Kashmir.Diary

The long unresolved issue of Kashmir between Islamabad and New Delhi, got a stirring on the global map once again after US presidential front-runner Barack Obama drew world attention at the fag end of his campaign to reach the White House when, during an interview, he emphatically stressed the need for the United States to try afresh to resolve the valley dispute for a lasting global peace and to secure America from a potential threat from Muslim militancy. His remarks must be seen more from an American perspective than doing an outright favour to the freedom fighters engaged in a long-drawn struggle against Indian occupation of the valley. Obama’s observation that the Kashmir conflict leads to promote militancy among Muslim of South Asia, and which development usually works against the US, clearly manifests that he wants peace in our region to ensure that by having so, the US would also feel secure. He seems quite determined to carry out his plan. “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focussed on militants,” said Mr Obama in an interview to MSNBC.There is hardly anything new in Obama’s analysis as one can conveniently recall that after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration had adopted a new approach towards South Asia- urging Pakistan to review its traditional defence strategy that sees India as the main threat to its interests in the region. Instead, President Bush wanted Islamabad to modify its attention on fighting out the militants operating along borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Senator Obama seems a continuation of the same approach. This was not the first time Mr Obama expressed his views on the issue. “We also have to make the case that the biggest threat to Pakistan now is not India but militants within their borders,” he said in a separate interview with CNN.On the other hand the Kashmir issue has fallen victim to India’s incessant stubbornness which first refused to resolve it under the UN resolution of 1948- asking India and Pakistan to hold a plebiscite to afford an opportunity to the valley people to decide on their future. Later, India declared that the world community had nothing to do with this issue after the 1972 Simla Agreement which, to defuse rising tension between the two bordering states, spoke about resolving the conflict bilaterally as well. From 1972 New Delhi has been dragging its feet on the issue and despite many attempts by Pakistan and various political outfits in the occupied valley to settle terms on Kashmir, India has, instead, now started giving an impression as if the two countries should settle down with whatever part of the valley they possess. Though India agrees that there is a conflict on Kashmir, her leadership openly says the valley is an integral part of India. One wonders why, and what, India has been negotiating on if Kashmir issue is not to be resolved according to her own promises. This Indian attitude is the chief element in giving rise to militancy among freedom fighters which Barack Obama has also pointed to.It will be with some interest to see reaction of Islamabad and New Delhi to Obama’s remarks since both have travelled a long way during the last few years towards taking confidence building measures, which India says are essential before resorting to the lasting solution of the complex Kashmir issue.