| Font Size |
Given its vastly improved relations with the United States and Pakistan, India has no reason to press the panic button. Yet it should be quickly flagging its concerns with the foreign policy team of Senator Barack Obama, should he be declared the Forty-fourth President of the United States on Tuesday night.
In an interview broadcast on MSNBC, Obama suggested that his administration would encourage India to solve the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, so that Islamabad can better cooperate with the United States on Afghanistan. Obama’s definitive thesis comes in three parts.
“The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got to work with the newly elected government there (Pakistan) in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should — try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants”. India entirely agrees with the first two elements but should strongly object to the third.
Put simply, the Obama thesis says: the sources of Afghan instability are in Pakistan; those in turn are linked to Islamabad’s conflict with New Delhi, at the heart of which is Jammu and Kashmir.
For months now, New Delhi has been assessing Obama’s seeming hard-line towards Pakistan, including a threat to bomb terrorist bases there if Islamabad failed to act against the al-Qaida and the Taliban. India, however, has paid less attention to the carrot
Obama was offering Pakistan—American activism on Kashmir in return for credible cooperation in Afghanistan.
Obama’s remarks on Kashmir are by no means off the cuff. They have been remarkably consistent since he launched his presidential campaign. In the first comprehensive articulation of his world view in the journal Foreign Affairs during the summer of 2007, Obama argued, “If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.”
If Obama’s Kashmir thesis becomes the policy, many negative consequences might ensue. For one, an American diplomatic intervention in Kashmir will make it impossible for India to pursue the current serious back channel negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir, the first since 1962-63.
India and Pakistan have made progress in recent years, because their negotiations have taken place in a bilateral context. Third party involvement will rapidly shrink the domestic political space for India on Kashmir negotiations.
For another, the prospect that the U S might offer incentives on Kashmir is bound to encourage the Pakistan Army to harden its stance against the current peace process with India.
Finally, the sense that an Obama Administration will put Jammu & Kashmir on the front burner would give a fresh boost to militancy in Kashmir and complicate the current sensitive electoral process there. Kashmiri separatist lobbies in Washington have already embraced Obama’s remarks.
To be sure, Indo-U S relations are much stronger today to suggest a return to the discordant early 1990s, when Kashmir topped the bilateral agenda. Yet, New Delhi cannot ignore that Pakistan is likely to be at the very top of a President Obama’s national security agenda and his perception of a linkage between Kashmir and Afghanistan.
India’s chattering classes may be carried away by Obama’s talk of ‘change’ in Washington. On Kashmir at least, India badly needs ‘continuity’ with President George W Bush’s deliberate hands-off approach.
Although his historic civil nuclear initiative got all the attention, President Bush’s Kashmir policy has contributed even more significantly to the transformation of Indo-U S relations.
Despite relentless pressures from Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Bush refused to inject the U S into the Indo-Pak conflict. By ending the traditional American meddling in Kashmir, Bush created the conditions for purposeful bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Islamabad. India would not want Obama to disrupt this positive dynamic in the subcontinent.
India does not disagree with Obama that a Pakistan secure within its own borders is good for the whole region. That indeed is the basis on which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee explored solutions to the Kashmir dispute on a bilateral basis.
India’s problem with the Obama thesis is in the simplistic trade-off it sets up between Kashmir and Afghanistan. More than seven years after 9/11, Washington has begun to understand that the source of the problem in both Kashmir and Afghanistan is the Pak Army and its instrumentalisation of extremism to achieve political objectives.
Ending the Army’s right to define Isalamabad’s national security goals would make it a lot easier to resolve Pakistan’s disputes with both India and Afghanistan. That in turn would demand Indo-U S cooperation in accelerating Pakistan’s democratic transition by establishing firm civilian control over the military.
(C. Raja Mohan is a Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University and a Contributing Editor of The Indian Express.)
Discuss this story on expressindia forums
|
|
KASHMIR IS THE HEAD OF INDIA.IT IS THE SYMBOL OF SECULARISM IN INDIA.WITHOUT KASHMIR INDIA WOULD BE THEROCRATIC STATE.EVEN IF KASHMIR VALLEY IS MUSLIM MAJORITY THE AREAS OF JAMMU AND LADAKH ARE HINDUA ND BUDDHIST MAJORITY.UNITED INDIA IS ONLY THE FUTURE OF KASHMIR.THE HURRIYAT LEADERS SHOULD KNOW THAT WITHOUT INDIA THEY HAVE NO FUTURE.THE INDIAN GOVT HAS DONE IN KASHMIR WHAT NO OTHER GOVT COULD HAVE DONE.THE LOC SHOULD BE MADE PERMANENT AND INTERNATION BORDER BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA.THE BORDER SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED .THE PAKISTAN SHOULD GET THE AREAS OF KASHMIR WHICH IT HAS ACCEEDED TO IT.AND INDIA SHOULD GET THE PORTIONS WHICH INDIA HAVE ACCEEDED.WITHOUT INDIA KASHMIR HAS NO FUTURE.THE CALL OF INDEPENDENCE BY THE HURRIYAT IS UNDER DURESS FOM THE EXTREMISTS.THEY ALSO KNOW VERY WELL THAT THEY HAVE NO FUTURE.PAKISATN AND INDIA ARE WELLAWARE TAHT THEY WOULDNOT AFFORD INDEPENDENCE TO KASHMIR.GIVING INDEPENDENCE TO KASHMIR MEANS CREATING ANOTHER TERRORISTS HAVEN IN THE NEIGHBOUR.
Hey ! this would be president is nuts.He doesn't know a bit about Pakistan or India.Even if he gives Kashmir totally to Pakistan on a platter , they will not concentrate on terrorism in Afganistan or Talban.Simply Pakistan will ask him to give the rest of India on Platter to it. The problem of Pakistan is not Kashmir, it simply wants to destroy India.It can tolerate Indian existence on globe.But it doesn't know that unless it's attitude is changed it's running to desrtroy itself and the avarage Indian's attitude will be also the same towards it.
Why Indians are much worried about Obama?Even Nixon who threatened india with Nuclear bomb couldnt do anything against india.After iraq lesson US will not involve any foreign political problems where they are not benefitted.Here indians must concerned not with Obama or seperatists, but with indian leaders like MMS and sonia.
US cant do anything which hrts indian sentiments in kashmir
Never mind what Obama says. Winning hearts and minds in US is different from winning hearts and minds of Indians. By stepping onto a minefield (perhaps a bit inspired by CIA successive failures in Pakistan) like Kashmir is going to fuel the very elements of militancy that successive US Governments have indirectly encouraged and brought the world into a state of mess. Obama is a failure and we will have the oppurtunity to measure him for the next 365 days.
Your candidates views on Kashmir
Obama was hiding his muslim parentage by omiting his middlename Hussain. But his thinking is that of a muslim. Like the Kerala muslims who are now fighting for separate Kashmir of which some are killed recently, Obama is also batting for an Islamic state. US and Pakis are very thick since independence and US has trained and even protected the Army Generals of Pakistan. Pakis wnt Kashmir to be leberated like Kosovo and Barak Hussain Obama who was incidently lived a short time in Pakistan many not be averse to such an idea. The bottom line is Obama is a muslim and highly inexperienced to be the president of USA. OBAMA COULD BE A THREAT FOR INDIA
Don't take C. Raja Mohan seriously. He is too much of an ideologue to be truthful. He is trying his best to be a lapdog of Bush.
The basic approach should allow India to consider the thesis. Obama cannot act on his own, even if he has the Congress/Senate with him. He is dealing with an foreign country. India has to present it's case on Kashmir once again in a forceful manner, if any solution, not conducive to India. We Indian's always have a negative approach on matters, and this clouds the thinking. I think better days are ahead in Indo/American reltions, mainly because, the countries are more equal than ever before. Krishnan
I am NOT surprised by OBAMA comment.He has a neck of CONSENSUS. If India is 100% right than India loses 50%. Kashmir is DISPUTED though it was 100% Indian State. Pakistan GAVE Gilgit to US-Akshai Bharat to China-Large Chunk to it self-ALL Indian Territories. Ask OBAMA to give SINDH Hind 100% to Sindhis-which they never got-He will give 50% to India. China says whole India is sisputed territory-Obama will give 50%. If Indians do not comprehend this-don't cry- YOU DESERVE IT!
I think you are parsing the comments too finely to generate a sensationalist headline. A more charitable reading of the comments is that India should not the focus issue for Pakistan - they should focus instead on their internal extremism issue. If the US could get Pakistan off the Kashmir issue as the be all and end all of its foreign policy platform, why shouldnt India welcome it ? It is a distraction for India too.
Coming from even a reputed analyst like Raj Mohan, all this breastbeating on a statement by Obama only points to the fact that we still haven't learned anything from our experience with Kashmir. To start with, we have to understand that IT IS OUR PROBLEM. The world, whether it is Pakistan, US, or Russia, will look at it relative to their interests, priorities. Obama holds a view, in relation to the best possible results for the US. This is what diplomats are for. We have to find our own solutions.
Smart politicians solve problem when they can and not postpone. We have let Kashmir simmer just like our dispute with Tibet on the border issue. We are now paying the price. We could have solved it at the start and again after the BANGLADESH LIBERATION. But our leaders could not come to do this when conditions were favourable to us but instead took intereim measures that ultimately blew on our face. China solves its problems when time is ripe and waits patiently when the time is not opportune without giving a bit to pressures. Hopefully we will get new leadership but our leadership is the same family that clings to power no matter how much fiasco they commit. India should have a system where people from no where can get elected like in the USA. Jimmy Carter, now Barak Obama are prime examples of leaders coming up from no where and running the country. We elect based on blood relationship to the Gandhi/Nehru family with no experience otherwise to run the affairs of the state.
it is typical of obama who himself was a muslim and converted to christianity. do not trust barack hussein obama. he deliberately dropped hussein from his name. americans are mad to vote for him.
Just like selecting PM for India is an absolutely Indian internal business and Americans must keep out of it, Indians should do the same when it comes to the election of American Presidency. It is America's internal matter. On a different note, Indian right wing needs to grow up and think of a foreign policy that is beyond Pakistan. IE sometimes seem like an Indian version of Fox News. It should grow up and stop fearmongering by twisting news to fit their need. Obama's J
What Kashmir gets from India - Article 370, special financial aids, thousands of lives of soldiers who died protecting Kashmir, and not to mention the special affection a Kashmiri gets when he visits other states. Why do they need freedom? What will they if they unit with Pakistan? Indian citizens including army may feel back stabbed if kashmiris decide to join Pakistan or demand freedom from Indian union.
Just like selecting PM for India is an absolutely Indian internal business and Americans must keep out of it, Indians should do the same when it comes to the election of American Presidency. It is America's internal matter. On a different note, Indian right wing needs to grow up and think of a foreign policy that is beyond Pakistan. IE sometimes seem like an Indian version of Fox News. It should grow up and stop fearmongering by twisting news to fit their need. Obama's J
india an pak should free up kashmir as a independant state other than slaughter millions of innocent kashmir natives, Obama is a inteligent and a bold leader
Electing a president is US's internal matter. Just like, many here suggests that US should not interfere with India's internal political matter, which I do not fully agree, India must not provide a lip service to Fox News for America's internal matter. Electing a leader is extremely internal politics, has nothing to do with internal politics. The major focus of US election this year is its economy, not foreign policy. And Obama has given enough confidence to the Americans to be a leader of a glorious future. India (particularly Indian right wing media) must grow up a bit and expand its foreign policy beyond Pakistan. India's foreign policy does not need to be stuck to Pakistan, it is high time that it should grow beyond that narrowness. The politicians (of course BJP excluded) are trying hard to bring a peaceful solution to the J
Sad, isnt it? Now that the Chickens have come home to roost ! India media, along with world's said Obama is THE ONE. Now that its not convenient for us in our own front yard, we complain! Wake Up! Its still not very late ! Obama is NOT the right leader either for the USA nor for the free world! Wake Up!
“Love blossomed” between a “lonely” Nehru, a widower, and the Vicereine, according to the account compiled by Pamela Mountbatten, Lord Mountbatten’s daughter. ‘India Remembered’ a Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power is a scrapbook of previously private letters, diary entries and photographs. At the age of 17 she arrived in India with her parents and sister in 1947. Over the next 15 months she kept a diary about life in the Viceroy’s House and Lady Pamela refers in the book to the existence of a “happy threesome”.She writes: “My mother had already had lovers. My father was inured to it. It broke his heart the first time, but it was somehow different with Nehru.” A letter written by Lord Mountbatten to his elder daughter, Patricia, in June 1948 suggested that he accepted the intimacy his wife shared with Nehru. “She and Jawaharlal are so sweet together, they really dote on each other”
“Love blossomed” between a “lonely” Nehru, a widower, and the Vicereine, according to the account compiled by Pamela Mountbatten, Lord Mountbatten’s daughter. ‘India Remembered’ a Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power is a scrapbook of previously private letters, diary entries and photographs. At the age of 17 she arrived in India with her parents and sister in 1947. Over the next 15 months she kept a diary about life in the Viceroy’s House and Lady Pamela refers in the book to the existence of a “happy threesome”.She writes: “My mother had already had lovers. My father was inured to it. It broke his heart the first time, but it was somehow different with Nehru.” A letter written by Lord Mountbatten to his elder daughter, Patricia, in June 1948 suggested that he accepted the intimacy his wife shared with Nehru. “She and Jawaharlal are so sweet together, they really dote on each other”
Obama should know that the so called Change be restricted to his domestic policy and should not be applied to the Kashmir dispute.It would be better that he concentrate to improve the global reputation of America and its people rather than unneccessarily meddling with the Indo-Pak conflict.
As Viceroy of India, Mountbatten, used his wife’s sleeping with Nehru as political capital. As per the memoirs he would often tell his wife, on the issue of Kashmir: “Do try to get Jawaharlal to see that this is terribly important.” Nehru who was sleeping with Lady Mountbatten took the Kashmir issue to UN as asked by Lady Mountbatten on behalf of Mountbatten, that was a treachery on India. After Lady Mountbatten left India, Nehru on his frequent visits to England used to sleep with her and his photograph at the door of Lady Mountbatten’s house was published in many papers. Nehru wrote to her for 12 years. In a letter dated March 1957, he said: “Suddenly I realised that there was a deeper attachment between us, that some uncontrollable force, of which I was dimly aware, drew us to one another.” When Lady Mountbatten died in 1960, as per her request, she was buried at sea. PM Nehru sent a frigate from the Indian Navy to attend her funeral and cast a wreath into the ocean on his behalf
Nehru prevented the Indian Army from throwing the Pakistanis out of Kashmir just 24 hours before they would have done so. British colonialists and their willing cohort, Nehru, stopped them in their tracks. British were venal and wretched and traitor Nehru was a willing accomplice of this clever duo Lady Mountbatten and Mountbatten. Thanks to this bedroom farce, the British got away with murder when they left India. The root cause was that Nehru was a circumcised Muslim and was the grandson of the last Kotwal of Delhi. During1857 war of independence all christians in Delhi were killed. British after taking back the capital, butchered all Muslims. Nehru’s grandfather was Ghiasuddin Ghazi and he changed his name to Ganga Dhar and escaped with his son Motilal Nehru. The womanizer Jawaharlal Nehru had a son who grew up in a christian orphanage in Bangalore, and missionares blackmail him for unrestricted access for conversion in NE. Nehru died of tertiary syphilis-aortic aneurysm