Obama’s Mixed Signals For Pakistan and India
-By Warner Todd Huston
At only five days into his transition period, Barack Obama may have already made several mistakes in his relations with the countries of India and Pakistan that could cloud his relationship with two of the most powerful and influential nations in that part of the world.
Obama’s first odd move was to appoint Google financial adviser Sonal Shah to his transition team. Shah, a well-known 40-year-old economist and Indian American, is controversial in Pakistan for having links to a Hindu nationalist political party as well as a few other extremist groups based in India.
As soon as Obama brought Shah onto his team, tongues in Pakistan began to wag about the “controversial” economist for her connection to VHP-America. The Pakistani news service Daily Times pointed to connections between VHP and a group suspected of sponsoring riots that targeted Muslims and Christians in Gujarat, India.
Vishwa Hari Parishad (VHP) and its student wing Bajrang Dal are believed to have been involved in the massacre of over 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat and for the last three months have been carrying out a sustained campaign against Indian Christians in Orissa.
In that same editorial, Daily Times piece, Khaliid Hasan voiced more concern over Shah’s addition to the Obama team.
Sonal Shah has been the national coordinator for VHP-America and her father has been associated with the Overseas Friends of the BJP. Further, her organisation IndiCorps works with a VHP-sponsored initiative called the Ekal Vidyalayas – or single-teacher schools with a curriculum steeped in instilling hatred against non-Hindu religious minorities. Ekal Vidyalayas have played a key role in anti-minority violence in the states of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. IndiCorps founders also have a close relationship with controversial Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
There are also some connections between Shah’s family and the Hindu nationalist party Sangh Parivan. This group has been accused of being xenophobic, possibly even verging on fascist. But whatever the case, Sangh Parivan, is certainly quite a strict party less interested in working with others than in forcefully promoting what they consider traditional Indian Hindu values and power. Of those connections, the Hindustan Times said that Shah “has well established rightwing leanings.”
Whatever Shah’s connections, this seems an odd choice for Obama to make if he wants to stave off controversy in an already controversial and troubled spot of the world. And once again, we seem to find a Barack Obama that constantly surrounds himself with people that have extremist leanings and connections.
Another mistake that Obama has already made concerning that part of the world is the fact that during his initial rounds of phone calls to world leaders, he excluded Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yet did call Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari.
India is also a bit put off by the claims that Obama may focus on the Kashmir conflict as his first issue to tackle in the Sub Continent. Word has leaked out that Obama intends to try to intervene in the Kashmir conflict as a sop to Pakistan and to India’s consternation.
Indian apprehension about what Senator Obama may have in mind for Kashmir is palpable. Suggestions the Obama administration might seek to intervene and force a settlement of the Kashmir dispute, holding that out as a carrot to Mr Zardari for Pakistan to commit itself more forcefully to defeating al-Qa’ida and the Taliban, got a swift response yesterday from Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
“This is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan,” Mr Mukherjee said bluntly, thereby effectively ruling out any intervention by Washington.
It seems a bit presumptuous of Obama to promise Pakistan that he’ll “solve” the Kashmir problem without bothering to mention the fact, or even giving a call to, the government in India, isn’t it? Further, many Indians feel that a U.S. led Kashmir peace deal will be dead on arrival. Kashmir is seen as a minefield in Indian politics and an Obama misstep in this delicate internal issue could set back a decade of improved U.S./Indian relations.
Worse, India had already been wary of Obama during the campaign over his anti-free trade stance and his signaling that any future trade agreements will be weighed down with labor standards and social demands.
India’s leaders had developed a great working relationship with George W. Bush and there is fear that this will be instantly lost under Obama.
The greatest scepticism about an Obama presidency lies among Indian strategic elite, who are focused on promoting India’s economic and political interests in the wider world. They found an ally in that cause in Bush. Whatever Obama’s ethnic credentials, India’s government has detected in his statements reason to believe that he will be less supportive than Bush.
India is an upcoming international power and Pakistan is still highly important to our War on Terror but Obama has already put them both at raised eyebrows with his inexperience and lack of knowledge of the situation there. Let us hope that these mistakes made so early in Obama’s administration are not harbingers of things to come in clumsy American dealings with two of the most important allies in Asia.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on November 11, 2008 10:43 am
» Filed Under Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Foreign Policy, Islam, Islamicfascism, Liberal Media/Bias, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
Comments
7 Responses to “Obama’s Mixed Signals For Pakistan and India”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
As an Indicorps Fellow, I had the immense opportunity to spend a year pushing myself to break down the barriers that inhibit development work. I worked in tribal Tamil Nadu, India alongside a hilltop community of Adivasis to further a community defined initiative of creating sustainable systems to address a lack of food security.
The most important realization that I came to by the end of my year was that it may not be what you do, but the bhavana or the spirit with which you do it that makes the real impact. In social work. In India. In life.
Sonal Shah’s bhavana or spirit of selfless service has marked her career and her life. She has, much like the President-Elect, worked to build bridges with diverse and far flung communities. She has proven her conviction to her principles through various capacities thus earning her the distinction to work alongside an inspiring and inspired group of people to make hope possible.
“To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing” – Raymond Williams
Let’s take this opportunity to rally around Sonal. To be part of hope rather than despair. To bring forth light instead of darkness.
“To bring forth light instead of darkness.”
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
The US is responsible for the tough neighborhood India finds itself in.
1st Mistake:
Nixon – Sided with China over India (Instructed by his “genius” of policy expert, Henry Kissinger and against the best instinct of Robert McNamara.)
2nd Mistake:
Nixon – Sent the 6th fleet of the US Navy to Bay of Bengal during the 1971 War for Bangladesh’s Liberation to intimidate India. It pushed India further into the Soviet camp, reluctantly.
3rd Mistake:
Reagan / Charlie Wilson : Funded General Zia for resisting Russians in Afghanistan but after the Russian retreat, Zia turned those weapons and the ISI to foment terrorism in India’s Punjab and to date in Kashmir.
4th Mistake:
George Bush Sr.: Looked away from Pakistan’s support for the Taliban. Benazir Bhutto promoted Taliban to get “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. A euphemism for the planned annexation and absorption of Afghanistan into Pakistan.
5th Mistake:
Bill Clinton : Again sided with overwhelming support for China while neglecting a fellow democracy in India. His administration looked away from China’s nuclear proliferation to North Korea and Pakistan. He also looked away from calling Pakistan to the carpet until the last months of his 2nd term when he decided finally (after India’s 4 nuclear tests, conducted after 25 years of self imposed moratorium) to initiate a strategic dialogue and opening up to India. One wonder what took the Rhode Island and Fulbright scholar so long? Domestic distractions, one presumes.
6th Mistake:
George Bush Jr.: Engaged Pakistan and not India as its primary ally in the war on terror despite India’s initial suggestion to do so.
7th Mistake:
George Bush Jr.: Provided Pakistan’s ineffectual and double dealing autocrat General Musharraf with 12 billion dollars of US taxpayers money to fight the war on terror. Result, 80% of the money was spent on buying weapons for the Pakistani army and aimed against India.
8th Mistake:
Barack Obama: Calls the Mr.10% of Pakistan (the street name for widower Zardari). But does not even bother to call India’s Prime Minister Singh. Indians (the man on the street and under the village tree) see this as a snub … and it is being interpreted as back to business with the US (no business here does not mean outsourcing.)
It is India which has prevented the Triad Arc of Asia viz. a confederation of Russia, China and India from coalescing as an Anti-West alliance. Why then, is the US given its checquered history with India’s sensitivities and concern, not any wiser?
They say in Baseball … three strikes and you are out … well we are onto the 9th count almost … when does India’s patience with the US break down? to use another Americanism … what gives? Rather, does anyone in DC give a damn? Why is it that when it comes to fund raising, Indian Americans pitch in large numbers into the party coffers of both the Democrats and Republicans … and yet none of these politicians even bother to really educate themselves of the ground reality? Why is it that they can yell themselves hoarse about democracy, but prefer to deal with dysfunctional and/or dictatorial regimes?
The Democrats had 59 delegates this year of South Asian (Read Indian) origin. The GOP / Republicans had only 13. Yet, it is the GOP that has traditionally been more sympathetic to Indian geo-strategic and socio-economic concern. The Democrats talk up a good deal of having “a great relationship with India” (I remember Bill Clinton in 1992 rushing to catch a campaign trail flight with an Indian journalist hurled him a question about what would the US relationship with India be were he elected” to which the great man replied “India?! Big democracy. We are going to have a good relationship!” Eight years came and went, and Bill Clinton had a lot of relationships, exporting American jobs to China and talking up APEC summit … but there was no India.) It is the Republicans who have for the most part seen the geo-strategic endgame in South Asia better than the democrats. Expect the delegate count of South Asian (Read Indian) in 2012 for the Republicans to be 130 and for the Democrats to be 13, should Indians see Obama’s South Asia policy as the continuation of the cavalier disregard of Indian sensitivities. Which is all the more reason in hindsight for Dubya to have engaged India much earlier; by this time it would have been an entrenched relationship. One that would not seem so shaky now that President Bush is on his way out. Lost opportunities, anyone? Remember, GOP IN 2012.
I voted and supported Obama. I am VERY disappointed in his behavior so far. Getting all these finance whiz names to come to the press conference. WHERE are HIS opinions and HIS LEADERSHIP ??
And then he completely whiffs on this Kashmir issue.
Then recommends bailing out more of the FAT CATs in GM and Detroit.
So far his presidency hasnt even started and has been HUGELY disappointing.
Does no one understand that Pakistan endorses and supports the Taliban, since it purportedly follows a strict/authentic version of Islam? It can never be anti -Taliban. That would be like Pakistan being anti Islam!
The US has repeatedly given money to arms to work against India. The problem re Kashmir is simple: the US wants a separate Kashmir so the US can follow whatever policy it chooses and never mind whoever lives there. Democracy is simply a conversation piece.
An India spending on protecting its border is ideal for the US.