{"id":288085,"date":"2026-08-20T05:29:05","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T05:29:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hamslive.com\/news\/?p=288085"},"modified":"2026-08-20T05:29:05","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T05:29:05","slug":"mj-akbar-us-envoy-kashmir-remark-mecca-defence-pact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hamslive.com\/news\/2026\/08\/mj-akbar-us-envoy-kashmir-remark-mecca-defence-pact\/","title":{"rendered":"MJ Akbar welcomes US envoy\u2019s Kashmir remark, seeks clarity on Mecca defence pact"},"content":{"rendered":"

MJ Akbar welcomed US Ambassador Sergio Gor\u2019s Kashmir remark but questioned Washington\u2019s regional strategy and the Saudi-Pakistan-T\u00fcrkiye defence pact<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Former Union minister MJ Akbar on Wednesday welcomed US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor\u2019s description of Jammu and Kashmir as an \u201cimportant part of India\u201d, but urged Washington to demonstrate consistency in its regional policy and clarify the purpose and direction of the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan-T\u00fcrkiye Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, while speaking to reporters in Mapusa.<\/p>\n

Speaking in Mapusa, Goa, Akbar described Gor\u2019s remarks as \u201cmost welcome\u201d and \u201cperhaps long overdue\u201d. However, he cautioned against interpreting a single statement as evidence of a broader transformation in the United States\u2019 approach towards India and Pakistan.<\/p>\n

Akbar also raised questions about the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement involving Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye, and sought clarification about Washington\u2019s view of the emerging security arrangement.<\/p>\n

His comments were reported in a video published by ANI on X<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Akbar welcomes Gor\u2019s Kashmir statement<\/h3>\n

Gor made the remark during a visit to Srinagar, where he reportedly described Jammu and Kashmir as an \u201cimportant part of India\u201d. The statement attracted attention because the status of the region remains a persistent source of disagreement between New Delhi and Islamabad.<\/p>\n

India maintains that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the country. Pakistan disputes that position and continues to advocate a settlement based on its interpretation of United Nations resolutions.<\/p>\n

\n

Former Union minister MJ Akbar welcomed US Ambassador Sergio Gor\u2019s description of Jammu and Kashmir as an \u201cimportant part of India\u201d, but said Washington must demonstrate consistency. He also sought clarity over the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement involving Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Akbar said confidence in the US position would increase if the American ambassador in Islamabad made a similar statement. He argued that Washington has historically viewed India and Pakistan through an interconnected regional framework, an approach he believes should be reconsidered.<\/p>\n

He also alleged that people in Pakistan-administered Kashmir were experiencing poverty and persecution, describing Pakistan\u2019s treatment of the territory as colonial. These were Akbar\u2019s political assertions; no supporting evidence was presented during the remarks quoted by ANI.<\/p>\n

Pakistan protests against US envoy\u2019s remarks<\/h3>\n

Gor\u2019s statement has already generated a diplomatic reaction from Islamabad. Pakistan reportedly summoned the US charg\u00e9 d\u2019affaires and registered a formal protest, arguing that the ambassador\u2019s description was inconsistent with what Islamabad considers Washington\u2019s established position on Kashmir.<\/p>\n

Pakistan\u2019s Foreign Office maintains that the region is disputed and that its final status should be decided in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the wishes of Kashmiris. India rejects third-party involvement and says issues with Pakistan should be addressed bilaterally.<\/p>\n

The contrasting responses illustrate why Gor\u2019s choice of words has acquired significance beyond a routine diplomatic visit.<\/p>\n

US travel advisory remains unchanged<\/h3>\n

Gor also reportedly indicated during his Srinagar visit that the United States would reconsider its travel guidance for Jammu and Kashmir.<\/p>\n

At the time of publication, however, the US State Department\u2019s India travel advisory<\/a> continued to place Jammu and Kashmir, apart from eastern Ladakh and Leh, in its \u201cLevel 4: Do not travel\u201d category because of terrorism and civil unrest.<\/p>\n

A diplomatic expression of willingness to review an advisory does not itself change the official guidance. Any revision would need to appear formally on the State Department\u2019s website.<\/p>\n

Akbar questions change to US military command\u2019s name<\/h3>\n

Turning to the wider India-US relationship, Akbar criticised Washington\u2019s decision to remove \u201cIndo\u201d from the name of the US Indo-Pacific Command and restore its earlier designation, US Pacific Command.<\/p>\n

He interpreted the change as a possible sign that India was being separated from the American security architecture covering the Indian Ocean and West Asia.<\/p>\n

The US administration has offered a different explanation. Gor previously said attention should remain on the substance of bilateral defence cooperation rather than the \u201cname on a letterhead\u201d. The command\u2019s geographical area of responsibility has also reportedly remained unchanged.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Trump administration has continued to use \u201cIndo-Pacific\u201d in other official statements. A White House message issued in May 2026<\/a> referred expressly to security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.<\/p>\n

Akbar\u2019s interpretation should therefore be understood as a warning about the possible symbolism of the military renaming, not as confirmation that the United States has formally abandoned the broader Indo-Pacific concept.<\/p>\n

Questions raised over the Mecca defence agreement<\/h3>\n

Akbar also discussed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye on 7 August 2026.<\/p>\n

The agreement reportedly contains a collective-defence provision under which an armed attack on one signatory would be treated as an attack on all three. Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye have said the arrangement is defensive and is not directed against any particular country.<\/p>\n

An Associated Press report on the agreement<\/a> said the three countries sought to deepen security cooperation amid heightened regional tensions. Pakistan also indicated that other countries could potentially join if they accepted the pact\u2019s principles.<\/p>\n

Akbar referred to President Donald Trump\u2019s reported description of the agreement as a \u201cbig, bold and important first step\u201d. He asked what later stages might involve and whether the arrangement could eventually develop into a wider Islamic military alliance resembling NATO.<\/p>\n

The publicly available agreement does not identify India as an adversary, and no evidence has emerged that its three members have formally designated a common enemy. The expression \u201cIslamic NATO\u201d remains an analytical and political description rather than the pact\u2019s official title.<\/p>\n

Akbar seeks clarification about Washington\u2019s role<\/h3>\n

Akbar claimed that the United States had sponsored or endorsed the trilateral alliance and called on Washington to explain its objectives.<\/p>\n

Public reporting confirms that Trump welcomed the pact, but welcoming or endorsing an agreement is not necessarily the same as sponsoring its negotiation or controlling its implementation. No conclusive public evidence establishing direct US sponsorship was available at the time of publication.<\/p>\n

Akbar nevertheless argued that the collective-defence clause raises important questions for India, particularly because Pakistan is one of the three signatories.<\/p>\n

India\u2019s Ministry of External Affairs has said it is examining the agreement\u2019s implications for national security and regional stability. New Delhi has not publicly concluded that the arrangement is directed against India.<\/p>\n

What the remarks mean for India-US relations<\/h3>\n

Akbar\u2019s comments bring together three separate developments:<\/p>\n