Begging your Pardon Mr. Obama: Kashmir..Ring any Bells?

by Amaad | April 13, 2009 at 11:01 am

202 views | 6 Recommendations | 10 comments

U- Turn on Kasmir

I am one of the billions of people on this planet who cheered with Joy when America elected you as the President of United States. Your victory speech and the speech at oath taking ceremony brought tears of joy and emotions. I would like to draw your attention to few things you said in the past if I may.

You talked about the issue of Kashmir during your election and also soon after assuming office but then suddenly you took a U turn and now don’t even want to mention a word about it? Why is that Mr. Obama. Stretigic interests hold more value than the human rights?

Kashmir, said Barack Obama just a few days before his presidential election victory, is "obviously a potential tar pit diplomatically".

Few could argue with that. Those outsiders who have sought to broker a deal in Kashmir, one of the world's longest running conflicts, have got themselves into a fix.

They have not solved the dispute; they have managed to embroil themselves in some very sour diplomatic rows.

For six decades, the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan has defied attempts at resolution. One of the United Nations' oldest military contingents is stationed there - it has also been one of the most ineffective. Just suggesting outside mediation is usually enough to provoke an angry response from the Indian government.

It doesn’t suit you to talk about Kashmir?
It doesn’t suit you to compromise over a billion people market of India?
It doesn’t suit you to annoy India whichyou are grooming to take on China?
Or you don’t give a toss about fairness and justice if there is no perceived short or long term strategic benefit.

Holbrooke the Arm twister

you have assigned Holbrooke for the region who is demanding Pakistan to accept Indian role in Afghanistan yet refuses to acknowledge the problem of Kashmir he is showing a the typical American official attitude of not born to listen. Is that not diplomatic hypocrisy to a lowest possible level? Then he flies to India and discusses Pakistan and Afghanistan as if talking about recession or global warming. Generally speaking, it is against the diplomatic norms and principles to talk about someone else with a third party but these norms don’t apply to you do they? (That someone happen to be two sovereign countries).

While in Pakistan Holbrooke arrogantly snubbed the questions of Pakistani media. But his attitude changed to graciousness while in India where in his opening sentences to Indian Media he expressed his honor to be in India and then offered to answer as many questions they wanted. This was his way of getting back at Pakistan when Pakistan refused the US offer of joint operations and showed its annoyance over American constant slandering of Pakistani security forces.

A New Phrase Af-Pak (no thak you)

If that’s not enough the administration has cooked up a new word Af-Pak, describing two countries in one breath (two independent and sovereign countries) and promoting Indian influence in terror conflict resolution. To any outsider who is not aware of the politics and history of the region this proposal will look very well intended and innocent attempt for peace but sadly its not the case. India is actively busy in instigating the trouble in Balochistan and tribal areas.

The change in terminology being used for Pakistan and particularly the choice of the Af-Pak phrase, clubbing Pakistan and Afghanistan together, manifested the US thinking, which considered Pakistan as part of the problem.

Basit says there is no comparison between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the two needed to be looked at separately for a tenable solution. These developments were completely unacceptable to the military establishment in Pakistan, which then convinced the government to stand up to it although President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani were the first ones to have welcomed the new Obama strategy. Islamabad was of the view that the shift in the US foreign policy towards Pakistan was demoralizing and promoted distrust.

‘The American tilt towards India despite knowing Pakistan’s concerns about it and having evidence of Indian role in promoting instability in different parts of Pakistan was not in good taste,’ a source said.

The matter was taken up in the meetings with US Special Envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen during their visit to Islamabad last week, where they were categorically asked about what they had done for curbing the Indian destabilizing role in Pakistan.

Day dream Alas
A better way would have been to force India to stop its subversive activities against Pakistan and mediate in the Kashmir resolution. Pakistan's involvement in Kashmir is a distant history now and Indian atrocities in Kashmir continue but strategic interests dictate that talking about Kashmir would be a wrong move.

But it appears that your country enjoys the military confrontations since the Korean wars in 1950 your country has been constantly at war to date feeding the US arms industry. Maybe peace doesn’t suit the country there always has to be a fight of good and evil.

Alas Mr. Obama your words were a hope for millions of people but it appears that you also bowed down to the “strategic interests” disregarding what you said in you speeches.

4 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

hussain

at 12:34 on April 13th, 2009

Amaad, do you think Mr Obama will ignore the plot knit to destabilise Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan immediately after the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan had become evident. My dear all the events in the region are directed towards carving out of a buffer state including Pakistani and Iranian Balochistan, some parts of Pakistani tribal region and some area of Afghanistan.

Amaad

at 13:01 on April 13th, 2009

yea its the part of NeoCon new world order map.

runs shivers though the spine whenever I read those stories

Spydermonkey

at 08:03 on April 14th, 2009

Unfortunately the whole area is a bit of a mess, and every issue is interrelated to the three countries involved (and a few others besides). From my outside view, I can only see one real solution to this group of problems. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India need to be brought together at a neutral place, then start working out a solution with the UN, USA & or china working to mediate.

Then again the UN, USA, China & the rest of the world will need to have a common goal (and objectives) before any meeting between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India will do any good...

In short we (the world) REALLY need a leader that will work to fix problems regardless of politics (I'll hold my breath..)

Amaad

at 13:15 on April 14th, 2009

thanks mate,

recognising the problem is the best the people of Kashmir hope from the world. normally the other countries are harshly snubbed by India even if they mention the name.

René

at 12:52 on April 14th, 2009

Oh, amaad, now you begin to see, And what exactly do you want for Kashmir?

Amaad

at 13:12 on April 14th, 2009

I want the world to put aside the business interests and strategic alliances it has with India. Don’t dismiss the Kashmir’s right of independence on the basis that it doesn’t suit India which says that doing so will strengthen other separatist movements in India. (Nagaland, Mizoram, Naxil Baris, Asaam, Khalistan to name the few).
Don’t punish Kashmir because it has a Muslim population and there is chance that its independence will benefit Pakistan and annoy the Indian partner which is being prepared for the greater role for the region and to challenge China.
If the strategic interests are too dear then stop the diplomatic hierocracy and stop preaching fairness and democracy to the third world.

That’s what I want makes sense? I dont think so.. it has never made sense for 60 years what a shame!

René

at 09:30 on April 15th, 2009

You want the world to abandon India? How unrealistic, amaad. An independent Kashmir will only make it totally vulnerable to the Pakistan incursions. But then you're Pakistani, so your loyalites are obvious.

Amaad

at 05:42 on April 16th, 2009

I am from Pakistani Kashmir. I told you some time ago
you just confirmed my argument by the way. since looking into Kashmir issue doesnt suit India and something not suiting India is against the regional interests and policies hence USA has no choice but to look away.
I never asked to abandon India at all. your heart bleeds for Balochistan but Kashmir gets a treatment of a step child? Hypocrisy or not?

I dont blame you by the way. my loyalties are for the whole region. we will live with India forever whereas in your case its just a convenient alliance for the time being against China. we are just asking for our right which was recognised by the United Nations (made by you guys) what a JOKE!!!

René

at 20:30 on April 16th, 2009

You have no idea what my loyalties are, amaad. What exactly is it that you want for Kashmir? turn the whole country over to PAK and the taliban?

Would that actually make you happy?

pakka pappi

at 06:30 on April 15th, 2009

kasmir and khalistan will remain off radar of the international community. after 2 decades now sikhs can say the word "khalistan" without fear of reprisal. people might have forgotten but god hasn't.
at the moment Pakistan needs to put its own house in order. its own existence is put into question. these cold war creatures of Afghan war will consume the subcontinent if Pakistan keeps a half hearted attempt in dealing with the taliban.
the tackling of taliban has to be swift, short but utterly brutal. This would keep the fear of army on terrorists otherwise more people will die in the longer run if government keeps signing deals with the killers of its own people and then fighting a loosing war in tribal belt.