Pak-Afghan crisis and India

[BanglaBhoot]

Unless Holbrooke accepts the objective reality that India has no role to play in the achievement of his mission, it may not be possible for him to achieve his goal, writes M Akram Sheikh

During his election campaign, Barack Obama promised to place Afghanistan at the top of his government’s foreign policy agenda. After becoming president, he appointed a well-known diplomat as his special envoy for addressing the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Richard Holbrooke is not known for accepting defeat.
However, given his track record, it is surprising how he has allowed himself the liberty of not taking into account ground realities before devising his approach to achieve his stated targets of building trust with Pakistan. Unless Mr Holbrooke accepts the objective reality that India has no role to play in the achievement of his mission, it may not be possible for him to achieve his goal.

Mr Holbrooke refuses to even mention the Kashmir issue. Firstly, if he is so particular about his mandate, how can he declare India as the leader of South Asia but still be afraid of even mentioning the ‘K’ word? If he wants to build trust with Pakistanis, why can he not simply come clean about it by publicly saying that ‘look I appreciate your concern about the Kashmir issue’ but first it is not within my mandate and, then, India is too sensitive about it’. Also, Mr Holbrooke seems to want to keep India on the loop on whatever goes on in his mandate with dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan – on the pretext that India is Pakistan’s neighbour. Why not also inform Iran as well since after all it too is Pakistan’s neighbour?
He claims that India has spent one billion dollars in Afghanistan. Instead of appreciating it, Mr Holbrooke should honestly ask himself if this level of spending is for charitable reasons only. Are there no more poor people in India who may be more entitled to Indian compassion? And is there any other country in the whole world that has received as much attention and money from India? What about Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh? Is it difficult for Mr Holbrooke to accept that the reason for so much spending on the other side of what India perceives to be its number one enemy cannot be bona fide?

The fact is that against the bitter history of Indo-Pak relations, the psyche here is understandably that of ‘paranoia of encirclement’. It would be helpful if the US government started to see Pakistani Army’s action – or lack of it - against the Afghan Taliban, who may be enjoying the benefit of being perceived by Pakistani establishment as ‘the-sole-enemy-of-our-enemy-in-Afghanistan’, in the light of its India-related experience and perception.

If America wants to make any sort of headway on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it must first take on board the fact that from Pakistan’s standpoint India has wanted Pakistan to fail right from the day of its creation. The point is that it doesn’t matter if the US agrees with this view or not, the fact simply is that for there to be any progress on Pakistan and Afghanistan, America needs to pay due regard to this issue that Pakistan faces.

Perceptions and fears, no matter how misplaced they may be, play a vital role in achievement of objects and targets. If Indian sensitivities have made Mr Holbrooke forget the ‘K’ word, if for nothing else then just to be able to achieve his targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr Holbrooke will need to forget the ‘I’ word as well.

The News Today

 

[IceCold]

A very well wrtitten analysis. The sooner Mr Holbrooke forgets the I word, the better it would be for the entier region specially for Afghanistan. Without addressing Pakistan's concern and just pressurizing them will only result counter productive.
I would also add that this is high time GOP should take a firm stand on this matter and convey the same to the Obama administration " Look you can't address our security issues w.r.t India, we can't guarantee anything back either".

 

[third eye]

I find this article to be in line with so many others that simply attempt to either place the responsibility for the mis fired Pak policy in Af on others & the perennial attempt to link everyrthing thats goes wrong with the ' K' factor.

The genesis of the prob that the region now faces has nothing to do with J&K, the sequence of events that began possibly with the Soviet invasion of Af followed by short sighted attempts by those at the helm to ' may hay' while the sun shone on the region had nothing to do with J&K.

As rgds India's role .. yes India has a definite role in Af or any other region whose action impact India.

 

[white_pawn]

Unless Holbrooke accepts the objective reality that India has no role to play in the achievement of his mission, it may not be possible for him to achieve his goal, writes M Akram Sheikh

During his election campaign, Barack Obama promised to place Afghanistan at the top of his government’s foreign policy agenda. After becoming president, he appointed a well-known diplomat as his special envoy for addressing the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Richard Holbrooke is not known for accepting defeat.
However, given his track record, it is surprising how he has allowed himself the liberty of not taking into account ground realities before devising his approach to achieve his stated targets of building trust with Pakistan. Unless Mr Holbrooke accepts the objective reality that India has no role to play in the achievement of his mission, it may not be possible for him to achieve his goal.

It would be great idea if India stays out of the war zone in between US, Pakistan and Afghanistan as it was started by US along with Pakistan on its side. So would be better to get let is be sorted by US & Pakistan only.

Mr Holbrooke refuses to even mention the Kashmir issue. Firstly, if he is so particular about his mandate, how can he declare India as the leader of South Asia but still be afraid of even mentioning the ‘K’ word? If he wants to build trust with Pakistanis, why can he not simply come clean about it by publicly saying that ‘look I appreciate your concern about the Kashmir issue’ but first it is not within my mandate and, then, India is too sensitive about it’. Also, Mr Holbrooke seems to want to keep India on the loop on whatever goes on in his mandate with dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan – on the pretext that India is Pakistan’s neighbour. Why not also inform Iran as well since after all it too is Pakistan’s neighbour?

I had heard in some reading that India had asked US not to raise the Issue of J&K during the visit. But not sure about that.

He claims that India has spent one billion dollars in Afghanistan. Instead of appreciating it, Mr Holbrooke should honestly ask himself if this level of spending is for charitable reasons only. Are there no more poor people in India who may be more entitled to Indian compassion? And is there any other country in the whole world that has received as much attention and money from India? What about Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh? Is it difficult for Mr Holbrooke to accept that the reason for so much spending on the other side of what India perceives to be its number one enemy cannot be bona fide?

It’s none of his Holbrooke what India does with the money it has, whether it is donated, lends or charity work done. As far spending on poor ppls is concerned India is doing what its can of its citizens. So cut that out.

The fact is that against the bitter history of Indo-Pak relations, the psyche here is understandably that of ‘paranoia of encirclement’. It would be helpful if the US government started to see Pakistani Army’s action – or lack of it - against the Afghan Taliban, who may be enjoying the benefit of being perceived by Pakistani establishment as ‘the-sole-enemy-of-our-enemy-in-Afghanistan’, in the light of its India-related experience and perception.

If America wants to make any sort of headway on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it must first take on board the fact that from Pakistan’s standpoint India has wanted Pakistan to fail right from the day of its creation. The point is that it doesn’t matter if the US agrees with this view or not, the fact simply is that for there to be any progress on Pakistan and Afghanistan, America needs to pay due regard to this issue that Pakistan faces.

Same can be said about Pakistan against India. Humm what do you say.

Perceptions and fears, no matter how misplaced they may be, play a vital role in achievement of objects and targets. If Indian sensitivities have made Mr Holbrooke forget the ‘K’ word, if for nothing else then just to be able to achieve his targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr Holbrooke will need to forget the ‘I’ word as well.

I would say it would be good idea, but will it be acceptable to US.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

What a load of Bull Sh!t.

However, given his track record, it is surprising how he has allowed himself the liberty of not taking into account ground realities before devising his approach to achieve his stated targets of building trust with Pakistan. Unless Mr Holbrooke accepts the objective reality that India has no role to play in the achievement of his mission, it may not be possible for him to achieve his goal.

What ground realities? And who gets to decide if they are realities? Only Pakistan? And there is no objective whatsoever to 'build trust with Pakistan' from US side. We see how they are carrying out drone attacks. We see how they are pressurizing Pakistan to 'do more' & make bruhaha about their nukes. So forget it. His agenda is only to clear the mess that Pakistan has created for itself & the world. Better, if it can be done with mutual trust & understanding. But if not, otherwise is also fine.

Mr Holbrooke refuses to even mention the Kashmir issue. Firstly, if he is so particular about his mandate, how can he declare India as the leader of South Asia but still be afraid of even mentioning the ‘K’ word? If he wants to build trust with Pakistanis, why can he not simply come clean about it by publicly saying that ‘look I appreciate your concern about the Kashmir issue’ but first it is not within my mandate and, then, India is too sensitive about it’. Also, Mr Holbrooke seems to want to keep India on the loop on whatever goes on in his mandate with dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan – on the pretext that India is Pakistan’s neighbour. Why not also inform Iran as well since after all it too is Pakistan’s neighbour?

How is Kashmir even remotely related to whatever is going on in Pakistan? I don't see a reason for it to be on Holbrooke's agenda. What he wants to achieve is that India - Pakistan relations do not get even more tense, than what they are now. And not mentioning the K word is the best way to do it. And, America officially accepts India's position that it is a bilateral issue. So, do not expect Holbrooke to renounce from it.

He claims that India has spent one billion dollars in Afghanistan. Instead of appreciating it, Mr Holbrooke should honestly ask himself if this level of spending is for charitable reasons only. Are there no more poor people in India who may be more entitled to Indian compassion? And is there any other country in the whole world that has received as much attention and money from India? What about Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh? Is it difficult for Mr Holbrooke to accept that the reason for so much spending on the other side of what India perceives to be its number one enemy cannot be bona fide?

Even a child can debunk this. Pakistan virtually remote controlled Afghanistan thru Taliban, and used it for nurturing jihadist elements against India & the West. We just want to make sure that Afghanis are on our side, and most of all, start on a path of development. This deal is mutually beneficial. We get an ally & they do not get Taliban from us.

If America wants to make any sort of headway on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it must first take on board the fact that from Pakistan’s standpoint India has wanted Pakistan to fail right from the day of its creation. The point is that it doesn’t matter if the US agrees with this view or not, the fact simply is that for there to be any progress on Pakistan and Afghanistan, America needs to pay due regard to this issue that Pakistan faces.

Perceptions and fears, no matter how misplaced they may be, play a vital role in achievement of objects and targets. If Indian sensitivities have made Mr Holbrooke forget the ‘K’ word, if for nothing else then just to be able to achieve his targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr Holbrooke will need to forget the ‘I’ word as well.

How disgraceful & unashamed! Nobody supports the 'fact' that India wanted Pakistan to fail from its genesis. Outside world believes the opposite. And their Zia Ul Haq era & his legacy is well known to everyone.

In short - an article which totally distorts the situation & proposes 'facts' with no proofs whatsoever. Something which will be music for Pakistani ears, but far away from realities.

 

[notsuperstitious]

The article does not even mention the words 'strategic depth'

Poor analyses. By his simplistic logic, why is pakistan helping Sri Lanka? of course thats a different case

 

[Khajur]

somewhat off topic ,but above thread starting editorial piece of a dhaka news paper pushed me write down what i see as the bigger picture.

To indians,

Never ever forget that all our smaller neighbours(Govts) hates us,and it has less to do with religion or territorial disputes.From buddhist Srilanka to muslim pakista,Bangladesh to fully hindu nepal probably barring Bhutan they just hate india(not indians) .They biggest thing they hate about us is the size of our country.so when seen the prism of size complex,they find even our most humble conduct of diplomacy as arrogant and hegemonic . Most of their Intellectuls also suffer from the same complex.Its just matter of size and u know what size does matter.
They'll never express explictly ,but the sheer size of india interms of area and population just scare the daylights out of our neighbourhood countries.Irrespective of nationalities,nature of dispute or difference, they would love to see india break in to pieces even if that necessary dont increase their size.The reason behind pity cribbings by pakistan & Bangadesh that india is stealing their water resourses or complain of political interfference made by Nepal & srilanka should be only seen through prism their huge discomfort level with indias size.

They cant stand when india is talked as worlds largest democracy or clubbed with along with china as new power centers of 21 century.They would love to play sidekicks of china, just not to be seen playing second fiddle to india and boost their ego...u know the classic south asian attitude or desire of being ruled only by the "FOREIGNERS".

For us indians,our size is our biggest asset and pride, and our unity, irrespective of our diversities & pity differences is the biggest shield of security,something to be protected at all costs.



To neighbourhood guys,

with due respet,let me say,there is no truth in the often talked innate fear of our smaller neighbours that big india creates an existential threat for them.I never believe for a second that ppl of india or indian state would even dream of grabbing lands in its neighbourhood except ***(would love accept pakistans ownership if it brings peace to kashmir) as it has no appetite to take the myriads of problems that comes along with newly usurped territory while its plate is already filled with its own set of problem.
So let me declare here those fearmongering that india is itching to increse its real estate,are charlatans,con men,a sucker of ur sparse resourses of worst kind and should be regarded as enemies of ur state.

On the final note,i must say,instead of putting pinpricks on our way or trying harm our interests ,neighbouring contries of india should try their best to gain from indias growth as this Elephant is going ahead anyway.

Namaskar!!