ONE cannot help appreciate the nice sentiments President Barack Obama expressed about Pakistan when he gave an interview to a private TV channel at the White House on Saturday. However, at the same time, one feels utterly dismayed at the sharp turn he has taken from the stand on Kashmir that he so clearly articulated during the election campaign. He had rightly termed the dispute's resolution as essential to normal, good Indo-Pakistan relations, which in turn he regarded as an important contributory factor to eliminating the menace of terrorism. For the leader of the solitary superpower with strategic stakes in the region to succumb to New Delhi's pressure on this core issue and say that the US would not like to mediate and tamely fall back on the faltering process of composite dialogue is nothing short of a humiliating compromise. The shift in policy puts Washington's own interests in jeopardy, Mr Obama loses the high moral ground he had attained by giving expression to his true feelings that struck the right chord with Kashmiris' aspirations, and the peace-loving people in the region who had at last seen some hope of better times ahead find themselves betrayed at the hands of someone who sounded so genuinely committed to a new and just world order. The ground realities here have not changed, though. Kashmir remains at the root of enmity between India and Pakistan, the forcible foreign occupation continues to breed anger and resentment among the people of Kashmir and creates the urge to throw off the oppressive yoke, and if peaceful means fail to work through an armed struggle. New Delhi, with its rising economic strength and greater international recognition, seems to be in no mood to give up its imperialist hold on the state. Its strategic importance to the US vis--vis China and lure of burgeoning market provide it the leverage to go back, scot free, on its international commitment and democratic obligations to let the people of the occupied state decide their own future through a UN-sponsored free and fair plebiscite. But where in the history book does the scenario place President Obama who some political observers had thought would prove to be the torchbearer of change? If he gives up on persuading the Indians to give the promised deal to Kashmiris, how would he accost the Israelis, with their strong lobby and entrenched promoters in his administration, to come forward and recognise the rights of the Palestinian people? The US President needs to do serious introspection about the reasons for this shift if he were to revive the hope that his much-applauded words had raised. Unless he recaptures the courage Candidate Barack Obama had displayed his wonderful speeches would be dumped into the unenviable category of mere rhetoric.