Pakistan is also important for the US for different reasons. It has a large population, but uncertain internal political conditions, strong anti-Americanism and terrorism have discouraged new American private sector investments. Despite American criticism of some aspects of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency policies, Pakistan’s military is viewed as a bulwark against terrorism. Pakistan’s support is needed for Afghanistan’s stabilisation, which will continue to be an important American consideration after the withdrawal of most of its troops from there by the end of this year. Pakistan’s geographic location gives it a clear advantage compared with India when it comes to helping stabilise Afghanistan. However, the US has often complained about Pakistan’s two-track policy of taking action against some militant groups while ignoring others.
The US, therefore, pursues two different patterns of relations with India and Pakistan. In both cases, cordiality is the key consideration, but the US and these two countries do not see eye to eye on each and every issue. The US has a global perspective to its policies towards the states of South Asia. Pakistan has a purely regional outlook, conspicuous by its negative fixation on India. However, India has both regional and global aspirations. In the regional context, India wants all states of South Asia to respect its primacy and that they should not pursue their relations with the rest of the world in a manner that adversely affects its diplomatic and security interests. Pakistan resists the notion of Indian primacy in South Asia.
India has a global agenda, with a strong aspiration to become an active player in the league of global powers with a permanent seat in the expanded UN Security Council. This disposition was quite obvious in Prime Minister Modi’s address to the UN General Assembly on September 27, where he projected himself as a person of global vision, peace, human development and environmental improvement. He ignored the Pakistani prime minister’s overplaying of the Kashmir problem in the latter’s address to the General Assembly a day earlier. Modi responded in a polite and carefully worded manner on Kashmir and Pakistan with reference to terrorism, thereby hinting that India had more interests at the global level.
The two-track US policy in South Asia gives one advantage and one disadvantage to the US. The advantage is that good working relations with both countries can be used for resolution of some conflicts between them. However, the US is more interested in playing the role of a fire-fighter so that India and Pakistan do not go to war. It has little, if any, interest in the resolution of India-Pakistan problems. Perhaps, there is a limit to its influence on both countries.
The negative side of good US relations with India and Pakistan is that despite US insistence that these are two different tracks of relations, both India and Pakistan closely monitor what the US is doing for the other country. The US faces criticism from Pakistan when the latter feels that the US is tilting heavily towards India. A similar criticism is made by India when the US provides military and economic assistance or military sales to Pakistan.
The US views India’s contribution to socio-economic development in Afghanistan as an encouraging development and it has facilitated its active role in Afghanistan. This has caused apprehensions in Pakistan, whose leadership argues that India is using Afghan territory for pursuing its anti-Pakistan agenda by providing financial support to dissident Baloch groups and some elements among the Pakistani Taliban that operate from Afghanistan. This concern is as alarming for Pakistan as is India’s strong perception that Pakistan has not stopped sending militants into Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan provide inconclusive proofs of their respective contentions, but they firmly believe that their perception of the other side’s role is a reality.
Pakistan has welcomed the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement between the US and the new Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani. However, the US is not fully sensitive to Pakistan’s concerns about Afghanistan, i.e., India’s perceived anti-Pakistan role and the safe havens in Afghanistan for the Pakistani Taliban, who periodically attack Pakistani border posts and villages. When Pakistan retaliates against these Pakistani Taliban, Afghanistan claims that Pakistan is attacking Afghan territory. It maintains silence on the presence of the Pakistani Taliban in Afghanistan and accuses Pakistan of harbouring some Afghan Taliban groups, which perpetrate violence in Afghanistan.
Hopefully, the new Afghan government will work with Pakistan to evolve a joint border control strategy to control two-way movement of militants across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The US agenda for peace and stability in Afghanistan will be greatly facilitated if it uses its diplomatic clout with India and Pakistan to resolve some of their bilateral issues. If the US pursues a hands-off policy on India-Pakistan issues, both will continue to compete for influence in Afghanistan and engage in a proxy war there. This will have negative ramifications for the whole region.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 6th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (68)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Sexton Blake: Peace, bro!
ET mods - pls. allow a response to someone who has written to me.
@Yo2Da2: Western world is a role model for how it treats its own citizens for which they deserve credit. Further these nations are wealthy - a wealth which has not been achieved by fair means Alone- especially where Europe is concerned and it is clear that they will not be able to maintain the high standards of living they had built upon the backs of poor in India, South America, Africa and Native people of Australia and North America.
So while the migration today is to the Western countries, for centuries it has been fromEurope to other countries. The difference is they did not migrate to and adapt to ways of host nations, they exploited and enslaved them. We on the other hand are migrating and adapting.
@Yo2Da2: Dear Yo2Da2, I could give a detailed negative reply to almost all your points, but ET's patience with us must be running thin. However, when Britain and Europe were going though the Dark Ages they were rescued from it at the time of the Renaissance by the centers of learning in the Middle East and Asia from renowned colleges/universities in Baghdad/Damascus and India, which introduced Britain/Europe to Greek/Latin academia and brought them into the modern world of learning. For example, the British/European world thought the world was flat. I could go into why America and Australia is attractive to migrants, in detail, but perhaps the fact that Britain reduced the previous incumbents to very low levels has something to do with it? Incidentally, countries such as India and China are starting to become quite attractive to middle aged Westerners.
@Sexton Blake:
Many thanks Sir, for your kind words.
You are indeed one of those 'illustrious contributors' I refer to.
I feel all of us also have a responsibility to expose those who are here only for the sake of hitting others blow the belt. They only vitiate the atmosphere and display the hatred they harbour in their hearts as much as the bigotry in their heads. They should be reported ro the Editor of ET. I did manage once to have one particularly nasty fellow expelled for life.
@Sexton Blake: To GP65 and Sexton Blake: I was not trying to completely whitewash the brutality and exploitation by the British. I was simply trying to compare two colonial examples in India. Yes, Europeans as a whole committed lots of atrocities in the firm belief they were the Superior People compared to rest of the world. All the acts of genocide by Europeans should be remembered forever and condemned (including as recently as the 1930s and 1940s by German Nazis, the 1930s by Stalin, Bosnia-Kosovo in the 1990s and others). But genocide has not been an exclusive domain of the Europeans; it has been committed by non-Europeans, too, throughout history including recent times (Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mao - 70million! - during the Cultural Revolution; West Pakistan in East Pakistan; Turkish genocide of Armenian s in late 1880s and early 1900s; many genocides by Africans such as Rwanda and Sudan). Darkness and light runs through the blood of human race and civilization. We can soar to the highest levels of achievement or plunge into the abyss of barbarism. The two can co-exist even as we speak. Compared to the so-called Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism and other Eastern religions are far more benign, spiritual, tolerant and even intellectual. They appear to share many aspects of modern secularism. But how is the caste system "secular" or liberal in any sense? The Dalits - Untouchables - are still persecuted by many higher caste (e.g. Yadavs in UP and Bihar) folks. Certainly many have made great strides since 1947. Ultimately science and technology combined with human greed and a lack of self-knowledge has brought us to this point: Climate change and ecological disasters that threaten life!
For better and/or worse, Europeans and their descendants in the New Worlds (Americas and Australia) have defined the Modern World and what we recognize as liberal values of freedom, democracy, secularism, tolerance, equality (egalitarianism), rationality, primacy of science and technology (built on contributions by the ancient people from across the world). Why do people wish to emigrate to North America or Western Europe or Australia? Why don't people wish to emigrate to China or India or the Middle East? Reasons are obvious!
@wonderer: "Many wonderful hours of illuminating discourse"
Dear wonderer, Although I may not belong to the group of illustrious contributors you mentioned I quite agree with you and in my own small way like to think I am contributing something. I will not mention names, because some people may think they have been unfairly missed out. However, some people disagree vehemently and some agree, which is part of human nature, but at the end of the day we are all showing interest, and having a discourse out of which some good may follow.
@Yo2Da2: Dear Yo2Da2, Although the British were only a minor part of my missive you appear to have honed in on what you consider to be their so called good points. What in fact you did do was cursorily mention a few items which a Hollywood script writer would do if he was putting together an heroic film for the masses. However, in 1066 William the Conqueror, with his Robber Barons, visited Hastings and subsequently stole every acre in England. A quick perusal of England's ownership indicates that most of England is still owned by the descendants of the Robber Barons, and of course they expanded their assets by stealing Scotland and Ireland. I will not go into the number of times Britain invaded Europe and/or declared war upon the Europeans, but moving on Britain stole Canada, North America, India, Australia, New Zealand just to mention a few. I think, if you talk to the original incumbents, you would find that they are not particularly grateful for the British civilization which was forced upon them by the point of gun barrels, and their leaders routinely strapped to artillery cannon and blown to pieces for daring to question British authority. These are just a few points which Rudyard Kipling did not mention, but they may help you?
@Yo2Da2: Secularism is an idea in the nature of Hinduism. 4 Indic religions were born in India. The only country where Jews have not been tormented is India. So to say that British gave India secularism is not something one can agree with.
You dismiss what they did - they siphoned of a bit as though someone sole maybe a wallet. When British came, India produced 24% of world manufacturing and British 1-%. The numbers were reversed in 1947. In 1940, even there was a huge famine in Bengal, Briish actually exported food to Europe from India for their war effort. A million people died in tha famine. Eith China, they fought a war to actually sell opium.and no blame to Lord Mountbatten ror presiding over riots where over a million people were killed?
There maybe other rulers which were worse but Britain were not the civilising force they. Claim they were,
@Sexton Blake: Let's see, The Battle of Hastings 1066. Add a 1,000 years and we will be at 2066 (42 years away). Columbus "discovered" the New World 500+ years ago. You may want to check the math. By the way, With great reluctance, I have come to the conclusion that not all colonial adventures were equally bad or destructive. The East India Company followed by Queen Victoria did fly the Union Jack across the "Jewel in the Crown" for just over 200 years. Lot's of atrocities were committed, natives were ill-treated, and wealth siphoned away. (But no temples were desecrated (though artefacts were stolen); no people were converted by force to alien religions; native cultures continued in their ancient rhythms.)
On the plus side, new discoveries were made and scholarly work done (e.g. Indus Valley Civilization, Ajanta and Ellora Caves; connection between Sanskrit to other Indo-European languages; translations of the Vedas, The Upanishads, the two major Epics; a complete history of India - albeit Europeanized version - compiled and recompiled); modern science and technology was introduced (including recognition of contributions of modern and ancient Indian scholars to these); modern systems (infrastructure, political and education systems; the concept of democracy - although not implemented until the British withdrew in 1947); secularism. In other words, the British connected India to the modern world and then had the good sense to leave. What did the superseded foreign colonizing powers do besides trying to obliterate native Indian religions and culture? And they didn't leave!
@Sexton Blake: Er a hindu like you will understand these things.
Too many comments point to Kashmir as the contention between India and Pakistan. This is wrong. Kashmir is a major problem for India because Kashmiris have been waging campaign for independence. Azadi is their goal. They don't want to be part of India or Pakistan. India has completely failed to resolve the issue with Kashmiris. Too many Kashmiris have died to accept Indian control. Recent flood and sluggish response from the government has further aliented Kashmiris. India has lost Kashmir. People are not with India and don't want to be with India. They have been held geographically by the military force of 500,000. The battle of heart and mind is lost. It may take longer but Kashmir will be independent. Historically people have struggled for a long time but eventually won independence. India's own struggle against British rule started in 1857 and eventually won independence 90 years later. USA can do nothing. It has demonstrated its repeated failures in resolving Israel- Palestine issue.
@doniya: You might want to clarify your thoughts as you didn't make a lot of sense.
Isn't the world a strange place? India thinks Pakistan is beastly, Pakistan thinks India is beastly, America pretends to be the good cop straightening out all the beastly people, which in America's view comprises the whole world except for one exception, Britain has spent the last thousand years or so going around the world stealing and straightening out the beastly people. Perhaps the world's people should have a vote so that we can find out who the non-beastly people are, if of course any exist. On the other hand, perhaps all the so called leaders everywhere should stay at home and just learn to lead their own country and stop bothering the others. Alas, I do not think we will ever be that lucky.
I never understand why my neighbour across the border think that they are part of all the good work and all the issues in the region are because of Pakistan.
Pakistan must consolidate its statehood first, and rectify its socio economic situation.
There is a global campaign to portray Pakistan as a failed state as the first step towards dismantling nuclear weapons and balkanizing the country. Pakistan's politicians are part of this campaign.
@Landhi wala:
Sir, move away from the mirror now.
@Zahid Wani: Mending ur broken heart is simple but painful. All u gotta go is reconcile to the fact that India isnt going out of Kashmir. It isn't easy to accept it, but life never is.
I find this article by Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi much less interesting and revealing than the debate it has generated. And thanks to the holidays for Eid, the debate is continuing for a much longer time than is usual.
The comments particularly by Indians and others with an obvious advantage in Education are well intentioned and thought-through with much genuine and honest data. And, despite the usual attempts by many pseudo intellectuals form among us the debate has been relatively cleaner.
The comment by some retired Lt.Gen from India shows there are well-wishers of Pakistan not only in India but also their Army, which many of us may find surprising. And, some exchanges between Gp65 and Sinclair are example of civility that others should learn from, and ET should promote through stricter but fairer moderation. Civility engenders exchange of wisdom, and the lack of it the exchange of ignorance.
We all should be thankful to the respected author, ET and all the commentators for many wonderful hours of illuminating discourse!
@the eddy: Why so? Tomorrow you will say Mumbai for Marathis and Gujrat for Gujratis. What is secular about this approach?
@Landhi wala: Sir, it is Pakistan which is becoming a pariah because of failure to contain polio.
@Sinclair: You are very kind. Thank you.
@Muhammad Shoaib: Is India not abiding by the Indus river treat is India constructing dams having large storage capacity if yes please enlighten me about the same how you say that the floods in Pakistan have been due to India, there are floods in India in Bihar and UP every year and we never blamed any body or the same, your Govt failed to construct dams and this is not the fault of India, had Pakistan built dams you would have been relieved off power problems and also not faced floods in some parts of Panjab, please come out of the conspiracy theories be real it will be in the intrest of both Nastions.
India will not like to talk with Pakistan on Kashmir issue. Militancy doest not effect India's stand on Kashmir because in encounters only kashmiri people are killing. Indian army is using civilians as human shields in encounters, crackdowns and now on border. India was (and is) always looking for to disintegrate Pakistan, as it is evident from 1971 war and now providing weapons to terrorists through Afganistan to fight against Pakistan. Friendship of India with Afganistan is not about the welfare of Afganistan but only for India's own interest. A heart broken Kashmiri boy.
India is not considered an Asian country therefore India should not be mention bin any Asian newspaper. India should worry about its poor population not Pakistan and Afghanistan who don't consider India as Asian country.
@Sinclair: '...india has a bigger hand now.' Of course it has a bigger hand. After contacting Elephantiasis, it has a giant hand. Waiting for the leprosy test results. Then truly, Hindustan will be a pariah. Show China some infected muscle. Spray some virus loaded spittle....
The article is implicitly centered on the flawed and false assumption/delusion of Pakistan's geopolitical importance and the perceived equality/parity between Pakistan and India that the Pak Establishment wants to desperately hold on to.
If one sees through this underpinning assumption, the rest of the article comes out as the usual delusional thinking of the Pakistani establishment with respect to Pakistan's perceived importance and centrality in global affairs. Truth is exactly the opposite, as stated by the clear message of Madeleine Albright who said "Pakistan is an international migraine".
Moral: India has moved on into the 21st century while Pakistan is still stuck in the old well, like the proverbial frog, that thought the whole world was the well that it lives in and that it was the meanest, biggest and most important thing in the universe.
@Muhammad Shoaib: Let's start from the beginning. The whole of South Asia - Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh - were India once and were for at least 5,000 (minus 67) years. There was neither a Pakistan nor a Bangladesh. So, where is the "illegal" occupation? What became Pakistan received far more land for its creation than the proportion of Indian Muslim population in pre-Independence India. And despite that, one third of the Pre-Independence Indian Muslims remained behind even though Pakistan got the land FOR all Indian Muslims. .So, it is a lot of chutzpah on your part to use the "illegal" card. Try using it with China that sits on two distinct non-Chinese lands - Tibet and Xinjiang (Three Nation Theory?)- which together represent 40% of its land mass. If you think land has a religion, then the Pakistani land was Hindu and Buddhist for much longer! So, please, let's have logical arguments, not emotional rants.
By same logic Mumbai should belong to Marathis only,,,,,@the eddy:
USA doesn't want to be a mediator and India doesn't want anybody to be a mediator - that pretty much rules out the suggested mediation. Also - anyone is free to vie for influence in Afghanistan .. but it's up to the Afghan's to determine who they do business with - not the Americans, not India and not Pakistan.
@the eddy: "@IndianDude: Where should secular hindus like me kick you to?? Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris only." No country has ever belonged to those that inhabit it until and unless they become its sovereign and are able to exercise that sovereignty. If that were not so, the whole history of conquests would have to be purged out of history books. If that were not so, such transfers of territories that occurred as under Louisiana Purchase, transfer of Alaska, annexation of Hawaiian islands among other miscellaneous annexations would not have taken place. Inhabitants of a territory, at best, enjoy a "perpetual lease" of the property they occupy. "Perpetual" does not mean "eternal" because such lease needs to be re-approved in case of change of the sovereign. Kapisch, my insolent "secular Hindu" friend!
@Muhammad Shoaib: U seem to know a lot about the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir. So here's a basic Q about them. Under what Chapter of the UN Charter r they passed ?
@Muhammad Shoaib:
Firstly, the focus of this article was not specifically on Kashmir, but you making it one is understandable because that is main bone of contention between India & Pakistan. As for the resolutions in UN, there are strong legal arguments against why they cannot be enforced today. Without getting to these, let me just state the reality here as I see it - there will be no referendum and Kashmir will not get independence. Thats the ground reality.
Now, how to spin it? Well, while India concedes the reality that Pakistan is today, creating a religious state out of a non-homogeneous community due to the fears of any one communal group is abdicating responsibility that a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society owes to its citizens. It is undemocratic and unfair, and certainly cowardly. The UN should pass a resolution forbidding such actions because they are against the basic human rights of ethnic and religious minorities. That should be good enough for the UNSC.
The question to be asked is what has pakistan benefited from having Kashmir in its veins? Isn't pakistan over investing its resources in Kashmir. While kashmir is as important to india as it is to pakistan, India has focused on a lot of economic and social development within the country, and indians are living a better life compared to what they were, 20-30 years ago. Pakistan, on the other hand, has neglected everything in the name of kashmir. what has an average pakistani gained from investing so much in kashmir? and how much could their personal lives improve if kashmir was to, though highly unlikely, get independence? not the elite, but the average pakistani has to let its govt. and army know that the priority for them right now is living a better, secure life. Once this is reasonably achieved, they can push hard the kashmir issue
@Honest: Honestly, you are blithering!
@IndianDude: Where should secular hindus like me kick you to?? Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris only.
Afghanistan is going to be another Japan for them because they are going to have their permanent military base there. Since the American presence will be there afghan neighbors including India also behave properly with afghans.
Why my comments are not published
@Prakash: if banning someone's entry to US is a proof of criminality then your choice of a Prime Minister........
The right title of the article should have been "Hegemonic influence of the big three"! Pakistan appears to be oblivious of this contest.
Rex Minor
Only hindus allowed to comment.
@Gp65:
I am around quite often, but comment very infrequently. You hold the fort quite well, obviating the need for any of us to intervene :).
@ET:
Responding to an earlier comment, please allow.
Neither Bhartiya nor Pakistani general ppls will get any benefit either by make Kashmir separate or with India. Only these few leaders making public fool and enjoying by name of LOC etc...
Can any of these leaders can send their family on Border where WAR going on just to serve soldiers who fighting. Can the send their family to fight if already trained.... Never..... Because they are enjoying and will continue to enjoy behind public money....
They will not send.... Let either ask Musharraf of Bilal who already have lost identity in their Country and talking across border issue.
During my visit few years ago to Lahore / Faisalabad etc... general ppls abusing these leaders. Local worker class ppls 3 yrs back were getting PAK Rs.4000-4500 per month for 10 hrs working there where Wheat Flour was Rs.25 per Kgs. They just praying god to make silence...and let finish these dirty politician....
Same I questing for ours nations....leaders... Let Stop all commercial terms condition as well if really need to resolve issue....
Why still continue to Import -Export....
@Gp65:
I am around quite often, though comment rather infrequently now. I do look for your responses to articles. You hold the fort most of the times obviating the need for any of us to intervene :).
What never comes through in such typically wordy discharges is what positive contribution Pakistan has the capacity to make to Afghanistan. Without such contribution Pakistan is just another brigand crossing the face of Afghanistan, to add to numerous such from history. I think Afghanistan will deal successfully with Pakistani ambitions, as it has done historically with those of other pretenders. The real question is what its bombastic approach will do to Pakistan itself.
In 1954 Dulles Era, Pakistan joined SEATO, CENTO in the hope that US and UK will help getting Kashmir. But US used Pakistan army as a mercenary army to play Us games and assuring Pakistan on Kashmir from time to time. Pakistan and US relations are at the same place(Kashmir) where it started in 1954. Pakistan still hopes to get Kashmir with US help for which Pakistan put forward Kashmir as a condition to help US in Afghanistan and US melted. This irritated India and US- India relations went sour, of course certain other souring points were there. This article by H A Rizvi conveys nothing else.
The author has too many assumptions and wishful inferences. 1.(the US and India do not necessarily share goals on all regional issues, especially when it comes to dealing with China.) In fact, India is the only hope for the US in Asia and Pakistan, having very closed ties with China, will actually come in the way of US policy on China. 2.(Pak's support is needed for stability in Afghanistan). US and Afghans also understand that Pakistan supports Afghan Taliban that is the root cause of instability in Afghanistan. 3.(The two-track US policy in South Asia ..... can be used for resolution of some conflicts between them.) Author forgets that India does not allow any 3rd country to interfere in her relations with neighbours. So its a meaningless point. 4.(Hopefully, the new Afghan government will work with Pakistan to evolve a joint border control strategy ......) The fact is that Pakistan was waiting for US to step out of Afghanistan and when the BSA was signed it had no options but to support it. The new govt. is headed by Ashraf Ghani, considered as US favorite. The Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum and Dr. Abdullah were part of northern alliance. When it comes to Afghan's policy on Pakistan, the trio will be, if not more, not less than Karzai.
As they say that in international relations there are no permanent friends or foes but permanent interests. The US has only two long term interest in the region - 1. Contain Terror and 2. Contain China. Pakistan is not going to ditch China, not it can give up supporting Taliban. Rest is for anyone to guess.
"Both India and Pakistan provide inconclusive proofs of their respective contentions". There are few possibilities of 'conclusive' proof in the case of countries sponsoring terrorism. Given that, you should judge the proofs based on whether or not the majority of neutral observers believe your version of events. And I don't think I need to tell you what the vast majority of neutral observers believes about Pakistan sponsoring terrorism and India sponsoring terrorism.
Dr Rizvi., quite a balanced one! Both India and Pakistan are strategically so much so important for each other in terms of economic and cultural aspects. Pakistan can serve as a good channel for linkage between west Asia and India while India itself being a huge market of consumer goods can also act as a gateway for link between South East Asia and Pakistan. What Pakistan need to focus on today is, Political stability, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency policies. While India on the other hand should focus more on economic and cultural ties with Pakistan.
US pursues different patterns of relations with India and Pakistan just because its has keen economic interests in the region, it has to run its arms factories. It is using India as a base to counter Chinese advance towards being a superpower. It is using Pakistan as its base to keep a vigil on Central and West Asia's rich petroleum reserves. The US agenda for peace and stability in Afghanistan is more feasible on paper rather than on ground.
For both India and Pakistan, they will have to accept, what Pakistan has acquired as Azaad Kashmir (what we call it in India as POK) will never come back to India and what is left of Kashmir with India will never go to Pakistan. Its a bitter truth but we all need to accept this and request our political parties to "Apni siyasi rotiyan sekna band kariye". A third party interference will be of no use, specially when it is by US or any other nation in the West who never has faced any such issue.
Pakistani intellectuals are living in an utopian dreamland. It needs only a visit to Afghanistan for even the dumbest of visitors to ascertain who the Afghans consider their friend and whom their enemy, and why. The Afghans also know the source of terror and who is providing shelter to the terrorists and sponsoring attacks on innocent Afghan civilians and destroying their infrastructure. Neither Pakistan or America are seen in a positive light by Afghan people who have been terrorized by both. The development work by India in building Afghan capacity and infrastructure spending over two billion Dollars cannot be wished away with arguments of convenience. A positive agenda can never lose to a negative and defeatist one, however such simple and rational thinking is beyond the capacity of many.
@Sinclair: Please amend to read the UN Resolutions on Kashmir as S/RES/38 (1948), S/RES/39 (1948), S/RES/51 (1948),S/RES/80 (1950) andS/RES/91 (1951). So I appolgise for writing UNSC Resolutions 180 and 190 these are actually UNSC Resolution 80 and 90. These resolutions declared Kashmir as a disputed territory and a referendum for the people of Kashmir was to be held.
"Both India and Pakistan provide inconclusive proofs of their respective contentions" should india provide selfies of terrorists holding,planting bombs and post it on twitter?,except for that india provided pretty much everything ranging from intercepts,messages,testimonies of ajmal kasab,david headley and even videos in case of infiltration bids, try be factually relevant at least once in your life.
@Sinclair: Please be apprised that the Author has often used the word IF while suggesting US influence upon India and Pakistan (in this case India more which is in fact an aggressor illegally occupying Kashmir and constructing dams therein); this means the Author himself is not clear about the US role to resolve the existing Indo-Pak conflicts. The Indian Constitution Article-370 has already declared Kashmir as the integral part of India and hence they are not willing to resolve the Kashmir problem which has been declared as DISPUTED TERRITORY under the UN Security Council Resolution 180 and 190. Expecting India to talk on Kashmir problem's resolution literally means, "LIVING IN FOOLS" PARADISE". Any suggestion or article writing about India willing or likely to be willing to resolve Kashmir Conflict through negotiation, will always prove to be misleading. However The US may influence upon (not pressurising) India to at least respect the Indus Basin Treaty to ensure safe and efficient water flows of Pakistani rivers coming out of the disputed land of Indian Held Kashmir.Safe flows of water means that India does not possess the capacity to cause flood floods in Pakistan meaning to say their capacity to store water in these Kashmiri dams must be curtailed.
….“If the US pursues a hands-off policy on India-Pakistan issues, both will continue to compete for influence in Afghanistan and engage in a proxy war there. This will have negative ramifications for the whole region.”
May I ask the learned author why Pakistan has to compete with India for influence in Afghanistan? Why not cooperate for the betterment of that unfortunate country? After all Afghanistan needs as much help as it can get, and in fact prefers India. Should not Pakistan stop trying the separate India and Afghanistan, the ‘strategic depth’ theory having been buried now?
Try this approach. It will help solve most other problems too, both actual and imaginary.
This will have positive ramifications for the whole region.
And, is there any cogent reason why the US should not pursue a hands-off policy on India-Pakistan issues?
It will pay handsome dividends to remember the world does not revolve around Pakistan.
An important aspect for us to remember is that what Afghanistan or India is doing to us is exactly what we did to them to start with. For over 60 years now we have promoted an adversarial relationship with India and USA knows that quite well.
Let's not forget what we had to do to get out of the Kargil mess. The trust simply does not exist...we have hurt our own credibility to such a great extent that we don't trust each other as Pakistanis.
We have a serious mess on our hands and it is not about hoping that the new government in Afghanistan would work with us...it is why should they even bother...it's their time to have some fun at our cost...right?
Quite balanced. However, you slipped a bit in the end when desired US role in bilateral issues. Remember, if we can't resolve our issues bilaterally despite agreement, nobody else can resolve them.
This write-up almost brought tears to my eyes. I wish I can contribute towards the welfare of muslims from the valley by providing them one way bus tickets to islamabad.
If this was true, the US wouldn't have conducted the Abbotabad operation without your knowledge...or said the haqqani network is a veritable arm of the ISI...
@Sinclair: You said what I wanted to and better than I could have said it. Welcome back. Have not seen you on this board for a long time.
The US does not have the influence or power to cause India and Pakistan to resolve their differences. We can advise and assist, if asked. Wikileaks showed the limits of US persuasion.
In any event, the issues do not need US intervention. When Pakistan achieves a consensus on peace with India, and India likewise, the mechanics of it will need no foreign assistance. Kashmir is resolvable if there is peace between India and Pakistan, as that will allow J&K to reunite and to trade freely with both India and Pakistan. Otherwise, the political solution to Kashmir issues lies in the hands of the Kashmiri people and their leaders. They, too, need their own consensus.
imho.
India wants all states of South Asia to respect its primacy and that they should not pursue their relations with the rest of the world in a manner that adversely affects its diplomatic and security interests. Pakistan resists the notion of Indian primacy in South Asia.
As per Christine Fair in her recent book: "Yes. It's costly for Pakistan to maintain this competition, but they view defeat very differently. They don't view it in terms of territory lost or value of territory or number of lives lost. They view defeat as that moment when they can no longer resist India. They are like an international insurgent.
That's why they keep taking calculated risks, knowing well they are never going to achieve the outcome. The goal is simply to exhibit to India that India cannot exert its will in the neighbourhood."
Afghanistan is not a "no man's land" for its neighouring powers to play in; it is a sovereign country and it has shown that it is willing to defend its sovereignty. It has full right to chose its friends and to stand up to those it perceives as its enemies. India counts itself as Afghanistan's well-wishing friend; and Afghanistan recognizes that. Even the world has noted that. Days of strategic depths are long past, having left a very bitter after taste in Afghanistan.
Sir, I have myself seen terrorist camps in POK and when i talked to people in azad POK during 2005.they told me that if u are a mujahid u dont need a money to own ration and petrols..We need to be serious and dismantle terrorist groups sir.We liberals can always help pakistan to proceed forward to make itself a great country like bangladesh or turkey....
Regards A POK resident living in sindh
Is this a subtle threat to imply Pakistan will be back to its game of destabilizing Afghanistan? India's contribution towards Afghanistan are all positive towards development of the country. The opposite is true in the case of Pakistan. We would like to remind our Pakistani friends this is not 70s or 80s for you to treat us like your colony. Take care of yourself first, you have lot more problems than us.
The analysis rests on the premise that the US has enough clout to compel India to change its policy on an issue so sensitive to the latter, Also it does not factor the growing diplomatic isolation, political strife and economic woes so familiar to the readers of the ET edit pages.
Author forgot about the ino-us joint declaration regarding going after safe heaven of terrorist in Pakistan and US subsequently banning Pakistan based organization,so Indian accusation of Pakistan using terrorism as tool of foreign policy are backed by other country also.
After reading this article I lost hope on Pakistan completely, I don't see any improvement in Pakistan in near future... may be they might change their attitude after full destruction of Pakistan by the so called non state actors.
Pakistan is not progressing at the same it does not want both Afghan and India to progress, Pakistan is very happy to be a spoiler... Anyhow whether Pakistan likes or not India will progress and it will become world power.
Good and well balanced article Sir. In the end though, it seems you make the assumption that US will lean on the side of Pakistan in the final resolution of some of the bilateral issues between India & Pakistan. Would you be OK if the issues do get resolved, but more to the benefit of India (even after a hypothetical US intervention)?. India has the bigger hand now. Be careful what you wish for.