Samir Kalra and I'm the Managing Director at the Hindu American Foundation and welcome to another episode of our podcast That's So Hindu. Back by popular demand is Michael Rubin. Michael is the Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East Forum and a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome back to the podcast, Michael. Great to have you with us. Hey, thanks for having me, Samira. It's always good to be here.
Great. Well, Michael, obviously the thing that we're here to talk about today is a recent terror massacre in Kashmir that occurred last week where 26 Hindu tourists were... ethnically identified or religiously identified and then killed by Pakistani-sponsored terrorists. And there's been obviously a lot of news going on about this, about what India should do. And then there's a lot of discussion about India showing restraint.
And this because of the fear of escalation, which is likely to happen between India and Pakistan. But what I want to focus on today really is the discussion on what is the U.S. role in all of this. and how can the US facilitate an end to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, and how they can support India in its endeavor to not just exact a measure of revenge, but really deterrence. and to really stop this cross-border terrorism that Pakistan has been sponsoring now for decades.
And so you've written a number of pieces. And I want to start with one of the pieces, and I think this has been a consistent theme, actually, in how you compare the attack to what happened on October 7, where Hamas... terrorists came into Israel and massacred Israeli Jewish civilians.
And not necessarily in comparison in scope and scale, but really the tactics and the symbolism of that attack. Could you start there by talking a little bit about the similarities that you saw in those two terror attacks? The similarities are clear. It was a cross-border attack that occurred during a period of a ceasefire. It was a cross-border attack that was perpetrated by terrorists. sponsored by a hostile state. And it was a cross-border attack meant to undercut any prospects for peace.
Now, when we talk about a difference of scale, I don't want to get into a black and white. I mean, terrorism should be black and white. I don't want to start thinking in terms, in shades of gray, like American policymakers are prone to, because as soon as you say, well, the scale is different. then what you're implying, even if you don't mean to, is that some terrorism is okay, whereas other terrorism isn't. And let's face it. the reason why the scale of the pocket on tack wasn't greater.
was simply because of, from the point of view of the Pakistani terrorists, bad luck. They didn't have enough time, but if they were able to massacre thousands They would. The other parallel, which I think we need to be very mindful of, is we know that Pakistan is a den for terror. that they are sponsored by the state. And the Israelis knew that Gaza was a safe haven for Hamas, for Iranian and Turkish-sponsored terrorism. Now, the Israelis had this philosophy, which they called mowing the grass.
where every so often when there would be a terrorist attack emanating from Gaza. Or a rocket being launched from Gaza. They would go in. And in a limited fashion, in a precise fashion, they try to go after the terrorists. They try to go after the bomb-making factors, and the Israelis nicknamed that. mowing the lawn And the idea was when the grass got too big, every few years they'd need to mow the lawn.
Now, after what they suffered on October 7th, 2023, the Israelis concluded that they couldn't simply mow the lawn, they would need to uproot it. And so this is where I think that Indians need to recognize a parallel. If they're simply mowing the grass. At what point are they kicking the can so far down the road that they're going to suffer a terrorist attack?
on a far greater scale. So is it responsible not to retaliate militarily? Should New Delhi self-deter out of fear that there would be a cycle of violence? And R is the ISI, back in Pindi, basically calculating that India is always going to self-deter so they can continue with this bloodletting against Hindus and other non-Muslims. Yeah, and you raised a number of great points there. I think the first thing maybe to unpack is that you mentioned the ISI there, and not coincidentally...
There was a major speech by the ISI, the head of the ISI, Asim Munir, to overseas Pakistanis, really creating a very clear narrative in distinguishing Hindus and Muslims. and the two-nation theory in terms of why the justification for Pakistan being created, that Muslims are a separate people, can't live with Hindus, Bangladesh notwithstanding, of course. But the timing of that, and then, of course, the trip of J.D. Vance and his family to India has not been looked at as coincidence.
But really in terms of Asa Munir's speech and his role as a head of the ISI and the ISI and the military really running the show in Pakistan, particularly on foreign policy issues. How do you see both India, and I think this is going to your point of not just going after terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, but really the head of the snake? How do you see India's response there and then what the U.S. should do vis-a-vis the ISI and Pakistani military?
Well, first of all, you're absolutely right when the Asif Mounir gave the speech about cutting the jugular. That was a green light to terror. And after the fact, any plausible deniability that Pakistan wanted to embrace when the true horror of what happened in Kashmir was exposed. went out the window when Pakistan promoted him to be national security advisor in addition to head the ISI. So, I mean, basically Pakistan and the ISI are thumbing their nose at the outside world.
Now, obviously, I'm not Hindu. I'm not Indian. I'm not Pakistani. I'm American, and I have no family background in the region. However, when I look at this from an American policy standpoint, I'm not just looking at the terrorism which the ISI has conducted against India. I'm looking at the terrorism which the ISI and its proxies have conducted against America. So, for example, we have the 2008 Numbiotape. when the Pakistani-sponsored terrorists, Lafkari Taiba and others.
were hunting down tourists. They were specifically hunting down Americans and Jews in addition to the Indians they killed. And Pakistan still... shelters those responsible for the deaths of four Americans. Look, I understand far more Indians were killed. But, from an American point of view, we should not let the murder of Americans go unanswered. Nor should we imagine that there is any coincidence with regard to timing.
Just as there was a terrorist attack in Kashmir when Bill Clinton visited India, so too did we see the timing being deliberate when J.D. Vance... entered, visited New Delhi. And so that shouldn't be forgotten either. The fact of the matter is, we need to respond and we need to respond hard. Now, when I look at what the Americans can do...
First of all, there are parallels that both India and the United States can carry out. The United States, during the first Trump administration, took out Qasem Soleimani, the head of the force for his complicity in the killing of Americans. Frankly, what India does is up to India, but the United States shouldn't stand in the way of taking out, perhaps not Asif Munir, if India feels that would be too escalatory. but others, former heads of the ISI, who have been responsible for terrorism.
Of course, hundreds of Americans died because of ISI support for the Taliban in Pakistan, the United States. could participate in some sort of strike against former ISI chiefs. The same thing is true with regard to hosting. Al-Qaeda founder, Osama bin Laden. The fact of the matter is, it wouldn't be harmful to send a signal that even if you retire from the ISI, if you have American blood on your hands, you could pay the ultimate price.
That would be the message I would want to send. And for people that would say it's too escalatory, I would say it's not too escalatory. We're not going after Asif Muneer. At least not until he resigns so that Pakistan can have the fig leaf that we're not going after currently serving officials. Absolutely. And I think you have also written about other steps that the U.S. can take, especially the State Department, in terms of designations.
And I think there's, I mean, from my perspective, it's quite perplexing as to why Pakistan is not, yeah, well, we obviously know the reason, but why it hasn't been designated as a state sponsor of terror, given. all of the terrorism that it has sponsored, not just in the region, but beyond that. Is that another step that you think is critical and how can that actually help improve?
the balance in the region and maybe be again a check against Pakistan continuing to sponsor terrorism or cross-border terrorism or broader in the region and beyond. Look, it's critical, and it's also overdue. The fact of the matter is Pakistan, even Pakistan's forensic knowledge as they try to rationalize the numbers of terrorist groups that... Pakistani Hulk.
So yes, we should have a former state sponsor of terror designation. Now, in the past, Pakistan has complained that we're a fair weather friend. We sanction them, the Symington Amendment and so forth, and we only lift sanctions. when we need them. And you know what? That's true. But that doesn't mean that the sanctions aren't justified. But I would say what isn't justified is lifting the sanctions for
subjective reasons. The fact of the matter is we should have the sanctions that come along with former terror designation. We should have Magnitsky Global Magnitsky Act sanctions. What really perplexes me, and I'll have an article about this in the coming week, is on May 9th. The International Monetary Fund is going to meet to release another billion dollars to Pakistan, one of the 25 loans.
which Pakistan has received from the IMF. And this comes after March of 2025, when Pakistan received $1.3 billion from the International Monetary Fund for Climate Change. mitigation. The point is that money is fungible. The United States is the largest donor to the International Monetary Fund, has predominant influence, and with Pakistan supporting terror. Why would the IMF?
be giving Pakistan billions, tens of billions of dollars over the years? Money is fungible. How much money does Pakistan spend on terrorism, on occupying Kashmir, and on other events? The fact of the matter is, perhaps it's time for some tough love for Pakistan, and we should also make clear to Donald Trump that he should no longer allow himself to be played for a fool by Asif Mounir, who thinks that he can kill Americans. kill Indians, kill others, and then get paid for.
Absolutely. And since you mentioned Donald Trump, I want to ask you what you make of his comments after the attack. Those were quite odd in terms of, first of all, factually and being factually incorrect in terms of the timelines. and, you know, saying that basically implying that Pakistan is a state that's existed for thousands of years. But beyond that, it seemed, well, he kind of, you know, maybe sent a signal that he supports India. It seemed almost
You know, drawing some moral equivalency between Pakistan and India or trying to stay as neutral as possible. Can you unpack a little bit what you thought of his statements right after the attack? Look, I agree with you. It was bizarre. It was ignorant. The border isn't a thousand years old or thousands of years old or whatever he said. And what I was actually reminded of.
is the lackluster response which George H.W. Bush had after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 as it looked like George H.W. Bush was hand-wringing about what to do. didn't really know what the United States should do next. Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of the United Kingdom at the time, famously said, don't go wobbly on me now, George. And George H.W. Bush rallied and Kuwait was liberated.
What we really need, given the personal relationship which Prime Minister Modi has with Donald Trump, is a phone call from Prime Minister Modi basically saying, don't go wobbly on me now, Don. Look, Donald Trump's response... was infused with moral equivalence, and it was subpar on many different levels. Now is the time for the Indian government to step up.
and make clear that there is no moral equivalence and there is only one way forward in terms of how the United States should respond to that. And as a follow-up to that, I think one of the suggestions that you have made and where Donald Trump and the administration can send a strong signal is to actually visit India in the wake of this attack similar to...
How former President Biden visited Israel in the wake of the October 7th attack. Can you talk a little bit about the significance of that and what message that would send to the world? Absolutely, and while you're referring to Samir, is an article I'd written for first post. Basically noting that less than two weeks after the October 7th, 2023 massacre in southern Israel, the largest single day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
Joe Biden flew to Israel and he stood unequivocally with Israel and the Jewish people at their time of need as they were reeling from this terrorist attack. I would say at a minimum. Donald Trump needs to fly to New Delhi. I would actually go further and say he should fly to Kashmir itself and to give a similar statement that he stands unequivocally. The United States stands unequivocally. Republicans and Democrats
stand in solidarity with the people of India. That's the sort of leadership we need as we bring our two countries together to be the two leading democracies of the 21st century. So we're talking about a range of actions here. Some, which could be at the level of militarily, are joining India in some military actions. Second would be the financial sanctions or blocking IMF's release of funds.
Third would be designations of Pakistan more broadly, and that comes, of course, with its own sanctions, and then potentially of individuals as well within the ISI leadership or former ISI as well. And then what symbolically the administration can do by visiting India on the ground and setting their solidarity and support with India in this time.
One thing that I wanted to get to, though, is that And if we're looking back at October 7th as kind of a lesson and kind of a learning point, we saw a great deal of support. immediately after the attack. But once Israel commenced its military actions and conducted that war that you mentioned that was necessary to root out,
the infrastructure and to go beyond mowing the lawn in Gaza. We saw a lot of the public sentiment, even amongst policymakers, obviously within the administration, really shift very quickly. What can India as well as maybe the diaspora do to prevent that sentiment from shifting here in the U.S. or to ensure that It doesn't then come back on pushing India to stop any potential military action that it's going to take and continue to have sympathy and to stand with India at this time.
You know, I think that's an excellent question. And as you know, I'm a diplomatic historian and I'm reminded of what happened after the Lockerbie bombing towards the very end of the Reagan administration with just weeks left to go in the Reagan administration. In the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing, there was a debate about whether to respond directly to Libya. or to let the investigation take its core.
And George H.W. Bush, who at that point had already been elected president to succeed Ronald Reagan, wanted to go the slow international sanctions route. And what that basically meant is for a year. There was no justice for the victims of the Lockerbie attack and that Muammar Gaddafi, who had ordered this attack with Libyan intelligence and with various terrorist connections, which he had. was able to get away with murder until ultimately his own people rose up against him.
And that's how the debate was actually framed behind the scenes between Reagan's advisers and George H.W. Bush's advisers. And frankly, I think George H.W. Bush was wrong. Terrorism is a military attack. It's an asymmetric military attack. It's not a crime. That debate matters because if you look at terrorism as an ordinary crime... then basically what you need is the evidence, the forensic evidence that occurs only when that crime has
has been perpetrated, and you're basically picking up the pieces. If you understand terrorism to be an asymmetric military strategy, and look, that's why the ISI is involved, then you can much more effectively preempt it. The way I tend to look at terrorism and the way which I would frankly urge the Indian government to is that terrorism is a tactic. And it's a tactic which is shaped by a cost-benefit analysis. if its sponsors believe that the benefit of this terrorism...
disrupting life in Kashmir, focusing critical attention on Kashmir, denying India the tourist revenue, exacerbating sectarian tensions within India. If the ISI believes that the benefit... from their point of view of this attack are greater than the cost. whatever the cost of arming and training those terrorists were, but it would probably just be in the tens of thousands of dollars in that case. Then there's going to be more terrorists.
If the ISI realizes that their homes are going to be bombed, their offices are going to be bombed. that they're going to have magnetic mines and bombs placed on their cars by motorcyclists as they go to the office. and that they're never going to see their families again, that's when the terrorism stops. If the Pakistani government realizes that on May 9th, the International Monetary Fund isn't going to give them another billion dollars. That's when the terrorism stops.
It's basically time to bring accountability to Pakistan. And the Indians are right. It needs to be graduated. You might not want to go to full-scale war right away, especially with Pakistan also being a nuclear power. But Pakistan has far more to lose. The question is whether India is willing to convince them of that. But if India self-deters, much like, for example, the Biden administration self-deterred, fear of escalation becomes an excuse for not doing anything.
That's actually a green light to more terrorism. That's a green light to more violence, and that's what I worry about the longer this drag's on. Absolutely. A few more questions before we wrap up here today. Do you see any role of China in this attack or its hands or anything that points to any involvement from the Chinese side? Okay. I don't have that intelligence. That's that Pakistan is very clearly a sacripty of China. I mean, because of the China-Pakistan economic corridor.
Pakistan owes China more than $40 billion. Guadal is part of Pakistan's string of pearl strategy. Sorry, of China's string of pearl strategy. And also let's remember that China occupies a portion of cashmere equivalent to the land area of the state of Maryland. The fact of the matter is China permeates Pakistani intelligence and probably at the very least knew about this in advance. But I would actually go further.
Look, if China and Pakistan are trying to promote ethnic separatism, inside India, be it with Kashmir, be it with so-called Khalistan, or any other cause with which they manufacture back in offices in Pindi. then it's time for India to do likewise with regard to Pakistan and with regard to China. Now, the difference between the two is what Pakistan tries to do with regard to India is arbitrary and it has no basis in legitimacy. But if we look at the Khan of Kellogg...
Balochistan, basically. They had a history of independence and autonomy going back to at least the 17th century and extending up to their formal dissolution in 1955. The fact of the matter is... I mean, frankly, Balochistan should be free. And it's not just a cynical response. It's also a moral one. And likewise, when we look at what... China is claiming vis-a-vis Taiwan, a country which it has had no functional control of for over 500 years and only had sporadic control of before the 1890s.
the fact of the matter is inner mongolia was part of mongolia i mean much more recently than Taiwan was ever part of China. And therefore, why isn't India saying, look, China, if you're going to continue to do this, we're going to reach out to the Mongols much more. We're going to reach out to the East Turkistanis, the Uyghur. We're going to play the same game with you that you're playing with us.
My biggest strategic complaint with regard to democracies, India and the United States both, is that sometimes we conduct diplomacy with both our hands tied behind our back. while other countries are conducting diplomacy cynically, almost as an asymmetric warfare strategy, while pursuing their goals through other means at the same time. We've got to play on an even playing field.
Absolutely. And I think even if the US were to view this whole issue just purely from the perspective of how does this check China? I think there is even more motivation to stand with India and to support anything India does because of the Chinese equation and all of this, and more broadly speaking, in terms of what the U.S. goals are in the region and in Asia.
One last thing I wanted to touch on, and you mentioned it on your own, is that obviously the ISI and their sponsorship of terrorism hasn't been limited to Islamist terror groups. but has also included the whole Khalistan movement. and in the Indian state of Punjab. And we've seen, obviously, that happening across the world of the Air India bombing in Canada and support for terrorists in the U.S. And with that, there was recently an arrest that kind of went under the radar a little bit.
of a Kalistani terrorist by Sacramento FBI agents, I think about three to four weeks ago. And he had been shown to have contact with... Pakistanis and with terrorists in Pakistan as well as obviously links to Khalistani groups, including Babar Khalsa International State Department Designated Terror Group. How do you see the whole Khalistan movement fitting in in terms of some of the ISI's moves right now? Do you think that they're going to continue to increase their support there?
Doesn't matter what's happening in Pakistan, whether the country is going to shit, for lack of a better term. They're going to continue to support all of these proxy wars and all these terrorist movements. We obviously have seen that with Pahil Gam. But how do you see this playing out with the Khalistan movement? Do you see any changes happening there? Or do you see it just continuing to be status quo?
Look, I think we need to shine light on it. You're absolutely right. Pakistan is going to support separatism because it's much more easy from the Pakistani point of view to try to delegitimize India and India's success. than it is to actually clean up their own house. Now, as you know, I went a few years ago, I went to Kashmir. And Kashmir was beginning to boom. After the revocation of Article 370, life was returning to normal. You didn't have the same old, almost feudal elite.
And you had ordinary Kashmiris able to integrate with Indian educational systems, go to the cinema, enjoy a nightlife, not be paralyzed or targeted for these. strikes which were dreamed up outside the borders of india and this is something that pakistan hates because when you go to pakistan and kashmir
It is a, I mean, it's a shadow of what it could be. And by the way, that's another thing we should do. Under no circumstances should any U.S. diplomat go to Pakistan, Akhima, Kashmir, unless they're going. through India, through Senegal, because we should recognize the entirety of Kashmir as Indian territory, no ifs, ands, or buts. No more of these U.S. ambassadors trying to kiss off. to their Pakistani hosts by going on these propaganda tours to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. So, yes.
Back to Khalistan. I do think the Pakistanis are going to try to promote this in order to wave a flag and distract. from the reality of their own country, and from the fact that India is on its way to becoming a superpower. It's the most diverse nation on earth. It's going to be one of the top...
three economic powerhouses on earth. It's the most diverse country on earth. The fact of the matter is this is something, a narrative which Pakistan fears, and we need to call out the cynicism. We shouldn't beat Canada. We shouldn't allow this on our territory. And frankly, Canada shouldn't be Canada. It's time to uproot this sort of terrorism. Now, the Sikh community in the United States also has some responsibility. Make no mistake. The six are largely peaceful.
They dismiss this fiction of the Khalistan movement, but some of the Sikh organizations, like the Sikh coalition, are replicating the failed path. A certain Muslim Brotherhood dominated self-described umbrella groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations by trying to legitimize terrorists.
Whereas what they should be doing is delegitimizing any of those groups which embrace violence. There's nothing wrong with a Sikh civil rights group trying to promote Sikh interests in the United States. There is something wrong with the fig leaf of that excuse being used much more cynically by groups who are trying to normalize or at least not condemn. Sikh terrorism. And unfortunately, that's what we see on the part of some self-described Sikh umbrella groups in the United States.
And on that note, I think that's a great place for us to wrap up our conversation today. Another fascinating conversation with Michael. And of course, He's always going to provide his very unique and cutting-edge views on issues ranging from terrorism to separatism. to what's going on in the subcontinent and beyond.
So we want to thank Michael again for joining us today. And Michael, please let our listeners know how they can follow you and keep following your work, both in terms of what you're doing at American Enterprise Institute as well as Middle East Forum. Again, you gave away the answer. You can follow me at AEI for American Enterprise Institute and also at Middle East Forum MEF.
O-R-U-M dot org. And I also, I don't engage in conversations by Twitter, but I'll tweet out all my work at M-R-U-B-I-N 1971. Thanks, Samir. Great. Thanks so much, Michael. And we look forward again soon on the podcast this episode, please share it now. or subscribe to this show on Ensure that more of these get made by making a donation date