Obama, Cold Start, Kashmir and Afghanistan

[karan.1970]

Don't have to offer much to US. US isn't the only country in the world. As long as they don't impose sanctions, we don't care. But I think you're ignoring American investors investing in Pakistan should WoT end, like they were doing in the earlier part of the decade.

As we discussed.. Just for 3 years in last 17 showed an upward trend.. For American businessmen, there are more lucrative and less risky options available at this time. And WOT is not going to be over anytime soon.

 

[LaBong]

Indian media makes me sick. They have been crying foul about India being hyphenated with Pakistan and all, now when one US prez wants to talk real business rather than visiting slums and providing lip service, all they do is to bring Pakistan in each and every discussion. Makes me wonder if these media houses are being run by all no-brainers!

 

[SMC]

As we discussed.. Just for 3 years in last 17 showed an upward trend.. For American businessmen, there are more lucrative and less risky options available at this time. And WOT is not going to be over anytime soon.

You are missing sanctions, which I mentioned very clearly in my post. That was part of the problem. As far as American businessmen are concerned, indianrabbit clearly said something along the lines of "when WoT ends", and American businessmen are certainly interested in investing in Pakistan given the conditions are right, which could happen in the next 5 years.

 

[gubbi]

November 5, 2010
Working With India

India would gain credibility and make the world safer if it worked harder to reduce tensions with Pakistan.

Wouldnt it be more prudent in the first place not to create tensions by supporting or sponsoring militant groups? Or by creating the bogey of an impeding Indian assault by an institution which uses all and any means at its disposal to stay relevant, when there clearly is none whatsoever?

Clearly, the priorities are all misplaced and yet the bogeyman is resurrected everytime to get away with certain activities which unfortunately have become a norm.

Mr. Obama still needs to nudge India to resume serious talks with Pakistan over Kashmir and take other steps to help calm Pakistan’s fears including pursuing a trade agreement.

Seriously, what fears? Those that are being created by your establishment to divert attention from more pressing and urgent matters, in an apparent bid to keep the flock together by invoking 'patriotism'?

And why should India listen to Pakistan about Kashmir. If the official policy of Pakistan calls for Kashmiri independence, then why is Pakistan so interested in what happens in another country? Dont you guys have more pressing and urgent matters to attend to? Like those talibunnies that are going around blowing themselves and anything that comes in their path justified by their perverted interpretation of holy scriptures?

Apparently, Pakistani position is not for Kashmiri independence. Pakistan covets the piece of real estate as much as any other country, including India. The charade of moral support to Kashmiri independence is not helping either with statements like "Kashmir should have been ours".

And then there is talk of "disturbing the balance, treating with equality" etc. What disturbance of balance? Was there ever one? And again, what equality? Diplomatically, on what basis? Economic, militarily, skilled manpower wise, etc? What?

And yet people unabashedly demand respect, when its very well known that the best way to get respect is to earn it.

 

[StingRoy]

India would gain credibility and make the world safer if it worked harder to reduce tensions with Pakistan.

The Indians have made clear that they don’t want Washington as a mediator. Mr. Obama still needs to nudge India to resume serious talks with Pakistan over Kashmir and take other steps to help calm Pakistan’s fears including pursuing a trade agreement.

Mr. Obama also needs to press Pakistan a lot harder to bring the Mumbai bombers to justice.

New Delhi did not retaliate after the 2008 attack — a testimony to Mr. Singh’s wise leadership. We hope that the president’s top aides have a plan for how they would tamp things down if Pakistani-based terrorists strike India again.

Cold Start or not, both sides should understand the importance of the situation today. India has been showing patience for a long time and so far showing a lot of restraint despite the setbacks it has received in the past. But at some point even the most sane break down and thats probably the origin of this theory.

US is looking from their angle, terrorists hit them... and they went after them to their homes. It is probably anticipating a similar retaliatory offense from India if another such incident happened. If Pakistan were more sincere in helping in getting the people behind to justice, it would have normalized the tensions a lot and easily debunked these theories.
We will have to wait and watch how things shape up after US exits Afghanistan.

 

[muse]

We will have to wait and watch how things shape up after US exits Afghanistan

Dezi, US is not going to exit Afghanistan, any time soon - just won't happen - American servicemen and their families grief have been effectively silenced given the "Republic of Fear" paradigm that has been so successful in the US.

If Pakistan were more sincere in helping in getting the people behind to justice, it would have normalized the tensions a lot

And how do you suggest that Pakistan be able to do this, after all, how successful have India been in bringing Hindu extremist terrorists to Justice? And look how successful have the US been in holding policy makers who landed the US in this mess, accountable??

It's important that we not allow serious issues to become slogans which disguise ideology, exactly what would constitute "more serious"???? Manufacture evidence??? Have you not been paying attention that persons accused of terror activities have had to be let go because witnesses were/are being coerced or that evidence simply is not available given the competence level of the police?? After all, we don't all want the reputation the US dept of Justice has earned with it's unique approach to rights of citizens and obligations of the state, we are not all going to run Guantanamo type institutions or renditions and such counter productive devices, are we???

So, I think we might think seriously and not hide behind "more sincere", we have to be real -- Indian state has not been successful in bringing Hindu extremist terror to justice because of not only the problems cited above but because of political support, the same problem exists in Pakistan -- So we must think of realistic ways in which we can cooperate --- and then there is a the role of the media.

On both sides of the divide the media exacerbate the problem - emotion sells, nationalistic sentiment sells.

We have to be more clear headed than "more serious".

"Cold Start", it should now have become clear to readers, is a concern not just across the border, but around the world, because Pakistani policy is clear, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is referred to as "deterrence" and that is exactly what those policy makers have intended (I know I don't have to draw you a picture) --- see, both states are being held hostage to their nationalistic rhetoric and positions which extreme elements are now using to their own benefit, sidelining the state on both sides - it is extremely dangerous and "Cold Start" just ratchets up that danger, won't you agree??

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

For the Americans to be successful in Afghanistan Indo-Pak tentions over outstanding disputes is a major hurdel .. Unless those disputes are taken head on .. No ones going to believe what the guys in US say about the Indian Cold Start Doctrine.. It is and will be treated as an Emerging threat to Pakistan and the Establishment in Pakistan in its Capacity along with all the necessary tools should and must contour the threats which this Cold Start Doctrine Pose.
This is a highly complex matter which might even US doesn't have the necessary leverage YET to take on with India.

 

[StingRoy]

US is not going to exit Afghanistan, any time soon - just won't happen - American servicemen and their families grief have been effectively silenced given the "Republic of Fear" paradigm that has been so successful in the US.

I think that the US exit had become inevitable... from a military angle.. although there will still be a lot of secondary presence for few more years to come... in the same way as Iraq of today. The Republic of fear cannot be sustained beyond a decade... people are already tired of it. If their own economy is in shambles, will people care about their own bread and butter or will they go fight an expensive war overseas.

And how do you suggest that Pakistan be able to do this, after all, how successful have India been in bringing Hindu extremist terrorists to Justice? And look how successful have the US been in holding policy makers who landed the US in this mess, accountable??

India has chargesheeted the people involved... and the trials are underway. How many people has Pakistan chargesheeted for the terror attacks in India? See in both case the acts of terror happened on Indian soil (referring to Samjhota and Mumbai attacks).

You do agree that it wasn't until the US was involved that Pakistan chose to take the fight on against the radicals. Thats what I meant by my comment on sincerity. And even we see a lot of opposition to this idea of war on terror.

As you have said as well... it is not sincerity but clarity of mind that is lacking here. But that clarity of thought is causing a lack in sincerity. Unless people believe that the war on terror is justified how can the fight be sincere.

So we must think of realistic ways in which we can cooperate --- and then there is a the role of the media.
On both sides of the divide the media exacerbate the problem - emotion sells, nationalistic sentiment sells.

The media I feel is still a bit immature in both our countries and exploiting nationalistic sentiment on either sides has been a forte. But if more confidence building measures were taken on both sides, it wouldn't be too difficult to change this.

 

[StingRoy]

it is extremely dangerous and "Cold Start" just ratchets up that danger, won't you agree??

Wanted to comment this separately to my other reply.
I am in total agreement with you on this. As mature and nuclear powered nations, both sides should keep this fear aside. But to allay these fears both have to engage more actively to each others concerns instead of making provocations. I believe the 'Cold Start' theory was debunked by the Indian official quoted in the report as well.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

For Kashmir To Rely on US , Pakistanis are putting there money on a dead horse , The Reagional Players like Chinese and Russinas should also be taken on board , But to perform that kind of Stunt requires some Extra Ordinary Maneuvers which no one in the current Economic Situation is willing to make Especially when you need to creat 50,000 Jobs to win ur Next Term...!!!

 

[StingRoy]

For Kashmir To Rely on US , Pakistanis are putting there money on a dead horse , The Reagional Players like Chinese and Russinas should also be taken on board.

I am not sure if pressure tactics by involving others is going to help resolve the situation soon. In today's world, both are nuclear powered nations and should strive to solve the issue mutually. Involving other nations will involve their own strategical advantages into the equation which would definitely complicate things. This could have been an approach pre-nuclear era, but not today.

 

[muse]

You do agree that it wasn't until the US was involved that Pakistan chose to take the fight on against the radicals. Thats what I meant by my comment on sincerity. And even we see a lot of opposition to this idea of war on terror.

You would be more accurate if you would position yourself in context, I do agree with you that Pakistan certainly had a more proactive role after US involvement -- but let me explain what I meant by "context" and it has to do with my comment that nationalistic sentiment and policy has been taken over by extreme elements -- with out the involvement of the sole super power, on either side of the issue, little could be achieved - but on the other hand, I don't think any one can dispute the notion that the Pakistani state imagined itself as helpless in the face of non-state actors using the rhetoric not just of the Pakistani state but also an appeal to conscience wrapped up in nationalistic sentiment and policy

But yes, in general, I think your point is certainly fair.

India has chargesheeted the people involved... and the trials are underway. How many people has Pakistan chargesheeted for the terror attacks in India? See in both case the acts of terror happened on Indian soil (referring to Samjhota and Mumbai attacks).

Again, lets put things in context, if you want to go by chargesheeting or drawing up charges against extremists, I think you will have little to complain about the Pakistani authorities -- however; like in India, and for pretty much similar reasons, we should focus on results - in Pakistan, many of those charged with terror, have had to be let go, legal technicalities and just plain police incompetence -- while India have charge individuals in Pakistan, this is a rather counter productive step, it satisfies internal Indian political sentiment, but does little to solve the problem -- However; I am pointing towards a larger problem, while I don't want to get into a tangent, the Hindu paper has produced a piece which points to state authorities active participation in the planning and execution of extremist violence, indeed, for instigating Babri, the reward was part chairmanship, for planing and executing Gujjart, continued high office -- look, I don't want to hammer this point, but we have ot be conscious that nationalistic rhetoric and sentiment has now passed out of the control of the state - that's a huge danger.

Cold start comment -- You may well be exactly on the money - but clearly the US is not buying that line -- it may well be the old "perception is reality" line and it may be that it is using this line of reasoning as a pressure point.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

While its true that voicing the word Cold start in public at a time when Pakistan was being pressurized on the WOT by the U.S was a huge blunder by the Indian Military thinktank.It gave the Pakistan army an excuse to the U.S for their accusations of "not doing enough" and triggered a panic-reaction from several stakeholders in South Asian peace....

The main objective of cold Start was two-fold

1) To discourage and subsequently retaliate to prevent a Mumbai -style terrorist attack in the Future. Even after two years the Pakistani Govt( forget about bringing perpetrators to justice ) cannot even give an assurance that such an attack will not occur in the future.....

2) To factor an eventuality of a two-font war breaking out , in which case the western sector being the comparitively weaker one needs to be neutralized fast to preserve our territorial integrity on the eastern front.....

for all the talk of the effect of the Cold Start on the Pakistani ability to allocate their resources in the WOT on the Afghan border, has anyone ........any U.S official bothered to alleviate our relevant concerns either about External-sponsored Terrorism or the China-Pakistan developing military alliance ?

Unsurprisingly everyone and especially the U.S always look towards their own interests first . And imho Obama did a smart thing by not mentioning either one side of the story or the other ........

 

[muse]

Even after two years the Pakistani Govt( forget about bringing perpetrators to justice ) cannot even give an assurance that such an attack will not occur in the future.....

This is an unfair statement, after all, how can the Pakistan government give assurances about an undertaking that it is not involved in???

Can the Indian government assure it's own citizenry that extremists will not engage in communal violence??

The non-state actors primary mission is to create and sustain tensions, to even provoke war, and here we have suggestions that play into the hands of those same elements --- the two states, with their nationalistic rhetoric and promotion of nationalistic sentiment, must now work in concert to undo this, because the CREATION of events and the MANIPULATION of SENTIMENT, is now out of their hands - you follow??

Pointing fingers at each other will not further the interests of either, in fact it will make players such as the US more nervous about the willingness to solve problems instead of exacerbating them.

 

[muse]

One view (though influential) from Pakistan, and editorial from the DT:


EDITORIAL: Obama’s India visit

President Obama is on a four-day visit to India on the first leg of his tour of Asia. The keenly awaited event of this tour is the US president’s bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Of no less importance, however, was the meeting of Indian and American business executives, which led to $ 10 billion trade deals. The president brought along with him a 250-strong delegation of American business, emphasising the importance being given to economic cooperation during this visit.

At a time when the US is going through a hard time trying to achieve economic recovery and the Republicans have made unprecedented gains in mid-term elections, President Obama is looking for wide-ranging economic cooperation with India in the hope that this will lead to the creation of more jobs at home.. Therefore, the agenda of this visit is directed as much towards a domestic audience as to the Indian hosts. While the announced deals cover mostly non-military sales and trade, the US is looking for sale of big-ticket military equipment to India. India has relied more on the Soviet Union in the past and later Russia for its heavy weapons requirements. The procurement, logistics, arrangements and management of such weapons is a very complex affair. When a country has been virtually wedded to a single source, it is very difficult to switch to another one overnight. However, India started this process of diversification some time ago that is expected to continue, as evident from its interest in US technology and military equipment. If India agrees to buy big-ticket items, it will also provide a fillip to the US economy, whose biggest and leading component is the defence industry.

The US president’s visit to India is being observed with great interest in Pakistan. The government had expressed the hope that the US would bring up the issue of Kashmir with India during the visit. Given the US’s inclination towards long-term strategic relations with India, this hope seems no more than a daydream. President Obama has, however, spoken of Pakistan’s contribution in Afghanistan and the need for cooperation between the two countries. During his interaction with students of St Xavier’s College in Mumbai, while lauding the role of India in the development of Afghanistan, the US president took care to mention Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development. Moreover, another indication that the US considers its relations with Pakistan crucial was making no mention of Pakistan during President Obama’s speech expressing sympathies with the victims and survivors of the 2008 Mumbai attack, to the disappointment of hardline elements in India. The president stayed in Hotel Taj Mahal as a gesture of solidarity with India against terrorism. It is being expected that during his address to the Indian parliament, the US president would urge the two South Asian neighbours to make progress towards peace.

Obama may not have evoked the kind of warmth and enthusiasm that was seen during President George Bush’s visit to India in 2006 when the two countries signed the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. However, Obama’s initiation of his Asia tour with India and underscoring of the potential of India to become a major trade partner are part of US deference towards India and acceptance of its role as a major player in South Asia