United States sidelines India

[T-Faz]

The Manmohan Singh government had been extremely euphoric about its special strategic relationship with the United States especially after the signing of an exceptional bilateral nuclear deal for peaceful energy purposes. The government of India had come to believe that President Barack Obama would continue the special treatment which India had received from George Bush II. But the bubble burst and Indian foreign policymakers received a great shock when President Obama drastically shifted his South Asian strategic concerns by focusing attention on the positive role of Pakistan in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

President Obama has revived the history of the last 60 years and re-established special relationship with Pakistan, a country which always stood for the US during the Cold War period and is now fighting as a military ally against the Taliban. Obama has recognised the significance of Pakistan as a dependable military ally. Also, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated a policy shift towards Pakistan in her high-profile meeting with Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on March 25 and 26 at the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue meet held in Washington. She observed: "Pakistan is close to my heart, Pakistan's struggles are my struggles and I am committed to the success of this dialogue."

Ms Clinton opened the US coffers and military arsenal to prompt Pakistan to aid the US' war in Afghanistan. The US has clearly stated that "we have a war and we need them (Pakistan)". It has been decided that the US will supply arms to Pakistan. The US arming of Pakistan has always been of great concern to India because in the inimitable description of the late V K Krishna Menon "there is no gun or a tank which can fire only on one side" as decided by the donor of military aid.

The strategic importance of Pakistan in the war in Afghanistan has been publicly recognised by the US by inviting the man in uniform, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, as an important member of the delegation led by the Pakistan foreign minister for the strategic dialogue. General Kayani's presence in the US along with the Pakistani delegation gives a clear signal to South Asian governments that Pakistan is a military ally of the US and it is the army which matters in Pakistan.

President Obama by publicly aligning with the Pakistan army is clearly following a tradition of his predecessors who had patronised army dictators like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf. Also, the Americans know that in a farcical democracy comprising Asif Ali Zardari of PPP and Nawaz Sharif of PML-N, General Kayani is the real centre of power. If the US needs Pakistan's assistance in the war against Taliban, the Pakistanis are also keen to extract their pound of flesh from the US.

There has to be a quid pro quo between the US and Pakistan if the Americans expect Pakistan to act as their proxy in war. It should be noted that Taliban or Al-Queda in Afghanistan are not the enemies of Pakistan. Pakistan has its own strategic agenda and in the pursuit of its own national interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot accept the presence of Indians on Afghan soil. Has the US assured Pakistan that it would restrain India from its active engagement in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is crucial for America and while the Pakistan delegation went to Washington on March 25, President Obama secretly travelled to Afghanistan on March 29 to see for himself the ground reality of the war. America has to give many concessions in return for Pakistan's support to Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan has conveyed it clearly to the US that India should be pressured to negotiate on J&K because the Pakistani army cannot be involved on two fronts i.e., on Kashmir against India and in the war against the Taliban . Further, Pakistan has asked the US to negotiate a nuclear deal for peaceful energy purposes on the pattern of the deal with India as Pakistan also has its energy requirements.

Pakistan has also conveyed unambiguously to the US to restrain India from providing military training to the armed forces of Afghanistan. Can it be surmised that America's extremely close strategic partnership with Pakistan will become just a normal affair after war in Afghanistan? The answer to this question is a big no. Pakistan has always strengthened itself militarily, especially against India, with the full and active support of the Americans. The military build-up of Pakistan with American support has always posed a direct challenge to the security and national integrity of India and such a situation has always led to an arm race between India and Pakistan. Obama's policies are directly contributing to the arms race between India and Pakistan and the Indian foreign policymakers are at their wits' end because the euphoria of a special friendship with America has not only been short lived but it was also based on an unrealistic understanding of the real goals of the sole military superpower of the world. The Americans have shown Indians their real status: that they are expendable if the real global super power so decides.

The history of Pakistan provides impeccable evidence that the Pakistan army, the real centre of power in that country, has followed a policy of confrontation against India. The ministry of defence in its Annual Report of 2009-10 has clearly identified the continuing threat from Pakistan, especially in the form of export of anti-India terrorism from its own soil. This is the reason that in spite of a persistent demand from Kashmiri leaders, the Indian army and defence minister A K Antony have refused to withdraw or reduce the presence of armed forces in Kashmir. Pakistan is also very close to China and the Pakistani prime minister during his recent visit to Beijing announced that "Pakistan gives a blank cheque to China to mediate on its behalf on Kashmir with India."

The MoD annual report has also mentioned that India has an uneasy relationship with China. Pakistan, as a friend of both China and the US, has strengthened its armed might to confront India on its terms. General Kayani also clearly told NATO commanders that "Pakistan wants a central role in resolving the Afghan war and also in mediations with the Taliban." It is clear from the above that US-supported Pakistan has a clear picture of its crucial role in Afghanistan and Indians have been left high and dry by the Americans in this game.

United States sidelines India-Comments & Analysis-Opinion-The Economic Times

 

[Justin Joseph]

The Manmohan Singh government had been extremely euphoric about its special strategic relationship with the United States especially after the signing of an exceptional bilateral nuclear deal for peaceful energy purposes. The government of India had come to believe that President Barack Obama would continue the special treatment which India had received from George Bush II. But the bubble burst and Indian foreign policymakers received a great shock when President Obama drastically shifted his South Asian strategic concerns by focusing attention on the positive role of Pakistan in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

President Obama has revived the history of the last 60 years and re-established special relationship with Pakistan, a country which always stood for the US during the Cold War period and is now fighting as a military ally against the Taliban. Obama has recognised the significance of Pakistan as a dependable military ally. Also, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated a policy shift towards Pakistan in her high-profile meeting with Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on March 25 and 26 at the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue meet held in Washington. She observed: "Pakistan is close to my heart, Pakistan's struggles are my struggles and I am committed to the success of this dialogue."

Ms Clinton opened the US coffers and military arsenal to prompt Pakistan to aid the US' war in Afghanistan. The US has clearly stated that "we have a war and we need them (Pakistan)". It has been decided that the US will supply arms to Pakistan. The US arming of Pakistan has always been of great concern to India because in the inimitable description of the late V K Krishna Menon "there is no gun or a tank which can fire only on one side" as decided by the donor of military aid.

The strategic importance of Pakistan in the war in Afghanistan has been publicly recognised by the US by inviting the man in uniform, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, as an important member of the delegation led by the Pakistan foreign minister for the strategic dialogue. General Kayani's presence in the US along with the Pakistani delegation gives a clear signal to South Asian governments that Pakistan is a military ally of the US and it is the army which matters in Pakistan.

President Obama by publicly aligning with the Pakistan army is clearly following a tradition of his predecessors who had patronised army dictators like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf. Also, the Americans know that in a farcical democracy comprising Asif Ali Zardari of PPP and Nawaz Sharif of PML-N, General Kayani is the real centre of power. If the US needs Pakistan's assistance in the war against Taliban, the Pakistanis are also keen to extract their pound of flesh from the US.

There has to be a quid pro quo between the US and Pakistan if the Americans expect Pakistan to act as their proxy in war. It should be noted that Taliban or Al-Queda in Afghanistan are not the enemies of Pakistan. Pakistan has its own strategic agenda and in the pursuit of its own national interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot accept the presence of Indians on Afghan soil. Has the US assured Pakistan that it would restrain India from its active engagement in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is crucial for America and while the Pakistan delegation went to Washington on March 25, President Obama secretly travelled to Afghanistan on March 29 to see for himself the ground reality of the war. America has to give many concessions in return for Pakistan's support to Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan has conveyed it clearly to the US that India should be pressured to negotiate on J&K because the Pakistani army cannot be involved on two fronts i.e., on Kashmir against India and in the war against the Taliban . Further, Pakistan has asked the US to negotiate a nuclear deal for peaceful energy purposes on the pattern of the deal with India as Pakistan also has its energy requirements.

Pakistan has also conveyed unambiguously to the US to restrain India from providing military training to the armed forces of Afghanistan. Can it be surmised that America's extremely close strategic partnership with Pakistan will become just a normal affair after war in Afghanistan? The answer to this question is a big no. Pakistan has always strengthened itself militarily, especially against India, with the full and active support of the Americans. The military build-up of Pakistan with American support has always posed a direct challenge to the security and national integrity of India and such a situation has always led to an arm race between India and Pakistan. Obama's policies are directly contributing to the arms race between India and Pakistan and the Indian foreign policymakers are at their wits' end because the euphoria of a special friendship with America has not only been short lived but it was also based on an unrealistic understanding of the real goals of the sole military superpower of the world. The Americans have shown Indians their real status: that they are expendable if the real global super power so decides.

The history of Pakistan provides impeccable evidence that the Pakistan army, the real centre of power in that country, has followed a policy of confrontation against India. The ministry of defence in its Annual Report of 2009-10 has clearly identified the continuing threat from Pakistan, especially in the form of export of anti-India terrorism from its own soil. This is the reason that in spite of a persistent demand from Kashmiri leaders, the Indian army and defence minister A K Antony have refused to withdraw or reduce the presence of armed forces in Kashmir. Pakistan is also very close to China and the Pakistani prime minister during his recent visit to Beijing announced that "Pakistan gives a blank cheque to China to mediate on its behalf on Kashmir with India."

The MoD annual report has also mentioned that India has an uneasy relationship with China. Pakistan, as a friend of both China and the US, has strengthened its armed might to confront India on its terms. General Kayani also clearly told NATO commanders that "Pakistan wants a central role in resolving the Afghan war and also in mediations with the Taliban." It is clear from the above that US-supported Pakistan has a clear picture of its crucial role in Afghanistan and Indians have been left high and dry by the Americans in this game.

United States sidelines India-Comments & Analysis-Opinion-The Economic Times

do u agree with the parts in bold??

 

[Peregrine]

Hi
Well it's obvious getting out of Afghanistan safely is the prime Agenda for Americans so for that matter they rather focus on Pakistan than "Look at me my economy is booming "

 

[gurjot]

Hi
Well it's obvious getting out of Afghanistan safely is the prime Agenda for Americans so for that matter they rather focus on Pakistan than "Look at me my economy is booming "

U.S is not going to leave AF,india will be present in AF with or without U.S

 

[Peregrine]

U.S is not going to leave AF,india will be present in AF with or without U.S

Hi
who talked about India's presence in Afghanistan?

 

[WAQAS119]

U.S is not going to leave AF,india will be present in AF with or without U.S

only this can explain ur post....

By the way keep this thread clean from bashing each other....

 

[AVADI]

Hi
Well it's obvious getting out of Afghanistan safely is the prime Agenda for Americans so for that matter they rather focus on Pakistan than "Look at me my economy is booming "

Hi

Isn't it a case of history repeating it self for instance Americans concentrate on the exit strategy so they give some aid and weapons to please Pakistan then they get out after this every thing goes well for some time and during these time taliban recaptures power on Afghanistan then the unthinkable happens 2nd 9/11 type happens and Americans want 2nd WOT as we all know what 1st WOT has done to Pakistan.So don't you think that Pakistan is the net looser in this game.

P.S:I'm not that knowledgeable in these things if i said any thing wrong pardon me.

 

[ashisbutt]

Hi

Isn't it a case of history repeating it self for instance Americans concentrate on the exit strategy so they give some aid and weapons to please Pakistan then they get out after this every thing goes well for some time and during these time taliban recaptures power on Afghanistan then the unthinkable happens 2nd 9/11 type happens and Americans want 2nd WOT as we all know what 1st WOT has done to Pakistan.So don't you think that Pakistan is the net looser in this game.

P.S:I'm not that knowledgeable in these things if i said any thing wrong pardon me.

I'm not sure if you are right or wrong fully. But I, for sure knows that the below is true,

"Americans concentrate on the exit strategy so they give some aid and weapons to please Pakistan then they get out"

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Where is India sidelined as the thread title says..what the thread dscribes is what is Pakistan-US friendship and that is accepted.Even if the thread starter wants to convey that US has acted according to few of Pakistan's wish to act against India,then why did India got the nuclear deal and Pakistan was refused the same ??

The history of Pakistan provides impeccable evidence that the Pakistan army, the real centre of power in that country, has followed a policy of confrontation against India. The ministry of defence in its Annual Report of 2009-10 has clearly identified the continuing threat from Pakistan, especially in the form of export of anti-India terrorism from its own soil.

thanks for telling it in your thread..

 

[WAQAS119]

Hi

Isn't it a case of history repeating it self for instance Americans concentrate on the exit strategy so they give some aid and weapons to please Pakistan then they get out after this every thing goes well for some time and during these time taliban recaptures power on Afghanistan then the unthinkable happens 2nd 9/11 type happens and Americans want 2nd WOT as we all know what 1st WOT has done to Pakistan.So don't you think that Pakistan is the net looser in this game.

P.S:I'm not that knowledgeable in these things if i said any thing wrong pardon me.

Yeap, you r right, but this not that simple as you think. Pakistan had his lesson before, so not expecting Pakistan playing in the hands of Americans.
Now it is the time for Americans to play in the hands of Pakistan. Obviously i do not mean that Pakistan is now Master of the game but at-least it will be head to head.

And also do not expect Americans to leave Afghanistan leaving sh1t behind as it is.They r not fool.

 

[T-Faz]

Hi

Isn't it a case of history repeating it self for instance Americans concentrate on the exit strategy so they give some aid and weapons to please Pakistan then they get out after this every thing goes well for some time and during these time taliban recaptures power on Afghanistan then the unthinkable happens 2nd 9/11 type happens and Americans want 2nd WOT as we all know what 1st WOT has done to Pakistan.So don't you think that Pakistan is the net looser in this game.

P.S:I'm not that knowledgeable in these things if i said any thing wrong pardon me.

No, the main difference between taliban capturing power and Afghanistan becoming a backwards state should not have happened if US had not abandoned Pakistan and Afghanistan after the defeat of USSR.

Now they know that if they do not cooperate with these countries then Arabic hardline ideologies can again ferment in these countries. Taliban does not want to attack other countries, Al Qaeda does. Also China is an important factor in all this as it will help a lot with economic and infrastructure development.

Once Afghanistan is economically progressive and doing well then there will be no more hard elements that will control Afghanistan.

Similarly, NATO and SCO will be going into long term partnerships with Pakistan because of its strategic importance and influence in the Muslim world. It has the power to clamp down on groups such as Al-Qaeda if such groups could hurt its partnership with another country. But if the country is an enemy then these groups will be left alone. For example the Uighurs are kept under control and sidelined by Pakistan for china. It can do the same for US too and if india presents a very tempting offer on Kashmir and water issues then there will e long term peace.

 

[Peregrine]

Hi

Isn't it a case of history repeating it self for instance Americans concentrate on the exit strategy so they give some aid and weapons to please Pakistan then they get out after this every thing goes well for some time and during these time taliban recaptures power on Afghanistan then the unthinkable happens 2nd 9/11 type happens and Americans want 2nd WOT as we all know what 1st WOT has done to Pakistan.So don't you think that Pakistan is the net looser in this game.

P.S:I'm not that knowledgeable in these things if i said any thing wrong pardon me.

Hi
Well it has happened only once, so its irrelevant to apply "repetition of history" here. And don't you think Americans would have learned their lesson from all this, How come Pakistan is the looser Pakistan had a lot to gain from all this its the internal politics that Crippled Pakistan, Pakistan got f-16's in both these era's & other kind of material and financial assistance, actually it was because of Afghanistan that Pakistan was able to complete nuclear programme as USA kind of kept quiet on this matter as they needed Pakistan's support against Soviets, how come Pakistan is the looser unless u want to think this way to assuage your discomfort at these establishments

 

[AVADI]

Yeap, you r right, but this not that simple as you think. Pakistan had his lesson before, so not expecting Pakistan playing in the hands of Americans.
Now it is the time for Americans to play in the hands of Pakistan. Obviously i do not mean that Pakistan is now Master of the game but at-least it will be head to head.

Well as far as the things are going presently i can say that things are going the same way.

And also do not expect Americans to leave Afghanistan leaving sh1t behind as it is.They r not fool.

You are right about the bold part.But the Americans need a Boogieman to keep their Arm's manufacturer happy they are finished with Iraq and Afghanistan now turned towards Iran but after Iran i can only think of Afghanistan again.

 

[T-Faz]

Where is India sidelined as the thread title says..what the thread dscribes is what is Pakistan-US friendship and that is accepted.Even if the thread starter wants to convey that US has acted according to few of Pakistan's wish to act against India,then why did India got the nuclear deal and Pakistan was refused the same ??



thanks for telling it in your thread..

I do not know if you are illiterate or just ignorant, this is an Indian person writing the article for an Indian newspaper. The writer will write what he/she wants to, its not my article and neither did I contribute to it.

 

[T-Faz]

do u agree with the parts in bold??

This is an Indian writer writing in an Indian newspaper, I only posted it to discuss this article and not agree or disagree with it.

I do not know what would be achieved by me agreeing or not agreeing with this article. My opinion will not have an impact on anything that happens in the real world.