As Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif embarks on a journey to the US for the annual United Nations General Assembly session, Kashmir issue is all set to be the focal point of his speech. On the other hand, India is all set to counter Pakistan’s stance by raising the Balochistan issue. Amid all this, the United States has made it clear that it will not back either side. The State Department spokesperson John Kirby said that nothing is changed about their view that they want to see India and Pakistan work this out bilaterally. The US was one of the co-sponsors of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 that calls for “a free and impartial plebiscite” in Jammu and Kashmir on the question of its accession to India or Pakistan. But since then it has slightly changed its position, and for the past several decades calls for bilateral talks between the two countries for resolving this dispute. The recent uprising in Kashmir Valley has already claimed 87 lives, and almost 10,000 have been left injured in the clashes between the Kashmiris and Indian security forces. The uprising, the rising death toll and reports of other human rights violations forced the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to declare that an international probe into Kashmir killings was imperative now. The Amnesty International had also asked India to let its representatives visit the valley to assess the situation, but instead of allowing it to do so, an Indian court registered a sedition case against the rights group. Pakistan has vowed to highlight Indian atrocities in the Kashmir valley at the annual UN General Assembly Session. Prime Minister Sharif has also said that he would raise the Kashmir issue in his address, urging the international community to live up to their promise of the right to self-determination to the people of Kashmir. Prime Minister Sharif has also appointed 20 special envoys to travel across the globe for drawing attention to the situation in Kashmir. India plans to counter Pakistan’s efforts by raising the Baloch issue at the UN and other world forums, arguing that the Baloch are also seeking independence from Pakistan and deserve international support. India is also backing efforts of some Baloch activists to hold a demonstration outside the UN headquarters during the Pakistani prime minister’s speech. There is no arguing that things are not good in the province of Balochistan, and human rights have been violated. But comparing the situation in Kashmir with that of Balochistan certainly trivialises the Kashmir issue. Even, Asma Jahangir, one of the robust critiques of Pakistan’ state policies, has condemned India’s stance of comparing Kashmir situation with that of Balochistan. On the part of the US, it would have to be neutral considering the value of the importance of its ties with both Pakistan and India. Although there has been a significant tilt witnessed towards India in recent times, the US does realise the overall importance of Pakistan in the war on terror and regional stability. Considering that the US was one of the sponsors of the 1948 UN resolution on Kashmir, a departure from its stance would not be appreciated. In the position the US finds itself in, neutrality might be the right choice, but it should not be indifferent to the violence in Kashmir. Using its diplomatic influence the US should ask both countries to find a tangible solution to the issue through talks. *