The forgotten front

I'm for fighting battles we can win. Why is Kashmir one of them?

I take it for granted that American interests in the region would be ill-served if we came to be blamed for every act of Indian repression in Kashmir and every act of terrorism by ISI-sponsored Pakistanis within India. Not volunteering to mediate the Kashmir problem reduces the risk of that outcome. Taking the course recommended here would increase that risk, particularly where India is concerned. The increased risk might be worth it if there were a payoff at the end. Why should we think there is anything of the kind?

India and Pakistan do not quarrel over Kashmir because they misunderstand one another. They quarrel because the understand one another only too well. Justice for India means Pakistan gives up hope of ever taking over Kashmir, or at a minimum that it stops sponsoring terrorists to murder Indians. Justice for Pakistan means India gives up Kashmir. That's not a gap, it's a chasm. I'm not disposed to have the United States get dragged into it.

Sigh...

Left leading ideologues in the State Department always get this wrong.

Kashmir is not the cause of anything, but rather is a symptom of the malaise.

That malaise is the Pakistani military establishment's addiction to the use of jihadists as policy tools.

There's no "solution" for Kashmir that can be forced on any party and for the US to stupidly attempt what Mr. Gross' gross error in judgment would sound the death knell for India-US ties.

Attacks like 26/11 on Mumbai did not happen because "terrorists" wanted to do something. They happened because the Pakistani GHQ wanted them to happen, so that they would get an excuse to not tackle their proxies in the FATA by using the "Look India is about to attack us" card.

People like Mr. Gross should be made to stay in a hotel when the LeT attacks it, and then they would learn the lesson not to justify terror.

There has to be a limit to stupidity.

Interestingly, the India-Pakistan equal-equal verbiage seems to have been dug up from its crypt - from Mr. Gross's garbage above.

"Two combustible nuclear powers"

"Both sides"

etc.

Anyone that uses these phrases should get a lifetime ban from getting a visa to visit India.

like someone already suggested to Obama, no comments is probably the best stand for the American foreign department to have now.
Already America's support of Pakistan in the war against Taliban in Afghan is closely being watched by New Delhi. Any further interference eastward from its current line of action for US may not produce a desirable effect.
For the first time since independence the Indian government is talking about pulling back the armed forces from the state of J&K bordering Pakistan, to bring back the local calm which is already being analyzed with a strange calm! to mount a US pressure on this would only backfire!

www.danielsrepublic.com

>>>Twenty-four of Pakistan's 26 military divisions remain idling on the Indian border

So let's analyze why this is the case. Is it because Pak fears invasion and occupation by India ? This fails the smell test. The generation that might have wanted to undo parition and have some nostalgia for the idea of an undivided India has passed on. With a 10% growth rate and a booming middle class, India has nothing to gain from a war.

Or is it because Pak is less a nation with an army and more of an army with a nation, and it is in the army's best interest to hoodwink their people by keeping tensions alive, either through misadventures like Kargil or jihad sponsorship ? Hmmm.

>>>attenuation of the Indian occupation ...a referendum of the Kashmiri people on independence

Your biases are showing. The portion of the old princely state of Kashmir that is defacto held by India today is no more occupied territory than the rest of it that is held by Pak. A referendum over independence at this point is not even on the table; it's not even rational because many former princely states will have to be given that privilege, and many other cans of worms, including Baluchistan, will need to be re-opened.

A timely article if there ever was one...the seperatist movement in Kashmir is unlike any other being faced by either Pakistan or India.there are UN resolutions on it and Indias first prime minister Nehru agreed to hold a plebicite in kashmir as envisaged by the UN resolution.terrorism has no justification period! that does not mean that the whole seperatist movement led by people like the Mirwaiz be thrown out or ignored. secondly afghanistan will not stabilize until and unless relations between india and pakistan become better. its unfortunate for the Afghans but true.Pakistans army is on the borders because there have been four wars with India. There's history which cannot be ignored.Both countries blame each others agencies for everything and anything so to say as that the Pak army is hoodwinking the entire PAkistan nation is ludicrous.American involvement should be there from the point of view of applying pressure on both sides to get to the negotiating table. this issue might seem irrelevant to America right now but if tensions between india and Pakistan are not resolved and without a resolution of the KAshmir dispute they cant worse is yet to come.already India is building dams on rivers flowing through Kashmir.because of that Pakistani farmers have started facing acute water shortages.things will get ugly.

The U.S. has its hands full with Israel-Palestine, Iran, & North Korea. Adding another seemingly intractable problem to its plate serves no purpose.

Second, there are ways for the U.S. to encourage India-Pakistan talks without direct mediation. It became clear over the course of the Bush administration that the nuclear deal was a not-so-secret reward for India, if it worked towards settling its problems with Pakistan. India kept up its end of the bargain.

Pakistan got seven years of no-questions asked military aid and a promotion to major non-NATO ally - a status enjoyed by more reliable partners such as Australia and South Korea. But, given the continued terrorist attacks within India - Pakistan did not hold up its end of the bargain.

The problem is not lack of U.S. involvement - it is the lack of political maturity in Pakistan. Until it can get its house in order, and decide once and for all not to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy - any agreement between India and Pakistan will only last until the next terror attack.

Maybe the solutions for the Indo-Pak disagreements lay in a bit of realpolitik. It's true that both India and Pakistan lay claim to a region that would rather be independent from both. The fact is that this conflict will be become unsustainable for all three parties for different reasons.

India wishes to be recognized as a regional power and a potential global superpower. Part of this shift will entail resolving its border conflicts with Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. I think it probably would benefit more from the economic rise of both Pakistan and Bangladesh as well, as an empowered middle class would prefer peace to ensure sustained productivity gains and secure capital inflows. This will also allow India to concentrate on and pacify internal divisions. For these reasons, it will become obvious to principal actors in the Indian government that the rekindling of hot conflict in its border regions will be counterproductive.

Similarly, the Pakistani ruling elite must recognize that the potential for Balkanization from promoting militant groups will outweigh the risk of a defeat from a direct military conflagration with India. Pakistan's survival is incumbent upon its various ethnic groups putting aside their differences and coming together, whether Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Mohajir, Pakhtun or the tribal minorities. I'm certain that the general populace and the upper classes see the benefits of direct GDP growth and direct foreign investment, both of which are stymied by Pakistan's military posture, its perception on the world stage, and its ethnic contagion.

Although Kashmir may see itself benefitting immensely from becoming a separate and independent state, the probability of escaping its neighbor’s significant spheres of influence are rather paltry. Considering its devastated infrastructure, the diaspora of its influential elite, and the remnants of conflict fought within its borders, it will require many decades of rebuilding. This would be unlikely without vast resources. I believe this would likely result in this new country becoming a vassal state and again a region of proxy conflict between China, India and Pakistan.

Despite the unsavory nature of dividing an ethnic populace, I believe that the best and least difficult approach is petrification of the existing status quo over future decades. A tripartite solution involving China, India and Pakistan could divy up Kashmir and crystallize the existing Lines of Control. I believe that this will require another 30-50 years of facing each other down across the borders before any of them will have the maturity to realize that this is the case.

Kashmir is a madman's story, to say the least. Why on earth would the great powers of the world take interest in this piece of land that has nothing but apples to offer?

Kashmir is a strategist’s nightmare. It is a bone of contention that hasn't been dealt well since the last 60 odd years by India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis like to live in a fool's paradise and insist that even after decades of possession, India should give up its hold on the territory. The UN Resolutions are dead and gone - no one will ever pay attention to what was supposedly 'resolved' back in the 1940s.

Three wars have been fought over Kashmir. Whereas the Indians approach the issue in a much matter of fact manner, the Pakistanis believe that it is their 'religious obligation' to snatch the initiative and make the area a part of the Pakistani domain.

Pakistan's political backwardness stands starkly in contrast to the maturity with which New Delhi handles the Indian affairs. India has a standing of its own in the comity of nations. India's technological superiority, its theater, expertise in IT related fields are a big-time downer for the Pakistanis.

What has Pakistan got to offer? Militancy? Terrorism? Depleted and distorted concepts of the religion of Islam? Unstable political system that has been inconsistent and gives a damn about the common man?

Its time to move on. It is in Pakistan's own advantage to be friends with India. Accept India as the big brother and understand that it is not advisable to keep arguing about a matter that may have been a subject of discussion in the years gone by but no one wants to deal with it anymore.

Pakistan needs to do two things. One, stop trying to engage the world attention to the 'atrocities' committed by the Indian forces in Kashmir. There are no atrocities committed; there are intra-communal issues that are not unusual in a huge and diverse polity, such as India. Don't ask the US or UK for diplomatic assistance to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Two, and perhaps more importantly, stop infiltrating militants and ISI commandoes/agents into Kashmir. There would have been no Kashmir 'Intefada' without Pakistan inciting the local Kashmiri population to rise against the Indian rule.

On the other hand, all India needs to do is open negotiation doors with the recognized representatives of the Kashmiris; provide the region with a little bit of 'extra' autonomy, something short of complete sovereignty. 'Incentivize' the people so that they do not fall a prey to Pakistan's crazy ideals.

As far as the US adding Kashmir to its already long list of worries is concerned, please give President Obama a break! He is so immersed in the issues to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq that it is really not worth it at this point in time to lose sleep over Kashmir.

It is integral for the future of almost 1.5 billion people of South Asia that India and Pakistan make peace with each other. A lot of bloodshed has taken place and a lot more can happen if this Pakistan orchestrated ‘freedom-movement’ is not put to a halt effectively.

One hopes that India and Pakistan open their respective borders, adopt liberal visa policies, exchange information regarding any insurgencies/insurgents, and affect some sense into this rather paranoid exercise of blaming each other. More than anything else, Pakistan should stop acting like a cry baby. Grow up and move on, Islamabad!

No one talked about the rights of people of Tibet, including the then foolish ruling party of India, when it was brutally taken over by Chinese. If today Kashmir is decided on plebicite then what will stop Pakistan & its big brother China from egging other Muslims in India from asking plebicites all across India? Anyway, what would be a friendship with Pakistan entail for India, except import of terror form its ideology of sponsoring militanancy?

Us interference in Kashmir would be looked at with a lot skepticism on both sides of the border. India views constant US aid to Pakistan with suspicion as time and again Pakistan has used it to improve its arsenal against India. It is hard to believe somebody would need an AWACS to perform counter insurgency yet Pakistan wants it. It also wants more F-16s to probably neutralize Taliban's air force.
On the other hand Pakistan mistrust is not ill founded. At some level they know that if they finish off Taliban in Pakistan then US policy maker would leave them high and dry as they left the mujahedeens in Afghanistan. US policy makers would first need to win confidence of both sides with a credible long term strategy. So at this point, it would highly ill-advised for US to mediate a politically charged issue like Kashmir.
People of both countries are emotionally attached with it and any democratically elected government (especially in India) would immediately lose mandate of its people if it agrees to lose any ground in Kashmir. As far as UN resolution on Kashmir is concerned it is history.
The only feasible solution would be if both sides agree on considering LOC as actual border and then scale down the military presence. I know it would not address many so called "human rights" issue in Kashmir (which might not even exits) but it would be a politically accepted solution for people of both countries. India would want to divert it energies and resources away from Kashmir and Pakistan has a lot of problems to deal with in their own country. It would be a win-win solution for all the people (including Kashmiri people) of the region.

I think what's being missed here is the will of the Kashmiri people. What do they want? Certainly not to go to Pakistan. Historically, there is little or no meeting ground between the two people - neither politically nor in terms of religion. Yes, a majority of Kashmiris are Muslims - but no, they have never been followers of orthodox Islam. They're more comfortable with gentle Sufism. Ask them whether they would like to stay with India...they would probably say yes - if the choice is limited to either going to Pakistan or staying with India. However, I believe there is a 3rd viable option which the Indian government is also exploring - autonomy. I think the Indian government should be left alone to come to a workable agreement with Kashmiris. America should stay out - and so should Pakistan.

Being a right wing supporter I would wish to point out that the creation of pakistan was itself an unnatural act which was commited for solely sufficing three egos. One the ego of authority hugry Jinnah and his muslim league, two the ego of authority hoarding Nehru and his congress Party, three the ego of the then still empire hungry british. But the larger populace didnt long for it and would have been much better without it. Thus the manifestation of a nation on the pretext of "islamic existence" is a farce and was inflammed by a priviliged elite class in the name of ALLAH. When the creation of a thing is itself through deceit and greed how would the thing's existence be?? The right within the then divided India would have been consoling themselves with the KARMA theory which states "what goes forth comes back". For all of those non indians One question i will ask is, For an India that solved the east pakistan problem, do you think couldnt it solve the tiny kashmir problem? the answer is We can solve? but We dont want to. You will ask Why? Well! If we solved then pakistan would channel its energy for prosperity. All we want is that the fuedal structure in pakistan (the combination of uniformed and ununiformed elite calss)which got installed itself and digged itself deep in over the years has to be thrown out in a bloddy phase by its own people. The we indians would step in seriously. The wolrd will only then get to know that all happenings arent for a song

With the present goings on as expected by us(Indian) in pakistan, one thing is sure, The karma theory stands bright " what you sow is what you reap". During Zia's period they sowed "we are a purely islamic powerhouse" "those who challenge us are to be crushed as they would be infidels". The seed has bloomed into attitudes that puzzles all in the world who are watching Pakistan. Even fellow pakistanis are confused as to why their own countrymen are beasty and for what? The present phase of an economicaly fragile, authoritatively disintegrated, socially turbulent, administratively corrupt, religously wild, ethnically amok, perceptionally confused pakistan is the last phase before which it slips into a complete anarchy and chaos. This present phase is raising eyebrows across the world. I would request all to keep their anxiety and emotions reserved for a little while for the next forthcoming phase which would be bloodiest. As witnessed in africa the world would then wash it aside as a negative history.

Well, Joshua Gross has posted his essay urging American mediation of the Kashmir problem, and comments on it have also been posted. I urge him to read them. I mean, honestly, just listen to these damn people. Does he seriously think putting the United States in the middle of this interminable dispute is a good idea?

Wow, tell meh thats not the craziest thing yew ever seen!

Jess
www.privacy-stuff.be.tc

Mr Gross states that "Furthermore, U.S. support of India's nuclear program, despite their flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, reinforced the perception of a double standard that unfairly favored India..."

As he surely must know, India (and Pakistan, for that matter) is NOT a signitory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. How can you accuse someone of "flouting" a treaty they did not sign?

It is grating on the nerves of most Indians when people who are so obviously out of their depth try to "help" us.

This is a fascinating dialogue, and I apologize for not being able to jump in sooner. I don’t claim to be an expert on Kashmir or South Asia…far from it. The purpose of this commentary was to provoke some discussion on Kashmir, a debate that sadly is more or less absent from the mainstream media in the U.S.

Excuse me if I dodge the thornier issues of the legality of the Indian troop presence in Kashmir and the long deferred plebiscite of the Kashmiri people (in both Indian and Pakistani occupied Kashmir). So rather than waste more precious space further entrenching myself and defending my position, allow me to share some more thoughts and pose a series of questions…

I think most of the commentators here would acknowledge that the rivalry between Pakistan and India—regardless of its impact on American national security and regardless of which party is more to blame—destabilizes South Asia and spills over beyond the borders of India and Pakistan. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. We are caught in the middle of this antagonism and dealing with the spillover effects (which is not to say that “fixing” Kashmir will “fix” Afghanistan or that there aren’t numerous factors completely unrelated to India and Pakistan that have eroded security in Afghanitsan).

The enduring rivalry inhibits both nations from realizing their full potential, forces both countries to maintain bloated militaries that distort civil-military relations, and empowers extremist actors in both countries who dehumanize the enemy, further perpetuating the conflict.

History cannot simply be wished away. The underlying dynamics detectable in the comments section would suggest that despite the best efforts of the more pragmatic elements of both the Pakistani and Indian governments to normalize relations, suspicion and anger continue to smolder.

Short of the ambitious policy I’ve proposed, what can the U.S. do to improve relations between Pakistan and India?

Is the status quo as good as it gets? Rather than dodging the question every time it is asked, is there any way that top U.S. policymakers could address the issue in a more constructive, proactive manner? Is U.S. policy in India and Pakistan ideal?
What course correction, if any, is desirable?

According to Steve Coll (again, referencing his article for the New Yorker: http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/back_channel_11191 ) the Indian and Pakistani governments came very close to a shared understanding on Kashmir through a bilateral backchannel. This would imply that the distance between the two governments is not, as Zathras suggets, a “chasm”. I believe that the U.S. can be the bridge—behind the scenes if necessary—between the two (or three) versions of a just settlement on Kashmir. I defer to the writers in the comments section: Is it possible that a U.S. role could allow Pakistan and/or India to save face when making concessions? Would it be more politically toxic for an Indian politician to be perceived as making concessions to the Americans or to a Pakistani (or vice versa)? Rather than reject the concept out of hand, I think it is worth exploring these component parts.

Grant brings up an interesting point in referencing China. Does the U.S. play the regional dynamics here with an eye toward a looming confrontation with China? I’ve heard this argument made, but \ crafting a strategy around countering China would be morally repugnant with tens of thousands of troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We should not be cementing alliances with India to check China; the U.S. strategy in South Asia should revolve around maintaining a regional balance by cultivating relationships with pragmatists in both India and Pakistan that are committed to a stable and sovereign Afghanistan. Afghanistan, considering our sacrifices in blood and treasure to date, must be at the center of U.S. diplomacy in the region. I believe that this means more active diplomatic engagement in India and Pakistan, which will be facilitated by progress on Kashmir. Another recent piece that I wrote in the Christian Science Monitor speaks to these themes: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1013/p09s01-coop.html

Talwar insists that pursuing a tougher line on Kashmir would “sound the death knell for U.S.-India ties”. Is that assured? I believe that the relationship between the U.S. and India, which has grown exponentially stronger in the last decade, will be able to survive a shift from the status quo, much as the relationship with Israel has survived recent tensions over settlement construction. What is at stake? What does the U.S. lose from a falling out with India? What does India lose? What forces in Indian political culture might resist the temptation to freeze out the U.S. should a more activist Kashmir policy be pursued?

I am intrigued by Sreekanth’s comment. Do others agree that if a plebiscite in Kashmir is pursued that other princely states will also demand the right to secede? Or is Kashmir—with its unique history and contentious relationship to the Indian and Pakistani military presence—a special case?

Zathras has called attention to the extreme differences of opinion on Kashmir, of which this back and forth has been a microcosm. But any meditation—even a small-scale mediation in an American courtroom—is replete with excessive posturing and positional bargaining. The art lies in getting the parties to perceive shared interests that are not immediately obvious. Do both Pakistan and India have a mutual interest in a demilitarized border, a de-escalation of the conflict, a line of communication to prevent terrorists from sabotaging efforts at rapprochement, stability in the region? I believe they do.

I had some strong comments initially, but self-moderated them :) in an attempt to have a civil dialogue.
IMHO, Its naive to assume that the antipathy that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment has for India will dissipate overnight if the Kashmir issue were resolved.
The reality is that the identity of Pakistan lies in its "non-Indianness" (Pakistan = Not India). This means the ruling elite of Pakistan will always push for conflict with India -- Kashmir is only an excuse. If we take that excuse away, they will find a new one anyway
Besides, making any concessions on Kashmir will seriously undermine the Secular fabric of India, and will give strength to Hindu fundamentalists within India who want to create a Hindu theocracy -- not to mention exacerbating the various sectarian tendencies based on language, caste etc. For this reason, the Indian government will never agree to ceding any control over Kashmir -- it will not solve any problem, and thinking it would, is the result of a very shallow analysis.

Joshua, I am afraid your article is rather naive on the assumption that Pakistan is serious about negotiating a just settlement in the same way Hitler was serious about discussing a just settlement on Sudetenland. I take it you are an American. How would you like it if my country, UK, requested handing over of New England states and demanded mediation until USA returns the province to us? What do you think about our insistence on a country that would not only agree to mediation but agree to our demand? Also, let us suppose that our demand has a religious sanction and my politicians are competing with each other to prove they are more Anglican than their fellow politicians. Therefore, none of my country’s politicians/generals can back down on our demand to include New England within UK. Pakistan's demand is based on Islamic principles of conquest as given in the Islamic scriptures, Quran, Hadith, Tafsir(Quran commentary) and Sira(biography of prophet Muhammed). No Islamic state worth its salt can refrain from conquest, if it is feasible. No Islamic state would refrain from demanding areas it has formerly ruled. This would be whole of India, Spain, Portugal, Eastern Europe, Austria and Caucusus area. Then, France, UK and USA should be on the negotiating table to be handed over to Islamic state. That is the demand of Islamic state based on historical facts and ideological compunction based on Islamic scriptures. Winston Churchill said an appeaser is like someone who hopes that if he feeds the crocodile he won’t end up as its meal. But, the crocodile would end up eating the person feeding it. Do you think we, as a free world, should agree to forcing India and Pakistan negotiate over any territory?

The writer has raised so many issues, starting with a need to resolve Kashmir, so that AfPak could be settled. Then further bringing it down to those warming up Indo-US ties. However, this is not to say that India doesnt need friends, especially in a situation when it being a democracy is surrounded by anarchies. Yet, India would never want players but only spectators of this game, just watching, even if from a very close distance. The reason being that India sees this problem rooted in the pre1947 history, while Pak army and its Western allies, see the problem rooted in post1947 history.

India has always suggested to first begin with increased trade & commerce between the two countries before letting other issues fall in line. But to the discomfort of their dictators that would have made the Pak army redundant without an enemy. The question is, why over the last many years of its friendship with Pak, the West has not suggested/asked Pakistan to reciprocate India's 'Most Favored Nation' status!

Therefore, it would also be naive to convince India by saying that the West has no interest in the region other than AfPak. Notwithstanding our rhetoric media etc,inspite of historical blunders, India has always recognized Pakistan, and desired it to be a vibrant neighbor for our own interest. But it deliberately chose to be a rogue nation, nurtured with greenback.

I have always maintained that from Dhaka to Kabul its an extended family, 5000yrs old. THE SOLUTION HAS TO BEFOUND SOMEWHERE IN THE PRE-1947 AND NOT IN THE POST-1947 HISTORY. At the same time, India has no intention of challenging the sovereignty of any of our neighbors. The solution only lies in starting with large scale trade & commerce in the region, including between India China region. Everything, including Kashmir would fall in line accordingly. There is no other solution.

Let All the people from Dhaka to Kabul rejoice the fruits of India's market economy and participate in it.
Its not emotional but a practical point, the germ of which lies in pre 1947 history. But the West would only give heed to post 1947.

@democratically

Kudos to mr.gross for kicking off this debate.

I think that we shud go back to the principle of self determination as recognised by all free people & the UN with the inherent rights to asscoicate, and self govern.

This is the fundamental principle achieved over centuries of struggle and thought.

So what is the big deal if it is applied in Kashmir, it has already been applied in South Asia in 1947 and two countries emerged from it.

yes there is animosity between pakistan & india, but that shudnt deny any people within these countries to associate or disassociate.

So IF the US thinks it needs to help them focus on the Kashmir problem then without tending to be squeamish about the matter THEN it shud take a stand on principle to resolve the issue.