A story appearing in the New York times 1/22 details India’s report to the U.S. of Pakistani culpability in a terrorist attack on U.S. offices. Observant readers will note the similarities in these accusations to the Israel line in the occupied territories. It appears the Indian Government is attempting here to turn the Kashmir issue into their version of the “Palestinian problem”. One could hardly blame the Indian government for trying to duplicate the “success” of Israeli propaganda.
As many years ago and currently the U.S. set and maintains a dangerous precedent in supporting and propagating an illegal and unjust occupation. India here is hoping the U.S. will do the same for them? despite radically different realities between Kashmir and the occupied territories. Here India is asking the U.S. to apply pressure on Islamabad to control terrorism….India is making a huge mistake as unlike Arafat and the PA the Pakistani Government is of use to Washington. Pakistan is of fairly grave importance to the U.S. as Gen. Pervez Musharraf is the U.S.s only defense against the strong anti U.S. sentiment and support for Islamic militants among certain aspects of the Pakistani population. Fairly easy to discern that Washington will grant a significant amount “indiscretion” to anyone that may serve it’s interests. The reality must be observed that U.S. influence in the middle east and south Asia is declining fairly rapidly. Where a U.S. presence is unwelcome even for the Arab business sector and the client regimes the U.S. supports. U.S. presence is quickly becoming a liability to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. So of course India will get no help from the U.S. Unless the U.S. wants a really really large jihad on their hands instead of the smaller more “manageable” one they have on their hands now. It also must be noted that unlike the Palestinians, Pakistan can defend itself and that’s a vital point as U.S. only goes after or applies (serious) pressure on defenseless targets. So the “war on terrorism” only applies to defenseless targets of no strategic importance to the U.S. for example widely known is the fact that the “terrorist” the U.S. are going after in Afghanistan got most of their funding from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. client state…of course the U.S. will never attack Saudi Arabia or put on any pressure on the Saudi regime because one wrong move and it turns into another Iran with popular uprisings led by the wahabbi clerics. A time bomb is an accurate analogy. so Afghanistan becomes for the U.S. the perfect defenseless target.
Unavoidable concessions for the Kashmir solution
Barring support from the U.S. against Pakistan it appears the Indian government has really no choice but to make meaningful diplomatic concessions as Pakistan will have to do the same, mutual concession process. Just looking at a map of Kashmir it’s fairly easy to discern that it is more important at least strategically to Pakistan seeing that the border of Kashmir is practically a stones throw away from Islamabad and three nuclear weapons facilities (Khan Rsearch Laboratories, Khushab Reasearch/Plutonium Reactor, and the Labs at Rawalpindi*). I would tend to argue at least from a diplomatic view that the obligation to initiate the concession process lies on the side that operates from a position of power, military superiority and that would be India, even though that’s obviously contrary to the way things usually work. So far some of the few instances of that have provided very positive result for ex during one of the many small scale conflicts India initiated a cease fire during the Islamic holiday of Ramadan. the violence stopped…for a while. It obviously takes an immense amount of wisdom to initiate things like that and it suggest a future course of action seeing as Kashmir as an independent nation solution is not likely to fly with either side. I would also like to suggest (even though it might not be my place to do so) if India wanted to apply successful pressure on Pakistan there is no better way than to initiate meaningful concession. Not the fake concessions (see: Bantustan solution) like the ones proposed by Israel. Seeing as on this rare occasion, (it’s a golden opportunity) the U.S. isn’t going to get in the way of a diplomatic peaceful solution, one that favors self determination. I would implore both countries to get that mutual concession process rolling posthaste before the situation changes and the U.S. changes it’s mind. (see: Iran/Iraq war, one where it was in the U.S. “interests” to supply arms to both sides to insure the war would go on as long as possible).
* “India Pakistan and the Bomb” M.V. Ramana and A.H Nayyar Scientific American vol 285 #6
