Jammu and Kashmir: News and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Divided families urge India, Pakistan to leave Kashmir

KERAN: Hundreds of Kashmiris on Sunday staged an emotional demonstration to urge India and Pakistan to withdraw troops from the disputed Himalayan region.
On the Pakistani side, tearful relatives waved across the gushing Neelum, which separates the two countries, to their family on the Indian side, using loudspeakers to try to speak to them, an AFP photographer said.
But the deafening roar of the river, about 200 feet wide at the village of Keran, was too loud for the cries to carry across to the Indian side.
About 600 men and women gathered by the river in Keran, about 90 kilometres northeast of Muzaffarabad, the capital of Azad Kashmir. Many migrated to Muzaffarabad in 1990 to escape violence.
The gathering, called by nationalists, was a rare occasion – the authorities do not normally allow such events on the river.
For Ashraf Jan, who left her mother and father to come to Muzaffarabad with her aunt in 1947, it was almost too much.
Overwhelmed with emotion, the 70-year-old had to be stopped by relatives from jumping in the furious river to try to reach her ageing parents on the Indian side.
"Let me go. I just want to see my parents and after that if I die, I will be in peace," she said.
Indian police and military did not allow Kashmiris on the other side to come near the river bank and they were left to wave from a distance.
Though Kashmiris can cross the border via a special bus service started in 2005, it requires lengthy clearance procedures at both sides, meaning few go.
Arif Shahid, president of the pro-independence Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Conference, urged India and Pakistan to divert their military spending to help poor people in both countries.
"India and Pakistan are wasting money on arms when millions of people have to sleep without any meal every night. They should withdraw troops from Kashmir and liberate us so that they are able to work for the welfare of their citizens," Shahid said.
There are nearly a dozen Kashmir groups fighting for the divided Muslim-majority region to become part of Pakistan and over 47,000 people have been killed since the outbreak of a separatist insurgency in 1989.
But violence has dropped sharply in Kashmir since India and Pakistan started a peace process in 2004.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Kashmir: On both sides of the river


Thousands of holiday goers arrived in Kashmir valley to enjoy the beauty of its landscapes, as violence ebbs in the Muslim-majority state wracked by insurgency since 1989.

However, an undercurrent of resentment remains as schools and some shops were shut in Srinagar in a strike called to commemorate the killing of dozens of local youth in alleged police actions during the 2008-2010 civilian unrest, called by hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

In addition, hundreds of Pakistani and Indian Kashmiris staged an emotional demonstration on the opposite banks of the fast-flowing Neelum river to urge India and Pakistan to withdraw troops from the disputed Himalayan region. – Text and Photos by Agencies


A Pakistani Kashmiri family waves to Indian Kashmiri relatives across the Neelum River as they gather in Keran, about 90 kilometres (55 miles) northeast of Muzaffarabad on June 10, 2012.

[MOD Edit: There is no such thing as 'Pakistani Kashmiri.' All Kashmiris are Indians, and all of Kashmir is part of the Indian Union.]



Indian Kashmiri paramilitary soldiers take shelter on the banks of Dal lake during a heavy rain in Srinagar, India on June 8, 2012.


An Indian Kashmiri woman travels in a boat in the waters of Dal Lake in Srinagar, India, June 9, 2012. – Photo by Reuters


Indian Kashmiri activists place pictures and plaques of Wamiq Farooq on the ground, on the anniversary of his death, as they take part in a protest rally in Srinagar, India on June 11 ,2012. An armed insurgency against Indian rule in Kashmir has claimed 47,000 lives since 1989 with separatists putting the toll twice as high. – Photo by AFP


An Indian paramilitary soldier stands guard at a closed market during a strike in Srinagar, India, Monday, June 11, 2012. – Photo by AP
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723

Indian Kashmiris play a cricket during a one day strike, to commemorate the killing of dozens of local youth in alleged police actions during the 2008-2010 civilian unrest, called by hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani in Srinagar on June 11,2012. – Photo by AFP


Pakistani Kashmiri nationalists shout slogans as the march during a demonstration in Keran, about 90 kilometres (55 miles) northeast of Muzaffarabad on June 10, 2012. – Photo by AFP
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Why government ousted NGO worker from J&K


SRINAGAR: Walking towards the immigration counter at the Indira Gandhi Airport on a cool March day, Usmaan Raheem Ahmad, a plump, pleasant-faced US citizen, had little idea of what awaited him. An Intelligence Bureau team whisked him aside to give him the news: his Indian visa stood cancelled and he was to be put on the next flight to the US.

The next few hours at the airport went by in a flurry of calls: from senior politicians in Srinagar to top bureaucrats and journalists in Delhi. One by one they reported back, they could do nothing. The decision to deport Usmaan had been taken at the "highest levels".

It was a sudden fall for a man who since December 2005 had led a charmed life in Kashmir. Usmaan Rahim ran an American NGO, Mercy Corps, in Srinagar. He was a bit of a mystery — an American citizen who claimed Kashmiri ancestry. He was said to be close to chief minister Omar Abdullah and police officials, broke bread with Hurriyat leaders and had a special interest in potato and bee farming.

The story of his arrival here had a tinge of romance: a long lost Kashmiri, a graduate of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy, Tufts University, rushed here in the wake of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and then stayed back. What many did not know was that Usmaan's association with Kashmir was slightly more complex and certainly older.

Usmaan first visited Kashmir in 1996, when militancy was at its peak. He was busy surveying old monuments and temples for his graduate course in Kashmiri archaeology. In that time what seems to have impressed Usmaan was the "Kashmiri cause", so that by the time he graduated in 1999, he became a member of the "Council for Independent Kashmir", travelling across the US and Europe giving speeches and interviews.

"Farooq Abdullah is a puppet of the Indian imperial state, the front man of the Indian loot of Kashmir," read one interview. By 2001, he had moved on to the JKLF and, at one speaking engagement, was listed as "an executive member of the diplomatic bureau of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front".

When he tried to visit Kashmir again around this time, he was denied a visa — a fact covered in some detail by the New York Times, which profiled him in a report titled, "Kashmir Champion finds pitfalls to peace". The next few years went by in much the same way, in between completing his graduation in conflict management.

Usmaan continued to serve the "Kashmir cause", chaperoning separatist leaders on their US visits. In an article published in 2005, he reused material from an older piece written in 2003, extolling Maqbool Bhatt as a later day Martin Luther King.

All that changed quite suddenly after the earthquake of October 2005. By December, Usmaan was finally able to re-enter Kashmir, this time as founder member of the "Kashmir Earthquake Relief".

The reinvention of Usmaan had begun. Over the next few years, he dabbled in a bewildering array of activities. In 2007, he starred in a documentary by an Israeli, in which he's described as an American-born Kashmiri "who returned to his homeland and promotes youth culture, sports teams and theatre." By 2009, he was heading Mercy Corps, an American NGO that specializes in working in conflict areas.

But it was the upheaval of 2010 that helped Usmaan ratchet up his profile. Bewildered by the unprecedented mobilization on the streets, the Indian government reached out to anyone who promised to de-radicalize or divert this "Conflict Generation". Sources say Usmaan was one of those who promised help.


By the summer of 2011, Mercy Corps had announced a new flagship scheme, "Youth Entrepreneurship", to promote economic development and offer economic opportunities to the youth.

Hotels across Srinagar were suddenly playing host to groups of American and British "economists and professors" holding classes for stone pelters one day and junior police officials the next.

It was here that the first red flag went up in New Delhi. As summer turned to autumn, one of the foreign delegations held negotiation classes for separatist leaders.

One eyewitness described the interaction: "The foreign professors pretended to play Indian government negotiators dealing with the separatist leaders to settle the Kashmir issue. It was a no-holds- barred session with a lot of shouting and a point-by-point rebuttal of every position the Hurriyat takes on Kashmir. Bit by bit, the real issues came up: what the Hurriyat would settle for, how much leeway they were willing to give the Indians? Then they were coached on how to maximise their advantages... It struck me as a strange thing for an NGO to do."

The investigations were led from Delhi. "'We thought that some of Usmaan's contacts in the American embassy were not what they claimed to be. It was a thorough investigation spread over many months. Why do you think the Americans and the NGO are so quiet? They know the truth," says a top source.

Not a single paper in the Valley reported the deportation. Nor did any politician or Mercy Corps publicly raise a voice against it. MHA, too, wasn't very vocal about the uncovering of an US agent, as it characterizes the case. Perhaps the fact that Usmaan had successfully managed to cultivate top ministry officials is an embarrassing detail it would much rather hide. In an email to this reporter, Usmaan refused to comment on his deportation, promising that he'd be back in Kashmir soon. If he manages to do that, it would be yet another remarkable chapter in what has been a very interesting life.
This should be a lesson to indians who dont lear from pakistan's mistake of allying with usa and are eager to ally with uncle sam now.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
^^^ So Usman Ahmed basically functioned the role of an American spy?

Its not a surprise thought because the US would definitely have a lot of HUMINT spread across India and it would be naive to expect it not to. NGOs usually play a good cover for spies.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
JFK's Overshadowed Crisis

JFK's Overshadowed Crisis

Bruce Riedel | June 28, 2012



IN APRIL, India launched a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear bomb deep into the Indian Ocean. The successful Agni missile test fulfilled India's fifty-year quest to achieve the means of dispatching a nuclear weapon to Beijing. Just about fifty years ago, in October 1962, India fought a brief war against China in the Himalaya Mountains. India lost that war—and vowed it would acquire the capacity to deter Chinese aggression.

The Sino-Indian war also posed a crisis for America's young president, John F. Kennedy, who had entered office determined to build a strong U.S. relationship with India. But his attention that fateful autumn was diverted to a more ominous crisis—the one involving Soviet efforts to place nuclear missiles in Cuba—that unleashed a dangerous nuclear face-off with the Soviet Union. Thus, Kennedy confronted two simultaneous crises, one far overshadowed by the other at the time and also later in history.

But Kennedy's handling of the 1962 war—in the midst of a far graver national challenge—offers lessons today for those interested in the ongoing diplomatic conundrum posed by India and its mutually hostile neighbor, Pakistan.

When Kennedy became president in January 1961, the United States and India were estranged democracies. Throughout the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower had tilted his administration's subcontinent diplomacy toward Pakistan's military dictatorship and away from India. After all, Pakistan offered its territory as a secret base for America's U-2 spy planes, which were used effectively to penetrate Soviet airspace and collect valuable intelligence on Washington's Cold War adversary.

India's neutralist government in New Delhi never would have contemplated such an arrangement. So Ike cut his deal with Pakistan, which included the sale of F-104 jets and Patton tanks, both superior to India's weapons. Needless to say, this didn't endear the American government to New Delhi.

In the 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy promised a departure from Eisenhower's foreign policy—more vigorous and less accepting of Western colonialism. Though an ardent cold warrior, Kennedy also recognized that the winds of change were whipping around the world, ending the era of colonial empires. He had been an early critic of France's colonial war in Algeria, for example, and he understood that many of the new postcolonial states would resist pressures to join one bloc or another in the Cold War.

Further, as a senator Kennedy had sponsored legislation to increase food aid to India. And so it wasn't surprising that as president he sought to woo India and its leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, into a closer relationship with Washington that didn't require any formal anticommunist commitment from India. He sent his friend John Kenneth Galbraith to New Delhi as U.S. ambassador.

Yet Kennedy also wanted to maintain a tight alliance with Pakistan. Like presidents before and after, he tried to befriend both nations. He invited Pakistan's president Mohammad Ayub Khan to visit the United States twice during his thousand days in office. In July 1961, Ayub was feted in New York with a ticker-tape parade on Fifth Avenue and in Washington with a full state visit including a state dinner at Mount Vernon, the only time that the first president's mansion has hosted a state dinner. A year later, in September 1962, Kennedy hosted Ayub again at the family home in Newport, Rhode Island, and his farm in Middleburg, Virginia. Ayub gave Jacqueline Kennedy a horse. The Kennedy team hailed Pakistan as a reliable ally against communism and a model for development in the Third World.

But it was the India relationship that most preoccupied Kennedy as he contemplated U.S. relations with South Asia. Galbraith's appointment put a Kennedy man and a firm advocate of his New Frontier at the center stage of U.S.-Indian relations. No president since has sent such a close friend and high-powered representative to New Delhi as ambassador.

Galbraith frequently wrote Kennedy long letters from India in which he commented not only on India and South Asia but also on global developments, domestic issues, economics and especially the growing conflict in South Vietnam, where he was an early and prescient critic of U.S. involvement. His letters and diary, which have been published, offer penetrating insights into this period.

Kennedy never traveled to India during his presidency, but Jacqueline Kennedy visited both India and Pakistan in March 1962. The charismatic and photogenic first lady was a big hit. Nehru was so entranced that he kept a photo of Mrs. Kennedy in his private study for the rest of his life. The Peace Corps, created by Kennedy early in his tenure, also drew the United States and India closer together, as did other factors such as enhanced American economic assistance and the candid dialogue between top leaders. Nehru visited the White House in November 1961 at the age of seventy-one, accompanied by his daughter Indira (though that visit was undercut a bit by the fact that Nehru seemed old, tired and disengaged).

BY FAR the most important development in the relationship emerged with the Chinese invasion of India in October 1962. Like much of India's borders, the boundary between China and India was set by the British in the nineteenth century. The small kingdom of Tibet was given a border drawn to the Raj's advantage. The western portion of the border was known as the Johnson line, dividing Kashmir from China. The eastern one was the McMahon line, dividing Assam in eastern India from China. Both lines were named after British diplomats. When China invaded Tibet in October 1950, it therefore inherited a border it did not regard as legitimate or fair. Negotiations between Beijing and New Delhi in the 1950s proved futile. But China opened negotiations with Pakistan on their shared border in Kashmir, and the result was the cession of a large part of northern Kashmir to China and an agreed border between Islamabad and Beijing.

Nehru championed Communist China's right to take over China's permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, which was still held by the Nationalist Party government in Taiwan. He sharply criticized America's refusal to recognize the People's Republic of China and portrayed China and India as kindred spirits, two great Asian countries that had been exploited by Western imperialism but now were free and independent.

So it was a crushing blow to Nehru and India in October 1962 when China surprised them and invaded to seize control of territories it claimed along the 3,225-kilometer border. The Chinese forces, superior in leadership and weapons, routed the Indian Army, which retreated in confusion from the Himalayas. The situation was most precarious in India's easternmost regions, which were linked to the rest of the country only by a narrow land connection north of what was then East Pakistan. After maintaining its neutrality in the Cold War for fifteen years, India found itself the victim of a Chinese invasion it was powerless to halt. Nehru was devastated. He reluctantly turned to the United States and Britain, asking for immediate supplies for the Indian Army. In his panic, he also requested the deployment of American bombers to repulse the Chinese advance. America unexpectedly found itself arming both Pakistan and India, with no assurance they would not use the weapons against each other.

It is clear from Galbraith's diary that Washington was surprised by the Chinese invasion. But, with the U.S. bureaucracy fixated on the life-and-death duel over Cuba, Galbraith was given almost no instructions from the White House or State Department during the key period of the Indo-Chinese crisis. Thus, he became the main decision maker on the American side, a role he relished. As he wrote, "Washington continues totally occupied with Cuba. For a week, I have had a considerable war on my hands without a single telegram, letter, telephone call or other communication of guidance." To add another element of drama, the crisis also coincided with the move of the ambassador and his family into a new residence, Roosevelt House, where the staff could find no dishes and Galbraith was without a room suitable for small, intimate discussions.

Working closely with his British counterpart, as U.S. diplomats typically do in South Asia, Galbraith fashioned a response that backed India and delivered much-needed military assistance to the Indians. Once a request for aid was formally transmitted, the first American shipments of military support arrived by air four days later. British support came as well.

Chinese intentions were impossible to decipher. After their initial victories, they paused for several weeks. Then they attacked again with devastating results, driving the Indians back in the East. Had they pressed on in the most vulnerable sector, they could have cut off Assam and eastern India and linked up with East Pakistan. Even Calcutta was at risk. Nehru asked for more aid—a dozen squadrons of American fighters and two squadrons of bombers—to redress the imbalance. In his desperation, he sought direct American military intervention, at least in the air. This would have meant war with China.

There ensued many anxious moments in New Delhi, Washington and London until China unilaterally announced a cease-fire on November 19, 1962. Kennedy never had to answer the request for air power. The war was over; India was humiliated; Nehru was devastated. But U.S.-Indian relations were better than ever before. America's approval ratings among Indians soared from 7 percent at the start of the war to 62 percent at the end.

GALBRAITH'S MEMOIRS make it clear that, even as he faced the Chinese threat, he had to devote an equal measure of his energy and skill to managing Indo-Pakistani relations. Pakistan promptly sought to exploit India's distress. Ayub's government suggested to the American embassy in Karachi that Pakistani neutrality in the war could be assured by Indian concessions in Kashmir. Implicitly, an Indian refusal would bring Pakistan into the war. China tried to sweeten the deal by offering a nonaggression pact with Pakistan. Galbraith writes that throughout the crisis:

My concern . . . was about equally divided between helping the Indians against the Chinese and keeping peace between the Indians and Pakistanis. . . . The nightmare of a combined attack by Pakistan and China, with the possibility of defeat, collapse and even anarchy in India, was much on my mind.
In short, at a defining early moment in U.S.-Indian relations, when China and India were military adversaries, America found itself trying to manage the Indo-Pakistani rivalry to avoid Armageddon in India. Pakistan was outraged that America was arming its rival and wanted to be bought off in Kashmir. Working with his American and British counterparts in Karachi, Galbraith persuaded India and Pakistan to begin a dialogue on Kashmir. Nehru reluctantly agreed. Galbraith describes him as a much-diminished prime minister. He had devoted his entire life to Indian independence but now was forced to rely on Washington and London. American C-130s were delivering vital military aid, and an American aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, was visiting Madras to show tangible support.

Galbraith suggested to Kennedy in one of his private letters that the United States and United Kingdom seize the opportunity to quietly move toward a Kashmir settlement. Galbraith opposed a territorial settlement; he envisioned a much more subtle deal that would transform the entire nature of South Asian politics, a fundamental rapprochement based on regional cooperation that would make Kashmir largely irrelevant. In a letter to the president on December 6, 1962, the ambassador wrote:

It would be fatal, however, to show hesitancy at this moment when [the Indians] are relying on us and when the fear of the Chinese is so great. Now that we have got the Kashmir issue out in the open—a significant achievement in itself—we must press it but in such a manner as not to involve ourselves in the inbuilt antagonisms between the two countries. We must continue to make it clear to the Indians that it is their task, not ours and not Pakistan's. In my view, incidentally, Kashmir is not soluble in territorial terms. But by holding up the example of the way in which France and Germany have moved to soften their antagonism by the Common Market and common instruments of administration, including such territorial disputes as that over the Saar, there is a chance of getting the Indo-Pakistan dialogue into constructive channels.
Galbraith had reached the right conclusion about the proper American role in South Asia in the midst of a terrible crisis.

Instead of Galbraith's sophisticated approach, the Kennedy team joined forces with the British on a more conventional policy. After letters from JFK to Ayub and Nehru, the two South Asian leaders reluctantly agreed to resume bilateral discussions on Kashmir, with American and British diplomats pushing each side to compromise on territorial offers. On the eve of the first round, Pakistan's new foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, announced that China and Pakistan had reached an agreement to demarcate their border in Kashmir. China received a considerable concession of territory from historic Kashmir. The Indians were furious. After being attacked and invaded by China, India now saw Pakistan giving away part of the territory still in dispute and about which bilateral negotiations were about to commence. Bhutto maintained the Chinese had tricked him into prematurely announcing the deal. The United States and Britain accepted this farce; Nehru did not. Talks began, but they were destined to fail. After six desultory rounds, they collapsed.

Kennedy began his presidential tenure eager to build the ties with India that had languished under Eisenhower and Truman. By the time of his death, the United States was helping build a new Indian Army with six mountain divisions to face China. But Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon Johnson, would not sell India high-performance jet aircraft like the F-104s Pakistan was getting. In 1965, Pakistan used the F-104s in an unprovoked war on India in Kashmir, Operation Grand Slam. LBJ promptly cut off military aid to both countries.

JFK was determined to keep a strong alliance with Pakistan even as he improved ties with India. But as U.S. arms flowed to India in the wake of the Chinese invasion, the U.S.-Pakistani connection began to sink. Islamabad did not want an ally that armed both sides. It had not joined SEATO and CENTO to see American arms flowing to its archrival, India. Ayub feared the American arms sent to India were rapidly diminishing his qualitative advantage over his rival, and he was right.

Not surprisingly, Pakistan turned increasingly to China. After the border agreement, Pakistan signed an aviation agreement with the Chinese, which broke an American-inspired campaign to isolate that communist nation. Pakistan International Airlines began regular flights between Dacca and Shanghai. The Kennedy team responded with the first of what would become a long list of sanctions on Pakistan—canceling a deal to upgrade the Dacca airport.

In his last days, Kennedy became increasingly irritated with the Pakistanis and with Ayub. In one of his last meetings with his national-security team, he asked, "What do we get from Pakistan? In return for the protection of our alliance and our assistance what do they do for us?" The answer was another secret intelligence base that the CIA and NSA used to eavesdrop on China and Russia. Ayub skillfully exploited America's desire for the base to keep Kennedy's question rhetorical. The base was expanded considerably in a new secret protocol in September 1963. Less than two months later, Kennedy was dead. Sardar, the horse Ayub had given Mrs. Kennedy, followed his casket down Pennsylvania Avenue, riderless.

The failure of Pakistan's efforts to extort concessions from India on Kashmir led Ayub in 1965 to unleash Operation Gibraltar, a campaign of subversion in the Himalayan state. That ended in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, which was disastrous for Pakistan. It lost the war, and the conflict led to a rupture in trade and transportation links between the two South Asian states that continues today. It also ushered in a series of increasingly dangerous crises between the two, contributing to the subcontinent being probably the most likely arena for nuclear conflict in the twenty-first century.

The Sino-Indian war had one other major consequence: India moved closer to its decision to develop a nuclear deterrent. Nehru had begun a nuclear-power program early after independence and acquired reactors from the United States and Canada. But he insisted India would use them only for peaceful purposes. His worldview held the use of nuclear weapons to be unthinkable. But in the wake of the Chinese invasion, the first Indian voices emerged in favor of a nuclear-weapons program. The opposition party called for the development of the bomb to deter further Chinese aggression. Nehru still demurred, but the path to a peaceful nuclear-explosive test had begun.

Meanwhile, the Americans also came to realize that the United States and India likely would need the bomb in order to stop another major Chinese invasion. In 1963, Kennedy met with his military advisers shortly before his death to review options in the event of another Chinese attack. Secret tapes record Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara telling Kennedy, "Before any substantial commitment to defend India against China is given, we should recognize that in order to carry out that commitment against any substantial Chinese attack, we would have to use nuclear weapons." Kennedy responded, "We should defend India, and therefore we will defend India if she were attacked."

THE KENNEDY era underscores several key points about U.S. diplomacy in South Asia. First, it is virtually impossible to have good relations with both India and Pakistan. We may want them to stop being rivals, but they can't escape their history and geography. Almost every American president has sought to have good ties with both, though none really has succeeded because it is a zero-sum game for two rivals who cannot abide America being their enemy's friend. When we give one country a substantial gain, like the 2005 U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, the other feels hurt and demands equal treatment.

Second, China is our rival for influence in the region because it has the capacity to frustrate American goals. For Pakistanis, China is the "all-weather friend" that they can rely on, unlike the unreliable and quixotic Americans. China provided Pakistan with key technology to build the bomb in the 1970s while America was trying to prevent Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons. Today, Beijing is building new reactors to fuel the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world in Pakistan.

Third, Kashmir is the spoiler in the region; it needs a subtle solution that so far has escaped American diplomacy. JFK was the last American president to make a concerted effort to resolve the underlying issue causing so much instability in South Asia. All of his successors have regarded it as too hard, so every few years another major crisis erupts that takes the subcontinent to the brink of destruction. Galbraith laid out the subtle path to a better outcome, but it has been the road not taken. Instead, the path India set out on fifty years ago has led to the Agni. Nobody knows where it will end.

Bruce Riedel is a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. A career CIA officer, he has advised four presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues on the staff of the National Security Council.
 

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
312
the only issue india recognizes is the POK. pakistan can try to injuct as many countries as possible, but won't get anything out of it. actually it has helped india, because pakistan has spent all of its energy in kashmir with futility. as far as nuclear was is concerned, india is not concerned, because pakistan will never have the guts to use. they should first try to grapple with the three leged drone and than fantasize about kahmir.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Too many different discussions on one thread.
Thread Closed.
Please make new threads to discuss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top