with the consequences of the Enlightenment imperialism actually came from the great ideas, the great ferment
that was there after the Renaissance,
after the Enlightenment, which includes the scientific revolution,
the industrial revolution. And so they wanted to implant
that in Britain as well. After all, who would run the railways? You need the technical people for that. You need engineers,
you need lawyers and all that. Now, here is
where the difference came about, because when Lord Macaulay in 19, in 1835 said, we're not going to support
any traditional schools, we are only going to support those
which teach modern subjects. Well, the Hindu said they weren't fully enthusiastic, but more of them said yes. And some said more schools, more colleges, and give us a university. But there was a lot of hubris
on the Muslim side who said, no,
we have the word of God with us. We don't need your education. And so that was the beginning of a growing gap which grew and grew. And as I said, that was what we inherited
at the time of partition. So so
let's talk about religious nationalism. And that's a good segue way
because as you're pointing out, several Muslims, the Muslim communities,
essentially reacted the way you're describing. And today we find the gap increasing. There is Islamic
fundamentalism and Pakistan, and there is increasingly Hindu
fundamentalism in India. And your first book was on the subject
of Islam and Science, which essentially talked about this
growing gap. How is how would you describe fundamentalism in both these religions? Are there similar? What is what's going on. Since you're referring to my first book,
I've got to explain a little bit about it because I've been profoundly upset
by the fact that Muslims had a grand past, after all,
between the ninth and the 13th centuries. They were the only ones who were doing
science, philosophy, astronomy, medicine. Those were the dark ages of Europe. So how come those 4 to 500 years of in light of of of great work
somehow disappeared? And then for the last eight, 900 years, we don't see anything
which is produced by Muslims. After all, it's not electricity or antibiotics or computers or whatever. They disappeared. So what's the reason for that? So my first book was about that and it has
a bearing on today's present as well. The reason science prospered in Islam
was because of the Greek, because of Muslims
encountering Greek works. So as Islam, after 638 expanded, it came upon these treasures
of Greek learning. And the first part of the change was translation. The second part was improving on the translations and doing new things, and so a lot of new stuff came along. Consider algorithm. Everybody here in Silicon Valley uses
Algol terms. Algorithm is a word invented by inquiries. Me off a thousand years ago now that ultimately died out because there was earlier an openness. So in the course of the caliphs
who were not just political people, they were also people of intellect
and they're invited to the courts would be Jews and Christians
and historians and all that. But ultimately, this came to a stop. And when it came to a stop,
the decline began. So let's talk about that for a moment,
because when we were growing up in Pakistan,
our classmates included, you know, Hindus and Christians and Jews
and even Chinese Pakistanis. And now and I went back,
as I mentioned a few weeks ago, a few months ago, pardon me. And, you know, there's nobody there. There are no minorities. What happened in the last 75 years that changed the situation there. So here is the difference between India secular. Initially under Devi Lal Naru, who was committed to the idea of a pluralist secular India and saw that as a way of acquiring modernity
and of bringing prosperity to India in the case of Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was also, by personal habits, secular, but he had to use the religious slogan
in order to create Pakistan. Well, the first 20 years were okay,
and so when you and I were growing up over there, well, at least
in my neighborhood, there were Christians to the house
over here, to the house over here. There were a couple of Hindus
and we had Hindu friends. You remember? Yeah. Okay. And there was even a Jew. Yes, a Jew in. And in fact, one of our teachers. Yes, you remember. I remember. And actually. So I had a Jewish friend who came from
Israel to Karachi in the 1970s. So something changed in the
1970s and 1980s that really, really made a huge difference. What was. That? Absolutely. So it it came gradually. It the religious minorities
saw the writing on the wall, but there wasn't anything. There was no pogrom as such. There was no written policy as such. But then I think the big change came in 1974, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, prime minister of Pakistan, made his step
in declaring a particular set of people who were earlier
Muslims, declared them to be non-Muslims, and thereafter
they became the object of persecution and are the worst persecuted
religious minority in Pakistan today. And as you pointed out, the definition of who is Muslim
is is also not entirely clear. I mean, there's a lot of dissension about that are among these Muslims,
some people say Shia Islam and Muslims. So there's a lot of
internal conflict going on. So to this day, it has not been resolved as to
who is a muslim. And in fact, this issue came before the before the court, which asked the religious leaders define who is a muslim. And not only was there no consensus, but there were diametrically opposite
points of views on this. And so that's a puzzle even today. So let's talk about Hindu nationalism,
which you describe in your book in vivid terms again. And so tell us about Hindu nationalism. What is it? Is it similar to Islamic nationalism
or what's going on in Pakistan? And and does it
what what does it portend for India? Groups have a natural propensity to project themselves
as a collective whole. But if you go back far into the past, say, 2000 years ago, oh, no, better, 1000 years ago, you find that according to the researchers of historians, the difference between Hindu and Muslim was very it was very difficult. They were it was difficult to distinguish
between them. If you had asked a person who an ordinary person in some village,
are you Hindu? He wouldn't have been known. He would not have known how to answer the question
because the word Hindu did not exist some thousand, 1200 years ago. In fact, the the famous traveler, Albert Rooney, he when he came from Arabia and he asked around, he found that he calls both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus. Why? Because the word comes
from the Arabic word Allah, in which comes from all sin. And sin is this is the river. So in other words,
Hindu is itself a geographical term. It's not a religious term. And yet history has been made to stand on
its head with the present government in India, which wants to claim
that there was a great grand Hindu civilization that existed forever. And all anthropological evidence, all genetic evidence, in fact, now because, you know,
now we have the DNA and we can see how people have migrated
towards the subcontinent. The the results are astonishing. And they show that there was an invasion, Aryan invasion, into India, that in fact, the holy language of Hinduism, Sanskrit came from Iraq and Mesopotamia. Now, that's mind boggling,
you know, because we used to think that, well, it was commonly believed that
the holy language originated within India, and that wisdom
has then spread from there. But in fact,
the story of the human race is that there have been invasions
throughout the centuries. We are all children
of the same African mother. So so on that front,
you know, you're looking at facts. But today, nationalism is helping
to propel India forward economically. And there's great focus on that
and there's energy around it. Do you think that nationalism will fuel
India's continued rise or will it cause issues down the road
at some point? Well, it's already causing issues. And the way they are modifying
their curriculum and the way that they are teaching
science is now a bit like is very much like the way that we in
Pakistan are teaching science where it is
forbidden to speak about evolution. MM hmm. And now exactly
the same thing is happening in India, but even something that I just read a week ago, it's not only evolution,
but it's also the periodic table, you know, mendeleev's, periodic table,
the classification of elements. They don't want to teach that. It's been removed from the curriculum. Why on earth are they doing that? Because they want to stress achievements
of ancient Indian civilization. And so in the process,
they willing to distort history just the same way as we have. And they might even go overboard on that. Who knows? Well, so you see, it's it's not me
who's just angry. I think people living in India
are bloody angry. And a lot of anger to go around. So but we and we are in the US
and the US is counting on India's rise to counter
China and China is seen as an adversary. Do you think India will
be able to fulfill that role? Well, geopolitics changes from year, from decade to decade. The US is certainly trying
to have India as a counterweight. But I think India and China
have a good chance of working out their differences. In fact, it's very interesting,
you know, the conflict that they have in the Himalayas, they don't fire guns at each other
like we and Pakistan and India. We actually use guns. We use artillery. Fortunately, now that's less these days. But in the Himalayas, there's a there's an agreement
where they don't use weapons. They actually box each other. They wrestle each other to the ground. They may they may even throw stones,
but there's no ammunition that is being used over there. So on that front, it seems that Pakistan
is being self-destructive in so many ways, and that's
probably not a surprise to anybody. So there's a 2000 mile border with India,
but yet there's no trade. And who suffers? At the end of the day,
it's Pakistani citizens. There is a very strong relationship
with China and China has a strong relationship with the progressive
Arab countries and even with Israel. But Pakistan cannot participate
in these relationships because of preconceived notions at what
now, India and China, as you pointed out, have an adversarial relationship,
but they trade with each other. So trade and geopolitics do not merge in many countries in their equation,
but it does in Pakistan's case. Why is that? And at what point
do you see that changing? You're absolutely correct that between China and India, there's a trade. There's a huge trade. I don't recall the figure,
but it's something like $150 billion. But yet the box, the box, a box. They box and they it's okay. We have zero trade with India. We have some trade with China. But it's it's mostly Chinese finished goods coming into Pakistan and Pakistani mangoes and things that agricultural products and cotton, etc.,
which is exported into China. Now, since you've mentioned China,
I must say there's a troubling aspect to this relationship
which comes from the Rebels Road Initiative or Cpec, China,
Pakistan, economic. What is a corridor today? We all China. $30 billion for constructing roads
and power stations, grids and so forth. Now, the
theory was that this would lead Pakistan to hugely increase
its industrial production, that this would lead to the creation
of new jobs, of new industries, of Pakistanis being employed by Chinese companies in Pakistan. None of this has panned out. Cpec is in bad trouble. The Chinese are now
wanting their money back. And so since Pakistan's coffers are empty, they've had to reschedule the debt. Things are not going well in that regard. And I think now that Pakistan
may have to pay a very big price, which is lease out the port of Gwadar, which is at the edge of the Arabian Sea or the Persian Gulf, whichever
you want to call it, and let the Chinese use it
as a military facility. The earlier thought that Gwadar would be a port
just like Dubai is nothing like that. I was there actually some three months ago and there's one ship
that comes by every two days. Hmm. The place is empty. So. So let's go back to why the US and I guess the world. But I'll pick the US
because that's where we are right now. Why should the US care about Pakistan
other than the fact that it has 240 million people that are in trouble? I mean, nuclear weapons is one obvious
factor. And, you know, we can talk about whether that's something
that needs to be actively an issue. The second is, as you mentioned, China, there's a US-China adversarial situation. And third is whether it could handicap
India's rise. Any thoughts as to whether these three are the major areas or whether
and what you think about them? Yes. In geopolitics, one hedges, one's bets. And so certainly the US
does not want to cut off with Pakistan. Pakistan is 250 million people. It's got, let's say, between 180 and 240 nuclear weapons, more than India has. In fact, it could be it could once again become a hotspot for terrorism. Because now what we've seen is, for one, the government is shaky, economic collapse is on the horizon. The Taliban from Afghanistan are now intruding into Pakistan through the organization known as the TTP, which is the Pakistani Taliban. And it could become extreme to the point that once again from here, terrorism could radiate outwards. Now, I don't see that as imminent,
but this is what the United States
should rightly be worried about. And, of course, the the Chinese see Pakistan
also in geo political terms. They see it as a way to
to control the rise of India, to make sure that it doesn't move
any way the West. And it's and yeah, every country's
got its own little thing to do. Do you think it's fair to say that
the Chinese and the Pakistanis, culturally there's less of a fit
than between the Pakistanis and the West? Oh, I think there's no comparison,
in spite of the fact that Chinese is now taught in some private schools
in Pakistan. Kids don't don't learn it. And they're not going out in the street. We have the Chinese are so afraid
of coming into the public because they feel
that someone it could be an ethnic it could be a religious group
that wants to kill them. And in fact, there have been some terrible
incidents like at Karachi University where a suicide bomber
who was Baluch killed. The Chinese instructors,
language instructors. And when I went to Gwadar, what I saw was the Chinese
live in a colony over there and you don't see a single Chinese anywhere in the city itself. Now, that's very unfortunate because
the Chinese are nice people, you know. This is not what should happen to any national of any country that he or
she should feel under threat. But yes, they do feel threatened. So let's talk about education,
because I know you're passionate about it and science education. What's going on with education in Pakistan and and I guess compare it to India. You mentioned that India
is going in the wrong direction now. It was in the right direction before. And Pakistan has been consistently
in the wrong direction. Do you see hope? Oh, there's always hope because without hope, everybody is dead, you know? But look, things in education
have gone terribly wrong in. Pakistan, we have made education
a vehicle for propaganda, for for creating a mental mindset which rejects science. Now, rationality and science go together without one. You can't have the other and you what what's happened, particularly
in the years that Imran Khan was there, was that the direction of education
was turned around from the little bit of secular, rational thinking that could be taught over there. The madrassas
and the schools were linked together and it was said that this would be
a single national curriculum, that it would uplift the madrassas
and bring the schools just a little bit down maybe. But it will level the playing field
for everybody. Sounded really good. But what what this has ended up doing is that the madrassas have rejected it. Well, they say we'll think about it
five years later. On the other hand, the schools now teach what was earlier taught in madrassa,
what is taught in madrassas. So the schools have been brought down
to the level of the madrassas, which means that it's it's the Koran,
which they have to learn by heart. It's the hardest which is the life of the prophet and his sayings,
which they must now also learn. And in addition
to this, the number of prayers that they must memorize,
it just kills the mind. I can certainly see that, too. Let me stretch in terms of the mind
of let's look at brainpower and innovation and entrepreneurship
because we are in Silicon Valley Indians and Pakistanis
and other ethnic groups tend to cooperate here and then build
links to their home country. So there's great interest. There has been for a long time
among Indians in Silicon Valley in seeing India's rise,
and that's been terrific to see. There's also an interest
in among Pakistanis and Silicon Valley
in seeing Pakistan rise. When I was in visiting Pakistan,
I went to a university called LUMS and was very impressed with their facilities
and I met some of the professors. And over here from time to time,
I meet entrepreneurial groups from Pakistan
and they are just as creative as on an individual basis, just as enthusiastic,
I should say, rather than creative. What prospects
do you see for the high tech industry, such as it is in Pakistan,
to get somewhere and to build bridges that could potentially lift
at least a part of the population up? I am aware of a couple of bridges here
in Silicon Valley between Indians and Pakistanis,
and I think that's a great idea because we are made
from the same genetic material. In fact,
you know like we talked about DNA earlier, what's absolutely marvelous is that today I can give my you can
or anyone can give their DNA material to a lab and find out one's ancestry going back to I don't know how many generations,
but that DNA sample will not tell you whether that person
is a Hindu or a muslim. And so we have the same genetic material. The the difference really comes about because of what I talked about earlier,
that the the at the time of partition, there were far many more Hindus who were in academics who were educated. And that gave them a flying start. Now that difference has increased and increased and well, you'll have to think of ways
to bridging that gap. But it cannot be bridged until we change Pakistan's educational system. Mm hmm. So other Muslim majority countries
seem to be progressing in that direction. So in the Middle East,
there's Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries, they're trying very hard
to invest their petrodollars into brainpower, into universities
and so forth. Malaysia has been trying for a while. Indonesia is rising. Bangladesh, which used to be Pakistan, is doing relatively
well on that front as well. Why? Why is Pakistan on the relative
basis lagging and can and should these countries
do something to help? And why isn't Pakistan seeking to build
constructive, productive links? If you're looking at this canvas of 45 Muslim countries,
you'll see that some are going towards modernity. And Saudi
Arabia and UAE are examples of that. Interestingly, it's not happening
because of a demand from below to achieve this,
but because there are autocrats in power who say this is the way to go. Mm hmm. In the case of Pakistan. And because of this. Because of accidents of history, we were aligned differently. We had General Zia ul Haq,
who came in 1977 and stayed until 1988, and in the process changed the mindset of the entire nation
through educational programing. That has not been reversed and must be if we are ever to get out
and be like a normal country. So in your book
you talk about the path forward and you outlined several steps
that must be taken that you believe should be taken to move
in the right direction. And I noted a couple of them that that I'd
like for you to explain a little bit. You say end legalized discrimination. What does that. Mean? It means that discrimination
is written into the Constitution, that a muslim and a non-Muslim
are to be treated differently. Mm hmm. Now,
there's a lot of patting that. Yeah. You must be nice to non-Muslims. That's not the point. The point is that a citizen of a country will all allegiance to that country only if he or she is considered at par
with anybody else. So, like all men are created equal,
perhaps like the U.S.. Okay. It should be life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Okay. So Pakistanis should become
Pakistan should become more like the U.S.. That's I agree with that. I can't argue with that. The US has its problems,
but this is a good principle. So in terms of divergent s then I mean, is
India could India sign up to that? Now. India has had signed up to that back in the days of Java Lal Nehru. Now under the rise of Hindu fundamentalism,
it is deviating from that and it is in fact weakening itself by doing so,
because the strength of a country relies upon diversity, upon how you give opportunities
to all those who live within it. And the United States
is such a brilliant example of that. After World War Two,
all the best scientists of Europe anywhere in the world, they came
and they were. And if you look at all
the big names in science, in physics, they were Germans,
they were Jews. They were from all over the world. They were Indians, something. And that's you see humans progress when their genetic pools mix,
when their societies become diverse, pluralistic. Mm hmm. And that should be the goal
of every society. Aspirational equality,
which leads to another. Another recommendation you made,
which is uncaged the women. Could. You could you expand on that? Yes. The woman in Pakistan is in a physical cage. That is the burqa. If you go to Peshawar, if you go to the tribal areas, it is that. And it has expanded into the cities. I. All right, fine. If a woman really likes to be in burqa
we letter, she should be she should have the right. But to force them is wrong. The the dress of women has changed
enormously over the last 40 years. You know, when I started teaching
in my university 50 years ago, there was only one young woman in a burqa, and it was rumored that she was Ahmadiyya. But we let that pass. Today, when I teach a class in that university, I, I cannot see. Except for a few. A normal woman. Mm hmm. So to. To switch to your other recommendation,
you said cool down Kashmir. Now, I've been in several conferences
where on the side they said, stop terrorism. On the Pakistani side, they say Kashmir. So it seems to be an impasse. Two sides
talking about two different things. What do you mean by cool down Kashmir? Okay. Terrorism
from the Pakistani side has stopped so far as I can see. It used to be visible and apparent. Something like well before 911, after 911, it went underground. Now, under the pressure
of the federal of the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, it's it's
no longer there, so far as I can see. Okay. So that's not the issue now. Kashmir is is a matter that cannot be resolved
through force. The Indians have nuclear weapons. We have nuclear weapons. We know that a conventional war between,
the two will rapidly escalate into a nuclear confrontation. And that's something that
neither country can afford. That is that is so. And so there's
only one solution to Kashmir, which is let the border be porous. Let divided families reunite. Let there be trade. And then over time, things
will somehow hopefully resolve themselves. So in the not. Be done the way India wants it or the way
Pakistan is. So in the interest of time, let me ask you one last question
and then we'll turn to audience questions. And the last question to you
is, what is a black hole and what is the black hole? A black hole can be formed from a very,
very quick. And when. So you ask for the physical black hole. Look, when gravity becomes so intense that nothing can leave it,
including life itself. Everybody knows that these days. But the black hole is a little initiative
that I started in Islamabad. It's a library. It's a laboratory for kids
where they play with science stories so that they get enthused into science,
into problem solving. And there are lectures every day. And they could be on any issues
related to science, art or culture. We have dance, we have music,
we have drama. We have talks about Feynman. He's physics about Abdul Salam, about, well, practically everything
under the sun, including the James Webb. And they say and I think you also are able
to accept donations from the U.S. You have a51c3,
if I remember correctly, on that front. Let me. You're a smart one. Let me let me turn. Who said what I wanted to say, but.
Okay, good. So I'll moving to audience questions. If Pakistan continues on its current
trajectory, where do you see Pakistan in ten years? This trajectory cannot continue. There's economic collapse,
which is, I'd say, 100% certain. So therefore, it has to change track. And now we are at a point
where we really cannot see the future. It is so muddied. There are events happening every day. We don't know
whether there will be a Burmese, a myanmar type of army takeover or whether we'll have elections. And the army will continue to rule from from the shadows. I would certainly prefer that to a mind
ma type solution at this moment. Ten years in advance I will not give me. Okay. So some quick questions. In the interest of time. Is there a role for Pakistan,
the expats in the future of Pakistan? And what specific suggestions and cautions
do you have for Pakistani expats? I think they need to follow events in the country. They need to support, educate,
channel ventures. They need to bring their expertize
in whatever way they can. And I know that there are startups in Pakistan,
not very many of them, but they have now substantially benefited
from expat knowledge in the United States. Two countries in the last century
were created on religion, on the basis
of religion, Israel and Pakistan. Are there any analogies here to explore? Yeah, it was Muslim identity which created Pakistan. It was Jewish identity
which created Israel. But the the difference is that Israel was a Zionist state, but it was a secular Zionist state. Ben Gurion did not ever envisage that it would be a Jewish religious state. These were persecuted
Jews, persecuted by Hitler, wanting a place
where they could be together. And for at least the first few decades
of Israel's existence, it was the Orthodox
had very little role in running. And actually today they want to take over
the education system in Israel. So are there similarities
for Ben Gurion to understand? Was an atheist and Jinnah was not
particularly religious either? So in terms of starting these religious
or these countries for religious minorities, both founders didn't really adhere to the religion
they were seeking to support. Yeah, but Ben Gurion was the
head of the Histadrut, the the labor union. He was a socialist,
committed to the benefit of his people. Jinnah was totally anti-communist, totally anti socialists and so were the other people in the Muslim League,
and therefore we never had land reform. How you run a country
is extremely important in terms of in terms of administration. And that's where Israel was head and shoulders above. So in terms of land reform,
one of my observations when I went there three months ago is that everybody's
investing in land and property, but nobody's investing in the brainpower
industries. A quick comment about that. Or because the returns are so enormous,
you can now buy land, or at least okay, now things are changing, you know,
that's why I'm not predicting anything. I don't know what's coming next,
but two years ago, if you could if you bought something
for, let's say, ₹100, six months
later, you could sell it for 110. A year later,
you could sell it for 130 or so for. And the returns were enormous. In contrast, if you set up an industry
well, it may or may not work. So these are guaranteed virtually. So that will continue,
you think for a while. Now it's a different story. How safe is it for Americans to visit
Pakistan? I'm I think it's, uh. It's okay. Okay. There are not many Americans to be seen, but certainly many like to visit the mountains
and the beautiful places
where, I mean, they're very challenging. The Himalayas, after all,
the Hindu Kush are very challenging. Mountains and mountaineering
is very popular with American tourists. So here's the question that's interesting. What are your thoughts on reunification? I assume that the questioner says
India and Pakistan reunite and we are back again to my pre 1947. Okay so I met the president of India
in his office. He asked me this question
about reunification. This is Abdul Kalam. I said I thought he meant India, Pakistan, but he wanted to know
about the unification of the forces. You know that we re electromagnetic gravity strong. I first feel the main of that. And then I said, So what we need to do is have academic exchange
between our countries. And he was sort of lukewarm on that. But the reunification of India
and Pakistan, absolutely not. Not possible. The Indians don't want it. The Pakistanis don't want it. We have to learn to live with each other, but we live separately. Okay. So you mentioned that that, you know,
you're hopeful about the future because one has to be. So this questioner asks you create a very dismal picture
of the future for Pakistan. Where can we find hope? So in the discussion
that we've had so far, this particular individual
doesn't think there's much hope. Yeah. Well,
because he's been reading the newspapers and he's been reading the op eds
and yeah, things are bad. I mean, inflation is now 50% a year. There's only enough dollars left
to cover the next two weeks of exports. So all that is pretty grim. Plus, there are other challenges. I mean, I have them listed in listed. I discuss them in the book. This climate change, there's a population growth that's out of control. So all of these are things
that one should worry about. But look, things have looked matters have looked very grim in the past. Who would have thought during World War Two
that the world would survive? And yet everything then eventually fixed itself? Hmm. This might be a harder problem,
but let's leave it up to. Human ingenuity to figure out solutions. By the way, on the subject of your book,
I think you've organized it very well. You've pulled together facts. You have great, great research, and
you've done it in the very compelling way. So I read it recently,
and I actually found myself I wouldn't
I shouldn't use the word enjoying it. But I found I found
I found that I was learning a lot from it. It was clarifying a lot of what I saw and what I knew and some of what I thought
I knew but didn't really know. So back to questions. Could the US-China conflict
play out as a proxy war between India and Pakistan? I'm not really I don't think Pakistan
now is in a position to have any kind of military
dueling with China. It's now in a position of retreat. And the Indians are not. They're not militarily attacking Pakistan or making aggressive moves. So they are just waiting and watching and they're quite satisfied with the way
things have turned out for Pakistan. After all, their adversary is now being run to the ground
without their having to do anything. So I don't see that happening immediately. So on the other side,
you know, three months ago, as I mentioned,
I visited Pakistan and I had a great time. The airports are new. Getting through is easy. The highways are modern,
the streets are unlettered. There are no beggars,
there are great restaurants. So I had sushi in Lahore,
which is a thousand miles from any water,
and it was fresh and it was delicious. So and I kept reading about elite capture and I found myself thinking, you know, it doesn't sound like a bad thing
if this is what it delivers. Talk a little bit about elite capture
and talk a little bit about how that keeps things going the way they are
and why that should change. You know, while the world's attention
was focused on the floods, a third of Pakistan is underwater. People are in desperate circumstance. And as well, people were having sushi in Islamabad and in Lahore. Not all of them. There's a huge amount of poverty
in Islamabad. In fact, all I have to do is go to a go a couple of streets
down from my house. And it's heartrending when you see kids eating out of garbage. But those floods, it's good
for the getting money from the international community. But in fact, we didn't care for them. See, this is what this is
the heartless nature of elites. They look only at themselves. They only care about themselves. And do you see that changing? We'll make a change. Okay. It has to come. And there are progressive
forces in Pakistan, not strong,
but in time they will grow well, so on. And they that sentiment has to be captured
before the religious people capture it. So on that front,
when when an institution is insolvent, usually outsiders have a bigger role and one of the earlier questions
was what can overseas Pakistanis do? What can global institutions, banks
and so forth do fix things? Because the way it is now is even if somebody wrote a big check, it would be back to business
as usual fairly soon. So how can the structure
be influenced by people who are not inside but outside
with more power than they had before? Good question. You have to be very discriminatory in what you give to who. So, you know,
people are very against the IMF, but and I, too, have been. But now I have a sort
of a soft spot for them because they see that you can't give subsidies to the rich
and to the poor equally. You cannot make the right, for example,
the price of petrol stay below that, the price of petrol
be artificially lowered because the rich will be taking will be using more for their SUVs. What you need to do
is have a set of subsidies, of subsidies that can accurately discriminate between this and that. So no general sales tax, GST is is a tax for everybody. So somebody who buys something from the market, well, the poor and the rich pay
the same. That's not right in terms of individuals. Well, I think there are good organizations
in Pakistan, and you need to follow how those organizations are doing,
what they are doing. And then depending on your own
preferences, you donate here or there. So we have just a few seconds. And one last question. What is the possibility
of initiating a critical discourse around religion in Pakistan? The chances are very small. It. I think if you bring up the subject of religion, that will always go towards majoritarianism. The Shias don't want to talk
about religion rightly,
the zekri is the smileys, the borders. They don't want to talk. These are small subsets of Islam. They would prefer to be not known, less known. And so there's no urgent
need to talk about that. But what we do need to do is get as much religion
out of the school curriculum as possible. Well said. Our thanks to Pervez Hoodbhoy
for this stimulating discussion. We also thank our audience here
for your thoughtful questions and also the online audience. You are welcome to stay
and speak with him for a while now. This meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California and its 121st
Europe enlightening discussion. It is a journey with.
