American newspaper New York Times has called for US efforts to settle Kashmir.  The newspaper in its editorial on Monday has termed the normalization of the relations between India and Pakistan as a game-changer and indicated that it was only possible if Washington played a role in the resolution of Kashmir.  The paper urges the Obama administration to quietly press India and Pakistan to work “to settle differences over Afghanistan and the disputed region of Kashmir.”  The editorial also makes a strong case for Washington to urge the two militaries to start talking, and urge the two governments to begin exploring ways to lessen the danger of an accidental nuclear war.  This is not the first time that a section of opinion in US has called for the country’s efforts to nudge India and Pakistan towards a Kashmir solution. The US president Barack Obama had specifically called for an active US intervention on Kashmir during his presidential campaign in 2008. Obama’s worldview on the region was substantially shaped by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who was US president’s advisor on South Asia during his election campaign through 2008. Riedel sees resolution of Kashmir as a panacea for the problems of the region and an anti-dote for the ongoing war  in Afghanistan. In fact, as recently as the September last, Riedel in an article in the dailybeast.com had termed Kashmir conflict worse than Afghanistan. In the article, he reiterated that Obama’s strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a Kashmir component to succeed. He stressed that the resolution of India-Pakistan cold war was critical to stability in South Asia as it will isolate extremists and prevent a war in South Asia that could go nuclear. What makes Riedel’s opinion significant is that it is he who chaired Obama’s review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy at the start of his administration two years ago. However, after winning the presidency, Obama didn’t pay much attention to Kashmir. Even US envoy for the Af-Pak didn’t have Kashmir solution as part of his broader remit for the region – at least overtly.  The US understanding has since been that an overt US role can only complicate the Indo-Pak bilateral efforts to settle the dispute. Besides, New Delhi has always forcefully rejected any third party intervention arguing that Kashmir could be best sorted out through negotiations with Islamabad. However, New Delhi sought US role in pushing Islamabad to act against the extremist elements and speeding up the trials of the masterminds of Mumbai atrocity. There have, however been indications that US has been inconspicuously egging on both India and Pakistan to work out a compromise on Kashmir. During his last visit to India, Obama once again called Kashmir a “long-standing dispute” and said US was willing to play any role to facilitate its resolution if asked by both India and Pakistan. The entire array of separatist leadership in Valley was prompt to welcome the statement. The subsequent parliament speech by Obama, however, had no Kashmir in it, just a broad articulation of the US agenda for the region and a recognition of India's growing role in the world. Now, when the US is increasingly looking towards exiting Afghanistan and Islamabad’s role in the Taliban country has assumed enormous importance, Kashmir has silently slipped into background. However, the recent weeks have witnessed a rather tentative resumption of India-Pakistan dialogue with New Delhi finally expressing its willingness to discuss Kashmir. Is US acting as behind-the-scenes facilitator? It seems quite possible. However, what is fundamentally needed is for India and Pakistan to get serious about the need for an acceptable solution. And to this end, if US can be of some help, people in Kashmir would certainly welcome it.

Lastupdate on : Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 IST