Via SAJAForum, Senator Barack Obama has written a substantial Op-Ed (PDF) in India Abroad, outlining his appeal to Indian Americans. India Abroad doesn’t publish online, so we’re grateful to the SAFO people for posting the full text of it.
There are several paragraphs relating to Obama’s opposition to racial profiling and support for hate crimes legislation — that much we certainly knew. Also references to Mahatma Gandhi, his admiration for Indian success in technology fields, as well as points where he draws a comparison between his father (who came to the U.S. “without money, but with a student visa and a determination to succeed”) and the experiences of Indian immigrants. The Op-Ed is well thought-out and polished on the whole.
(Incidentally, is this the first time a Presidential Candidate has published such an Op-Ed type piece in an Indian American community paper? It’s certainly the first time I can remember seeing something like this.)
Something struck me on reading the paragraphs on Obama’s Pakistan policy:
The United States and India must work together to combat the common threats of the 21st century. We have both been victims of catastrophic terrorist attacks, and we have a shared interest in succeeding in the fight against al Qaeda and its operational and ideological affiliates. That fight must not be undercut by a misguided war in Iraq.
I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, arguing that we needed to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda†in Afghanistan. I have argued that we need to do more to roll back the al Qaeda sanctuary along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and that we cannot put all of our eggs in the Musharraf basket in Pakistan. That is why I proposed, long before the declaration of martial law in Pakistan, that we need to condition our assistance to the Pakistani government so that we encourage stronger action against al Qaeda and a restoration of democracy. Our goal remains not simply an ally in Pakistan – our goal is a democratic ally, with a vibrant civil society and strong institutions. (link)
The policy laid out here isn’t new — Obama was talking about this approach to Pakistan back in August (notably, before the State of Emergency, and before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto). But what is new might be the use the position is being put to: it may be that Obama’s hawkishness on Pakistan might eventually be an asset for him in appealing to Indian American voters (and perhaps more importantly, Indian American campaign money).
I wonder if Obama will be posting something similar in an English language Pakistani-American paper. If so, will he tweak the language at all, or keep it as is?
Push for democracy=hawkishness? Isn’t push for democrary=bleeding-heartedness? Also India is not anti-Musharraf. He was actually quite popular in India, and still might be (its hard to say from here). But its obvious to anyone that his time in Pakistan is up.
and you know this how?
I don’t think many Indians have forgiven him for his Kargil misadventure. If anything, Indians were happy that Bush tied his hands after 9/11.
and you know this how?
I guess one can only know this by reading different editorials, and public opinion surveys in magazines like India Today or stand near the paan shop all day long.
I think General Musharraf invokes mixed feeling in India (like most Pakistani leaders).
He is seen with little trust in India, due to Kargil, double talk to extremism, talking tough and sensible in English, and doing opposite in real life, and also saying something else in Urdu, etc.
However, he is also being complimented for being extremely sauve, bargaining for what he thinks is best for Pakistan, at least after 9/ 11 (a lot contrast him to Indian leaders bargaining powers internationally), and perhaps at least maintaining status quo vis-a-vis India (he has been on the record wanting LOC as the de-facto border).
All said, it is grey opinion about him in India, that is what I hear when I hang around the whole day at the nukkad paan shop.
My take has been that Musharraf, as the leader of “the enemy,” has actually been rather unpopular in India over the past 5-7 years, especially on the right. Part of it is Kargil, and part of it is this sense of “The ISI is responsible for every act of terrorism that takes place in India.” For the most part, my sources are right wing Indian blogs like Nitin Pai’s “The Acorn,” and Indian news channels like NDTV. Not exactly objective, admittedly, but there it is.
I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong if there is some evidence…
Interesting statement – interspersing strategic partnerships with universal healthcare. I assume he’s trying to appeal to both Indophilic first generation immigrants and their progressively minded kids.
I think Barack’s personal story, however, is key – don’t think that Hill and McCain can let Indian American voters know that they “get us” in the same way.
Come on, Amardeep. Don’t you think it’s an exercise in glibness and ideology to suggest that Obama’s statements on Pakistan are “hawkish” and done to curry (no pun intended) Indian American favor? He hardly talks about Pakistan in the editorial.
In my case a stern stance on Pakistan is another Obama “positive”. Though I would probably vote for him regardless.
Come on, Amardeep. Don’t you think it’s an exercise in glibness and ideology to suggest that Obama’s statements on Pakistan are “hawkish” and done to curry (no pun intended) Indian American favor? He hardly talks about Pakistan in the editorial.
AP, please read what I said carefully. I never said these views of Obama’s are specifically designed for IA’s, but rather that they might end up being an asset for him as he works to get support from the community. It’s something he can use (and is using here), which is not the same as pandering.
And I am not the only one who has described it as “hawkish.” I don’t think HRC has said anything about making support for Pakistan conditional on their good behavior. And both HRC and the republicans are now hitting Obama hard for saying he would “bomb Pakistan” (which is of course a distortion of what he said he would do) — so it’s certainly been interpreted as hawkish.
I don’t think it’s hawkish to point out that seven years after 9/11, it may be time to take a more active pursuit in getting Al Qaeda, rather than depending upon the Pakistani army.
I think it is a bit overly militaristic for Obama to be suggesting that, “if the US had actionable intelligence, and Pakistan did not act, that the US should do so unilaterally” (paraphrasing). It was done to tap into the ‘military-minded independent voter’ base, not with a particular eye on Indian-American voters. What he speaks of has already been happening, and for a good while. Just today there is this report:
13 Suspected Militants Killed in Pakistan
Whether this kind of unilateral, from-far-away, risking-collateral-damage action actually makes the problem better or worse is an open issue.
Another first I think is that Obama is the only significant American politician who bothered to learn how to say the word Pakistan the way South Asians do as opposed to the usual butchering of names that most American politicians do (they still cannot pronounce Afghanistan and Iraq despite the US being there for so many years).
And Amardeep, Kush has correctly expressed the feelings of a lot of Indians vis a vis Mushy. They do not trust or like him, but do think – albeit grudgingly – Mushy to have been a decent leader for Pakistan. Acorn is too obsessed with ideology to be a worthy source for most things.
I think Obama clarified his stance on the bomb Pakistan issue a few times. Just yesterday, a drone missile exploded in western Pakistan which would probably be traced back to the US and his stance is similar on this issue compared to what’s already being done. The politicians are just trying get some political mileage out of his words on the same though he should have been clearer and more diplomatic when he first made that statement.
Plus there is nothing wrong in pointing out that Pakistan has been taking the US for a ride, doing trifle little against terrorism in the area, has had a significant hand in Talibanization and spread of nuclear technology, etc etc.
Hello? Where is the nasally ‘n’ in Ji, Haa. It should be Ji Haan.
I agree with KXB that seven years is a long time. I also don’t think that there is anything wrong with making American support contingent upon Pakistan’s behaviour.
An aside, does anyone remember the reception Musharraf got when he visited Delhi, I recall it being largely positive. He was born in Delhi and visited his birth house in Darya Ganj during his visit.
An aside, does anyone remember the reception Musharraf got when he visited Delhi, I recall it being largely positive. He was born in Delhi and visited his birth house in Darya Ganj during his visit.
Even Pakistan does not have a ‘natural born’ provision for the head of their state!
By way of update, it is not the first time a Presidential candidate has written an oped for an Indian American publication — Senator Hillary Clinton wrote one for IA two weeks before the Obama oped; hers was less about policy, and more about her long standing attachment with India and the community.
It is also worth noting that after Obama first brought this up, the other major Democratic candidates all agreed with him. Though this hasn’t stopped some of them from trying to attack Obama on this issue to score political points.
The difference between Obama and Hillary, et al. is that Obama isn’t particularly concerned about kissing Indian ass, or Jewish ass, black ass or any other ass who thinks it is somehow better than the other asses in the world.
He does not have a hawkish policy on Pakistan, he has a hawkish policy on Al Queda, period. Convoluting the two may make some Indians giddy, but clearly, like many others, they simply don’t get it. But if that gets their rocks off, then bless them and I hope they vote for him.
That sounds like the opposite of hawkish, and immediately followed the paragraphs you quoted in your post, Amardeep.
they will say anything to get elected. obama is no different. thats the game they are in.
the media is playing a very crucial role in this election. they picked obama on day one. the day he announced he is standing as a candidate. although i’m indifferent who the democrats select – you can tell, that hillary is right is saying that obama has had a free run.
had hillary or (worst still) a republican had a similar free run the left-liberal types would have been up in arms about how the media runs everything.
i’d go with mccain.
FYI:
13 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
baybe he hath a code
22 · ptr_vivek said
HAHAHAHAHAHA! 😀
By popular I meant as popular as a Pakistani dictator who attacked India could be, so I admit popular was not the right word. But while there was initial mistrust, Vajpayee said TINA and started negotiations with Musharraf. He visited India and the Indian media and the chatterati generally seemed to like his savvy, and there were teary eyes all around when he visited his house in Delhi. The UPA has negotiated with him as well, so neither can call the other out on that. I have never heard anti-Musharraf rhetoric in India, and it is not an emotive issue with the Indian people. Its a strictly pragmatic issue, and as the situation in Kashmir seems to be normalizing, there seems little reason to rock the boat. Even now some Indian columnists such as Prem Shankar Jha are gung-ho about Musharraf.
The Acorn doesn’t like Musharraf (who does anymore?), but even they said that ‘the least bad way forward for Pakistan is to have Musharraf as a civilian president, Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister (or Leading Civilian Politician) and a clean-shaven, ‘friendly to the West, loyal to Musharraf’ General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani as army chief’. I don’t watch ndtv, but many others have been quite positive on Musharraf. This is what Outlook columnist Prem Shankar Jha wrote in 2006:
Even a week ago he said: “Far from Being redundant, Musharraf may well be Pakistan’s best bet for ensuring stability in the future.” Granted outlook is slightly left of centre, but I haven’t seen the right wing baying for his blood either: they have refused to make an issue out of him. So it is not as simple as Indians hate Musharraf. Indians just want peace in Kashmir and fewer terrorist attacks: they are not really interested in Musharraf’s future.
IMO Obama’s hawkishness is more for American consumption than Indian: his opponent is a war hero who’s vowed to get Osama from the gates of hell.
Even though he wants to bomb Pakistan, I loved that Obama pronounced it paa-kistan (quite delicately) rather than the standard packiztan. I look forward to hearing him pronounce Bangladesh without the obnoxious “BANG”!
As an Indian, I am anti-Musharraf not because I hate him but because I believe the Pakistani people deserve a chance. Democracy is not a panacea, but it is better than whimsical military dictatorships remote-controlled by foreign powers. But if I had to speak from a strictly pragmatic pro-Indian perspective, I’d say it’d be best for India to have a dictator running Pakistan, who is beholden to the US and is kept busy on Pakistan’s western borders by them. Democracy is far more uncertain.
.
This is the most distorted view of what he said. McCain repeated it and I think if it keeps going unchallenged it will become accepted as truth. This is what he said and it provides the context. Also it’s worth noting that the current administration is following the same policy:
i was being facetious 🙂
ah sorry … I’m a little slow 🙂 and touchy on this subject.
First gen immigrants by definition are far more progressive and adventurous than their kids. Try moving across the ocean to a vastly different country and setting up life there. Eg how many second desi Americans would move to Canada. Just because your best friend is Gay does not mean that you are Progressive. So lay off the first gen bashing.
Melbourne Desi,
I agree 100% sadly many second gens forget the experiences of their parents. Thankfully most commenters and contributors on this forum don’t share this opinion.
Haha i just realized Obama looks like Naseeruddin Shah!
Also, even after the BJP lost power, its flagship right-winger Advani met with Musharraf when he came to visit Manmohan Singh for peace talks.
Advani later visited Pakistan where he again met Musharraf:
So clearly the Indian mainstream was completely okay with dealing with Musharraf so long as he enjoyed the support of his people, as neither the NDA nor the UPA have faced any backlash for there extensive negotiations with him.
Excepting for the issue of American taxes, American resources and American foreign policy in the sub-continent region ( in the same plate as foreign policy towards iraq,middle-east or any other country) why should US-subcontinent relations be such an important issue at all for Indian-American voters? I think the question is how much of local issues and how much of policies relating to Indian-American personal business,financial,educational or retirement/emotional interests in sub-continent be the determinant in considering a candidate favourable to the Indian-American community ?
Interesting perspective on the “slanderous” accusations that Obama is Muslim, and the writer’s view that Obama should decry this “smear campaign” as racist.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/klein
I see the author’s viewpoint, but I think his only chance to win is to distance himself from the label of Muslim. (fyi, i am Muslim)
WARNING: Forgive me, but I have to troll.
Am much as I like Obama’s character, I still have to admit that I am tired of hearing what a great person he is. Enough with all the love that the media pours on this guy. I say, let assess all these guys fairly and stop giving Barack a free pass.
Obamamaniacs, stop drinking the coolaid and open your eyes.
Can Barack Obama, who campaigns as an icon of peace, actually be more bellicose than Bush? Yes, he can.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/cover.html
Ohio, I gave you four years and you’ve let me down yet again.