Latest news with #SouthAsiaInstitute
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Indians in US Colleges are in a crisis: One reason is that they have stopped learning
We, Indians, have to reject the models of learning we were drilled into by schools, colleges, corporate employers and peer groups which have turned us into mere employable robots and stop trying to force-fit our resplendent cultural traditions and expressions into the fringes and anonymous cubicles of modern society read more 'Vācālatvaṃ ca pāṇḍitye yaśorthe dharmasevanam' (In Kali Yuga, people think prattling is a mark of erudition and do dharma only for personal fame.) - Kalki Purana In the past few weeks, Indian-descent students in general and Hindu students in particular have been in the news once again. At UC Berkeley, a student request to observe a 'Hindu Heritage Month' was denied by student officials who said they were worried about 'Hindu Nationalism'. At Harvard, Hindu students spoke up about Hinduphobia when they found that the South Asia Institute there had hosted Pakistani government officials in a conference just days after the Pahalgam massacre, where Hindus and Christians were singled out and executed on the basis of their religion. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Berkeley and Harvard students were concerned about Hinduphobia, some MIT students were more worried, though, about Palestinian victims of war. Megha Vemuri, a computation and cognition student ('science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)' presumably, and not 'humanities'), won admiration and censure (from different quarters) after giving a pro-Palestine speech at the commencement. This article tries to analyse how Hindus typically respond to news concerning US colleges and identifies some institutional realities (and possibilities) which Hindu students, parents, and other stakeholders in US higher education from India should become aware of if they wish to ever acquire a little more clarity and influence. It comes from the personal and professional experience not of a political or community leader but that of an American liberal arts professor who believes that the emergence of a genuine Hindu voice in American humanities and social sciences is long overdue. It will be good for both American society and the well-being of Indian-descent students who are increasingly failing to find a purpose rooted in sanatana dharma for their lives and careers and pursue it instead in what they think is the most burning issue of the day, which is protecting Palestinians, Kashmiris, and other minorities facing persecution from 'Hindutvas' and 'Zionists'. Now, it may well be the case that these students are correct, and worried Hindu uncles and aunties on the internet are wrong. After all, these students and their parents are smart and accomplished and get into the most prestigious universities in the world. But, all the same, it is worth making the case that there might be things they don't know, just as there are things that their critics on social media, who are many, also do not know. On one side is the certainty that students who fight Zionism and Hindutva are on the morally righteous path of history. On the other side is the view that such students (and their parents or their teachers) are zombies or 'useful idiots' who are supporting imperialist religious bigotry and terrorist violence against Hindus, Jews, and others designated as 'Kafirs'. This is the reality of university life. There are a lot of different beliefs and opinions floating around, but as teachers and students, we have a duty to keep the focus on learning and on keeping learning open. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Anti-Establishmentarian Establishment The first theme to recognise is that the majority of Hindu parents in America quite likely do not share the frustration and anger that erupts in Hindu and Indian 'RW' social media circles whenever incidents like the above are reported. It is a folly on the part of those in the latter circles to assume otherwise. Most immigrant Indian parents in America are tightly focused on measuring their children's progress through the lens of career success, and their child giving a speech on an issue that half the country's cultural, educational, business, and political establishment backs will not bother them. They share that establishment's view that this is a moral issue and know deep down that it is also not a really dangerous or self-defeating view. The genius of 'woke' issues in recent times is that they allow people to think they are anti-establishment while actually doing the work of the same. For Gen X or older Millennial parents who have left 'religion' behind, STEM success and establishment-sanctioned moral politics are the new faith. And even for parents who still remain religious in some sense, there is a convenient discourse available now which argues that the ideal way to be a Hindu today is to support the human rights of persecuted groups like Palestinians, Kashmiris, victims of Hindutva and Zionism, and Brahmanism, and so on. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Then, there are other parents who do worry a little when they see incidents such as this but satisfy themselves that as long as their children get good marks and jobs, none of this will affect them anyway. A subset of them might get involved with some sort of voluntary work for what the community calls Hindu 'advocacy', educating lawmakers, canvassing voter support, and so on. Students and Teachers Should Lead the Change, Not Lobbies and 'Leaders' The second theme pertains to the patterns of response within this last subsection. No doubt, the numbers of people and the number of Hindu voluntary organisations trying to do something have grown in the last two decades. They face severe challenges in terms of resources and know-how, as well as 'know-why', a problem in social-historical self-knowledge, which we explain further below. But the pattern of response here is typically to host a bunch of online talks and then move from one gathering or 'awareness day' to the next. But we rarely see organising oriented towards securing long-term institutional changes in universities. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Right from the 1960s, most changes in academia have happened as a result of universities agreeing to set up tenured faculty positions for specific areas of study demanded by student groups. University administrators take student needs seriously in America, and so do faculty. If students point out a gap in a curriculum or systemic flaws in how a student constituency is being taught about in the relevant area studies or identity studies courses, they may well be invited to join in the conversation to create a course or program. If students make the case in a sustained scholarly manner (usually with help from sympathetic vanguard academic mentors), then the university will find the funds to create a position and fill it. If, say, a university agreed to create a tenure track position in Hinduphobia Studies or Hindu Human Rights, it will imply that every academic year, anywhere from 100 to 300 students (depending on the size of the campus) of all backgrounds, not just Hindus, will be educated, formally, in issues which so far have remained only in easily ignorable online spaces. And if that professor stays on and gets tenured, you are looking at a 30-year project or 30 multiplied by 100-300 students who have been exposed to their ideas over three decades. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of students can get educated on human rights issues faced by Hindus, and not just in a fleeting online or weekend gathering format, but in an in-depth seminar meeting for several hours every week for a whole semester. Learning is built in-depth, and so is a long-term legacy for this body of learning in society at large as students graduate and go to work in humanities professions like teaching, arts, writing, journalism, media, film-making, social work, politics, diplomacy, and so on. This basic reality is something most other communities in US colleges are aware of. For instance, in the last two years of sweeping pro-Palestine activism on campuses, one of the demands universities have acceded to is exactly this – more tenured positions and programmes in Palestine studies. Hindu organisations trying to offer moral and social support to Hindu college students, on the other hand, tend to approach campus Hindu issues in a top-down manner, completely bypassing the educational component of the Hindu student experience. They seem overly obsessed with framing the problem as a 'religious' need issue, ignoring the core academic elephant in the room, and demanding cosmetic 'student life' things like a prayer room or a 'recognition note' or a 'Hindu Chaplain'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Hindus Should Talk Human Rights, Not Multicultural Platitudes These demands don't pose any challenge to the academic status quo or its main product, which is a false story about Hindus, Hinduism, and India today. Demanding recognition or praise for a religion in campus life outside of the classroom merely skirts around the issue and often backfires too. 'Islamophobia' and 'antisemitism' are understood on US campuses by faculty, students, and administrators as human rights issues, whereas anything 'Hindu' comes across to them as a demand for just one religion to be treated like it's 'special'. That is one reason for the deep inertia on campuses when it comes to Hindu issues (based on personal experience, once again, of three decades in US universities and very specific conversations to this effect). On that note, one wonders, for example, how the Berkeley student officials might have reacted if the demand was made not for a 'Hindu Heritage Month' with a focus on how successful Hindu Americans have been in America (which often defeats the messaging about 'Hinduphobia' later) but simply and directly for an 'Anti-Hindu Racism and Genocide Awareness Month', forcing opponents to really reconsider which side of racism they want to be on. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Demonstrating bias, error, and egregious racism inside the institution's core product itself, its 'knowledge' about us, and demanding our right to speak to it, is the only duty we have if in a university. And on this point, one more nuance needs to be understood. There are many more subjects beyond just 'religion' or 'Hinduism Studies' in which proper, academically guided engagement needs to take place. Community leaders and groups have in the past taken a helicopter view, assuming that all they had to do was to raise donations to buy India or Hinduism Chairs, and the problem vanishes. Unfortunately, this did not win the grace of the Goddess of Learning, and it seems that at least that lesson has been learnt. The Tamas-Rajas Trap The third theme, a key one in understanding our diagnosis here, has to do with why the obvious path towards long-term change hasn't been sighted, let alone pursued with determination by the Hindu community here. Rather than the usual blame games or the usual clichés about 'lack of unity', one may gain from a yogic view. Hindu responses to the deeply entrenched problems of Hinduphobia in the academia, in the media, and in the world at large seem to swing between a state of 'Rajas' and 'Tamas.' In the past ten years or so, the following pattern has played out numerous times. There are long periods of silence, punctuated by very routine, low-key, non-controversial cultural events and gatherings by Hindu or Indian students. At this same time, other initiatives, often bearing the signature worldview and institutional legitimacy and heft of South Asia studies faculty and their allies, progress very quickly. Professors get other professors and activists and lobbyists to come to campuses to speak about Hindutva and caste. Documentaries are screened about Hindu patriarchy and violence (but never about, say, the devastating phenomenon of 'grooming gangs' in the UK). Peer pressure grows enormously on the vast number of silent, usually STEM-focused Indian students, to the point where even their non-controversial activities like celebrating Holi or Diwali suddenly become a political and moral choice they have to make. Usually around this time, a small group of students get emboldened. Their friends, from former students to community leaders, step in to advise them. Suddenly, there is a big-name event advertised, usually featuring a controversial speaker, usually a non-academic, and usually from India. Backlash ensues. After a brief bout of Rajassic assertiveness, the Tamas returns. For months, maybe years, students become overcautious and refrain from speaking up even when legitimacy and timing are on their side. In this Rajas-Tamas brashness and timidity cycle, the 'Satvic' moment rarely gets to stick, unfortunately. Truth: There is a Threat, and There is Fear The fourth and last theme to consider here is that of ignorance and fear. We do not say 'ignorance' in a judgemental manner, but to merely connote a lack of information, understanding, and experience in navigating educational institutions as a minority community and in surviving more generally in a host society where xenophobia and religious racism are clearly rising on both sides of their political divide. Hopefully, the first part of this problem, which is the fear of making institutional demands from universities that Hindu students, parents and community leaders (who are invariably from outside academia, or at least the pertinent fields of study in academia) seem to have, will be usefully mitigated by the facts shared in this essay. Most of the time, when we swing from aggressive posturing to timid self-erasure in our actions, it may well be because we haven't learnt enough about the ecology we inhabit so as to centre ourselves in the balanced middle. A satvic understanding of what Hindu students today can do while in college to their home of four (or more) years so as to make it better for their younger siblings and descendants will be a wonderful quality to cultivate and practice. Unfortunately, there is a deeper problem of fear among Hindus which really needs to be talked about as well. A lot of modern Hindu behaviour in America can be understood in relation to this. Brash, successful, pro-Palestine 'HINO' Hindus (as they are called), as well as more culturally rooted and concerned Hindus worried about Hinduphobia, all have one reality they share. Hindus live in a world that is non-Hindu at best and anti-Hindu at worst. We are all coping with it. 'HINO' Hindus believe they have achieved top-level cosmopolitanism and that there is no such thing as anti-Hindu bigotry or prejudice in the world. What they don't realise is that there is something in the social and political ecology of the world which has turned them, in just two or three generations from their grandparents' time, into whatever deracinated cosmopolitan far-right jihadist-supporting personas they now inhabit. They are, in a way, converts, not to the usual converting religions, but to the extremely superficial and shaky religion of selectively secular progressivism. It gives them an air of certainty and comfort and even superiority. But from the time of the Inquisitions to the present, a coercive system will always demand purity tests. Even someone as American, Californian, and culturally cosmopolitan as former Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, was accused of being a Brahmin supremacist by some activists. But for Hindus in America who still like to think they are spiritually and culturally active and would like to see the same in their otherwise materially successful children going to college, that fear plays out in a different way. They have found a way to cope by downplaying the threats which produce that fear and exaggerating the things which they think can counteract those threats: their education, economic status, model-minority good conduct, faith in liberal democracy, avoiding controversy and so on. They look at other immigrants who are successful and imitate each other, confining Hinduism to safe and tested routines like temples, hurried weekend classes for children, and, of late, a little bit of engagement with politicians, usually to get 'recognition' proclamations passed. With the rise of the internet and social media, they have become more aware of problems and threats but have also fallen into the inertia of false security and complacency in gatherings and numbers. But the fact that they rarely go beyond talking about problems to doing what actually needs to be done (in higher education, in the case of this article) shows they are perhaps paralysed by fear too, sometimes, quite literally. In a recent planning meeting for Hindu parents organising children's weekend classes for the coming year, a suggestion to include college experience 'reality check' orientation sessions for high school students by professors and old students from the program now in college led to some strangely confused, silent responses, with people staring down at the floor and freezing up in tension! No wonder some Hindu American parents lament that their children loved Hinduism and Indian culture when in school but turned viciously anti-Hindu in college. Colleges will teach your children in their Hinduism, South Asian history and politics, or diaspora studies classes that their innocent childhood memories of going to Bala Vikas or Bala Vihar were actually wrong and that these were Hindu nationalist indoctrination camps. That's what is published in peer-reviewed journals and books, and that's what is prescribed, and that's what will be taught (not always, but in most cases). The professors in many cases may not actually know better, and the students who do know better unfortunately have never been taught by parents or elders that they do have a right, indeed a duty, to speak up and assert the truth. And now, as more and more unhappy stories emerge, whether it is of extreme violence like Pahalgam or extreme self-censorship over it by Hindu students and parents, the elephant in the room has to be named. Maybe 'Hinduphobia' is a term that should be re-understood not as bigotry or aversion against Hindus but simply as the Hindu state of perpetual fear of being Hindu. Smash the Hinduphobia – at Home, First! The cause of that fear is not paranoia but the fact that there is a threat, and even those who avoid seeing it perhaps know it deep down in their hearts. To get out of this paralysis, though, is possible. Borrowed clichés from American liberalism or right-wingism won't do it. We must return to our ancient critical tradition of saying Neti, Neti. We have to reject the models of learning we were drilled into by schools and colleges and corporate employers and peer groups which have turned us into mere employable robots and stop trying to force-fit our resplendent cultural traditions and expressions into the fringes and anonymous cubicles of modern society. We must stop asking for small favours from modern institutions and rise to look at our role as the big favour we are about to do for all of them, given how much their 'brotherhood of man' dreams swinging between Left and Right extremes have failed and how we still carry the energy and purpose and protection of our 'motherhood of god' traditions in us. We must learn, however we can, to learn again. We have to become, each, our own cultural and spiritual revolutionary schools. A saffron storm must rise over these overrated racist hold-outs and teach them what it means to learn and to live under our mother earth's reign once again. Vamsee Juluri is Professor of Media Studies, University of San Francisco. He has authored several books, including 'Rearming Hinduism: Nature, Hinduphobia and the Return of Indian Intelligence' (Westland, 2015). C Raghothama Rao is a writer, podcaster and YouTuber. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
India Gazette
09-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Vance's statement on India-Pak tensions reflects Trump admin's broad view of foreign policy: US-based expert
Washington, DC [US], May 9 (ANI): US Vice President JD Vance's statement on tensions between India and Pakistan demonstrates Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy, which is the US not overextending itself in international affairs according to the US-based policy expert Michael Kugelman. Kugelman, the Director of the South Asia Institute at The Wilson Center in an interview with ANI pointed out the change in the Trump administration's foreign policy and recalled how the administration during the 2019 crisis engaged between India and Pakistan. When asked about Vance's statement that US will not play a role between India and Pakistan at this point, he responded, 'It's notable in that on the one hand, he is reiterating what has been a consistent message from the US government throughout this crisis, and that is that the US wants to see de-escalation, that it does not want to see more escalation. But I think it is notable and that it is a bit of a contrast from the messaging we've heard from the State Department, which has been emphasizing not only de-escalation, but the fact that the US has been engaged with the Indian and Pakistani governments. We've heard that the Secretary of State Rubio has been speaking to his counterparts in Islamabad and New Delhi several times over the course of the crisis.' 'But I think on the whole, the read I have of what Vance said is that it really reflects the Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy and that is that the US not be overextending itself in international affairs and that it's happy to express its desire for India and Pakistan to de-escalate, but that the US is not going to expend significant levels of bandwidth to try to get the two sides to deescalate and that would be a significant change from the first Trump administration, where we know that during the 2019 crisis, the Trump administration was heavily engaged,' he said. 'Several senior officials were working very closely, engaging with the Indian and Pakistani sides. So, that is notable, it seems to be a bit of a change and suggests that the US commitment to full-scale mediation may not be there as much as it was during the first Trump administration. But I would say this, if the crisis worsens, if the hostilities increase, then I would not be surprised if despite what Vance says that the US would then become much more engaged. The US does not have an interest in an escalation. It does not want there to be a conflict between India and Pakistan,' he said. While speaking to Fox News, Vance said that although the United States can ask both parties to de-escalate, it cannot get involved in the conflict. 'Fundamentally, India has its gripes with Pakistan. Pakistan has responded to India, what we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit. But we are not going to get involved in the middle they were fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it,' Vance told Fox News. When asked whether he sees third parties like Russia or China responding to the situation at this point, Kugelman responded, 'We know that there's a pretty strong international consensus in favor of de-escalation, but I think it's a fairly small number of countries that would be in a position to try to mediate this crisis. And certainly the US would have to be a top candidate just because there is a precedent. I we know that the U.S. has been active in mediation efforts in 2019 and also in 1999 during the Kargil crisis, those are the two that come to mind. The US has, of course, a very warm relationship with India and has a very good relationship with Pakistan as well. But I think that it might be, there might be more viable mediation candidates further afield. They would not, in my view, include China. There's been a lot of talk about the role that China could play.' 'But I think that China's significance in this crisis lies more in the security realm than in the diplomatic realm. China, course, is a significant supplier of arms to Pakistan and, you know, there's indications that we've received in terms of recent reports that Chinese weaponry or Chinese-made weaponry has been used by Pakistan during this crisis. But I think in terms of mediation, China has strong relations with Pakistan, but its relationship with India is sufficiently fraught that I suspect that New Delhi would not view China as a viable mediator. I think that we're thinking about third party involvement in terms of mediation, I would certainly identify the Arab Gulf States, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, just because they all have very strong relations with both India and Pakistan. They supply fuel and other products to India and Pakistan, which I think gives them some leverage and there's a precedent with in 2021, the UAE helped mediate the discussions and negotiations that led to the LOC truce back in 2021,' he added. He said that if reports claiming that the Pakistani army leadership attended the funeral prayers of those who were targeted in India's strikes would be dreadful for Pakistan, as Islamabad has for long claimed that India is mistaken when it talks about terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. On Pakistan army leadership attending funeral prayers, where LeT terrorists were present, he said, 'Well, I mean, if these reports are true, if they're verified, the optics would be dreadful for Pakistan, given that Pakistan has insisted for quite some time that India is mistaken when it talks of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. We know that the terrorist infrastructure is there. But if it's true that you have members of proscribed anti-India terrorist groups that are out in the the optics of that are not good, obviously if you have military officers with them, it makes things even worse. It essentially validates the argument that India has been putting out there for so long. But I say that if these reports are verified, I think that, this would also speak to the broader challenge that lies for India.' 'We know that it has sought for quite some time to try to degrade the threat posed by cross-border terrorism, posed by anti-India terrorists based in Pakistan and there have been kinetic actions undertaken by India in the past, 2019, 2016, going back that before that, but clearly, this has not made the problem go away and so if it's true that you have terrorists out there in the open attending funeral services, I think it reflects how India really needs to have a broader plan, which I think it does, meant to tackle and really eradicate this terrorism problem once and for all. And I think that grand plan would entail not only military action, but also broader punitive steps that are non-military in nature and I think where we've seen that in terms of some of the initiatives, steps announced by India in recent days in terms of trying to cut off trade, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, using water as leverage, trying to pressure Pakistan's funders to cut off assistance. It seems that India is trying to do more to address this problem of cross-border terrorism that has proven so difficult to tackle for so long,' he added. During the briefing on 'Operation Sindoor' in Delhi on Thursday, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri displayed a photograph of Pakistan army personnel attending the funeral of terrorists killed in the Indian military strikes under 'Operation Sindoor' and said that it is 'odd that the funerals of civilians are carried out with the coffins being draped in Pakistani flags and state honours being accorded'. He said that people wanted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take action after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, which claimed the lives of 26 people and injured several others. He said that many of us expected that India would eventually carry out strikes to target terrorists. On how he sees domestic politics playing out in this larger picture, he stated, 'I think domestic political factors are very strong in both cases, both India and Pakistan. I think that the Modi government was under significant pressure from the public to do something after the horrific terrorist attack in Kashmir last month. And the Modi government projects itself as strong, as decisive, and willing to hit back at terrorism. So, I think that so many of us expected that India would eventually carry out airstrikes and India targeting terrorists that were behind these attacks. But I think that the pressure made the decision even easier, so to speak, in the sense that had the Modi government not acted, it would have been extremely politically damaging, I would argue.' He said that civilian and military leadership in Pakistan had been unpopular for quite some time and called this crisis helpful for civilian and military leadership as it enables the government and the military to rally the public's support around them. However, he warned that war is the last thing that the Pakistan's civilian and military leadership can afford since it is facing economic stress and upsurge in terrorism. On the domestic politics in Pakistan amid the ongoing tensions, he responded, 'On the Pakistani side, it's a bit of a different case. As you know, the civilian and military leadership in Pakistan had been quite unpopular for quite some time. And I would argue that this crisis actually is very helpful politically for the civilian and military leadership, in that it enables the government and the military to rally the public and rally the country around them, around the government and the military and hope to win back some goodwill and trust, particularly because, you know, in the case of the military, it's an opportunity to point to this notion of a threat posed by India. And the military has tended to use that notion of an Indian threat as justification for its outsized role in politics and statecraft and so on. So, now the military can say, look, we're facing this onslaught, we're facing these attacks from India, this is our moment to rally together and go after this threat, so to speak. So in that sense, I think the military gets a bit of a political boost out of this. And given that there's been pretty strong anti-army sentiment within the public in Pakistan in recent years, I think this is an opportunity to bring the country together to try to transcend all of this political polarization and essentially rally the country around the military that it's viewed as this protector that needs to have that strong role serving as a safeguard for Pakistan in the face of this Indian threat.' 'So. bottom line, political benefits abound, I think at least in the immediate term for the Pakistani state. Now, if there were to be an actual conflict, if there were to be a war, which I think is unlikely, but if that were to happen, that's where I think the disadvantages come out and the benefits go away. In that, Pakistan's civilian and military leadership confronting economic stress and upsurge in terrorism and the last thing that the country can afford is a war, which would clearly set back the economy and I think it could lead to a very chaotic situation where terrorists would try to exploit security forces being diverted to the border with India focused on that conflict and terrorists could try to do more damage in Pakistan if there were to be a war and that clearly does not benefit the government's interest or the military's interests,' he added. About the impact on economy if there is prolonged tensions between India and Pakistan, he stated, 'I think that for India, the main concern would be stock, how markets would respond, how markets would react. We know that markets don't react well to uncertainty and volatility and obviously there's nothing more representative of a very volatile and predictable situation than this growing crisis between India and Pakistan. So, I think that the market effects could be pretty significant for India. I think that at this point for India, at least the economic impacts would not go beyond these concerns for markets. If we were actually going to go into a conflict, then it's a whole other story. But, I think that India, I just because generally speaking, its macro economy is in a very good position, growth has been strong. I think it can withstand these market pressures and market concerns so long as we're not looking at an actual conflict.' He stated that Pakistan's economy is more vulnerable, and the market perceptions would not be good. He noted that there is volatility in Pakistan considering factors like terrorism, situation in Balochistan and other things happening in the country. 'Pakistan is different, its economy is more vulnerable. Certainly the market perceptions would not be good, that would not help Pakistan's economy overall. Pakistan's macro economy has stabilized a bit in recent months with inflation having gone down and the currency performing better and foreign reserves in better shape. So it is a bit more strength there. Again, the situation changes if you were to have an actual war, but given, given what our inherent,, volatility is in Pakistan because of terrorism, the incidence of terrorism and just the broader volatilities of the country with Balochistan and all it has going there and the rest of nature of so much of the country. I think there's always going to be some investor jitters even in the best of times and for investors to see this very serious crisis between Pakistan and India, I think that that could add to those jitters just a bit, especially if there are no indications that there's going to be a de-escalation anytime soon,' he added. About his impression on a realistic path to de-escalation in the short term, he responded, 'I think that each side has to reach a point where they can claim victory for something and essentially at that point decide that they could call it a day and I'm not sure if we're at that point yet. I think that India initially had thought that its airstrikes in Pakistan could qualify as that victory because the way they were depicted, these were very robust strikes that clearly targeted areas where some of the most potent anti-India terrorist groups have been based, including southern Punjab. But I think because of the escalations that happened after that, I think that's become a bit moot. Now Pakistan has done violations over the last few days. I suspect that that idea might not be valid either, but it's just very difficult to know where things are going at this point. My sense is that this is not going to turn into a war and that within a few days or so, things will start to wind down. But, you know, I'll say this, Pakistan's messaging has been quite aggressive in the sense that it has continued to vow retaliation for the Indian airstrikes and I suspect that for Pakistan, the ideal time to say that it's achieved what it wanted to do and that it could step back would be a situation where it could deliver a proportionate response to India, relative to India's initial strikes.' 'And we know that India's initial strikes were in Pakistan, administered Kashmir, and they were also in Punjab. That suggests that Pakistan, which to this point, so far as I know, has only directed military activities in might hope at some point soon to try to direct some of its military action in India more broadly, one strike.I don't know, I don't want to speculate, but again, if the idea is a proportionate response compared to what India did, that suggests that Pakistan might not think it's done yet. This all remains to be seen. There are other factors here that I think could impact the timeframe here. If external mediation is successful, then I think that would mean that we could see de-escalation sooner rather than later. But I'm not sure if either side is prepared for de-escalation just yet, given how much anger and strong emotions there are in each capital. Now, I suspect that it could be a bit more time, but I do think that in due course in the coming days, this will start to wind down,' he added. India, on early Wednesday, carried out precision strikes at the terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Operation Sindoor, launched by Indian forces, targeted nine terror sites, which were successfully hit. Over 100 terrorists were eliminated in a series of precision strikes, according to sources. The operation, aimed at avenging the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed, remains underway, making it challenging to provide an exact casualty count of the terrorists at this stage, sources further stated. Meanwhile, during the intervening night of May 8 and May 9, the Indian Army successfully repelled and decisively responded to multiple drone attacks and ceasefire violations by Pakistan along the western border and the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Army stated. The Indian Army said, 'Pakistan Armed Forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along entire Western Border on the intervening night of 08 and 09 May 2025. Pak troops also resorted to numerous cease fire violations (CFVs) along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed and befitting reply was given to the CFVs. Indian Army remains committed to safeguarding the sovereignity and territorial integrity of the Nation. All nefarious designs will be responded with force.' (ANI)
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Vance's statement on India-Pak tensions reflects Trump admin's broad view of foreign policy: US-based expert
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel US Vice President JD Vance 's statement on tensions between India and Pakistan demonstrates Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy, which is the US not overextending itself in international affairs according to the US-based policy expert Michael Kugelman Kugelman, the Director of the South Asia Institute at The Wilson Center in an interview with pointed out the change in the Trump administration's foreign policy and recalled how the administration during the 2019 crisis engaged between India and asked about Vance 's statement that US will not play a role between India and Pakistan at this point, he responded, "It's notable in that on the one hand, he is reiterating what has been a consistent message from the US government throughout this crisis, and that is that the US wants to see de-escalation, that it does not want to see more escalation. But I think it is notable and that it is a bit of a contrast from the messaging we've heard from the State Department, which has been emphasizing not only de-escalation, but the fact that the US has been engaged with the Indian and Pakistani governments. We've heard that the Secretary of State Rubio has been speaking to his counterparts in Islamabad and New Delhi several times over the course of the crisis.""But I think on the whole, the read I have of what Vance said is that it really reflects the Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy and that is that the US not be overextending itself in international affairs and that it's happy to express its desire for India and Pakistan to de-escalate, but that the US is not going to expend significant levels of bandwidth to try to get the two sides to deescalate and that would be a significant change from the first Trump administration, where we know that during the 2019 crisis, the Trump administration was heavily engaged," he said."Several senior officials were working very closely, engaging with the Indian and Pakistani sides. So, that is notable, it seems to be a bit of a change and suggests that the US commitment to full-scale mediation may not be there as much as it was during the first Trump administration. But I would say this, if the crisis worsens, if the hostilities increase, then I would not be surprised if despite what Vance says that the US would then become much more engaged. The US does not have an interest in an escalation. It does not want there to be a conflict between India and Pakistan," he speaking to Fox News , Vance said that although the United States can ask both parties to de-escalate, it cannot get involved in the conflict. "Fundamentally, India has its gripes with Pakistan. Pakistan has responded to India, what we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit. But we are not going to get involved in the middle they were fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it," Vance told Fox asked whether he sees third parties like Russia or China responding to the situation at this point, Kugelman responded, "We know that there's a pretty strong international consensus in favour of de-escalation, but I think it's a fairly small number of countries that would be in a position to try to mediate this crisis. And certainly the US would have to be a top candidate just because there is a precedent. I we know that the U.S. has been active in mediation efforts in 2019 and also in 1999 during the Kargil crisis, those are the two that come to mind. The US has, of course, a very warm relationship with India and has a very good relationship with Pakistan as well. But I think that it might be, there might be more viable mediation candidates further afield. They would not, in my view, include China. There's been a lot of talk about the role that China could play.""But I think that China's significance in this crisis lies more in the security realm than in the diplomatic realm. China, course, is a significant supplier of arms to Pakistan and, you know, there's indications that we've received in terms of recent reports that Chinese weaponry or Chinese-made weaponry has been used by Pakistan during this crisis. But I think in terms of mediation, China has strong relations with Pakistan, but its relationship with India is sufficiently fraught that I suspect that New Delhi would not view China as a viable mediator. I think that we're thinking about third party involvement in terms of mediation, I would certainly identify the Arab Gulf States, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, just because they all have very strong relations with both India and Pakistan. They supply fuel and other products to India and Pakistan, which I think gives them some leverage and there's a precedent with in 2021, the UAE helped mediate the discussions and negotiations that led to the LOC truce back in 2021," he said that if reports claiming that the Pakistani army leadership attended the funeral prayers of those who were targeted in India's strikes would be dreadful for Pakistan, as Islamabad has for long claimed that India is mistaken when it talks about terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan army leadership attending funeral prayers, where LeT terrorists were present, he said, "Well, I mean, if these reports are true, if they're verified, the optics would be dreadful for Pakistan, given that Pakistan has insisted for quite some time that India is mistaken when it talks of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. We know that the terrorist infrastructure is there. But if it's true that you have members of proscribed anti-India terrorist groups that are out in the public. Obviously, the optics of that are not good, obviously if you have military officers with them, it makes things even worse. It essentially validates the argument that India has been putting out there for so long. But I say that if these reports are verified, I think that, this would also speak to the broader challenge that lies for India.""We know that it has sought for quite some time to try to degrade the threat posed by cross-border terrorism, posed by anti-India terrorists based in Pakistan and there have been kinetic actions undertaken by India in the past, 2019, 2016, going back that before that, but clearly, this has not made the problem go away and so if it's true that you have terrorists out there in the open attending funeral services, I think it reflects how India really needs to have a broader plan, which I think it does, meant to tackle and really eradicate this terrorism problem once and for all. And I think that grand plan would entail not only military action, but also broader punitive steps that are non-military in nature and I think where we've seen that in terms of some of the initiatives, steps announced by India in recent days in terms of trying to cut off trade, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, using water as leverage, trying to pressure Pakistan's funders to cut off assistance. It seems that India is trying to do more to address this problem of cross-border terrorism that has proven so difficult to tackle for so long," he the briefing on 'Operation Sindoor' in Delhi on Thursday, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri displayed a photograph of Pakistan army personnel attending the funeral of terrorists killed in the Indian military strikes under 'Operation Sindoor' and said that it is "odd that the funerals of civilians are carried out with the coffins being draped in Pakistani flags and state honours being accorded".He said that people wanted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take action after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, which claimed the lives of 26 people and injured several others. He said that many of us expected that India would eventually carry out strikes to target how he sees domestic politics playing out in this larger picture, he stated, "I think domestic political factors are very strong in both cases, both India and Pakistan. I think that the Modi government was under significant pressure from the public to do something after the horrific terrorist attack in Kashmir last month. And the Modi government projects itself as strong, as decisive, and willing to hit back at terrorism. So, I think that so many of us expected that India would eventually carry out airstrikes and India targeting terrorists that were behind these attacks. But I think that the pressure made the decision even easier, so to speak, in the sense that had the Modi government not acted, it would have been extremely politically damaging, I would argue."He said that civilian and military leadership in Pakistan had been unpopular for quite some time and called this crisis helpful for civilian and military leadership as it enables the government and the military to rally the public's support around them. However, he warned that war is the last thing that the Pakistan's civilian and military leadership can afford since it is facing economic stress and upsurge in the domestic politics in Pakistan amid the ongoing tensions, he responded, "On the Pakistani side, it's a bit of a different case. As you know, the civilian and military leadership in Pakistan had been quite unpopular for quite some time. And I would argue that this crisis actually is very helpful politically for the civilian and military leadership, in that it enables the government and the military to rally the public and rally the country around them, around the government and the military and hope to win back some goodwill and trust, particularly because, you know, in the case of the military, it's an opportunity to point to this notion of a threat posed by India. And the military has tended to use that notion of an Indian threat as justification for its outsized role in politics and statecraft and so on. So, now the military can say, look, we're facing this onslaught, we're facing these attacks from India, this is our moment to rally together and go after this threat, so to speak. So in that sense, I think the military gets a bit of a political boost out of this. And given that there's been pretty strong anti-army sentiment within the public in Pakistan in recent years, I think this is an opportunity to bring the country together to try to transcend all of this political polarization and essentially rally the country around the military that it's viewed as this protector that needs to have that strong role serving as a safeguard for Pakistan in the face of this Indian threat.""So. bottom line, political benefits abound, I think at least in the immediate term for the Pakistani state. Now, if there were to be an actual conflict, if there were to be a war, which I think is unlikely, but if that were to happen, that's where I think the disadvantages come out and the benefits go away. In that, Pakistan's civilian and military leadership confronting economic stress and upsurge in terrorism and the last thing that the country can afford is a war, which would clearly set back the economy and I think it could lead to a very chaotic situation where terrorists would try to exploit security forces being diverted to the border with India focused on that conflict and terrorists could try to do more damage in Pakistan if there were to be a war and that clearly does not benefit the government's interest or the military's interests," he the impact on economy if there is prolonged tensions between India and Pakistan, he stated, "I think that for India, the main concern would be stock, how markets would respond, how markets would react. We know that markets don't react well to uncertainty and volatility and obviously there's nothing more representative of a very volatile and predictable situation than this growing crisis between India and Pakistan. So, I think that the market effects could be pretty significant for India. I think that at this point for India, at least the economic impacts would not go beyond these concerns for markets. If we were actually going to go into a conflict, then it's a whole other story. But, I think that India, I just because generally speaking, its macro economy is in a very good position, growth has been strong. I think it can withstand these market pressures and market concerns so long as we're not looking at an actual conflict."He stated that Pakistan's economy is more vulnerable, and the market perceptions would not be good. He noted that there is volatility in Pakistan considering factors like terrorism, situation in Balochistan and other things happening in the country."Pakistan is different, its economy is more vulnerable. Certainly the market perceptions would not be good, that would not help Pakistan's economy overall. Pakistan's macro economy has stabilized a bit in recent months with inflation having gone down and the currency performing better and foreign reserves in better shape. So it is a bit more strength there. Again, the situation changes if you were to have an actual war, but given, given what our inherent,, volatility is in Pakistan because of terrorism, the incidence of terrorism and just the broader volatilities of the country with Balochistan and all it has going there and the rest of nature of so much of the country. I think there's always going to be some investor jitters even in the best of times and for investors to see this very serious crisis between Pakistan and India, I think that that could add to those jitters just a bit, especially if there are no indications that there's going to be a de-escalation anytime soon," he his impression on a realistic path to de-escalation in the short term, he responded, "I think that each side has to reach a point where they can claim victory for something and essentially at that point decide that they could call it a day and I'm not sure if we're at that point yet. I think that India initially had thought that its airstrikes in Pakistan could qualify as that victory because the way they were depicted, these were very robust strikes that clearly targeted areas where some of the most potent anti-India terrorist groups have been based, including southern Punjab. But I think because of the escalations that happened after that, I think that's become a bit moot. Now Pakistan has done violations over the last few days. I suspect that that idea might not be valid either, but it's just very difficult to know where things are going at this point. My sense is that this is not going to turn into a war and that within a few days or so, things will start to wind down. But, you know, I'll say this, Pakistan's messaging has been quite aggressive in the sense that it has continued to vow retaliation for the Indian airstrikes and I suspect that for Pakistan, the ideal time to say that it's achieved what it wanted to do and that it could step back would be a situation where it could deliver a proportionate response to India, relative to India's initial strikes.""And we know that India's initial strikes were in Pakistan, administered Kashmir, and they were also in Punjab. That suggests that Pakistan, which to this point, so far as I know, has only directed military activities in might hope at some point soon to try to direct some of its military action in India more broadly, one strike. I don't know, I don't want to speculate, but again, if the idea is a proportionate response compared to what India did, that suggests that Pakistan might not think it's done yet. This all remains to be seen. There are other factors here that I think could impact the timeframe here. If external mediation is successful, then I think that would mean that we could see de-escalation sooner rather than later. But I'm not sure if either side is prepared for de-escalation just yet, given how much anger and strong emotions there are in each capital. Now, I suspect that it could be a bit more time, but I do think that in due course in the coming days, this will start to wind down," he on early Wednesday, carried out precision strikes at the terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Operation Sindoor, launched by Indian forces, targeted nine terror sites, which were successfully 100 terrorists were eliminated in a series of precision strikes, according to sources. The operation, aimed at avenging the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed, remains underway, making it challenging to provide an exact casualty count of the terrorists at this stage, sources further during the intervening night of May 8 and May 9, the Indian Army successfully repelled and decisively responded to multiple drone attacks and ceasefire violations by Pakistan along the western border and the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Army Indian Army said, " Pakistan Armed Forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along entire Western Border on the intervening night of 08 and 09 May 2025. Pak troops also resorted to numerous cease fire violations (CFVs) along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed and befitting reply was given to the CFVs. Indian Army remains committed to safeguarding the sovereignity and territorial integrity of the Nation. All nefarious designs will be responded with force."
Mint
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
JD Vance's ‘none of our business' remark on India-Pak tensions echoes Trump-era foreign policy, says Michael Kugelman
After US Vice-President JD Vance remarked that the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan is 'none of their business,' a Washington DC-based South Asia expert Michael Kugelman has said the comment reflects a 'broader shift in American foreign policy'. Kugelman, a prominent analyst and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Centre, suggested that Vance's statement aligns with the Trump administration's general stance on global affairs. 'I think on the whole, the read I have of what JD Vance said is that it really reflects the Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy,' Kugelman told media. 'That is, that the US should not be over-extending itself in international affairs.' He added that while Washington might support de-escalation in principle, it is unlikely to devote serious diplomatic resources to mediating the conflict. 'It's happy to express its desire for India and Pakistan to de-escalate, but the US is not going to expand significant levels of bandwidth to try to get the two sides to de-escalate,' Kugelman said. 'That would be a significant change from the first Trump administration.'
India.com
03-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Pahalgam terror attack: Is US' statement a setback for India when it is preparing a war with Pakistan? Experts explain
Pahalgam terror attack: Is US' statement a setback for India when it is preparing a war with Pakistan? Experts explain The US has given India the freedom to operate inside Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack. An US expert has said this in his analysis after the latest statement of Vice President JD Vance. The US expert said that Vance's statement has made it clear that America has no problem with India's retaliatory action as long as it does not provoke war. That is, US supports India's small-scale operation inside Pakistan. Vance had advised India to be cautious while reacting to the Pahalgam attack. Vance clarified US stand on tension 'Vice President Vance has made the US position on the India-Pakistan crisis somewhat clearer,' Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Washington-based Wilson Center, wrote on X. He further wrote that Vance 'in his latest comments appears to acknowledge India's counterterrorism imperatives and suggests that the US will not oppose India's response unless it is excessively aggressive.' What did Vance say? Vice President JD Vance has said that US hopes that India will respond to the Pahalgam terrorist attack in a way that does not lead to a 'broader regional conflict' and expects Pakistan to 'cooperate' with New Delhi to 'hunt down' militants sometimes operating from their soil. 'Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn't lead to a broader regional conflict,' Vance said on Fox News's 'Special Report'. 'And we hope, frankly, that Pakistan, to the extent that they're responsible, cooperates with India to make sure that the terrorists sometimes operating in their territory are hunted down and dealt with. That's how we hope this unfolds, we're obviously in close contact. We'll see what happens,' Vance said.
