ONCE again the US has made clear its position on Kashmir and the Pakistan-India relationship. While acknowledging that Kashmir was the main dispute between the two countries, US Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Blake again put forward the Indian, and now presumably the US, position that first Pakistan must oblige India by acting against those accused by New Delhi of being involved in the Mumbai terrorism. Surely, he cannot be unaware of the fact that New Delhi has failed to provide any substantive proof that could be upheld in a court of law in Pakistan against those it accuses of involvement in Mumbai. To make the Indo-centric US position even more blatant, US Assistant Secretary Peter Crowley also declared that weapons being given to Pakistan by the US would not be allowed to be used against India So Pakistans sovereign right to defend itself against all threats is being directly undermined once again by the US. Robert Blake also stated that the US has not changed its policy on Kashmir but there was an expectation that President Obama would move more forcefully on pushing its strategic ally into talks with Pakistan on Kashmir so that this contentious issue could be resolved in a lasting fashion according to UNSC resolutions centring on a plebiscite. This would allow the people of Kashmir to choose their future as promised to them not only by the international community through the UNSC, but also by Pakistan and, most importantly, India. Perhaps the most contentious part of the new US statements coming on Kashmir is the claim by Robert Blake that during the 2004-2007 period of Musharrafs, progress had been made on Kashmir. In actual fact, the Kashmir dispute was pushed in the wrong direction during that period because Musharraf had confused the issue by seeking to move out of the UNSC framework - not realising that Pakistans position on Kashmir derives its legitimacy from these very resolutions. Also, under US pressure, Musharraf had begun to undermine Pakistans support for the APHC leaders by not only inviting the pro-Indian Kashmiri leadership to Pakistan but also by giving them greater protocol than that extended to the APHC. His four point proposal on Kashmir was made before working out what it meant in detail and these were being worked out after the declaration The Indians immediately took his offer to mean the legitimation of the status quo but the reality is that it is the status quo that is the problem so it can hardly become a solution. If the US really is interested in lasting peace and stability in the region then it has to concede that nothing short of the Kashmiris being given their right to self determination will resolve this core issue between Pakistan and India. And without its resolution, there can be no substantive normalcy of relations in the subcontinent. Pak-India history so far has made that abundantly clear.