Comments on: Indian Summons

By: juniusredivivus

juniusredivivus — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:18:18 +0000

"One wonders how many more decades it takes before the world sorts out the problems caused by the feckless drawing of borders by European colonialists."

You'd think that even the most stupid American would realize that said drawing of borders occurred 60 years ago, and was a desperate attempt to defuse a particularly nasty civil war between Hindus and Muslims. But no, India and Pakistan are under no obligation to shoulder the responsibilities of freedom - they and the Americans can always blame the English! This pathetic refusal to grow up is why the subcontinent remains corrupt, ineffective and incapable of achieving any sort of stability.

By: truthisbitter

truthisbitter — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:38:52 +0000

President Obama said “being the most powerful country doesnt entitle us to do whatever we wish"..Similarly we shouldnt condone what India is doing in Kashmir just because it is the largest democracy.

Half a million troops to police a few million people, no access to human rights organizations and red Cross, Armed Forces Act( Troops can kill with impunity), mass graves(Indians refused to investigate) , thousands of disappeared, summary extra-judicial killings, doesnt really speak
+ well of a democracy. Kashmiris have watched world overlook their miseries over last 2 decades with helplessness.

Final resolution of Kashmir is must for peace in the region. President Obama understands it.

(I am of Kashmiri origin and have been living in US since 1997)

By: Cliff

Cliff — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:55:32 +0000

rose - Thanks for bringing Mexico up. I'd love to hear someone, anyone, ask why we've spent hundreds of billions in Iraq while Mexico is turning into a failed state.
.
And I think Larch's point about the Drug War plays into it. No one's allowed to talk about the War on Drugs in the media, which means that no one's allowed to talk about how it's not okay to have drug lords beheading law enforcement officials.

By: bseshasai

bseshasai — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:25:21 +0000

As an Indian but staying in US for some years, probably I can venture some opinion here. There is a very pragmatic reason why US should display more interest but not MEDIATE this issue, lest it should end up in a situation like Middle East. Any kind of mediation on this issue by US would likely ignite more nationalism in the region and more people who may hate US instead of appreciating some help. I think Clinton understood this and clearly made an statement that this should be resolved bilaterally.

While India may have gained some lobbying skills, I have seen not any mainstream pundit or politician expressing some authority on this issue lately except Fareed Zakaria. So the leadership, media and public opinion still remain murky.

While Pakistan remains a failed state, it is kind of futile to expect a resolution. Most of my friends agree that this issue can be resolved if we can see a civilian government in Pakistan for 2 decades continously. Why 2 decades? It seems the military can't keep its hands of government every few years.
Although I came to detest Pakistan's military, ISI and its leadership, I feel nothing antagonistic against its people. Except NWFP, Pakistan is a fertile region with scope to much industrial prosperity. It is a pity that it is reduced to such a state by its leadership.

By: kartikeyadate

kartikeyadate — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:30:06 +0000

"One wonders how many more decades it takes before the world sorts out the problems caused by the feckless drawing of borders by European colonialists." Does one really? Inspite of the "special relationship"? Inspite of a desire to get involved with the Kashmir "dispute"? The state of the modern world today is such that it is nearly impossible to find words and sentences devoid of hypocrisy in describing it.

By: larch

larch — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:56:59 +0000

As far as Kashmir is concerned, we do have a big lever use towards -- and a vested interest in -- stability in that region, thanks to the tremendous involvement of Western companies there, particularly in India.
.
The last thing financial and retail companies need is their customer service & technology operations hit with a Mumbai-type operation. And the last thing the governments need is for Western companies to pull their operations due to a perceived risk of that happening.
.
One small benefit of outsourcing....

By: larch

larch — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:48:21 +0000

From a purely strategic perspective, it seems like we could effectively cut the legs out from under both the Mexican & Taliban/extremist issues in one stroke by legalizing drugs, thereby depriving the respective groups of their funding sources. The more countries legalize, the greater the effect.
.
There'd still be plenty of underlying issues to address -- cultures of corruption, lack of education, fundamentalism, addiction -- but without funds to buy the guns & support followers the impact would be limited. Plus we'd free up a bunch of 'War on Drugs' money for more productive uses.

By: Art Pepper

Art Pepper — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:44:01 +0000

Very informative post, Joe - thanks. It's well time that Americans (leaders and ordinary citizens alike) starting learning about the regions of our various conflicts.
-
And thanks everyone for the informative comments!

By: sevenoaks07

sevenoaks07 — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:05:51 +0000

wl,j and ee: thanks for some very helpful comments. I think India does not command our attention because Pakistan and Afghanistan take up all the time. The Mumbai Massacre, in a sad way, made many Americans aware of that part of the world.

But I agree: we need all the players, past and present to be helpful and work out a modus vivendi. Now I get down on my knees and pray. That's about all that is left.

By: Elvis Elvisberg

Elvis Elvisberg — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:05:26 +0000

for Afghanistan to settle down on a long-term basis, Pakistan is going to have to turn away from sponsoring Islamic extremist groups...which won't happen until there is some resolution of the historic Kashmir mess. For the moment, though, that will have to be done surreptitiously, if at all. One wonders how many more decades it takes before the world sorts out the problems caused by the feckless drawing of borders by European colonialists. - Two points: first, it's not clear that the US can work to "resolve" the Kashmir situation, if the facts on the ground and political will and leadership isn't there. Nor is it clear that the US should have such a role. - Second, I read that last sentence to imply that the natural state of things is peace and prosperity, which is where we'd be but for European misadventures. I'm not so sure that's the case. - Now, obviously, we can make progress over time. Europe 2009 is quite a bit more congenial than Europe 1968 or 1938 or 1918. But it's not clear that US diplomatic inducements are the way to provide a "resolution of the historic Kashmir mess." - India has a rapidly growing economy and is a rising military power with a very shrewd and capable diplomatic corps. And it's the world's largest democracy. I don't understand why the Rise of India doesn't get nearly the attention of the Rise of China. (I don't mean to slight Pakistan vs. India-- just saying, India is, like, really big).