By Inderjit Badhwar
In terms of nationalist dogma, public pledges or agitations by political parties—particularly the BJP—for the abolition of the special status granted to the state of Jammu & Kashmir under Articles 370 and 35A have tremendous emotional appeal. Why, people on the street demand to know, should this Muslim-majority state which seems to want to separate from India and perhaps even join Pakistan, be mollycoddled with provisions like a prohibition on non-state people buying land in territory that is irrevocably India’s.
Actually, the BJP has itself blown hot and cold on this issue. In Modi’s first avatar as prime minister when the party was in partnership with a regional Kashmiri party—the PDP—these issues were put on a backburner. The BJP’s latest manifesto, ushering in Modi 2, has now made the abolition of these Articles a priority. The irony is that many historians argue with considerable conviction that these Articles, far from encouraging separatism, are, indeed, articles of faith which keep J&K within India’s legal and emotional embrace.
The people of Kashmir embraced India and spurned Pakistan well before India embraced Kashmir. How many people recognise this fact as the strongest building block on which to re-establish the trust and camaraderie which made Kashmir an irrevocable part of the Indian Union in 1947?
Very few.Largely because most of us are guided by emotion and political expediency. In today’s climate of instant punditry, few of us want to bother to educate ourselves to make informed judgements. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, much to the consternation of his critics, his support base and Hindu hardliners, appears to have taken an enlightened approach towards trying to calm things down in Kashmir on the basis of historical realpolitik rather than jingoistic suitability during his first term.
His first Independence Day statement was heard with great attention in Jammu and Srinagar: “The problems in Kashmir can’t be resolved through gali (abuse) or goli (bullet), but only by embracing Kashmiris.”
The formula for achieving this, his former home minister, Rajnath Singh, later elucidated, would be a “permanent solution based on five Cs—compassion, communication, co-existence, confidence-building and consistency”. He went even further. He actually debunked leaks springing from his own government that it would support a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the abrogation of Article 35A of the Constitution. This 1954 provision amended the Constitution of India to provide for special safeguards for the permanent residents of the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
“The central government has nowhere initiated anything with regard to this issue (of Article 35A). We have not gone to court. I want to say it clearly—I am not talking only about Article 35A, whatever our government does, we will not do anything against the sentiments and emotions of people here. We will respect them,” Singh said.
This could well have been another manifestation of the hard-side-soft-side approach in dealing with popular insurgencies, but it was still a move that separated dealing with genuine terror with force from seeking to accommodate legitimate differences within a solution-oriented framework. Lumping all Kashmiris into the hardline category of jehadis and pro-Pakistani Islamist separatists and crushing them ruthlessly into submitting to a historical narrative into which they cannot buy is precisely what strengthens Pakistan and its surrogates. Delhi made the mistake once of turning the war against Sikh terrorists into a war against Sikhs in general and paid a terrible price. Similarly, India’s war against armed Kashmiri terrorists often transforms itself into a war against all Kashmiris, leaving them little room to edge back into the space of mainstream politics to achieve their aims. And Pakistan gains by default.
It need not be so. Because in this case, history has been on the side of independent India. Only, India has repeatedly failed to take the historical bull by the horns. Modi’s “five Cs” were a reiteration of that often-used but least understood term “Kashmiriyat”. It does not mean a break-away from the Indian Union. It means “dignity”. This dignity, PDP co-founder and former deputy chief minister MuzaffarHussainBaig tells me, most Kashmiris, deep within their hearts, would like to have within the Indian Union. But India, instead of accepting their embraces, pushes them away into the arms of others through denying them due process, playing toppling games and rigging the democratic process. And herein lies the irony of this vexatious problem.
Down the ages, the original people of Kashmir have been the victims of foreign masters—Afghan, Mughal, Sikh, Dogra rulers. The crowning indignity was the sale of the whole of the region for Rs 50 lakh, under the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846, by the Paramount Power, Great Britain, to Maharaja Gulab Singh because of his loyalty to England. The next 100 years saw Dogra rule, autocratic and repressive, over the Kashmiri people, which they bitterly resented and finally organised the Muslim Conference (later National Conference) as a political organization to gain azadi from monarchic absolutism and establish democracy. Their tallest leader was Sheikh Abdullah.
Mahatma Gandhi called the ceding of the Kashmir region to Maharaja Gulab Singh a “sale deed”. He made this observation in August 1947, just two weeks before India became an independent country. When much of India was burning and killing with pre-Partition communal hatred, Kashmir, still an independent country which had joined neither India nor Pakistan, was calm. Gandhi, on his first Srinagar visit, called Kashmir “a ray of hope”. The only friction in Kashmir was then between the Kashmir freedom movement and the monarchy backed by the British. The movement, called “Quit Kashmir”, was spearheaded by Abdullah’s National Conference which had rejected the Muslim League and Jinnah’s two-nation theory and was pledged to Hindu-Muslim unity. The mass agitation was directed at replacing the monarchy with a constitutional republic. And it had made common cause with India’s independence movement.
Did you know? Stone-pelting by agitators did not start with the Kashmiri youth in this century. In 1944, when Jinnah visited Kashmir to try and garner support for the Muslim League, his supporters, protected by the state police, were pelted with stones showered on them in Baramulla by National Conference agitators who had also prepared a garland of shoes to put around the neck of Jinnah. The Muslim-led secular forces of Kashmir, the most powerful mass-based group in the Valley, were stone-pelting the future leader of Muslim-majority Islamic state Pakistan!
By August 1947, India’s 561 independent states had acceded to the Indian Union. Maharaja Hari Singh had not yet made up his mind. But he was tilting towards Pakistan or independence. This was largely because the leaders of the Indian independence movement had backed Abdullah’s “Quit India” national movement directed against the Maharaja and his British backers.
Pakistan’s military attempt to annex Kashmir in October 1947 was foiled by the Indian Army after the Maharaja, who had fled his country for India, and Sheikh Abdullah, who had been released from jail and appointed Martial Law Administrator to organise the resistance against Pakistani invaders, agreed to sign the Instrument to accede to India. The Indian Union would henceforth be responsible for Kashmir’s defence, communications and foreign policy. Kashmir would retain its internal autonomy and its people would decide their ultimate fate through balloting under Indian and UN auspices after all Pakistani troops and invaders were withdrawn.
Said Abdullah, with sarcasm in his speech to the UN in February 1948: “Today Pakistan has become the champion of our liberty. I know very well that in 1946, when I raised the cry of ‘Quit Kashmir’, the leader of the Pakistan Government, who is the Governor-General now, Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, opposed my Government, declaring that this movement was a movement of a few renegades and that Muslims as such had nothing to do with the movement.
“Why was that so? It was because I and my organisation never believed in the formula that Muslims and Hindus form separate nations. We do not believe in the two-nation theory, nor in communal hatred or communalism itself. We believed that religion had no place in politics. Therefore, when we launched our movement of ‘Quit Kashmir’ it was not only Muslims who suffered, but our Hindu and Sikh comrades as well.”
Despite the UN resolutions, Pakistan refused to withdraw from the occupied areas. No self-determination exercise could be held and the relationship with Kashmir, through a special status provision called Article 370, was enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The provision was later accepted by Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly which converted the once princely state into a democratic republic within the Indian Union.
In his opening remarks to the Kashmir Constituent Assembly, Abdullah reiterated his state’s special relations with India: “You are no doubt aware the scope of our present constitutional ties with India, we are proud to have our bonds with India, the goodwill of whose people and Government are available to us in unstinted and abundant measure. The Constitution of India has provided for a federal Union and in the distribution of sovereign power has treated us differently from other constituent units. With the exception of the items grouped under Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication in the Instrument of Accession, we have complete freedom to frame our Constitution in the manner we like.
“In order to live and prosper as good partners in a common endeavour for the advancement of our peoples, I would advise that, while safeguarding our autonomy to the fullest extent so as to enable us to have the liberty to build our country according to the best tradition and genius of our people, we may also by suitable constitutional arrangements with the Union establish our right to seek and compel federal co-operation and assistance in this great task as well as offer our fullest co-operation and assistance to the (Indian) Union.”
Article 35A reinforced Article 370. It was a confidence-building measure with the people of Kashmir where a plebiscite was no longer an option. As explained by the leading independent website Jammu-Kashmir.com, the idea that the residents of J&K needed to be protected was not new but had been put into effect by the Dogra Maharaja of Kashmir, who promulgated the 1927 Hereditary State Subject Order.
This distinguished between state and non-state subjects, forbidding the latter from owning land in the state. This separation of powers and a large degree of autonomy for the state was encoded in Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the subsequent Constitutional Order of 1950. The 1954 Presidential order (35A) superseded the 1950 Order and this was accepted by BakshiGhulam Mohammad of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference who was the prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir at that time.
On November 17, 1956, the state legislature defined a Permanent Resident (PR) of the state as a person who was a state subject on May 14, 1954, or who had been a resident of the state for 10 years, and had “lawfully acquired immovable property in the state”.
Till recently, several individuals and one NGO have challenged its legal validity. Others have called it discriminatory as thousands of residents of J&K have been denied basic rights such as owning property and sending their children to state schools because of the provisions of Article 35A.
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, has pointed out that the former maharaja of the state had stuck to this, that nobody from outside should acquire land there. And that continues. “So the present Government of Kashmir is very anxious to preserve that right because they are afraid, and I think rightly afraid, that Kashmir would be overrun by people whose sole qualification might be the possession of too much money and nothing else, who might buy up, and get the delectable places,” he said.
That, in short, was the genesis of Article 35A; it was a law meant to protect the people of the state from a huge influx of outsiders. As a result, the state’s constitution, framed in 1956, retained the erstwhile maharaja’s definition of permanent residents, that is: “All persons born or settled within the state before 1911 or after having lawfully acquired immovable property resident in the state for not less than ten years prior to that.”
Small wonder that the Modi government’s pronouncement on Article 35A during its first term drew an enthusiastic response from former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, the grandson of Sheikh Abdullah, the founder and tallest democratic leader of Kashmir. Omar tweeted: “This is a very important statement from the Union Home Minister. His assurance will go a long way towards silencing the noises against 35A.”
Why we lost Kashmir’s embrace after such an auspicious beginning sealed with blood and struggle is another story. Searching once again for that embrace and completelyde-legitimising the Pakistani claim is one of the greatest leadership challenges of modern India.
And it will not be achieved through simplistic and emotionally-driven measures such as the abolition of Articles 370 and 35A.
Curbs on Pakistan media?
By Amir Zia
Is press freedom on the retreat in Pakistan? Are these the worst of times for those holding dissenting views in the land of the pure? Are visible and invisible hands out to gag the mainstream media?
Despite all the challenges of Pakistan’s struggling and flawed democracy, conservative orientation and deeply religious roots, its media is vibrant, diverse, bold and candid, encouraging those who raise the flag of dissent and non-conformity. It amplifies the voices of rights activists, ethnic groups, the oppressed classes and most religious minorities.
At the same time, however, sensational political statements and conspiracy theories usually take centre-stage on news channels and papers, at the expense of genuine issues faced by people.
This statement-oriented journalism is not the result of state or government pressure. It is, on the contrary, driven by the rat race of ratings, social media hits and a preference for news that sells. Despite these skewed priorities, Pakistan’s press, it would appear, is not in chains.
Absolute freedom of expression is a concept that is being defined and redefined by the evolving conditions in a country: A newspaper stall in Karachi.
Yet, of late, politicians, rights activists and media personnel say that there is an unannounced censorship at work and fear grips the media, as the number of ‘red lines’ continue to increase.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who claim that not only is the Pakistani media enjoying an unprecedented level of freedom, but that it also has a tendency to distort facts and shamelessly push various political agendas, present half-truths and, sometimes, spew lies. According to this school of thought, the media remains overwhelmingly sensational: fake news and toxic arguments on social media are an example of the ‘limitless’ freedom of expression in the country.
Between these two extremes, lies a middle ground. While problems do exist as far as press freedom is concerned, at the same time, misinformation is disseminated through various media platforms.
Absolute freedom of expression is a concept that is constantly being redefined, depending on the social, economic and political conditions of a country. A single yardstick cannot be applied universally.
Broadly speaking, there are two main yardsticks with which press freedom can be measured: historical and regional. The other, finer details vary from country to country and region to region.
Historically, press freedom has made huge strides in Pakistan since the country’s creation. Long gone are the days of the Press and Publications Ordinance (PPO) of 1962 that empowered the government to seize newspapers, shutdown media organisations and arrest journalists and editors.
The decade of the ’70s, which witnessed the dismemberment of Pakistan and the rise and fall of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – our first and, so far, last civilian martial law administrator – proved far from ideal, despite the presence of a democratically elected government. Bhutto opted for high-handed actions against dissenting voices, from political opponents to poets, writers and journalists. But it was the former military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, who added more bite to the PPO in the 1980s, empowering the authorities to prosecute publishers if published news was not to the government’s liking. During the Zia era, censorship was tough, brutal and direct. His regime did not hesitate to lash journalists and put them behind bars.
After Zia’s sudden death and the return of democracy in 1988, the media started to open up. The notorious PPO was revised, but successive elected governments and various political, ethnic and religious parties continued to target the press and take high-handed action against newspapers and journalists. For instance, in his second stint in power, Nawaz Sharif used the might of state machinery to punish a critical media and arrest journalists.
Surprisingly, it was under General (R) Pervez Musharraf that the Pakistani media saw an unprecedented boom. The electronic media witnessed expansion, as he allowed private news and entertainment channels to open shop, while radio stations were also encouraged. At the insistence of Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, his information minister at the time, the military ruler also allowed cross-media ownership – a controversial decision that lead to the hegemonies of select media tycoons.
Ironically, the media liberalisation and openness eventually contributed to Musharraf’s own fall, during his confrontation with the judiciary. His half-hearted attempts to muzzle select media outlets during the peak of the lawyers’ movement proved lethal. The media contributed to destabilising his government.
After the 2008 general elections and to date, the media managed to guard its turf despite many ups and downs, taking on successive governments and mighty state institutions Some media organisations took a critical view of the Pakistan Armed Forces and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
This resulted in an on- and off- tiff between the state institutions and some media groups, leading to the blocking of the transmission of select news channels and obstacles being placed in the path of newspaper distribution.
This impasse between state institutions and media groups was aggravated due to the non-implementation of libel and defamation laws. In the absence of legal recourse and an established code of conduct within media organisations, there was hardly any independent platform where an aggrieved party could turn for a fair hearing. The regulator proved too weak and politically influenced to carry out this task.
Yet the Pakistani media operates in a freer atmosphere compared to past decades. Yes, there are problems, obstacles and even setbacks, but the media has expanded its boundaries. Many subjects, once taboo, are now openly discussed and debated. There are hardly any holy cows left; be it the government or state institutions, all are under the microscope.
There are, however, cultural and religious sensitivities that have to be taken into account. Pakistani journalists operate in an altogether different world compared to their counterparts in Western Europe or the United States. Several social and religious issues, while kosher in the West, are either discussed in a hushed manner in Pakistan, or seen from a different perspective because of the country’s religious moorings and its semi-tribal and semi-feudal roots.
Similarly, as Pakistan remains engaged in its longest internal war, against terrorism, since 2001, and has hostile eastern and western frontiers, there are conflict areas where the media faces obstacles while reporting. Any state, faced by such internal and external threats, takes measures that may not be the norm in times of peace.
The Pakistani press is less jingoistic, more diverse and aggressive in questioning those in power compared to its counterparts in India – the world’s largest democracy. Pakistanis should be proud that while the Indian media overwhelmingly promotes the government and state narrative without questioning, the Pakistani media does the opposite.
Similarly, if the condition of press freedom in Pakistan is compared to its two western neighbours – Iran and Afghanistan – and the one in the north, our friend China, we stand head and shoulders above them all.
Out of more than 50 Muslim countries, including democracies such as Turkey, Bangladesh and Egypt, there is more freedom of expression in Pakistan. Its scorecard is also better than Far Eastern countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia as well as secular countries like Singapore and South Korea.
At the same time, however, the press still has a long way to go. While expanding boundaries of freedom is an endless business, the media should review itself critically and overcome shortcomings and unprofessionalism in its ranks. Only an objective, fair, balanced and factual media will be able to keep expanding its boundaries.
Muslimcook who saved life of Gandhi
By Suhail Ahmad Wani
History is often a medley of versions of an event in the past, gradually embellished over time. We all know about the brutal TinKathiya system which was prevailing in Champaran district until Gandhi ji led the Champaran Satyagraha movement, under that system the tenant farmers were forced to mandatorily cultivate Indigo crops in three Katha of land on every twenty katha(one bigha) they owned. Since, indigo crops were poorly compensated by Britishers& European Indigo mill owners and in case of refusal to cultivate Indigo crops, farmer had to face heavy taxation. Farmers were force to leave under miserable condition. When Gandhi ji arrived at Champaran, the news spread like in the region like a wildfire and he was greeted by a large crowd of peasants at railway stations all along the way from Muzaffarpur to Motihari.
Since, Indigo mill owners and Britishers officials were aware about Gandhi’s leadership ability and capability to fight against atrocity and torture. They were also keeping a sharp eye on all developments.
The year was 1917, on the afternoon of April 15, thousands had gathered at Motihari railway station (in Bihar’s East Champaran) to wait for a man who was destined to lift their lives out of misery. It was 3 pm when Gandhi alighted at the station from a train coming from Muzaffarpur. He had come to probe the appalling conditions under which local farmers were being forced by the landlords to grow indigo. Nobody knew it then but this fact-finding mission would snowball into the first Satyagraha (policy of passive political resistance) that Gandhi would lead in the country and begin a new chapter in India’s independence struggle. According to the book (Champarankeswatantrasenani) during this visit, Gandhi got a dinner invitation from a British manager of an indigo plantation named Erwin. So Erwin told his cook, BatakMian, to serve Gandhi a glass of milk laced with poison. To ensure that this was done, he offered substantial inducements as well as issued threats of dire punishment. When the time came, the deeply patriotic cook did present the glass of milk to Gandhi, but also warned him of its contents and revealed Erwin’s sinister intentions behind it. DrRajendra Prasad, who would later go on to become India’s first president, witnessed the entire episode. While Gandhi escaped the assassination attempt to successfully lead the Champaran Satyagraha, the man who had saved his life had to pay dearly for it. Dismissed from work, BatakMian was thrown behind bars and tortured. His house was turned into a crematorium and his family was driven out of their village (SiswaAjgari, a hamlet near Motihari). With time, his act of bravery was erased from public memory, until 1950, when DrRajendra Prasad visited Motihari (the then-headquarters of an undivided Champaran). As India’s first president alighted at the railway station, he was greeted by a huge crowd that had gathered to welcome him. Just then, he witnessed a commotion near the entrance as a haggard old man tried to make his way towards him. Recognizing him instantly as BatakMian, Prasad walked up to him, hugged him and escorted him to the dais where he gave him a chair next to him. To the surprised and curious crowd, the President introduced the man sitting next to him as the person who had saved Mahatma Gandhi’s life. He then narrated the story of how the impoverished cook had turned down all kinds of inducements to poison Gandhi and faced brutal punishment as a result. Had it not been for BatakMian, Gandhi would have died, Prasad exclaimed, before wondering aloud what impact such a tragedy might have had on India’s independence. On learning about the hardships faced by the cook’s family, he also ordered the collector of the region to give 24 acres of land to BatakMian and his three sons as a token of appreciation from the nation. This incident seared BatakMian’s story into the memories of Champaran’s residents. However, nearly a century after the Champaran Satyagraha, his grandchildren are still waiting for the government to honour its promise. In 2010, after reading a report in the Hindustan Times on the plight of the family, then President PratibhaPatil had ordered the district magistrates of East and West Champaran to submit a report on action taken to fulfilRajendra Prasad’s promise. But thanks to government apathy, the move did not lead to any action.
BataqMian Ansari’s sacrifice which deserves a prominent place in the history of freedom movement of India, came to limelight only when freedom fighter Syed IbraheemFikri (Delhi) breleased his book written in Urdu (Hindustani Jung-e-Azadi Mein MusalmanoKaHissa) in 1999. But it was BatakMian’s patriotism, which did not allow his soul to serve the poisoned milk to Gandhi ji. So, he took the glass to Gandhi ji but revealed the conspiracy in front of Ervin, Gandhi Ji and Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Thus he saved the life of Gandhi ji who led the Champaran Satyagraha movement and changed the narrative of struggle for freedom of India. But BatakMian had to pay heavily for his patriotism. The manager put him in Jail and brutally tortured him. His house was turned into crematorium and later he and his family were forced out of village. What would bigger tragedy that this extraordinary Indian, without who India’s independence might not have been possible, has completely been ignored. Isn’t it tragic that today the man who killed Mahatma Gandhi is known to all but very few know BatakMian who saved the Mahatma’s life in 1917? The unsung hero BatakMian died in 1957. Today, the tombs of BatakMian and his wife lie unattended in the nondescript village of SiswaAjgari. His grandchildren live on a patch of land near the Valmiki Tiger Reserve forest and make a living as laborers
(The writer is a research scholar at University of Indore and can be reached at: [email protected])
Trump Tries Cooling Tensions with Pakistan
By Michael D. Shear and Salman Masood
President Trump, who on Twitter last year accused Pakistan’s leaders of “nothing but lies & deceit,” welcomed the country’s prime minister to the White House on Monday in an effort to mend relations and seek help in ending the war in neighboring Afghanistan.
Seated next to Prime Minister Imran Khan in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump gushed about the prospect of improved relations and trade with Pakistan and said he expected that Mr. Khan would help negotiate peace in Afghanistan so United States troops could come home.
“There is tremendous potential between our country and Pakistan,” Mr. Trump said during a 40-minute question-and-answer session with reporters from both countries. “I think Pakistan is going to help us out to extricate ourselves.”
Administration officials believe pressure from Pakistan could push the Taliban into a permanent cease-fire in Afghanistan, though they acknowledged that promises of such help from the Pakistani government had failed to materialize in the past.
“Washington could be overestimating Islamabad’s influence over the Taliban. So there’s potential for disappointment,” said ArifRafiq, a policy analyst and commentator on relations between the two countries. “But, like Trump said, Pakistan is a ‘big country’ and important in its own right. It’s critical for Washington to maintain a long-term partnership with Islamabad and not cede the region to Beijing.”
Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan and end the nearly 18-year war. But ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and extremist groups in the region have long frustrated American hopes of a peaceful regional solution.
The president was more optimistic on Monday about Pakistan’s cooperation, even as he suggested that he always had military options if diplomacy failed.
“I could win that war in a week. I just don’t want to kill 10 million people,” Mr. Trump said, describing what he said were prepared military plans in Afghanistan. “If I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth. It would be gone in 10 days.”
Mr. Khan — once Pakistan’s star cricket player and now like Mr. Trump a celebrity-turned-leader — agreed quickly that seeking peace in Afghanistan was the better option.
“There is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Mr. Khan said. “If you go all-out military, there would be millions and millions of people who would die.”
With Mr. Khan by his side, Mr. Trump claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India had recently asked him to help mediate the seven-decade dispute between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir region, one of the world’s most sensitive flash points.
“I was with Prime Minister Modi two weeks ago and we talked about this subject,” Mr. Trump said. “He actually said, ‘Would you like to be a mediator or arbitrator?’ I said, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘Kashmir.’ Because this has been going on for many, many years. I was surprised at how long.”
Both countries have claimed the disputed region since Pakistan’s creation in 1947.
“If I can help, I would love to be a mediator,” Mr. Trump said Monday.
Mr. Khan appeared willing for Mr. Trump to play a role. But just hours after the meeting between the president and Mr. Khan, a spokesman for India’s Ministry of External Affairs denied that such a conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi had taken place.
“No such request has been made,” the spokesman, Raveesh Kumar, said on Twitter. “It has been India’s consistent position that all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally.”
In a statement on Monday evening, the State Department acknowledged that “Kashmir is a bilateral issue,” but added, “As the president indicated, we stand ready to assist.”
Mr. Khan arrived in the United States on Sunday, landing at Dulles International Airport in Virginia where a picture of him riding the airport’s people mover with other travelers caused a minor social media uproar about the lack of pomp and circumstance.
The prime minister received more of an official welcome on Monday at the White House, where Mr. Trump greeted him in front of the West Wing before a bilateral meeting and a working lunch.
Relations between the two countries have been strained for years because of Pakistan’s ties with extremist groups and its lack of cooperation with the United States’ campaign against terrorist organizations since the Sept. 11 attacks.
But Mr. Trump deepened the rift in January 2018. He tweeted that the United States had “foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid” and accused Pakistan’s leaders of treating American officials like fools and giving safe haven to terrorists: “No more!”
Three days later, Mr. Trump suspended security aid to Pakistan, shutting down the flow of up to $1.3 billion in aid each year with a demand that Pakistan’s government cut off ties with extremists.
American officials said last week that the president’s meeting with Mr. Khan was an attempt to repair relations between the two countries, though they said the Trump administration remained “cleareyed” about the continuing links between Pakistan and terrorist groups.
A senior administration official had told reporters that Mr. Trump appreciated Mr. Khan’s earlier statements that Pakistan would no longer be a refuge for terrorist groups. But the official said the United States remained concerned given that terrorist organizations — including Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Haqqani network — continued to operate in Pakistan with the tacit approval of its national intelligence and military agencies.
Pakistan’s continued imprisonment of ShakilAfridi, a Pakistani doctor who reportedly helped the United States confirm the location of Osama bin Laden, also remains a sore spot between the two countries, officials said.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that he planned to press for the release of Dr. Afridi. A tribal court in northwestern Pakistan in 2012 sentenced Dr. Afridi to 33 years in prison after he helped the C.I.A. pin down bin Laden’s location by running a vaccination drive backed by the United States.
Former President Barack Obama’s administration objected strenuously to Pakistan’s treatment of Dr. Afridi, and Trump administration officials last week called upon Pakistan to release the doctor.
Mr. Khan’s visit to the White House was part of his first trip to the United States as prime minister as he tries to move beyond the diplomatic clashes with Mr. Trump.
A fiery, nationalist leader in Pakistan, Mr. Khan has been critical of Pakistan’s partnership with the United States in the past. He fired back at Mr. Trump’s tweets last year, accusing the United States of decades of failures in Afghanistan.
Mr. Khan has accused past Pakistani rulers of selling themselves short and kowtowing to American dictates. But before the meeting on Monday, Mr. Khan had said he wanted a reset in the bilateral ties.
In Pakistan, local television news networks gave breathless coverage to Mr. Khan’s visit. The prime minister’s address a day earlier to a rally of thousands of Pakistani-Americans in Capital One Arena in Washington was portrayed as a testament to the Pakistani leader’s popularity in the United States.
Before meeting Mr. Trump, Mr. Khan told his cheering supporters at the Washington rally that he had never bowed to anyone except Allah and would not leave his countrymen embarrassed or disappointed during the meeting with Mr. Trump.
But on Monday, Mr. Khan was far less confrontational, repeatedly praising Mr. Trump for his leadership. “He has now forced people to end the war, to have a settlement,” Mr. Khan said of Mr. Trump. “This is a critical time.”
Mr. Trump said he hoped Pakistan could help resolve the war so the United States could curtail its security measures in Afghanistan. He said that if that happened, the United States might restore some of the funding to Pakistan that he cut off last year.
“I think that Pakistan is going to be a very big help,” the president said, adding later: “I think Pakistan will save millions of lives in Afghanistan. As of this moment, they are working very hard.”