>> rose: welcome to the program. we continue this evening with our coverage of the greek debt crisis talking to eric schatzker in athens and peter coy with me in new york. >> the greek finance minister has been making the point that this austerity the crushing the country. the problem is tsipras and he have lost their credibility as spokespeople. they have flip-flopped so many times and made so many -- just this week we've seen examples of that so many offers and counteroffers nobody wants to listen to them anymore, even though they do have a point. >> rose: we continue this evening with al hunt on the story with sylvia burwell. >> well, i think what it does is it gives us an opportunity, and it is an opportunity to build on the progress that we've seen in the areas of quality, affordability and access in the healthcare space and i think we

can turn and build on that and focus on important things we all need to focus on and do together. >> rose: we conclude with nisid hajari, his book is called "midnight's furies: the deadly legacy of india's partition." >> there was nothing ideologically that unified pakistan to begin with. you have to remember, pakistan when it began two separate parts of the country, the part with bangladesh connected physically, so there's a loose association there. they decided what would unify them is india towards india in the sense of vulnerability and islam. so they had to sort of pump up the islamic factor in their relations with india and fight for kashmir and so on. >> rose: funding for charlie rose provided by american express.

>> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with continuing coverage of the greek debt crisis. prime minister alexis tsipras made a speech today promising the greek nation their wages and pensions would be safe. the speech came after he offered a new proposal to the eurozone. he accepted most of the terms from previous negotiations with some condition attached. joining me from athens is eric schatzker. he is anchor and editor-at-large at bloomberg television. here in new york, peter coy, he is the economics editor of bloomberg businessweek. i am pleased to have both of them here as we try to make

sense of this story as it unfolds day by day. so, eric where are we? it's late in athens and where are we in the continuing drama of what the hell is going to happen to greece? >> charlie, trying to make sense of the story is exactly what we're trying to do. it's been a heck of the day here in athens greece, because, as you mentioned we learned earlier in the day alexis tsipras the prime minister made a counteroffer to his european creditors saying i'll take most of what you put on the table but with some conditions. and these are not minor conditions. he has some issues with the value-added tax and pension reform. he wants to delay pension reform. he wants to give parliament an opportunity to weigh in on labor legislation. these sound like small discrete points but added up they're actually very important, and it's not clear how well they would go down with the european creditors if the european

creditors -- and i'm talking about the i.m.f., the e.c.b. and the european commission were willing to sit down at the table. but what we learned from jerome dyson bloom who is the dutch finance minister and leads the euro group of finance ministers today is the time for negotiation has come and gone and what the euro group and presumably the i.m.f. and e.c.b. wants to see now is a referendum and that's where we're headed sunday. >> rose: what's the likely outcome of the referendum? >> just so everybody understands what i'm talking about no is a no to a euro bailout under the current offer and yes is a yes to the bailout conditions, and the way it's being framed here, everybody's figured this out by now, is yes is a yes to the eurozone and no is a yes to a gregsit, so to speak. it looks as more athennians than

grecians want to stay with the eurozone. >> rose: is tsipras supporting a "no" vote, as i understand he is? >> absolutely he is. he went on state television in a taped address this afternoon to urge his people to vote no. so on that basis there appears to be absolutely no room between him and jerome dysonbloom and jean-claude juncker and mario and madam leguard. he's going his way, they're going the other. it will appear we will not know how this is resolved until some point late in the evening sunday and between now and then, there is going to be furious campaigning. >> rose: if the vote is yes will tsipras resign? >> he promised monday night in an interview on state television that if the vote goes "yes" he will resign. the open question is if the

margin between victory and loss is very narrow, will he actually live up to the promise? i don't know. the reason i raise the question is because this government, not just the prime minister but the finance minister and other members of the cabinet made promises they haven't lived up to many steps along the way since january since this drama began with the election of seriza. so it remains to be seen. that's what he said h he will do. what else can i say? >> rose: you said it well. let me go to peter. where are we? >> eric mentioned mario dragi in passing. i think he of the central bank, is a key figure here. if you're talking about the crisis for greece is they don't have any money in the banks, and that's because the e.c.b. has put a cap on how much emergency loans that it will althrow bank of greece to make available to

the greek banks. that's why people show up at the a.t.m.s, they're having trouble getting money out. that's why there's a cap of 60 euros per day, and that can't go on. something's got to change there. so the e.c.b. is supposed to be apolitical not mixed up in who's elected, who's in and out of office. hey, we're just the tech technocrats that run the banking system. we're getting pulled into this. what the e.c.b. decides in the days ahead will probably breathty much determine whether greece stays in or goes out of the eurozone. >> rose: two cases i want you make that tsipras has a point it's hard to get a growth in economy when you have to live under the restrictions imposed on it by its creditors. >> the columbia university economist said he cannot think of a time when a country has suffered through a depression as deep as this one that was

essentially voluntarily imposed upon it. now, stiglits is sort of sympathetic and krugman. they have a point which greece is suffering under major austerity. raging taxes now and cutting the budgets will only exacerbate the problem. that's a problem yanis varoufakis has made, the greek finance minister, has been making the point this austerity is crushing the country. the problem is tsipras and yanis varoufakis have lost their credibility as spokespeople. they have flip-flopped so many times and just this week we've seen so many offers and counteroffers nobody wants to listen anymore, even though they have a point. >> rose: bloomberg businessweek with a cover story how greece can get past the pain

and save itself of which you are co-author. how can greece save itself? >> in the article we try to say, look, somehow we'll get past the crisis stage and then we'll be on to what are the fundamentals of greece it can use to rebuild a new economy and where are they? well, their number one moneymaker is shipping. there has to be a key. tourism is another key. it's sort of a gorgeous country. anybody who has been there loves it. >> rose: what do you think the germans would say eric, if it was asked why greece couldn't get it together? >> the germans would say greece lacks discipline simple as that. (laughter) , there is a point, yanis varoufakis would say the time for memorializing is past. let's try to move forward.

the reason people don't listen to him is they don't trust the greeks to do the right thing. that's why the latest offer from tsipras, the europeans aren't even willing to listen, it's, like, we've heard from you guys. >> rose: we've tried and tried and then you come back with conditions to our offer. let you have your referendum. >> exactly. >> rose: what should we wait for now? wait for the referendum or what other event could be influential? >> at the moment, it's a waiting game inasmuch as as i said before you will see furious campaigning from the government which has been plastering athens with signs and posters in favor of a "no" vote. the "yes" campaign has to get organized. it's not particularly well organized now. we may see that beginning to play out. the polling number suggests things are working in favor of yes and, so, they may not have to work that hard. buthyou know the prime minister and his cabinet will be out there on the streets out there

on television, telling greeks to vote no. it doesn't appear as if the movement of international markets whether german or spreads over greek debt or european stocks or the euro are going to affect that much at this point so that serves as a bit of a distraction. it matters what happens on the ground in greece. the euro group are done. we'll probably not hear from them between now and sunday in a substantive way unless something crazy happens here and i don't even know what that would be. dysonbloom said there's really no basis for us to even reinitiate negotiations. the opportunity to do that ended last night with the the expiration of the previous bailout program and now it's up to the greeks. >> rose: eric, thanks so much.

i know it's late and we appreciate you taking time, but we may come back as this story unfolds. >> of course charlie. thank you. >> rose: peter, thank you so much. >> thank you. > hunt: sylvia mathews burwell is secretary of health and human services. she provides over government healthcare programs including medicare and the affordable care act in. the clinton administration she was chief of staff to treasury secretary bob ruben who says he's the best. later president of global foundation and president of the wal-mart foundation. she came back to government in 2013 when barack obama asked her to be director of the office of management and budget. last year, she was named the 22nd h.h.s. secretary. when the supreme court ruled in favor of the affordable care act last week she said she cried tears of joy. a proud daughter of the

mountaineer state west virginia she was a road scholar. she's often called the policy wander kin, so i was stunned to see last week she celebrated her 50th birthday. belated happy birthday and thanks for joining us. >> thank you for the birthday wishes. glad to be here. >> hunt: you've seen the reaction since the decision in the court last week and you were able to look ahead. how does it change the landscape if at all and what ari the major challenges you now face? >> i think it gives us an opportunity, and it is an opportunity to build on the progress that we've seen in the areas of quality, affordability and access in the healthcare states and i think we can turn and build on that and focus on very important things that we all need to focus on and do together. one is on access while 16.4 million people there are that many fewer that are uninsured in the nation. we need to work on the numbers and we can do that through a

strong opening enrollment and further medicaid expansion. >> hunt: you have, i think 40% of subsidy-eligible people are now enrolled. is it sustainable at that rate? and what do you think you can get to? >> so with regard to the marketplace, i think what we saw last year when we saw 25% more plans coming into the marketplace that you have something that is a sustainable marketplace where there's competition and choice that the consumer can come in and use. we still want to continue to reach those who are part of the uninsured and make sure we're helping them understand they can find affordable quality care and bring them into that system, and then help and support them in using that care. >> hunt: now that the court has said federal exchanges are part of the law, do you expect some of those 17 state exchanges, a number which are having financial struggles that they will shift to healthcare.com? >> we haven't seen that in terms

of the state. >> hunt: some have hawaii, vermont. >> in terms of where we were before the case, we were having those conversations with hawaii. we worked with a number of states as way thork through how and where they want to be. but in terms of exchanges, a number of states have had successful changes -- kentucky, new york, a number of states -- so our plan so to work with states who want to be exchanges and if they don't we'll work on federal exchanges and the things they want to do. >> hunt: the enrollments in last period signups were greater on the federal rather than the state exchange. >> we saw a strong enrollment on the federal exchanges and building numbers in the states. the states had increases across the board, as we go into the next open enrollment we're focused on thinking about how do we make sure both the federal and state exchanges continue to bring people in. >> hunt: sylvia, the republican congress is not going to repeal obamacare.

we know that. they weren't going to do it before, they can certainly do it now. they can cause you difficulties. they can cut funding. what kind of problems would that create. >> lack of funding is a problem and an issue across the entire government, being former director of the office of management and budget, the idea that a nation sequester would stay in place and we would have funding levels at some of the lowest levels in decades. at h.h.s., c.m.s. certainly runs all our healthcare programs is an issue and that's an issue for running medicare and programs like that but also the n.i.h. and places like that if we did have the cuts or the centers for disease control that we depended on so much this year for so many things, whether ebola or conversations around measles or support ago state like indiana as it's going through it's difficulties with the h.i.v. cases. >>cases.

>> hunt: how optimistic are you that we'll get an arrangement there? >> i cam to town as an optist and as sequester was beginning and people thought we couldn't get there, and then mr. ryan and ms. murray were able to get a deal that led to all the bills being passed. that was the first time since 1987 all the bills had passed together. so i think it can be done again that we can get to a place where there can be agreement. >> hunt: got to do it pretty soon though. >> we'll need to do it. october 1, obviously, as we know is an very important dead whrn in terms of funding the government for the next year. >> hunt: a.c.a., bill frist physician, former republican majority leader, says the president has to do what he failed to do which is bring parties together to fix parts of the law. are you going to do that? and what do you need to fix? >> so i think today the president is in tennessee and that is a big part of the conversation. he's there because tennessee is

a state where we have seen affordability, quality move together, we've seen it move in a bipartisan way. we've seen it move with the private and public sector working together, and he's been in tennessee to reflect that, i think that's where we need to go as a nation and to build on the progress that we've made and to focus on things like making sure that people move from coverage to care, they know how to use the care, access a doctor understand the bills or if you're in the employer-based market that there are preventative services you can get without co-pay. >> hunt: what about legislative issues. >> there are a number we've articulated and we want to understand and have a real conversation about the this subject. we expand tax credits for small businesses to companies with more employees. we got feedback that the number was too low so we've proposed that. another proposal in the budget gets to a topic that i think people talk about a lot is giving the secretary of h.h.s.

the ability to negotiate on high-cost pharmaceuticals and that's something in terms of the price issues people are focused on. >> hunt: my guess is you get some resistance from the industry on that. >> i think that we would, but i think what we want to do is work to create a system -- i think it is an historic time in terms of energy from the private sector meaning insurers as well as providers as well as the public sector on changing our delivery system and how we deliver healthcare in the u.s. in terms of quality spending taxpayers' dollars better and putting the consumer at the center of care. >> hunt: to get that you will have to give up some stuff that's what bargaining is all about. would you be willing to put on the table the medical device tax which even liberals like liz wet elizabeth warren oppose?

>> in the most sustainable bill that occurred, there were things that were greet and we supported it but things we would have liked as well. in any of these conversations we know that will be a place we will have to go, with regard to the specific you mentioned the medical device tags that's a place where as we said we'll review based on four things -- affordability, access and quality, how does it impact those things and what does it do to the economy. in this particular example, increasinger our deficit by $24 billion to what benefit of other things is what we have a question. we want to understand why you have to take the step in terms of improving access affordability, quality, and the questions of what would you would do with regard to deficit impact. >> hunt: after the court ruling, you said, now's the time to come together and let's think about how to make this work, but that wasn'tthat wasn't really the

reaction of a lot of prominent republicans. paul ryan who may be the key republican on capitol hill blasted chief justice roberts for what he said writing legislation in advance and he said this is after decision. he said obamacare is a bust because government control brings higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality. >> i think taking each of those and this is what i can we need to do in this conversation now that will help to bring us together is let's look at the substance. in terms of issues of higher prices, as we look at what was happening before and i think an important part of the conversation is where were we as a nation before? and having been in the private sector and public sector, the issue of increasing healthcare cost and what they were increasing and the rates they were increasing couldn't be sustained. so what we see now is some of the lowest price growth in healthcare that we've seen in the history of keeping the records. with regard to the issues of quality, i think most people agree and i think even mr. bush

agreed because he said keep the preexisting conditions not being something that can keep you -- mr. bush said it in terms of things that should be preserved. >> hunt: the president or candidate? >> mr. jeb bush. >> hunt: okay. so i think there are a lot of places that when we have the conversation of substance of quality, pre-existing conditions no longer keep you off insurance. as a wornlings can't be discriminated against anymore. preventative care, co-pays, immunizations preventative cancer services in terms of screening, many of those things no longer have co-pays, and most people want that. what we need to do in order to make progress is connect the conversation to the substance of what's happening and where there are issues, let's work and find the places we can improve the problem we want to work on. >> hunt: and charge about fewer choices? >> with regard to the question of choices when we look at the marketplace and what happened

25% more folks came into marketplace, and i think it's important to reflect it's a marketplace. what i think is the great thing about this is the marketplace is you are making choices you as an individual in the individual marketplace between private plans. that's what it is. it is a market. one of the things i think we see is getting to this consumer at the center, 29% of those individuals who reenrolled this year 29% came in shopped and selected new plans. that's a consumer that's informed and making choices. >> hunt: there are widespread reports that after the experience this year that premiums, some people say, will soar next year, 10% or more. south dakota, i think the request is 42%. is that real? >> i always will be focused on the issues of premiums deductibles and out of pocket costs. when one thinks about the total cost to the individual, that's something the affordable care

act and things we do are very focused on. with regard to the specifics we're seeing now, there are a number of things we know, one is these are the proposals. part of what happened in the affordable care act is creating transparency so people in the marketplace can see what's happening. any proposal over 10% has to be reviewed that's part of downward pressure on premiums. we also know most insurers said they believe that the majority of people who will come in the marketplace in 2016 will have plans with less than a 10% increase in premiums. the studies done across cities and that sort of thing in terms of seven cities, their study says probably 5.8%. last year we saw people came in with the premium levels they propose and then come down. but it is an important thing we watch. >> hunt: would you expect, however, premiums will rise more next year than this year? >> one of the things i think we'll see is in places where we saw people pricing at a certain

level as they gained market share, you may see some of that and i think we'll see that. but one of the other things that just happened that people -- the law is complicated and healthcare is complicated, the three rs, which are the mechanisms that were put in place as part of the affordable care act to put downward pressure on premiums and help people adjust, two of those we just talked about this week at h.h.s. and what we saw is that, in the claims data and things that were coming through, we believe that we're going to be able to even pay more back in terms of additional downward pressure. >> hunt: three rs -- risk adjustment reinsurance and risk corridors. some target the facts that, as people were entering into the market, that some insurers because it's a new market might not have priced correctly. so how we adjust and help them adjust. so they pay money in, then money goes back out on a number of these. >> hunt: is it possible to say

yet what you think roughly the average premium increase will be next year? >> i think at this point we don't know enough to know because these are proposed rates and because we saw the movement last year i don't think at this point we will know enough. >> hunt: you said some of the other costs -- you mentioned some of the other costs too and some of the biggest complaints about the consumers is out of pocket payments, deductibles co-pays. what can you do to bring those down? >> one of the things to recognize is deductibles were on the increase before any of the changes of the affordable care act. one of the most important things i think we can do and it's very important is there are out of pocket limits on what people can pay in terms of that is part of the affordable care act. with regard to one of the most important things we can do is create transparency in the market and one of the steps we've taken even before we get to the next open enrollment is provide a clear guidance to the

insurers that how they provide information on their plans as people are shopping is clearer and better and that has to do with providers as well as other information. >> hunt: and getting back to some of the complaints of the republicans and your friend chairman ryan who says we are going to replace it. and he says those people who say we don't have a plan are wrong that i have a plan along with senator burr and others for a comprehensive replacement. now, you've had a chance to look at that. what would be the difference between a ryan-burr comprehensive plan and what we have now? >> i think one of the things that's important is legislation that scores and scores in the sense that c.b.o. tells you how many uninsured as well. so i think what people need to do, is again, let's understand what all the specifics are. are you going to get rid of kids on their plans for 26? are you going to insure that

preexisting conditions work? are you going to get rid of the consumer protections that have been put in place and whether things like lifetime limits, annual limits or the fact that no co-pay for preventative services. and, so, when they say there is a plan, when they say there is an approach, i think we believe what we have in front of us is working. >> hunt: how does the ryan plan score? >> i don't know there is actually a score to it and that's, i guess, my point. one of the things i think we need to do is make this conversation and get to the specifics and the substance and what the substance will do. >> hunt: one thing we might be able to score, suppose for a moment the a.c.a. had not passed. comparatively what would the healthcare system look like today, care coverage and cost? >> i think with regard to the questions of access, you know, we're seen the largest prop that we've seen, 16.4 million in terms of the coverage and, so,

access has been a huge part of what's happened. with regard to issues of quality, i would focus on things like we've reduced the number of harms -- that means things happening in the hospital, either falls or other things that occur in a hospital setting -- we've reduced the number of harms using some of the tools in the affordable care act. certainly in that area of affordability, just to be specific about what would have been different the trajectory of medicare spending up from this point since 2009, passage to have the act we would have spent $316 billion more on medicare on this projected spending. so the benefits and the other things that didn't exist, there are 9 million seniors in this country who have received $15 billion. >> hunt: careful when you talk about seniors. >> no, no, received $15 billion because we closed the doughnut hole as part of the affordable care act. even two weeks ago and didn't

receive a lot of attention because many other things were going on, the attorney general and i announced the largest takedown in terms of medicare fraud, over 200 people charged and some of the authorities helped us get to that program integrity for the taxpayer so we're protecting the taxpayer dollar better. >> hunt: madam secretary as you know the court in the 2011 ruling said the states did not have to follow the medicaid expansion where the federal government picks up a lot of the tab to expand coverage for poor people, and a whole lot of states didn't. some you have negotiated with but i think over 20 states have not expanded medicaid. are you optimistic any of those will go along? and aren't there just some hard core places texas louisiana, that you as they say ain't gonna get no how? >> well i agree there are states that will be very hard,

but i also know we'll get more states in. the reason i believe that is the question of what it means. for many individuals and many are working individuals because they're at a place in terms of there are people who are working that don't have health coverage for them what it means in terms of financial and health security having traveled across the country and that's the folks we're talking about, the people in terms of when they get the coverage, what it means in terms of lives health, family's health and financial security is part of the driver. the second part is what it means to states and their economies. in kentucky, governor breshears has had studies done along the way to measure the impact of expansion in the state of kentucky. deloitte and the university of louisville had done a piece of work that said by 2021, 40,000 jobs will be created in kentucky because of the expansion, and $30 billion will flow into the kentucky budget system.

>> hunt: because you have healthier -- >> it's everything together. >> hunt: why today five years later, is the a.c.a. still probably -- i won't say unpopular but doesn't command majority support even today? >> you know, i think we as an administration haven't done as much as we could to make sure people understand the breadth of the benefits and that the a.c.a. became about a very narrow, important thing. it became about the marketplace at one point in time. but it is about so much more. so making sure that people understand that benefits they get every day and they're using are things that are part of the affordable care act things that are now in the fabric and i think now most people agree. the preexisting conditions is one of many things. up to 26-year-olds, those are things people now accept as part of our healthcare system. >> hunt: when you leave office in a year and a half, would you expect that most people would

talk about it as the a.c.a. or affordable care act as you do, or will still be known primarily as obamacare? >> you know what i hope most americans talk about? i hope they talk about a system where they get better quality and it's more affordable, that they actually talk about what it is and what it means for them. >> hunt: you don't call it an investigation? >> i do not. i think this is what it's about the more we give people the information to make choices that's empowered consumer and that's both choices in politics and the substance of their healthcare because i believe the american people, when given that information, make good choices. >> hunt: a still young secretary burwell, thank you so much for being with us. >> rose: at the stroke of midnight on august 15 1947, the world witnessed the death of the british indian empire and the creation of two new countries. they were india and pakistan.

that partition also sparked some of the worst sectarian violence of the 20th century. along the newly created border between the two nations, hindus muslims and sikhs killed thousands in a war that lasted for weeks. they have fought four wars since 1947 both sides have massive arsenals of nuclear weapons aimed at each other's cities and pakistan's support for extremest groups helped fuel the rise of islamic fundamentalism in afghanistan and beyond. this is the basis of a new book by nisid hajari, called "midnight's furies: the deadly legacy of india's partition." he is an author and asia editor of bloomberg view. i am pleased to have him talk about this very good book welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: i sort of laid out what is essentially the

argument. partition meant pakistan always being smaller, always felt like and took cover in the sectarian disagreements, muslim-hindu and both in competition not only with each other but also other places and, from that, came the rise of fundamentalist islamic militants. >> pakistan was never intended to be a theocracy. it was supposed to be for all faiths but where muslims was going to be a majority. the leader didn't intend it to be a religious state. in the partition, you created a state small, inherently weak, received only about 17% of testify assets of the former british indian empire with the larger neighbor that, because of this experience and these weeks of violence and what followed

afterwards and an initial ward in kashmir and so forth developed an idea its larger neighbor was out to destroy it. if you listen to quotes in india's leaders of the time -- >> rose: remarkable rach into into -- research into a whole range of sources. >> the vividness of the writings and the speeches and diaries were incredible. it's honest in a brutal way. the indian leaders hoped pakistan wouldn't survive at first. they hoped in a few years it would decide it wanted to be a part of india again in a friendly way. >> rose: india has the second largest population in the world doesn't it? >> it does and the idea was a country for all faiths and muslims should feel at home there. >>there. the book is based on two very

scientifically-minded and secular men who really disliked each other and the mutual antipathy hit a point. after jenna married a daughter of a friend -- she was 16 when they met -- and he was a rising political star at the time, but his star was eclipsed by mahatma gany and nee are neru and his marriage fell apart. neru's wife passed away and he started an affair with a young indian woman who happened to have been best friends with jenna's former wife. >> rose: and that's the source of enmity. >> neru had taken over, had usurped all the power and glory and romance that once had been jenna. there was a time when jenna

believed he would be the leader of united india and it became cheer after his fall and neru's rise, he would never lead. >> rose: how did you approach this? other books have been written about this. >> freedom at midnight. >> rose: freedom at midnight was one. what was the other. >> midnight's children. >> rose: that was the second one. somehow this is such an exciting story. >> it really is. the drama is incredible. freedom at midnight is a great operatic tale. stories involved saving the day at the last possible minute, making for great cinematic text but doesn't bear that much resemblance to reality. what i wanted to do here is bring in truths from both sides. we even get into a narrative that would sort of split the

middle and show both sides that there is faults in leaders from each of them. >> rose: and how many people were killed in all? >> no one really knows. the estimates range from 200,000 up to 2 million. it's probably, my guess, towards the lower end of the scale but the records were scattered hundreds of thousands of people probably buried in shallow graves along the roads as they were fleeing from one country to the other, so no one really knows. >> rose: tell me who the other main characters. >> jenna neru, mahatma gandhi. gandhi's campaign had taken place in the 20s and 30s. by this time, he was almost 80 years old and wasn't a political patrick in the way neru was. and then a great flamboyant member of the british royalty who came in to give away the

empire. and finally there is patel who was neru's hard-lined deputy who was very different from him in personality, you know, wanted the same things but went about them in a very different way had much less tolerance for neru's impeachousness and patel wasn't as sentimental about muslims. it's important toeru india welcome muslims. patel said if you don't want to be here go to pakistan. >> rose: had they had much conflict between indians and muslims within india? >> there has been and was before. >> rose: it's not a large issue, is it? >> it can be whipped up by demagogues. politicians, you saw the riots in 2002, with the chief minister at the time. >> rose: the present prime minister. >> exactly.

the tensions are there and can be exploited and were exploited in 1947 as well, that's part of what led to the violence. >> rose: and today the link to radical fundamental islamic terrorism. >> right goes back to the mindset engrained in pakistan in 1947. it can't all be explained by this but in these few short weeks of 1947, this idea that pakistan would always be vulnerable to the larger neighbors took hold and you see within about two months of independence in october of 1947, various pakistani leaders sponsored an unofficial jihad as it were sending tribesmen, the four runners of taliban, into the state of kashmir to overthrow. there was nothing ideologically that unified pakistan to begin with. you have to remember that it was pakistan when it began was two separate parts of the country

bangladesh and not even connected physically, so a very loose association there, and they decided what would unify them was enmity towards india and the sense of vulnerability and islam so they had to sort of pump up the islamic factor in relations with kashmir and so on and starts to spread ideas among younger pakistanis that have gotten out of control. >> rose: some people considered pakistan the most dangerous country in the world which is a magazine cover you wrote. >> yes. >> rose: do you still believe that? >> i do in this one sense. pakistan, i think it's generally acknowledge, provides safe haven to the afghanistan taliban and keeps the war there on the boil. they have provided unofficial support to islamic militants and almost caused a war. >> rose: put them in prison for a day and let them out. >> exactly.

and are building the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. we don't know that much about their nuclear doctrines and safety. the chances of a nuclear war breaking out are greater here than anywhere else in the world. >> rose: by mistake or calculation? >> a couple of weeks ago the indians were threatening if another terrorist attacks happens, we'll go across the border and destroy the camps. >> rose: did they say they would use the weapons? >> the pakistanis say we reserve the right to use tactile nuclear weapons if you cross the border. because of this inequality of the power the pakistanis have never renounced first use oaf nuclear weapons. >> rose: and the indians never signed the nonproliferation treaty. >> right. >> rose: who has the stronger military? >> the indians. also the pakistani military, for as powerful as it is within pakistan, has never won a war.

they've lost every single war they've had with india at this point. the nuclear weapons give them a major deterrent but they're still outgunned. >> rose: used to be in this long history of india and pakistan that the indians were an ally of the soviet union and the united states was an ally of pakistan. >> right, and this is something pakistan decided early on. jenna in 1987 was pitching pakistan to the u.s. as an ally against the soviets because he needed money. he was asking for a $2 billion loan. he said look at where we are on the map we'll be your bulwark against communism in southwest asia and that's something pakistani generals ever since then played upon and the u.s. has bought into this at various points over the years. >> rose: we have a much better relationship with india today. >> we do today because we realized the billions in aid and military sent the to pakistan are designed to mostly defend against india not fight islamic

militants. >> rose: how does afghanistan play into this? >> it's an area between india and pakistan because pakistan has idea of strategic depth any conflict in india they would fall into friendly afghanistan and they fear indian influence in kabul that would work against them in conflict. >> rose:eth not an irrational fear because the indians have set up consulates and everything else in afghanistan trying to make sure that even if the taliban take part and win they will have influence with the taliban, too and try to counterpoint pakistani influence with the taliban. >> right, and it makes perfect sense. you can understand why they would want influence there. they're innocently building roads, training afghanistan officials. pakistanis see this suspiciously and believe there is more going on under the surface but india

can make a good case for needing to have a role in afghanistan. >> rose: did they ever get over the midnight furiys? >> pakistan has not -- the pakistan military establishment has nod, the idea the world shaped by i.s.i. has not changed. more than 90% of both sides were born after partition. some have heard stories, particularly in pakistan. and india is a huge country, my family is from western india. none of them were affected by the partition. these are just stories they read about in the newspapers or the history books. so a lot of people moved on by this point. >> rose: you would think since '47 that there would have been politicians who would have seen it a life's work to somehow make the situation better and find a way to eliminate all the things unleashed by the midnight

furies. >> you would think. and everyone knows what needs to be done. just a year ago when the leader came into power he invited pakistan to inauguration and taking about opening trade links and trade and energy. everyone knows it would benefit pakistan more. pakistani militariy benefits too much from the stalemate. there are both sides who don't have any interest in it. loud voices on both sides and india as well. >> rose: it is the world's largest democracy. >> it is, and a thriving one. >> rose: at the same time lots of problems with corruption and other issues. >> yes. >> rose: does modi offer a new india, in some way? >> he's pitching himself. >> rose: exactly. that this will be an india not defined by caste or goat vote

banks, but opportunity. that india and the religion want jobs, development, and i think he's right in that and i think he would be smart to stick with that as his message. the danger is much of his hard core base is a hindu nationalist base and they have gone off on various campaigns to reconvert muslims and so forth. they're a detraction for modi's aagenda and heohasn't been quite quick enough to put a stop to it. >> rose: at the same time you had the neru family, the gandhi family in power at one time or another. now another young gandhi who may very well win. where does he stand today politically? >> not very strong. he started to make a little comeback but it's not clear he even wants to run the party or india. >> rose: his mother maintains

her power? >> over the party, she does. this is not the communist party neru would have wanted to see. neru was wary of hero worship. he wrote an article under a pseudonym in younger days warning against congress followers heaping too much praise on him and turning him into a potential dictator. >> rose: like george washington. >> exactly. the idea that his heirs three or four generations later would be trying to run a country on very little besides their name i think would have appalled them. >> rose: what likelihood do you think there is there would be coming together because of new leaders like modi. would bhutto make a difference? >> hard to say. what's interesting now china is getting much more involved in the region. >> rose: how other than investments? >> mostly investments, but because of investments they need stability in pakistan.

they're worried about islamic extremism and want the pakistanis to quell this. they would want better relations not perfect. >> rose: not perfect because? they want the indians distracted on their other border. >> rose: enmity there. exactly. >> rose: the chinese are scared of the islamic extremism so are the russians and europe, parts of the middle east, everybody's scared of islamic extremism. they can't get together on a strategy or policy to do something about islamic extremism. the pakistanis are scared of it. they admit it's the central threat to tability within pakistan. >> rose: every country thinks about that.

they need to come together. >> it's different in every country the reasons the causes. in pakistan, it's while they are worried about this and going after certain islamic militants as you noticed, they're still releasing other militants after a few days in jail. >> rose: exactly. because they served their you purposes and they think they can control them and are afraid if they go after them too hard right now they'll face a multi-front war. >> rose: that was -- who was behind the hotel bombings in mumbai was released. >> he's openly living in pakistan right now. they say this is their legal system and nothing more they can do without more evidence from tinned yans and so forth. again, you look at afghanistan as well. they've talked about cooperating on security. >> rose: something in which

waziristan is better. >> they have gone after strong holds in parts of the tribal areas. these are the pakistan talibans, the ones that attack. there are others, they've talked about -- >> rose: they've not gone after the haqqani network? >> not that anyone can point to with evidence. the haqqani are still fighting. they have vicious offensive. >> rose: what's going to happen in afghanistan? >> i think more the same. if pakistan wanted to push them to the negotiating table, they could deny them safe haven in pakistan which would impede their fighting. >> reporter: do you believe the pakistanis knew osama bin laden was there? >> i wouldn't be surprised. >> rose: some i.s.i. members but not necessarily the prime minister or the head or the chief of staff of the army.

>> no. >> rose: they went ballistic. >> rose: they were embarrassed by the fact he was there and they didn't know and he invaded their sovereignty. >> and the latter embarrassed them more. that's why you see stories about, oh we always knew he was here and this was part of a deal, trying to make themselves look better. you can't keep a conspiracy that big, that silent for that long in any country. >> rose: what's the future of both countries? >> i think india's is fairly bright. >> rose: the economic growth is remarkable in the recent years. >> they need to make big changes but it's within their own power to do. its takes political lill but they can do it. pakistan is a little more unclear because they haven't been able to come to grips with the ideological threat -- nature of the threat. they can say we're going after these militants because they're criminals but until you have the

idea it's a patriotic act, you will never finish it. >> rose: talking about kashmir. >> right. started in 1947. still goes on today. you try and draw a map of kashmir in any book or magazine and they'll come with a black pen and mark it out. >> rose: was this fun? it was fascinating to dig deep in the archives and handling tell grams of winston churchill. >> rose: karzai says pakistan is perhaps the most world's dangerous country a combustible state, you can only truly understand the country by going to its roots. nisid hajari does that in this intelligently written book. he finds the ideology of venom and violence that has erupted on to the global stage. thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. >> rose: pleasure to have you

here. for more about the program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> the following kqed production was produced in high definition. [ ♪ music ♪ ] it's all about licking your plate. >> the food was just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were at the same restaurant. >> and everybody