Modi’s US visit
Modi has shown little interest in improving bilateral relations with Pakistan, preferring the hostile status quo
If one saw Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing a sold-out crowd at Madison Square Garden or sitting around a dinner table with President Barack Obama at the White House, one can be forgiven for forgetting that it was only four months ago that he was still barred from entering the US. A lot has changed since then. For the US, it is a simple case of pragmatism; it is difficult to expect the US to overlook Prime Minister Modi’s indiscretions in the 2002 Gujarat riots now that it has to deal with him as a strategic partner. The US has good reasons to seek better relations with India. Both countries prefer to see an economically integrated Asia without China as its dominant power. Both also consider Islamic extremism a threat and are prepared to take steps to curb it. There is much in the way of mutual interest, but has been hampered by India’s ambivalence over foreign investment, protectionist policies, trade agreements and a stuck civil-nuclear agreement. The US, aware of Prime Minister Modi’s patchy human rights record, may also have trouble addressing that inconvenient past. Still, that President Obama took him on a private tour of the Martin Luther King Junior Memorial is hardly indicative of a cold shoulder. Cautiously, both countries are looking to better relations, despite the obstacles.
The same cannot be said for Pakistan and India. Prime Minister Modi’s speech at the UN General Assembly flatly declined Pakistan’s call for new approaches to resolving the Kashmir dispute and also reprimanded the Pakistani prime minister for mentioning Kashmir at the UN, which India considers a ‘bilateral issue’. Prime Minister Modi also repeated allegations of Pakistan’s ties to terrorism. While the General Assembly was always an opportunity for Indian and Pakistani leaders to meet on the sidelines, this time unfortunately, such a meeting did not materialise. Apart from inviting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration, the Indian leader has shown little interest in improving bilateral relations with Pakistan, preferring the hostile, aggressive status quo.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 2nd, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
1717587923-0/jake-paul-vs-mike-tyson-(1)1717587923-0-165x106.webp "article")
1725443747-0/Untitled-design-(5)1725443747-0-165x106.webp "article")
1731738952-0/Untitled-design-(13)1731738952-0-270x192.webp "ex soldier canadian dave captured by taliban sources")
1731735822-0/Copy-of-Untitled-(1)1731735822-0-270x192.webp "mike tyson vs jake paul paul wins on points as tyson struggles")
@Faryal: Any talk on Kashmir, or whatever, has to be on Indian terms.
If human rights were the criteria for talking with foreign leaders the USA would have no relations with Pakistan, China, Russia, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.
@BlackHat I take my hat of for you. Time for India and Pakistan to move on, the only hindrance is our mindset. People with imagination move forth, we don't because we do not wish to, it is as simple as that. We make excuses. Open up, open up open up is the solution. Open the borders, open trade, open real estate, open investment, open travel, open educational institutions, open hi-tech avenues, open railways, open highways, open sea ports, open airports. There are a million ways how we can improve, but there are people who do not want this to happen, there are people who see this as their down fall, there are people who see this as unbecoming. That is the problem within, we have to understand that very clearly. What is stopping us from opening up? it is the people with this mindset, that is our problem.
Just for the record Mr. Modi is Democratically elected Prime Minister of over I billion people, which incidentally include more Muslims than the entire population of Pakistan. Keeping these facts in mind why should anyone be surprised when he stands in front of the world body and addresses them with the interest of India. Well, that is his job to serve and protect his people and country's interest.
Therefore, it is very hard to argue against Prime Minister Modi when he alleges Pakistan’s complicity and tolerance of some despicable and atrocious acts that were committed in India by Pakistanis, or have we forgotten Mumbai. After all, the leader--Hafiz Saeed-- of those evil doers, lives openly in Pakistan. Just imagine how would Pakistan feel and say if it was the other way round. I think instead of being critical of Prime Minister Modi we should try to elect leaders like him, who would look after the interests of the people over their own...........or at least, as much as their own.
It takes two to move towards friendship. If the high commissioner was determined to queer the pitch for the foreign secretaries by meeting Kashmir separatists, it was hardly possible that Modi would not take note. I have said more than once in these columns that in Pakistan there is no constituency for good relations with India. The civilian-military tussle for power and control has not been helpful in moving towards better relations. We in India always thought that the prime minister would not be able to deliver on his promises if he genuinely meant to improve relations with India - the army would not let him. That brings us back to the now familiar refrain that good India-Pakistan relations are not possible until Pakistan persuades itself that no major change in Kashmir is possible. Many in Pakistan, including the army chief, have chosen to describe Kashmir as Pakistan's jugular. If they genuinely think so, then they will have to learn to live without that jugular. How will people in Pakistan respond if I suggested to the Indian government in the following sense: "Personally I would encourage Indian government representatives and Indian high commission representatives to meet Baloch leaders with the intention to cause as much embarrassment and difficulty to the Pakistan government as they can. It is true that no one disputes that Baluchistan is part of Pakistan and that there is no dispute in that respect. It is also true that everything is not good and peaceful between the Baloch people and the central Pakistan government. India should aim to cause all possible difficulty between the Baloch people and the Pakistan government. Perhaps then Pakistan government and newspapers may begin to understand what it means to interfere in another country. Kashmir is a dispute because committed aggression in 1947. Jahan tak ho sakay, jahan jahan ho sakay, aag laga do Pakistan mein." I do not have a line to the Indian government. As a common Indian citizen, I am only unburdening myself of my pent up feelings because of Pakistan's actions in the past. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, 2 Oct 2014, 1641 IST
How long the Pak media continue to flog the dead horse of Modi's past which started from his pre-elections era and continuing till date. The world has moved on with Modi getting tumultuous welcome in US after his successful visit to Japan and hosting Chinese President at home. A leading US Congressman did not mince words praising Modi stating that a global leader has arrived on the international scene, while 41 Congressmen were present at Madison Square Garden cheering him which was an unprecedented phenomena for any head of state visit to US so far. India's stature has risen since Modi took over as PM and moving higher with his visits to foreign countries which Pakistan cannot choose to ignore vis-a-vis its own that is going down hill all the time. Time has come for Pakistan to strictly follow a pragmatic approach now, stop border violations unleashed against India for several decades as Modi has made it quite clear that talks can only take place in a peaceful environment and that is the bottom line.
That is why it is been called that nation states only revolve around national interest. Good gestures from US can’t be named for ‘Modi’ primarily because underneath it is actually PM of India. As it is a matter of designation not the personal credentials. US is taking India as an instrumental tool as making its presence in South Asia to contain the speedily dominating influence of China and of course Russia too. India moves very tactfully by inviting Pakistan at home but completely wasted the golden opportunity to talk in US. It is a sheer reflection of lack of interest in setting the issues with Pakistan. If Indian state is really concerned to settle disputes than why it left a room for tensed environment with neighborhood. It represents that India is least concern for peace in the region.
How can you forget the innocent Kashmiris who are the victims of Indian barbaric actions? These innocent Kashmir's have been killed on daily basis and tortured young people. Ironically, When PM Nawaz raise the issue of Kashmir in UN, the Indian pm reacts that UN is not a platform to discuss such things. What a pity on him.
....flatly declined Pakistan’s call for new approaches to resolving the Kashmir dispute. I seem to have missed this news. What new approach are you referring to over here? Firing over the LoC at breakfast, meeting separatists for lunch and having a FS summit during dinner? When is the last time that Pakistan came up with a new approach? Even ideas like the 4-point one or Chenab formula are not likely to buy favor with your own constituents, which is why the average Joe in Pakistan has no idea or support for such proposals. Pakistan has backed itself in a corner on Kashmir and has no way out other than to continue with that 'thousand-year war' that their leader vowed to wage. So be it.
Remember, Modi was declared not guilty in the 2002 riots case by the highest court in India. Why do you keep on flogging a dead horse. Is it some kind of psychotic sense of satisfaction you get when you rake up an irrelevant past. Why Pakistan always looks to the past for arguments. Look forward and maybe, just maybe, you can take one step ahead in life.
Modi is just saying "Go Nawaz Go". If Pakistanis keep insulting their own leader when he is on important visits abroad how can they expect others to give him importance !!!!!!! If Pakistan wants its leaders who are representing Pakistan abroad to be given importance, Pakistanis should themselves give importance to their leaders. How can Modi, or for that matter anyone, discuss anything with NS when his own countrymen are insulting him everywhere?
If human rights record is the criterion for entry to the US, Nawaz Sharif's plane should not be allowed to even take off from the Islamabad airport. When you think about Pakistan's human rights record towards its minorities.
.........US, aware of Prime Minister Modi’s patchy human rights record,.....
Come out of the rock Mr Editor. How many of the rulers in muslim countries have clean human rights record. The allegations against Modi is more of heresy than real evidence. Nawaz used the UNGA speech, unwisely, to consolidate his position back home. Modi used it to meet right people that includes other south Asian leaders except NS, Go figure.
As expected,your views on Modi Obama meet is biased.Every State gets from others what it deserves.Modi has given clear invitation to Pakistan for talk but latter should make condition favorable.Either talk with India or with sepatists, both can't go together.Your article should have highlighted this.Also the futility of involving 3rd party has been clearly stated by Modi. No statesman can be more clear than Modi.He is humane,firm and transparent. There is no scope to misread his vision. About visa issue, US is responsible for this, Modi had nothing to do with denial.He is a humanist to every inch and considers people of all caste, creed and religion as members of Human FAMILY. Medias and opposition parties tried their best to paint him with communal colors but people of India asserted their faith in Modi.Now,there is no scope of any debate on people's verdict, which is supreme in a democracy.
"The US, aware of Prime Minister Modi’s patchy human rights record, may also have trouble addressing that inconvenient past."
Modi's "human rights record" is no worse than, say, the Chinese leaders who preside over a state policy of genocide of Uighur Muslims. Yet, there is no concern in the US administration on visas for the fascist Chinese leaders.
As for Modi's "patchy human rights record", it is a mischievous construction of leftist anti-national pseudo secular Indian activists. Gujarat riots were not started by Modi. It was started by the Muslim mob who brutally torched 70 Hindu pilgrims to a horrible death in the train compartment at Godhra. The ensuing riots saw 750 innocent Muslims and 300 Hindus being butchered by competing mobs.
A riot of such magnitude and ferocity couldn't have been controlled any better. Even in the Los Angeles riots of the past, it took about 10 days to control it only after destruction of over 2000 pieces of property were destroyed, over 60 people killed and 2000 people injured.
This is not a justification for the murderous killings in Gujarat, but it not justified to blame Modi for the riots.
The world is not ideal, whether we like it or not. Pragmatism is the only way we can move forward. The disputes between India and China or India and Pakistan are legacies inherited from a colonial past. It would be wishful thinking even to imagine there possibly is a way to alter status quo. Economic integration, free movement of people, ability of individuals to buy property and live and work in one or the other country would make boundaries irrelevant. That would be a win win win situation, creating a people centric post-nationalist era leading to peace and development.
The US, aware of Prime Minister Modi’s patchy human rights record, may also have trouble addressing that inconvenient past. Still, that President Obama took him on a private tour of the Martin Luther King Junior Memorial is hardly indicative of a cold shoulder.
Modi comes from same state where Gandhi was born and MLK was inspired by Gandhi. Nawaz Sharif also ignored that inconvenient past and attended inaugural function.
I am not sure if NS government is in any position to talk on any sort of bilateral issues. India should wait and watch and see who comes out victorious in this quagmire that Pakistan is in. Nevertheless, it would always the army calling the shots in Pakistan.