THE OTHER SIDE : THE OBAM’S Call ( EFFORT TO REACH MUSLIM WORLD) Global PerspectiveWhat Indians Think
First thing First (An Advance Clarification):
Here I would like to make it clear in the begining(so as not to offened any body) that;-
- I am a ‘Obama fan’ basically and like him very much and had and don’t have any doubts about his basic goodness and charm of a simple man.
- This article has been written with unbiased, loving attitude to this Great US President of our times, after john F.Kennedy,who has influenced and impressed not only the intellectuals,but also the masses around the globe in almost every country.
- As such, this article has been written to bring this fact before MR.OBAMA, that his popularity has imposed certain responsibilities on him not only as US President but as a ‘World Leader’ , and people have very high hopes from him to be fair in dealings with countries with conflicting interests in a manner which is beyond any doubt in any way.
- But present Post is in the light of recent policy/attitude change in Obama Administration about their satnd to allow/notminding the activites of Pakistan’s Govt./ISI,and non-sate players of paying Game of Terror against India,un abbated and that to with the recent Big Grant-Aid given to pakistan without any prconditions tagged to it as ealier was the case!
- This is an effort to see through the INtentions of Obama as Us President Vs.Obama the Hope of World/A world Class States Man and not a american politician like others?
As such this post is an effort to observe and scan the actions of OBAMA/Americ,in Afganistan and Pakistan, from the angle’interests of a peace loving country/people, India or Indians .
And these are not my own opinions, but frank observations based on the reports on TV News channels and other internet sources!.Hope Obama fans will bear with me,as I am also an obama fan.But mind you I am an Indian First! Hope you will understand and take it objectively too.
With love to one and all!
@run
So we begin !
THE OTHER SIDE : THE OBAM’S Call ( EFFORT TO REACH MUSLIM WORLD) Global PerspectiveWhat Indians Think
First thing First (An Advance Clarification):
Here I would like to make it clear in the begining(so as not to offened any body) that;-
· I am an ‘Obama fan’ basically and like him very much and neither did I had and still don’t have any doubts about his basic goodness and charm of a simple man.
· This article has been written with unbiased, loving attitude to this Great US President of our times, after john F.Kennedy,who has influenced and impressed not only the intellectuals,but also the masses around the globe in almost every country.
· As such, this article has been written to bring this fact before MR.OBAMA, that his popularity has imposed certain responsibilities on him not only as US President but as a ‘World Leader’ , and people have very high hopes from him to be fair in dealings with countries with conflicting interests in a manner which is beyond any doubt in any way.
· But present Post is in the light of recent policy/attitude change in Obama Administration about their satnd to take/neglect Pakistan’s Govt./ISI,and non-sate players of paying Game of Terror against India,un abbated and that to with the recent Big Grant-Aid given to pakistan without any prconditions tagged to it as ealier was the case!
· This is an effort to see through the ‘INtentions of Obama’ as Us President Vs.Obama the Hope of World/A world Class States Man and not a american politician like others? ,with Refernec to Us Policy of not following "cold wardays" policies of Us to give preference to PAKISTAN,over INDIA? As now we are living i a different world after 9/11(Us) must treat Terror Treat to India from Pkaistan soil,as it takes Terror Treat to itself form any Terror groups ,any where in the world.This discrimination should go away when war/fight against terror comes with reference to any part of the Globe!
· Hope as a world Leader OBAMA understands this and takes in to account these fact dealing with TERROR PLAY GROUNDS of Pakistan.And should look at Grate trac record of Indian Democracy for more than 6o years and Pakistans record of dictatorships,unstability and their Militaries links with terror out fits and allowing non-state players tospread terror in India freely from Pakistani soils,with governments immunity and protection of MILITARY of Pakistan and promotion by Pakistani ISI.
· As also Pakistan’s age old technique/pretext of Need of first solving Kasmir Issue With India and showing with wicked intentions as cause of spread of Terror against India from Pakistani soil.
· Recent Huge grant of Money to Pakistan without any restrictions is a one dngerous sign of US Policy in Pakistan and cause of Skeptism in Indian Government and Indioan People about OBAMAS real Intentions.People are asking India if had some thing to do with muslim ancestory of Mr.Obama.Other wise why this approach of Reaching to the ‘Muslim world’ Only.Is it right to see the world as Muslim/chrisian/Hindu etc.world .Are we not living in a global world? Or Us softening towards Pakistan with reference to terror spread from Pakistan soil into India,as was the Renet Bombay Terror Incidence.Is it for Us shift in policies in this respect to appase the Muslim World?I will give a wrong message!Obama should realize his responsiblitites as a World Class Statesman! May God Bless Him!Amen ! And Jai Ho!
As such this post is an effort to observe and scan the actions of OBAMA/Americ,in Af Onlyganistan and Pakistan, from the angle’interests of a peace loving country/people, India or Indians .
And these are not my own opinions, but frank observations based on the reports on TV News channels and other internet sources!.Hope Obama fans will bear with me,as I am also an obama fan.But mind you I am an Indian First! Hope you will understand and take it objectively too.
Howeve, to me spirituality and patriotism,genuine patritism are neither conflicting nor different!
As I have mad e clear in one post in answer to one of my spiritual friend Brother Ezequil,as follows:
Posted by Ezequiel Rodríguez on Tuesday, June 9th, 2009
Intent gladly supported due to its CARE. Thanks Arun!
Ezequiel.
A helping loving soul.
A helping loving soul.
MY REPLY:
Posted by Arun Raghuwanshi on Wednesday, June 10th, 2009New
Dear Ezequiel
Thanks being so understanding and supportive!
Inspite of my being basically an spiritutal-divine oriented person with deep intrests in Spiritual/Divine, I cant forget, when it comes to my contry’s interests,Which to me is the ‘Mother of All religions of the World’!That I am an Indian First.But ofcourse a global minded open hearted One!with senstivity to just causes of other countries also,which to me are not different/aline country for me and Pepole their are My brother and sisters.As Indians always believed in -Vasdev Kutumbakam’ i.e means whole earth is one family,one planet!
But being born in India,India is my Mother Land’.And to an Indian Mother holds the highest position only after GOD-the Divine!
Only country which has never Invaded any country in the long history of its 7ooo years of spiritual and cultural developments.Regarded as world’s Oldest Civilization. A Land where Enlightened Masters Krishna , ‘Buddha,’Mahavir started their Religions ; Poets Like ‘Valmiki’ and Tulsi das wrote epic-poetries ;Scientists like- nobel laureate,Sir C.V.Raman and Sir Jagdiesh Chandra Basu, and Moralists /Plotician Gandhi took birth!A country where religious reformists/Monks/saints like Ramakrishna Param hansa,Vivekanada,Shree Aurobindo were born!, And ‘Jesus’-Master of Masers,Son of Lord spent many years when disappeared at younger age and reapeared at age of 30 in Israil.Who knows he must have learned the relgious thoughts here in this world’s most religious Land!where Love and religiousity flows in the air and water.Every thing of nature is revered as divine!Thats why We call India,’Dharma Bhoomi’ (Land of Dharma/Religion).
With Love and regards!
Amen! and Jai Ho!
@run
With love to one and all!
@run
So we begin !
Barack Hussain Obam’s speech in Cairo University is a welcome effort of American Effort to Reach ‘Muslim world’,but indians are asking/thinking-"Is Obam’s Call is with Intention to take Care of American Interests Only,What of Indian Intrests inPakistan?And also is world is Muslim/Islamic Only?Is not an appeasement policies to please them,and taking some steps as recent case of shft in strict attitude/posture to Pakistan i for letting Terrorists spread Terrorist activities in INDIA,from Pakistan soil.And negelcting this fact in grantig huge money to Pkistan knowing fully well that it be used against accumulating war equipments against India and funding Alkiada and other trrorist to spread TERRORISM in India in the name of Kashmir issue ,which is a non-issue,an un-necessry negative propoganda of Pakistan!.
Then,what should be the approach of Mr.OBAMA ?,just to take care of American Interests of war aginst terror ,or Obama as world class statesman taking care of the Interests of a Pece Loving Democratic Country of Long Tradition of spreading message of Peace,Love and world brither hood from the time of Buddha!
When India is trying to maintain sanbilty in the region and is the KEY Player for this purpose.
Some people have their own apprehensions in this regard as this post(By an ‘INDIAN MUSLIM’) on rediff.com, news –dicussion column ,which I am reproducing as it is for looking the other side of Obamas,call and efforts!:-
This Post on Rediff Mail is by an Indain Muslim.After this I will present posts and responses of Indians(Non- Muslim) of other Faiths and religion to bring forth the fact How Indians of diiferent Fath/have different opinion on the same Topic,like on Obama,s Speech:.
Another, "PURPOSE OF THIS POST" is to show How our Vision is dependent(based) on our Religion/Culture/Faith/Country Identities(biases),and our Openess or closed(ness) of Our Minds.
***************************
I. So, First "A Leter from an Indian-Muslim on Rediff.com.-News"REproduced as it is1).as Follows:-
“ ‘It is up to Muslims to open the door’
Muslims also live under different Constitutions
Dear Brother-Husain,
I am certain about two things. I am a Muslim, and I live in this world. Now the uncertainties begin. On 4 June you gave what was heavily-advertised as a major speech to the ‘Muslim world’. Does that mean that while every Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus, he can be legitimately and widely varied in his political interests, but Muslims must have both Allah and politics in common?
As an Indian Muslim I belong to the second largest Muslim community in the world. I also live, proudly, as an equal, in India, a nation that contains the largest Hindu community in the world. Do you think I have the same political views as my fellow Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal? You did mention that there are around six million Muslims in America. Were you speaking to them, or on their behalf, in Cairo? But for the accidents of life, you could have been an American Muslim, a Kenyan Muslim or an Indonesian Muslim. Would the same speech serve for all three?
Muslims live not only in different cultures and geo-political spaces, but also under different Constitutions. Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim nation, does not believe in a state religion. Pakistan, the second largest, became the world’s first Islamic republic. “
‘Which world do these Muslims belong to?’
There are kings and autocrats and elected heads of government in the ‘Muslim world’, and one category that can only be described as ‘immoveable object’ unopposed by any irresistible force. Many Muslims live on the margins. Not many seem aware of this fact, and it is possible that none of your speechwriters pointed it out, but 10% of the Russian population is Muslim. Islam came to that vast Eurasian region around the same time as the Christian church. Do Russian Muslims belong to the same ‘Muslim world’ as Indonesians and Moroccans? The Chinese keep their Muslim-majority province, Xinjiang, a sort of closely guarded state secret, frightened that Islam might jump up and bite off Communism’s ear. Which world do these Muslims belong to? And what about the chaps in Britain, who probably went over on the assumption that Britain was still Great. Or the French Muslims, whose ears are still ringing with the famous Sarkozy diktat: ‘Off with their headscarves!’ Where would you place them? In Above-Saharan Africa?
At one point you were kind enough to suggest that ‘America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam’. But no sane person ever accused America of being at war with Islam. America would have to be a theocracy, with Inquisition as its preferred domestic policy, and conversion as the principal instrument of foreign affairs, to declare war on Islam. I hope you will not accuse me of being pedantic, in the sense of calling a toothache a gum-ache. The conflation of Islam and Muslims is precisely the kind of misconception that encourages pre-nation-state fantasies like the revival of a Caliphate. One might add that while every Muslim was deeply committed to his faith, political disputes among Muslims began with the election of the very first Caliph, Hadrat Abu Bakr. Muslims see themselves as a brotherhood, not a nation-hood.
‘Islam is a faith; West is geography’
If Islam is sufficient glue for nationalism, why would Arabs be living in 22 countries? That should have been obvious while you were snacking on Arab cookies and Islamic lemonade in Cairo.
‘Islam and the West’ is another phrase wandering through a dialectic shaped within the Queen of Alice’s Wonderland. Islam is a faith; the West is geography. How do you construct a relationship between faith and geography? You can have a debate on Islam and Christianity, or indeed between the West and West Asia, or the West and South Asia, or South East Asia. There is a past and a future to discuss. ‘Islam and the West’ is straight out of 19th century Orientalism, laden with a subtext that is best left to warmongers. Peace requires a different idiom.
We understood your problem as you weaved through political and rhetorical swamps, because your predecessor managed to achieve what the mightiest of Muslim rulers failed to do — unite Muslims, albeit against him, rather than for something. But every Muslim does not need a homily on democracy. Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India, who add up to nearly half the Muslim population, are not democracy-deficit.
The appropriate venue for a speech on Islam would have been Mecca, Medina or Jerusalem. But the first two cities are barred to non-Muslims or apostates; and the third would have been too toxic for an American President.
Image: Jordan’s Islamic Action Front Party leader Hamzi Mansour speaks against Obama’s speech after Friday prayers inside al-Hussein mosque in downtown Amman
‘It is up to Muslims to open the door’
Cairo was the perfect podium for the speech that we did hear, since your true theme was not the ‘Muslim world’ but the region between the Nile and the Indus, which I have, elsewhere, called the ‘Arc of Turbulence’. Those searching for a convenient caption for the Cairo oration might want to call it the ‘Nildus Speech’.
For the citizens of this region between Egypt and Pakistan, and particularly for Muslims, this was a brilliant gleam in the gloom to which they have become accustomed. Its great merit was justice and fairness, virtues that are repeatedly exalted in the Holy Quran. You did not deny Palestine its rights because you wanted to preserve what Israel has acquired. Of course you will be criticised for being even-handed, but you have survived worse.
It was extremely important that a President of the United States quoted the Quran’s unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, through a verse that is particularly beautiful. This will go a long way to correct the propaganda unleashed by those who controlled the White House and influenced media before you.
There was one element of your speech that did address almost the whole of the Muslim world: your stark, unambiguous condemnation of gender bias, one of the besetting sins of the ‘Muslim world’. If Muslims do not eliminate gender bias, they will not be permitted into the 20th century: who is going to send them an invitation to join the 21st Barack Obama has offered the key, but it is up to Muslims to open the door.
2 OTHER INDIAN’S(Non- Muslim) VIEW POINT:
I am basically a Obama Fan. I have quite a faith in his goodness and “Intentions “.But Viewing News from Indian News Channel (NDTV & Zee News here and reading Indian News papers. I gather from the frequent expressions of Anger of Indians in general and Indian Home Minster and External Ministers statements ,I as a immigrant Indian In Canada gather an impression that there is shift in OBAMA’s Policy in Helping/Pumping Money in Pkiastan for Fighting the TERRORISM and Terrorist groups growing on Pakistan soil(Alkaiyda and Talibans),who besides Pakistan perform terrorist activities in India(recent example-Bobay Blast).
Earlier America made a cautious step to warn Pakistan not to use this grant against India directly or through the help of Pakistani Military or ISI trained and funded TERRORISTS .But later under the pressure and persuasion of Pakistani Government Obama’s American Government changed the close of stopping Spread of Terrorism or use of grant given by America to Pakistan will not to be used against India clause been removed. Making Idians skeptical/apprehensive of Obama’s Intentions when It comes to INDIA Verses Pakistan and help Pakistanis blindly, knowing fully well that Pakistan has used the American Grant against India and helping the terrorists.
All this led to me write this Blog an Intent this NewEntry-“Other side of Obam,s Call in Reaching to Muslim World, here to bring together certain facts and try to come to some conclusion and bringing TRUTH in front.
As such I put a Intent yesterday sating: "My Intent is to ask-Is Obam’s Call is with Intention to take Care of American Interests Only,What of Indian Intrests inPakistan?”,
and to gather View Points specially from Indians,and result in the form of comments is here:
1.Posted by Sharmishtha Basu on Saturday, June 6th, 2009
dear arun,
just like brigit i too like obama and have some hopes from him, he seems so nice a person.
as for india, we are capable of taking care of our own interest 
we have always and will always.
we have always and will always.Wish you love, peace and happiness.
Trisha
Trisha
2.Posted by Rajesh Sharma on Saturday, June 6th, 2009
In India there is an opinion that Obama will try to separate Kashmir from India to serve the purpose of Pakistan and to keep Taliban Happy.
********************************************************************
LET US Observe the Rajesh Kumar’s Supison/comments abobe in the View of the Islamic/Pakistani Sympathetic media effort to Make Kashmir dispute between Indai and Pakistan as a casue of TERRORISM in Pakistan and even in India,as early as Obama has not assumed the Office of American President and was going through Campaign for Presidency.All this to divert the issue of Pakistan Home grown Terrorists and all ills to INDIA,especially Kashmir Issue,as reflected in the Ffolloeing Article in the ISLAMIC Insight.Com,as follows": using a disguised Indian Name Sunil Adam,as authour)
:
http://islamicinsights.com/news/international-news/kashmir-may-be-the-key-to-obama-s-counterterrorism-policy.html
Sunday, 03 August 2008 20:41 Sunil(?) Adam
India and Pakistan have long disputed over Kashmir(?)
New America Media – If his primary mission was to win the media sweepstakes in the presidential campaign, Sen. Barack Obama’s first visit to global hotspots as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has exceeded expectations. But in terms of practical utility to the formulation of his foreign policy or to the shaping of his worldview, it may not amount to much. A few hours in Kabul, Baghdad and Berlin cannot top the briefings he gets from a whopping 300 experts who are part of his foreign policy team.
If Obama’s intent was to use his visits to highlight the effort he would make as president to reorient U.S. foreign policies to defeat terrorism and re-establish the country’s standing in the troubled region, he would have included one more stop in his itinerary – Islamabad. After all, when the Democratic nominee reiterates ad nauseum on the campaign trail that the central front against terrorism is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan, he’s tacitly pointing to Pakistan, which is not only a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and the rest of the leadership of al-Qaida and the Taliban, but also a fertile recruiting and training ground for future terror cadres.
The fundamental shift in foreign policy that Obama proposes is to get the U.S. troops out of Iraq within a time frame of 16 months — irrespective of the ground situation — and pick up the gauntlet in Afghanistan. While the candidate himself has not spelled out the specifics of his policy, its likely orientation can be derived from the perspective of the Obama campaign’s principle South Asia adviser, Bruce Riedel.
A former CIA official, Riedel served in the National Security Council as special assistant to the president in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, specializing in the Middle East and South Asia. In an exclusive interview, Riedel, who is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, outlined how resolving the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistanmay be inextricably linked to possible American efforts to wean away Islamabad from its relationship with terrorist networks.
While categorically asserting that he speaks for himself and not for candidate Obama, Riedel, however, maintains that for the next American president, there is no issue or country more critical to get right than Pakistan. This means “developing a policy that will move Pakistan away from being a hothouse of terror.” He contends that the United States has to go beyond "threats and sanctions, beyond commando raids and half-hearted intelligence cooperation, beyond aid and aircraft sales," and find out what motivates Pakistan.
Saying that “fear of India is the driving force” behind Pakistan’s pursuit of relationships with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism, Riedel wrote in a scholarly journal recently, “The conflict with India affects all aspects of Pakistan’s worldview and its self-image.” Not only has the Pakistani Army never reconciled with Kashmir’s accession to India, but security concerns with its more powerful neighbor have been central to Pakistan’s actions, including its decision to wage, at the behest of America, a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, its support for the Taliban in post-Soviet Afghanistan and even its decision to throw its lot with the Americans after 9/11.
Riedel is among those South Asia observers who believe that Pakistan’s involvement with terrorist outfits has to do with its obsession with Kashmir and its need to use them against India to offset the conventional military imbalance that favors New Delhi. "Coming to grips with Pakistan’s obsession with India and Kashmir is critical to killing the monster," and the "time may be ripe in 2009 to move," he writes, clearly alluding to the likely policy of the new administration that will take over next year.
And therein lies the rub as far as India is concerned.
While denying that Kashmir holds the key to ending international Islamic terrorism and admitting that it is more likely that the Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the core of Islamic subnational movements, Riedel seems convinced that resolving the Kashmir impasse will end Pakistan’s support for terrorist organizations.
Riedel’s advice to the next U.S. president is unambiguous: engage India to resolve the Kashmir question. He feels that given the level of maturity that has come about in bilateral relations in the last decade, the United States is well-placed to pressure India on this issue. This is something that New Delhi has, at times politely and at times not so politely, resisted since the signing of India-Pakistan Peace Treaty in 1971, which affirmed that the Kashmir dispute would be resolved "bilaterally."
Interestingly, Riedel’s solution for resolving the conflict – formalizing the Line of Control as the official border between the two countries – is neither original nor revolutionary. But the caveat is to make the border permeable enough for the people of Kashmir to foster their ethnic and economic links on both sides – along the lines of the arrangement between British Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is a formula that the Americans have proposed informally for several years and one that pleases realists on both sides of the India-Pakistan divide who are eager to bury the past and move on to develop mutually beneficial relations.
Even assuming that resistance to such a formula by India’s left and right can be overcome, a greater challenge will be to bring in line not only the Pakistani Army but also religious fundamentalists who regard Kashmir as a jihadic cause. That would mean the next president will not only have to use the American military aid leverage with the Pakistani Army, but also launch a Marshall Plan to strengthen that country’s economy and democratic polity so moderate centrist forces can prevail.
It is a risky proposition, considering that democratization could work against American interests if it throws up the “wrong” people — as happened in the Palestinian territories. Only an American president with resolute political will and the ability to inspire confidence in an alien people can pull off the Herculean task of resolving one of the most intractable conflicts of the post-World War II era.
If "President" Obama demonstrates such will and inspires such confidence, he will have delivered on the slogan: A (foreign policy) Change We Can Believe In.
(Sunil ? Adam is the editor of
The Indian American, a general interest magazine published from New York, and a contributor to New America Media.)*************************************************************
What all this means from Indian Perspective and recent shift & softenning of restrictions in imposing sanctions on the huge grant being given to pakishatan,which Pakistan will definitely use Purchasing Arms and to train Terrorists throgh Alkaida,AGAINST INDIA.Even the recent report from an American agency has supported these suspitions against Pakistans real intention.THEN WHAT ARE President OBAMA’S Intentions.To appase Muslim world softening stand against Pakistan with respect to INDIAN ,interests.? Indinas are doubting Obama,s dubious policies in this regard.Which is not ufounded.
Indinans suscpicion of OBAMA’S INTENTIONS Clashing With India’s Interests begain with OBAM’s Wrong asmptions, called OBAMA,s Thesis on Kashmir given below:
Source : Sun, 7 Jun 2009 Expressindia.com Story
Basis of (cause of) Indians’ Suspicion : Barack Obama’s Kashmir thesis!
Barack Obama’s Kashmir thesis!
C. Raja Mohan
Singapore, November 3: As Obamamania grips much of the world, including India, the man who might become the next President of the United States has ideas on Jammu and Kashmir that should cause some concern to New Delhi.
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.
“1.) The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan is actually deal with Pakistan. And
2.)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.
3.)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.)
To continue to analyse…… ).
Comments are closed.