During his recent visit to India, President Obama made it clear that the United States would not take a pro-active role in mediating the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. That would be a grave oversight from a U.S. national security perspective.
The Muslim-majority Kashmir territory is at the heart of the conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors and has been the cause of three wars since 1948. That antipathy is the reason the powerful Pakistani military views with great alarm the growing Indian influence in neighboring Afghanistan -- much in the same way as the U.S. viewed any Soviet influence in neighboring Cuba during the Cold War. The resulting strategic calculus for Pakistani policy-makers is that to avoid Indian encirclement, Pakistan has to stay relevant in any regional discussion on the endgame in Afghanistan.
That is where U.S. national security considerations surface -- to stay relevant in Afghanistan, the Pakistani military is holding onto (rather than taking on) its proxies that helped the U.S. defeat the Soviets in the 1980s but mutated over the last two decades into the most serious current threat to American security.
Pakistani decision-makers seem to have realized that the monster of militancy spawned by these proxies has now turned inwards and has to be defeated. Yet they have also rationalized that some of these proxies provide leverage in warding off an equally existentialist threat of India's deepening footprint in Afghanistan. Not all Pakistanis agree with this Faustian bargain; however, all Pakistanis would agree that as long as the Kashmir issue festers, Pakistan cannot let its guard down. With all parties staying boxed into intractable positions, the militants and Al Qaeda thrive.
It is easy to see how a U.S. mediated resolution of Kashmir sits at the heart of the above dynamic. It will drive a virtuous cycle that removes the primary source of enmity between India and Pakistan. As a result, the Pakistani military will find it near impossible to justify to its people an Afghan "insurance policy" that has propelled the terrifying spread of militancy to Pakistan's heartland. For the U.S., an improving regional cycle of trust will be far more effective than any threats or inducements for the Pakistani military to take on the militants on its border and degrade a global threat.
With the country no longer locked in perpetual tension with India, the role of civilian institutions in shaping Pakistan's policy choices will strengthen. According to a Pew Center poll, 70% of Pakistanis desire better relations with India; paradoxically, 53% of them also view India as the country's greatest threat. A Kashmir settlement directly addresses this dichotomy and the military will end up having to adapt to the wishes of seven out of ten Pakistanis.
For the United States, the benefits of a Kashmir resolution extend well beyond the defeat of Al Qaeda in the region. Pakistan has a young population of 180 million and will become the world's fourth most populous country by 2040. With peace on both its borders, it will find itself back on its economic growth trajectory of over 6% per year that it experienced for four decades until 1990. That would be good news not just for Pakistan but also for India, the United States and the world.
A short primer on Kashmir -- during the partition of India in 1947, all Muslim majority provinces acceded to the newly created Muslim homeland of Pakistan, except for Kashmir where its Hindu ruler, facing an uprising, called in the Indian military. Both countries have sharply differing perspectives on the legitimacy of that accession and the United Nations called for a referendum in Kashmir to settle the issue. That referendum has never taken place and ever since, Kashmir has become an emotive rallying point for the average Pakistani.
While several viable options have been floated in back-channel discussions, India refuses to be drawn into any substantive negotiations under the straw man argument that such discussions would be domestically untenable. The status quo is providing the oxygen to extremist forces to drive the narrative, as tragically seen during the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Rather than invoke the weak excuse that it lacks influence over India, the United States needs to provide strong leadership in bringing the sides together especially when its national security is at stake.
The President displayed the right instinct during the 2008 campaign when he called for U.S. involvement in resolving the Kashmir issue. However, in presumed deference to Indian sensitivities, the administration has essentially excluded Kashmir from its regional policy, choosing instead a carrot-and-stick approach towards the Pakistani military. Since it ignores the core issue, that approach will simply not work.
As President Obama correctly highlights the shared interests between the U.S. and India, he needs to make sure that he does not forget about the most significant national interest of the U.S. -- its security. For that reason alone, the U.S. needs to discuss Kashmir openly and candidly.
Richard Grenell: Japan Deserves a UN Permanent Seat Before India
" all Muslim majority provinces acceded to the newly created Muslim homeland of Pakistan, except for Kashmir where its Hindu ruler, facing an uprising, called in the Indian military"
The part about hindu ruler calling in the indian military to crush an uprising is a lie peddled by kashmiri islamist apologists. The hindu ruler called in the indian military because the pakistan military was attacked kashmir in 1947. Kashmir was "independent" when it was attacked by pakistan. The king had to call the indian military to repel this attack. The price which the king had to pay for this military support is to merge with india. This attack by pakistan resulted in about one third of kashmir going under pakistan control.
The UN documents available in the public domain will nail this lie. Also check out this wiki about that war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
"That antipathy is the reason the powerful Pakistani military views with great alarm the growing Indian influence in neighboring Afghanistan -- much in the same way as the U.S. viewed any Soviet influence in neighboring Cuba during the Cold War"
Its strange that here he is equating india, the worlds largest democracy, with a communist dictatorship like soviet union and goes on to equate USA, the worlds oldest democracy with pakistan, which has been a religious centric dictatorship for most of its life.
It clearly shows where the author is coming from and its not from a objective place. I rest my case.
East Pakistan did not change its name just like that. There was genocide of the Bengalis in East Pakistan. Punjabis in West Pakistan were one of the dominant forces and population. In the general elections, they did not like the result and the rest is history (as it is said).
Pakistan was expressly formed as a nation whose main identity is religious. The world has already seen the consequences of creating countries based on religious identities. india, on the other hand, was created based on a secular constitution.
Indians will not agree to divide india again based on religion at whatever cost. Muslim Kashmiris should learn to be secular and live in harmony.
And west pakistan was liberated by india in 1971. Its doing much better than pakistan after they sorted out their islamis problem and are moving towards being a more secular society.
For starters, regardless of the growing warmth of the Indo/American relationship, Indians still have a long standing suspicion of Americas intentions, and are wary of its fickleness. America may ask why... its just that Indians dont forget as easy as Americans do., so no American mediation
Indian held Kashmir is made up of the Buddhist majority Ladhak region, the Hindu majority Jammu region, which are 100% with India and have nothing to do with the trouble in the Muslim majority valley in between, where all the problem is.
One can only feel sorry for the Kashmiris, those in the valley and Pak held Kashmir. They've been squeezed between India and Pakistan. Indian Govts have repeatedly messed up in the Kashmir valley, while the Kahmiris in Pak held Kashmir are treated like 3rd class citizens in Pakistan.
The solution... give the Kashmiris, in both Indian and Pak held Kashmir, internal autonomy. Such a agreement was almost sealed 10 years ago... but the Pak army did not allow it to happen.
Solve the K problem and the Pak army loses its relevance. Thats why the generals in Pakistan wont let it happen.
Ask the u.s. army in Afghanistan.
Why then recognize Bangladesh (was once East Pakistan)?
Why recognize Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia and countless other nations?
Why recognize Israel but not a Kurdish or Palestine state?
Why don't the Basques are granted their independent state?
The Pak regime, not the people of Pakistan, is guilty of it's never-ending anti-India obsession, wars, terrorism and terror sponsorship, etc. The Pak regime also poisons the minds of their young with anti-India animosity:
Pak textbooks build hate culture against India
by Arif Mohammed Khan, Dec 27, 2008
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pak-textbooks-build-hate-culture-against-India/articleshow/3898659.cms
India will never have any effective control in Afghanistan, so that's a false argument. Pakistan has nothing genuine to fear there.
if the west does get embroiled in Kashmir, it should be to support the thriving democracy, not to reward the terrorists that the ISI let loose to destabilise India.
It's always the same with Pakistan. "Give us what we want or we'll make trouble".
Pakistan is spiralling into chaos, but they want to take on more problems in Kashmir? Mental.
Not our problem, we should leave it well alone.
The blood (of creating Pakistan) is everywhere:
-- the massacres of millions of Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab before and after the partition
-- 3 million Bengalis slaughtered by Pakistan in 1971
-- 400K Kashmiri Pandits ejected from their homeland of the Kashmir valley
-- 4 unnecessary wars and countless terrorist attacks against India
-- brutalization of Balochi people
-- Taliban mayhem created by Paksitan in Afghanistan
-- AQ hosted by Pak/Taliban killing 3000 Americans on 9/11 and the war that ensued
Violent Islamic separtist movements are afoot in Thailand, Philippines, Dagestan (Russia) and elsewhere. Europe (UK in particular) is experiencing the rise of Islamic radicalism. Going by known examples, UK, France, Belgium and other parts of Europe and many parts of Africa will likely face similar sort of Islamist separatist movements in the coming years. Malaysia (60% Muslim) and Indonesia (95%) are being radicalized as we speak. The root problems everywhere is Islamist separatism and Islamism.
The world needs to wake up and work to curb the rise of Islamism (by getting to the sources), or the world is headed in an ominous direction, and 63 years of seeing the basket case that Pakistan turned into is a telling example.
Isn't enough enough?
Wani] told all of us to stay inside. Some soldiers went up the stairs; others came inside and kept us there. Then we heard shots upstairs. But we were not allowed to go there; we were pushed and beaten. At 9:00 a.m we were allowed to go outside but not upstairs. The army stayed in the house until 2:00 p.m. Then the army called the police, and they came. They went upstairs, and so did I and some soldiers. There I saw [Wani's] body with a cartridge belt next to him and a pistol. These were not his, but must have been placed there. Then the army left, telling the people in the village that they would do the same to the rest of them.15 (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/kashmir/executions.htm)
Army abuses captured on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi6lLjnEpq8
Your ploy of democracy and freedom does not hold in this age of transparent media coverage.
This is the struggle for justice - it is the aggressor who is humbled to its knees
InshaAllah
Indian Muslims bring good name for the Muslims of the world. Pakistanis give Muslims of the world a bad name!