Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 Jun 2012 10:30

Devesh,

Have you met members of Afghanistan's educated classes or Dari speakers of any class? Most of them fled into exile after 30 years of war and started to trickle back after 2001. Your opinions of Afghans might undergo some changes.

Afghanistan up until the early 1970s was a country that was slowly but steadily modernising and was basically stable. It had two key problems - it was in conflict with Pakistan, a country more powerful than itself, and it had leaders that decided to try and accelerate the pace of change through force and without bothering with democratic consensus.

The problem is that in Afghanistan like the Subcontinent the kind of education I'm speaking of was a privilege that only a relatively small land owning class had access to. The fundamentalism that swept that elite away is as much a class revolution as anything else from people who never had access to Persian in the first place.

After 1857 the Muslim elite in India gave up Persian for English as the new language of power and prestige, and Urdu as the new language of identity. Without the elite to continue to preserve Persian in their own ranks there was no chance of it being pushed out to the Muslim masses. Instead the money has gone into making Arabic more accessible.

Something else worth remembering is that Persian has many deep organic links to Indian languages that predate the arrival of Islam. The kings of India and Kabul feature in the Shahnameh. Arabic is a far more alien language.

Also, I think there's a misunderstanding here. The point isn't whether the non-Muslims of the Subcontinent or Indian civilization 'needs' Persian. The point is that the *kind* of Islamic culture in play matters when it comes to the problems of today. One could chose to sit back and condemn all Muslims as savages, and all products of Islamic culture as alien and murder-inducing, but you're never going to get very far with that, or find any workable mitigation strategies.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 Jun 2012 10:51

abhishek_sharma wrote:Can you tell us who reduced the level of Persian in madrasas? Fundamentalists or British? I am confused.

It was a double whammy. British administrative changes reduced the economic and prestige value of Persian, and fundamentalists attacked it as being a distraction from the core of Islamic learning. Hadith studies which required Arabic replaced philosophy which required Persian.

Faruqi, Shamsur Rahman. Unprivileged Power: The Strange Case of Persian (and Urdu) in Nineteenth Century India. Annual of Urdu Studies vol. 13 (1998). https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/h ... sequence=2

Also see the works on the Deobandi movement by Barbara Metcalf and Muhammad Qasim Zaman. There's also "The Deoband School and the demand for Pakistan" written in India by an Indian Muslim Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi.

A generation of Kayasth Hindi writers (like Premchand) studied Persian in madrasas. Even Harivansh Rai Bachhan's family members studied Urdu and Persian. They did not study Sanskrit.

...When he was 7 years old, Premchand began his education at a madarsa in Lalpur, located around 2½ km from Lamahi.[5] Premchand learnt Urdu and Persian from a maulvi in the madarsa.

Correct - this is exactly the sort of thing that is no longer seen. The secular value in studying in a madrasa declined to vanishing point, there's fewer and fewer non-Muslims, and less Persian. The process of change has been gradual but inexorable.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 Jun 2012 11:04

Decline of Persian in British India
T. Rahman
South Asia, Vol. XXII, no. 1 (1999), pp. 47-62

Persian in the madrasas

Persian did linger on in the madrasas because these institutions were meant to resist modernity and Westernization by conserving the past. Persian was, after all, an important aspect of the past. The madrasas taught the Pand Nama, Karima and Nam-i Haq. They no longer taught classical Persian literature because it had verses on amorous and erotic themes. Thus, while Abdul Haqq of Delhi had studied the Diwan of Hafiz as well as the ubiquitous Gulistan and Boston in 1551, the madrasas of the early twentieth century in India
either did not teach these works or only taught bowdlerized and abbreviated versions of them.64 This change was part of the puritanical, reformist movement which motivated the ulema in India during much of British rule.
As Persian poetry dwelt on love and used the drinking of wine and union with the beloved as metaphors for the mystical union with an immanent deity, it brought images of profligacy to the minds of the students. Moreover, Persian (as well as Urdu) poetry referred to the beauty of adolescent boys as a symbol for divine pulchritude.65 Such references, the ulema felt, 'fanned the flames' of unnatural lust.66 Thus, they slowly removed the whole corpus of classical Persian literature from their curricula leaving only the Pand Nama,
Karima and Nam-i Haq which are didactic works in Persian rhymed couplets. Some madrasas also taught the Gulistan and Boston but with the fifth chapter removed which dealt with the subject of love. All these texts were considered supportive of the medieval morality the ulema wanted to reinforce. They approve of hospitality and condemn miserliness; silence rather than chatter;
men rather than women. Indeed, women are considered as inferior, untrustworthy and alluring whom the virtuous must shun. In Nam-i Haq Islamic teachings about cleanliness, ablutions, prayers and other rituals are reiterated. The value system given in the other books is supported by the rituals which are part of the world view. Thus, the function of Persian was to support the ulemas' world view and the faith upon which it was contingent. The students of both the madrasas and the other institutions could not speak Persian. They learnt it through memorization and grammar drills like a dead language and not a living one. Basically, by the end of British rule, the
teaching of Persian was meant to keep a symbolic link of continuity with tradition. However, the pressure of studies on the more modern, employment seeking sections of educated people was such that they either ignored Persian or studied it as a soft option because it was easy to get high marks in it. As for madrasa students and those who went for oriental diplomas, like the munshi Fazil, they had to study it because it was compulsory, but only as a symbolic token of a past which had to be coserved and no longer as a living language.

Conclusion
The decline of Persian from its position of power and prestige during British rule is a good example of how closely connected languages, and attitudes towards them, can be with political power. When the state - under the Muslims and British orientalists - used Persian in the domains of power, the language was necessary for instrumental reasons (empowering oneself and family through powerful state offices) and as a passport to elite discourse and interaction. This ensured the cultural ascendancy of the Mughal, and Muslim, elite in India. When the state, with British anglicists in the ascendant, replaced Persian with English and the approved vernacular languages of India, the symbol of elite culture became English. The language of instrumental gain and prestige too became English. However, the language of Muslim identity, as opposed to Hindu identity in British India, became Urdu. Persian remained a desiderated symbol of cultural continuity, especially among the more conservative elements of Indian Muslim Society, but as it
lost its power so it lost its prestige. Prestige, a mental construct, is intrinsically related to power. Once Persian was removed from the domain of government and administration, after 1837, it began rapidly to lose its prestige as a dominant language.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 10 Jun 2012 16:02

45 militants killed in Afghanistan

At least 45 Taliban militants have been killed in operations carried out by Afghan and NATO-led troops, the interior ministry said on Sunday. The forces launched 10 "clean-up" operations in Kabul, Laghman, Parwan, Helmand, Uruzgan and Farah provinces, in which 33 militants were killed,
Xinhua reported citing a ministry statement.

Six militants were injured and nine were captured during the raids.

The statement, however, did not say if there were any casualties among the security forces.

Eight Taliban militants were killed in a special forces operation in Bati Kot district of eastern Nangarhar province Saturday night, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, a spokesman for the provincial government.

Four militants were killed when an anti-tank mine blew up prematurely in Jani Khil district of Pakitka province, the ministry said.

According to figures released by the interior ministry, around 430 militants have been killed, 130 wounded and over 450 others detained since May 1.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 10 Jun 2012 16:04

French troops killed by Taliban

France says four of its soldiers have been killed and five others wounded in an attack in eastern Afghanistan.

The Taliban said one of their suicide bombers carried out the attack on a Nato convoy in Kapisa province. Several Afghan civilians were also wounded.

President Francois Hollande said he "shared the grief of the families".

After his election last month, he announced French combat troops would leave Afghanistan by the end of 2012, two years before the main Nato pullout.

Violence has risen across the country in recent weeks, with the Taliban targeting both the Afghan forces and the 130,000 foreign troops remaining in the country.
BBC map

Afghan officials say the suicide bomber in Saturday's attack approached a French Nato convoy wearing a burka.

"All of France is affected by this tragedy," President Hollande's statement said.

France is currently the fifth largest contributor to Nato's Isaf force, with nearly 3,300 soldiers.

The deaths bring to 87 the total number of French deaths in the country since 2001.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 10 Jun 2012 16:14

Johann wrote:Abishek,

The British in the 1840s abolished the use of Persian as an official language in India. They also increasingly preferred hiring civil servants trained in modern colleges.

Between the effects of those decisions and the rise of the fundamentalists the level of training in Persian in madrasas was drastically cut back, and the only products of madrasas became religious functionaries.

The Persian taught (when and where its actually available) in most madrasas in the Subcontinent is now of the most rudimentary level, and the exposure to poetry, literature and philosophy is minimal.

As far as Nader Shah goes Central Asia produced wave after wave of nasty conquerors, both before and after the arrival of Islam. Dynasties like the Timurids and their descenants the Moghuls (Mongol in Persian) believed their right to rule came from their descent from Chinggiz Khan. To say that the Central Asian Muslim conquerors are the only Muslims who count is to buy into the Pakistani narrative.

Interesting discussion of "high culture" and naked fascism. Johann, you must be aware of Iqbal, who was a skilled exponent of Persian poetry, and hardly deigned to write in Urdu. He also had a strong European bent, being an admirer of robust Teutonic philosophers like Nietzsche, surely hochkultur types. Some of us would say that Iqbal is the one man who gave intellectual form to what India has always known, and the world knows today, as pakiness.

All this high culture shulture stuff is surely complicated. We SDREs are simple people only, call them as we see them. Pakis will be pakis at the end of the day. Which is to say, the embodiments of viciousness, vanity and parasitism.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Jun 2012 00:50

KLNM,

My original post was about Afghanistan, and the fact that Pashto speakers are now under the religious influence of people trained in the worlds most regressive madrasas in Pakistan.

Something worth remembering - the NWFP was a solidly pro-Congress area right until partition for all sorts of reasons. The key elements in turning mass public support towards Pakistan were the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Sarhad, the local branch of the association of activist Deobandi ulema. A century prior the most important religious influences would have been sufi clergy with ties of patronage to the Amir of Afghanistan, and stretching back to madrasas in Samarkand and Bukhara. In other words the direction of religious authority flipped in the second half of the 19th century. Has that been a positive thing so far? Not really.

As far as Iqbal goes, Persian is what distinguished people like him from the utter barbarity of Taliban. Moving beyond that larger point is that the emergence of Urdu as the marker for a Pan-Subcontinental Muslim identity has not been good thing so far either. It encouraged the questionable notion that there is or was a single *all-India* Muslim community and identity, and this was the precursor to idea of Pakistan.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jun 2012 01:05

The dynasties that ruled Islamic Persia such as Nader Shah were generally Turkish warlords. They supported Persian high culture in an attempt to appear civilised to their subjects, especially the bureaucrats, scholars and landlords who were Persian.

Are you making a distinction between 'Islamic Persia' and 'Persia'?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 11 Jun 2012 01:54

all of this discussion completely excludes one important aspect: is persian being suggested as some kind of a "savior" for the non-muslims? is the non-muslim being held hostage with the proposition being, let us hold onto a foreign source as the imperial focal point, or we will turn rabid and wreak havoc?! the entire direction of the discussion is strangely and morbidly macabre. impose on yourself a foreign root source in your daily life, or face the consequences of Jihad! wow, this is the height of insensitivity and cold-blooded negotiation, and we have forumers mourning the "loss" of persian, which was imposed on us by foreign pillaging invaders.

Johann, I rest my case. you can continue singing glories, but you won't find any takers in India. sorry, we simply are not so enthused about voluntarily imposing foreign languages and culture on ourselves. you are of course welcome to fantasize about these supposed "mitigation strategies". as far as we are concerned, it is nothing more than being held for ransom, with a gun to our head, saying do it or we become rabid.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 11 Jun 2012 11:58

Johann, I am very well aware of the nuances of cosmopolitan Indian Muslim culture and the place occupied therein by the Persian meme. I am also aware that much of the vaunted Persian high culture consists of looking down on subaltern cultures like Uzbeks, Pushtuns etc. In reality, that culture may offer avenues for genuine inner growth and refinement but much of the time it just ends up as a vehicle for shallow and vulgar snobbery.

Iqbal belongs to this category. It is laughable to see him painted as someone redeemed by his Persophilia. He was a mediocre and derivative mind and an ersatz Nazi. That he defines the bar for refinement and intellect for the Persophile RAPE elite is a measure of the intellectual quality of this class.

I like any aware Indian am quite cognizant of the liberal leftist theological strand in Pathans (as we call the Pushtuns). I attribute this tendency to a more fundamental and autochthonous--read subcontinental--meme than the allegedly redeeming Persian implant that you seem so strangely enamored of.

Lastly, I don't shiver in my dhoti at the thought of Taliban prevailing and start wishing that the Persian culture would have made it all better. To me, scum is as scum does and they will find one cultural vehicle or other to achieve scummy apotheosis. They can be recognized and dealt with. My real concern is exactly the RAPE scum who, like Iqbal manage to conceal their vicious, vulgar and mediocre minds under a veneer of Persianized cosmopolitanism.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 11 Jun 2012 20:03

^^^
KLN garu,

very apt observation. to add to that, the persian culture was the prevalent medium of communication and conducting state business in the Deccan sultanates. these entities perpetrated some of the most heinous atrocities on Hindus in the Deccan. they used to wage annual Jihad on Hindus, and in the interregnum between Vijayanagara and Maratha eras, they got away with a lot of these Jihads, untouched and unscathed. their hatred for the Hindu declined ONLY when there was a Hindu power capable of resisting them. During VN times, they would wage these Jihads whenever they felt that VN was weak, and almost all the times, they got a swift and ruthless response from VN. by the time the Marathas came around, their power was on the wane, and they were declining.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Jun 2012 20:27

Published on Jun 12, 2012
By Brian M Downing
Why Putin is being so helpful to the US: Asia Times

As the limitations of the roads, depots, and rail lines running from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea into Central Asia become clear to NATO logistics experts, it will be necessary to improve, expand and modernize them.

The US will build an infrastructure system that Russia and other countries in the region will benefit from for many decades. Corporations that today see Afghanistan as tempting but inaccessible will look again at those promising geological surveys that found great riches.

The US will be bringing in war material and development supplies; the enterprises of various countries will be taking out Afghan copper, iron, and rare earths. Extraction will be confined for the near term to the north where the insurgency is weak but with a settlement someday, southern resources too can head north, especially if Pakistan becomes more unstable and Iran remains under international sanctions.

Russia sees this economic potential as stabilizing the region, enriching its coffers and influence, and limiting or balancing the already considerable Chinese presence in Central Asia.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2012 20:52

Johann wrote:KLNM,

My original post was about Afghanistan, and the fact that Pashto speakers are now under the religious influence of people trained in the worlds most regressive madrasas in Pakistan.

Something worth remembering - the NWFP was a solidly pro-Congress area right until partition for all sorts of reasons. The key elements in turning mass public support towards Pakistan were the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Sarhad, the local branch of the association of activist Deobandi ulema. A century prior the most important religious influences would have been sufi clergy with ties of patronage to the Amir of Afghanistan, and stretching back to madrasas in Samarkand and Bukhara. In other words the direction of religious authority flipped in the second half of the 19th century. Has that been a positive thing so far? Not really.

As far as Iqbal goes, Persian is what distinguished people like him from the utter barbarity of Taliban. Moving beyond that larger point is that the emergence of Urdu as the marker for a Pan-Subcontinental Muslim identity has not been good thing so far either. It encouraged the questionable notion that there is or was a single *all-India* Muslim community and identity, and this was the precursor to idea of Pakistan.

One can thank this manSyed Ahmad Barelvi for this change. He brought about Wahabism to the Pashtun lands in the early 19th century. It took a century and half to radicalize the Pasthuns and the TSP helped by ushering in the Taliban.
The Taliban are like the Ikhwan for the TSP Kabila.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 13 Jun 2012 08:08

The US, Afghanistan and the 'India card'

Afghan civil war plus proxies

While Washington's desire for more robust regional engagement in support of Afghanistan is understandable, the notion that a qualitatively more aggressive Indian posture in Afghanistan would serve to encourage more constructive Pakistani behaviour - and still less, as some US defence officials have actually suggested, genuine Indo-Pakistani cooperation inside Afghanistan - borders on the hopelessly naive.

It may be that Secretary Panetta's gambit in New Delhi is merely a new form of coercion against Pakistan. And in any case, the Indians have made clear that they are reluctant to step more deeply into a risky and highly unstable situation merely to help facilitate an unwanted US departure.

But the US government should know that to the extent it is successful in pressing India into high-profile security engagement in Afghanistan, the more likely it is to produce the very situation it fears most: A renewed Afghan civil war in which India and Pakistan are actively engaged in support of their respective proxies, and in which Islamabad's ties to the Taliban are strongly reinforced.

America's strategic relationships with Israel and India have more in common than is often appreciated. But just as the US has been cautious of the practical use to which its alliance with Israel is put, it should likewise exercise great caution in playing the "India card" in Afghanistan.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Jun 2012 07:05

The View From Kandahar: Photographer Louie Palu's portraits of the war down south.

The Afghan war: About to get interesting

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jun 2012 21:07

The drone strikes are a technological death squad. The Isrealis used to send covert/undercover teams to extract Nazis or kill Arab scientists working on projects inimical to Israel.
What the drones allows the US is to dispense with the need to make physical entry and exit for such teams to do the needful.

This is where the UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay is coming from. Since the US solution is technological:A high flying unmanned plane controlled from a far away place, there is hardly any uproar at the usage. On the other hand Israel gets hammered for same low tech solutions based on humans. Dawood Ibrahim is also using low tech shooter to do his job

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 14 Jun 2012 21:45

Yes but don't the pious know that the Jihadi army of Pakistan stocks of Stingers and Hongus.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Jun 2012 22:36

Acharya wrote: Afghanistan is not a test to Indian National security. India has to follow containment strategy for Af Pak area for another 30 years.

Absolutely incorrect - Escalating in Afghanistan and making sure it stays out of Taliban/TSP hand is the biggest test we are currently facing as it directly impacts our security in J&K. Currently there are just 250 waiting to cross across the border as supposed to 1000's which was the norm before TSP, why do you think this is the case?

I said in 2010 that India will escalate and ensure that jihadi's are busy in the North (afghanistan) and we are now implementing this strategy in a much bigger way: 25,000 intel, officers, troops and police will train in our establishments all over the country. God willing we will succeed!

In the meantime we must create enough opportunities and development for J&K to completely decimate any chance of terror resurfacing.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 14 Jun 2012 22:39

ramana,

The use of drones opens an interesting question - should we consider as combatants the civilians and scientists who developed and operate these drones? I am sure some military personnel are involved, but this question refers only to the civilians involved. Will these people be considered as coming under Geneva Convention (BTW, US has not signed this, but let us assume that it did)? Can the rest of us expect these people to behave as per the Geneva convention obligations? If not, then does not the world have a right not follow the same obligations wrt US, in other words, these civilians become legitimate military targets. And not only these civilians, but also their families.

It is a question that America will have to answer, or someone else will answer it for them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jun 2012 22:42

sanjaykumar wrote:Yes but don't the pious know that the Jihadi army of Pakistan stocks of Stingers and Hongus.

That would be act of war against the US and makes it easier to bomb the TSPA. The irony is the TSPA cant use its goods against the drones which are taking out their irregular/jihadi assets!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jun 2012 22:45

abhishekcc, We are only observers. I wouldn't ask policy questions here.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Jun 2012 01:48

Speech by Nirupama Rao, Foreign Secretary of India, at the Afghanistan-India-Pakistan Trialogue organised by Delhi Policy Group

11. We often hear about Pakistan’s apprehension about India’s conventional defence superiority and growing strategic capabilities after the civil nuclear deal with the United States. Suggestions have been made for a strategic restraint regime in South Asia. I would like to reiterate that India’s defence posture and capabilities are not of an offensive nature, and not targeted against any country, including Pakistan. We want to see a peaceful, stable, energy-secure and prosperous Pakistan that acts as a bulwark against terrorism for its own sake and for the good of the region. Asymmetries in size and development, should not prevent us from working together, building complementarities, and realizing a vision of friendly, bilateral relations. In my opinion, there can be no better strategic restraint regime than greater economic and commercial integration; more and more people to people contacts and cultural exchanges, which lead to mutual understanding of each other’s views. Here rests the key to bridging the trust and vision deficit.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Jun 2012 04:16

India, US plan trilateral talks with Afghanistan

In a significant indication of alignment of interests, India and US on Thursday decided to hold trilateral consultations with Afghanistan. This comes after both New Delhi and Washington have signed Strategic Partnership agreements with Kabul in the last nine months.

According to a joint statement issued after the Indo-US strategic dialogue between External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night, they welcomed their “productive” joint consultations on Afghanistan and “intend to seek new opportunities to intensify their consultation, coordination and cooperation to promote a stable, democratic, united, sovereign and prosperous Afghanistan”.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Jun 2012 04:41

shyamd wrote:
Acharya wrote: Afghanistan is not a test to Indian National security. India has to follow containment strategy for Af Pak area for another 30 years.
Absolutely incorrect - Escalating in Afghanistan and making sure it stays out of Taliban/TSP hand is the biggest test we are currently facing as it directly impacts our security in J&K. Currently there are just 250 waiting to cross across the border as supposed to 1000's which was the norm before TSP, why do you think this is the case?

I said in 2010 that India will escalate and ensure that jihadi's are busy in the North (afghanistan) and we are now implementing this strategy in a much bigger way: 25,000 intel, officers, troops and police will train in our establishments all over the country. God willing we will succeed!

In the meantime we must create enough opportunities and development for J&K to completely decimate any chance of terror resurfacing.

Too simplistic. The current climate has changed and there is need for jihad mentality to die down. It cannot be put down unless a large scale war is done.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Jun 2012 05:11

Explain a bit further if your time permits you. TIA

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Jun 2012 00:55

Good news: OTA/IMA intake of ANA has increased by 50% to date. More expansion as we go through the year

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 16 Jun 2012 14:01

India scores a diplomatic point in Kabul Declaration

In a diplomatic victory of sorts for New Delhi, India has managed to ensure that Thursday’s Kabul Declaration raises pressure on Pakistan for providing a safe haven for terrorists while calling for the dismantling of these safe sanctuaries. The Kabul declaration was made upon the conclusion of a day-long conference in the Afghan capital in which leaders of 29 countries participated. It was the first ministerial meeting after the Istanbul conference in November 2011 and focused on Afghanistan’s development and future.
Significantly, the Kabul conference also marked the recommencement of the Afghan reconciliation process with the Taliban. Afghan President, Hamid Karzai announced that Salahuddin Rabbani, head of the Afghan High Peace Council will visit Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to seek help to make the reconciliation process a success.
This process received a huge setback after Salahuddin’s father, former Afghan President and Afghan High Peace Council chief Burhanu-ddin Rabbani was killed in September 2011.
The Kabul conference has endorsed Afghan efforts to reconcile the Taliban and other militant groups.
The reference to terrorism and safe havens, seen also as an oblique reference to Pakistan backing for the Taliban finds mention in the preamble of the Kabul Declaration. It reads thus: “Agreeing that terrorism and violent extremism are common threats to the region; and emphasising the need for joint and concerted efforts and cooperation among the regional countries to address the challenge of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including the dismantling of terrorists sanctuaries and safe havens as well as disrupting all financial and tactical support for terrorism.”
The foreign ministers of Russia, Pakistan, Iran, United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Denmark were among the participants at the “Heart of Asia” mijisrerial conference in Kabul. The US was represented by deputy secretary of state, William Burns, while India was represented by law minister Salman Khur-shid.
While New Delhi has had its way on what it has often said — that Pak offers a safe sanctuary to terrorists and needs to do something about this — Kabul too should be pleased with this reference.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 16 Jun 2012 14:07

China, India, Iran wait to pounce on Afghan riches

Even before NATO forces begin leaving Afghanistan, predator nations are pouring lavish praise, diplomatic agreements and buckets full of cash on Afghan leaders, trying to win access to the nation's vast natural resources after Western troops are gone.

Chief among them are China, Iran and India - nations that contributed nothing toward the military effort over the past decade but hope to reap benefits from it anyway.

For example, in Beijing late last week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Chinese President Hu Jintao signed a deal allowing China to pursue mineral resources, energy development and agricultural opportunities. Government media quoted Hu as saying China planned to "provide sincere and selfless help to the country."

China's record so far has been far from selfless. Over the past decade, China has given the Afghan government $246 million in aid - while spending $3.5 billion to develop a copper mine there. That doesn't count the $30 million bribe China paid to Afghanistan's minister of mines in 2009 to gain access to that copper mine. The minister has since lost that job.

On the ground in Afghanistan, China is quiet and largely invisible away from its commercial pursuits, where Afghan military and police, trained and paid by NATO, protect them.

India, meanwhile, has won rights to mine iron ore. And Iran, after failing in its urgent efforts to scuttle the U.S.-Afghanistan strategic partnership, is promising copious aid and assistance after NATO leaves.

My suggestion to Afghans: Don't hold your breath. Iran has already bought its way into the Afghan media and now funds at least a third of the nation's radio, TV and newspapers. All of them are used to broadcast hateful messages about America and the West. But payments to their employees are plummeting as international sanctions decimate the Iranian treasury.

All of this is causing angst and worse among the nations that have spent or obligated more than $1 trillion over the last decade and lost more than 3,000 lives. Earlier this year, William Patey, the outgoing British ambassador to Afghanistan, remarked that the West welcomes foreign investment in the state, "but it would be even more heartening if these countries could set aside a budget to help with the security effort, particularly after coalition forces leave. There seems to be an assumption that Afghanistan, Britain and America will cover security."

Underlying all of this is the discovery that Afghanistan holds at least $1 trillion in untapped natural resources, including oil, cobalt, iron ore, gold and precious metals, among them lithium, used to power batteries. An internal Pentagon memo, now widely quoted, calls Afghanistan "the Saudi Arabia of lithium."

By all rights, the nations that fought for Afghanistan, spent all that money, lost all those lives, ought to have first call on these lucrative commercial opportunities. But that's not to be, partly because Karzai defines the phrase "bite the hand that feeds you."

But the larger reason: Western states generally are not willing to pay the massive bribes Karzai and his minions have come to expect. For years now, Karzai has acknowledged, Iran has been delivering bags full of cash to him and about 44 members of the Afghan Parliament, Reuters reported.

China, home to pandemic corruption, will always pay what's needed to get what it wants. Well, the United States has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and most Western nations have similar laws.

Unhindered by any of that, China's National Petroleum Corp. has worked out a deal to pump 5,000 barrels of oil a day beginning later this year from newly discovered Afghan reserves. And India, another richly corrupt state, has acquired an agreement to help build a natural-gas pipeline through Afghanistan.

But these mercenary countries don't seem to understand what they're getting into. Once NATO forces leave, and a small U.S. presence remains at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, the Taliban are likely to seize control of the rest of the state, or most of it. Are these miscreants going to stand by and watch as these other countries make off with Afghanistan's riches?

Many analysts have been saying the Chinese refuse to get involved in the fighting because they don't want the Taliban and its militant allies to view China as an enemy. But that won't matter. The Taliban, realizing that China and Pakistan are allies, undoubtedly will attack them. And Pakistan probably will delegate the Haqqani terrorist network to go after Indian companies.

None of these states chose to get involved before. Enter the arena now at your own considerable risk.

The author is either not aware or simply chooses to ignore India's continued support and contribution to Afghanistan's stability and growth.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Jun 2012 14:28

India had its troops and people killed by Afghan terrorists from 1980s. India has paid its dues inside Af Pak

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Jun 2012 15:06

And you think we should just give up and 'contain' them - let the jihadi's win and let them all come at Indian troops in J&K ?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 17 Jun 2012 00:22

A second front in Afghanistan is most welcome. The troop contingent should be large enough to threaten Pakistan's western flank.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Jun 2012 03:25

^^ We are building the capabilities to sustain a large force. However, right now we want to build the ANA military capabiltity - there is talk of Indian tanks being gifted to ANA and all sorts. Lets see what happens. As of now, we are ramping up on training in a big way to get enough ANA troops ready to conduct operations. We want pashtun's, we are training ANAF pilots for some time now in CIS countries.

When we speak to Russia and Iran we need to remind them of what life was like under the Taliban.

IRan - 40-50k taliban arrayed on the border - butchering shia's, Russia - rebels supporting in Chechnya

I am deeply worried about the eastern flank which seems now totally under the control of the taliban - Osh Valley is now under Taleb control - Tajikistan is in deep shit. Russian guards are posted there - we need to speak to Russia and get them to commit some forces to help the CAS nations out.

Things are looking quite serious but not much coverage in the media.

India at risk of losing Siachen watchtower

SUJAN DUTTA AND ARCHIS MOHAN

New Delhi, June 8: The Indian Air Force risks getting squeezed out of a base in Tajikistan that promised to be India’s only overseas military facility from which it could keep tabs on Pakistani and Chinese activities, including those on the Siachen glacier.

As defence secretary Shashi Kant Sharma heads to Islamabad for talks on Monday and Tuesday on Pakistan’s proposal for a mutual troops pullback from the glacier, the possible loss of access to the Ayni/Farkhor airbase that India helped rebuild is casting a shadow on New Delhi’s political and diplomatic intent.

Situated northwest of the Saltoro Ridge that flanks the Siachen glacier, it would have afforded the Indian military the superb advantage of watching aerially Pakistani troops from behind their lines.

Despite a political inclination at the government’s highest level to achieve a takeaway from the Indo-Pak talks that may pave the way for the Prime Minister to visit Pakistan, New Delhi has almost shut out the possibility of finding Manmohan Singh his “peace mountain” in Siachen.

“I do not want to talk about it publicly right now because the defence secretary is going there in two days. Our stand will be known there (in Islamabad). Don’t expect any dramatic announcement or decision there,” defence minister A.K. Antony said today, almost repeating what he had told Parliament last month.

The Indian position on Siachen is unchanged despite Pakistan’s formal request on April 8, a day after an avalanche buried an estimated 135 of its troops in Gyari. India says Pakistan will first have to “authenticate” the Actual Ground Position Line for a review of the position to be even considered. Pakistan has said it wants the glacier de-militarised.

The fact is that Pakistani troops are not on the glacier but largely on the slopes of the Saltoro Ridge on the northern and western flanks of the glacier. Indian troops occupy the commanding heights on the ridge from 14,000ft to 22,000ft.

The Indian Army says that unless Pakistan acknowledges this by authenticating the Actual Ground Position Line, there is no question of vacating the posts.

But Islamabad has sold its people a lie — that its troops are on the glacier. Even after authentication, India will want to verify that the Pakistani troops are not occupying positions that Indian troops vacate. This is where Farkhor/Ayni would have presented a vantage point.

India had a military hospital in Farkhor, Tajikistan, that cared for the fighters of the Northern Alliance till 2001, by when the Taliban had overrun Afghanistan. Farkhor’s location, close to the borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan (PoK) and China, makes it a listening post and watchtower for which major powers are vying.

Last October, Antony was greeted warmly with traditional honey and bread during an unscheduled stop in Dushanbe by his Tajik counterpart, Colonel General Sherali Khairyulleov. India has always kept its connection to Farkhor/Ayni, just northwest of Dushanbe, low profile, never officially admitting its role in revamping the Soviet-era airbase.

But the Indian government spent more than Rs 350 crore in hard currency and posted a detachment of the army’s Border Roads Organisation (BRO) to re-do the base. The BRO extended the runway for it to be operational for fighter jets, built a perimeter fence and three hangars. It was a strategic investment in the hope that Tajikistan would give India an exceptional watchtower.

But now the honey isn’t sweet enough.

India, Tajikistan and Russia were working to operate the base jointly. But Tajikistan, seen by China as its western gateway to Central Asia, has been under diplomatic pressure from its neighbours to stave off an intimate military engagement with India. Russia, too, has been wary of India’s foreign military footprint, largely because Moscow suspects that New Delhi is increasingly inclining westwards for its defence hardware.

In addition, the US, keen to open more supply lines into Afghanistan, is now understood to have evinced interest in using Ayni/Farkhor. For the Indian Air Force and the Indian military, the basing of helicopters and fighter jets in Farkhor was seen as a strategic decision.

AS I said a long time ago, we were close to sending troops but what happened was Russia was pissed off that they werent consulted. Then Iran backed out.

We cannot have an alliance with the US - even PRC related. It is in our strategic interests to continue to buy from Russia and maintain good relations with Russia - this is something that no one understands. We can't be seen as pro US/West.

I thought this speech given a few days ago in Bishkek is quite good:

'Afghanistan can be rebuilt by making it trade, energy hub'

E Ahamed / Jun 17, 2012, 00:04 IST

In my remarks, I will dwell upon India’s vision of its role in Central Asia. Today, India is reconnecting with this neighbourhood, with which we are bound by the silken bonds of centuries of common history.

Central Asia, over the last two decades in general and recently in particular, is witnessing an unprecedented integration into the global economic and political mainstream. We, in India, rejoice in this trend of the expanding influence of Central Asia, particularly on the world energy scene. We recognise Central Asian countries as close political partners in our ‘extended neighbourhood’, a precept that has become a key element of our foreign policy. Our civilisational bonds with Central Asian countries have been translated into warm and friendly relations, with India being among the first countries to open diplomatic missions in all the five capitals.

However, in the last few decades, we have been struggling to build economic links that match our political and cultural interaction. Our trade with the whole region is at a relatively low level of around $500 million. We face some natural obstacles like limited land connectivity and the limited size of the Central Asian markets. India has, thus, not seen the sort of commercial interaction in Central Asia, which we saw in Southeast Asia, East Asia and West Asia. This has led to a joint quest for innovative answers, some of which we look upon this dialogue to throw up.

India is now looking intently at the region through the framework of its ‘Connect Central Asia’ policy, which is based on pro-active political, economic and people-to-people engagement with Central Asian countries, both individually and collectively.

I believe that India’s active presence in the region will contribute to stability and development in the entire Central and South Asia region. In this analysis, we must factor in the regional situation and especially the challenge of rebuilding the Afghan nation. A cooperative approach for embedding Afghanistan into a more meaningful regional economic and security framework, would have benefits for the entire region. One way is to work towards converting Afghanistan into a hub for trade and energy, connecting Central and South Asia...

Central Asian countries could also gain from the techno-economic potential of India, which could be accessed in cooperative, mutually beneficial partnerships... India has never been prescriptive in its political approach. We represent our unique liberal democratic values, particularly in the Asian context. We believe in a nation-building model based on participatory democracy, economic growth, building civil societies, pluralistic structures, ethno-religious harmony and the rule of law. Against this backdrop, let me outline some of the elements of India’s ‘Connect Central Asia’ policy, which is a broad-based approach, including political, security, economic and cultural connections:

We will continue to build on our strong political relations through the exchange of high-level visits. Our leaders will continue to interact closely both in bilateral and multilateral fora.
We will strengthen our strategic and security cooperation. We already have strategic partnerships in place with some Central Asian countries — in focus will be military training, joint research, counter-terrorism coordination and close consultations on Afghanistan.
We will step up multilateral engagement with Central Asian partners using the synergy of joint efforts through existing fora like Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Eurasian Economic Community and the Custom Union. India has already proposed a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement to integrate its markets with the unifying Eurasian space.
Central Asia possesses large cultivable tracts of land and we see potential for India to cooperate in production of profitable crops with value addition.
The medical field is another area that offers huge potential for cooperation. We are ready to extend cooperation by setting up civil hospitals/clinics in Central Asia.
India’s higher education system delivers at a fraction of the fees charged by Western universities. India would like to assist in the setting up of a Central Asian University in Bishkek, which could come up as a centre of excellence to impart world class education in areas like IT, management, philosophy and languages.
We are working on setting up a Central Asian e-network with its hub in India, to deliver, tele-education and tele-medicine connectivity, linking all the five Central Asian states.
Our companies can showcase India’s capability in the construction sector and build world class structures at competitive rates. Central Asian countries, especially Kazakhstan, have almost limitless reserves of iron ore and coal, as well as abundant cheap electricity. India can help set up several medium-size steel rolling mills, producing its requirement of specific products.
As for land connectivity, we have reactivated the International North-South Transport Corridor. We need to join our efforts to discuss ways to bridge the missing links in the Corridor at the earliest and also work on other connecting spurs along the route.
Absence of a viable banking infrastructure in the region is a major barrier to trade and investment. Indian banks can expand their presence if they see a favourable policy environment.
We will jointly work to improve air connectivity between our countries. India is one of the biggest markets for outbound travellers estimated at $21 billion in 2011. Many countries have opened tourist offices in India to woo Indian tourists. Central Asian countries could emerge as attractive holiday destinations for tourists and even for the Indian film industry...

India, thus, stands ready for a deep and sustained engagement with Central Asia. We need our Central Asian friends to create favourable visa conditions to accept India’s benign presence. Perhaps the governments of all the five states will agree to simplify these procedures.

Keynote address by Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahamed at the first India-Central Asia dialogue, in Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan on June 12

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Jun 2012 15:51

Lol! They'll be in shock soon.
Taliban praise India for resisting Afghan entanglement

Taliban fighters pose with weapons as they sit in their compound at an undisclosed location in southern Afghanistan in this May 5, 2011 picture. REUTERS/Stringer/Files

By Sanjeev Miglani

KABUL | Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:10pm IST

(Reuters) - India has done well to resist U.S. calls for greater involvement in Afghanistan, the Taliban said in a rare direct comment about one of the strongest opponents of the hardline Islamist group that was ousted from power in 2001.

The Taliban also said they won't let Afghanistan be used as a base against another country, addressing fears in New Delhi that Pakistan-based anti-India militants may become more emboldened if the Taliban return to power.

The Afghan Taliban have longstanding ties to Pakistan and striking a softer tone towards its arch rival India could be a sign of a more independent course.

Direct talks with the United States - which have since been suspended - and an agreement to open a Taliban office in Qatar to conduct formal peace talks have been seen as signs of a more assertive stance.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta this month encouraged India to take a more active role in Afghanistan as most foreign combat troops leave in 2014. The Taliban said Panetta had failed.

"He spent three days in India to transfer the heavy burden to their shoulders, to find an exit, and to flee from Afghanistan," the group said on its English website.

"Some reliable media sources said that the Indian authorities did not pay heed to (U.S.) demands and showed their reservations, because the Indians know or they should know that the Americans are grinding their own axe."

There had been no assurance for the Americans, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters on Sunday.

"It shows that India understands the facts," he said.

India is one of the biggest donors in Afghanistan, spending about $2 billion on projects ranging from the construction of highways to the building of the Afghan parliament. It has also won an iron ore concession in a $11 billion investment.

But New Delhi has avoided involvement in bolstering Afghan security, except for running courses for small groups of Afghan army officers at military institutions in India.

"No doubt that India is a significant country in the region, but is also worth mentioning that they have full information about Afghanistan because they know each other very well in the long history," the Taliban said.

"They are aware of the Afghan aspirations, creeds and love for freedom. It is totally illogical they should plunge their nation into a calamity just for the American pleasure."

India backed the Northern Alliance during the civil war and was frozen out of Afghanistan once the Taliban took over in 1996 until their ouster by U.S. forces. It has since developed close ties with Kabul, prompting Pakistani fears of encirclement.

Pakistan has strong traditional links with the Afghan Taliban and other militant groups. Islamabad denies that it uses them as proxies to gain leverage in Afghanistan ahead of any settlement to the war, or in case civil war breaks out after foreign troops leave.

Vikram Sood, a former chief of India's intelligence agency, said the Taliban statement held an implicit warning for India.

"It's more a gentle reminder asking India not to mess around in Afghanistan after the Americans leave," he told Reuters. (Additional reporting by Mirwais Harooni; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 18 Jun 2012 02:48

^ more on the same story

India has done well to resist US calls for greater involvement in Afghanistan, the Taliban said in a rare direct comment about one of the strongest opponents of the hardline Islamist group that was ousted from power in 2001. The Taliban also said they won't let Afghanistan be used as a base against another country, addressing fears in New Delhi that Pakistan-based anti-India militants may become more emboldened if the Taliban return to power.

Taliban praises India for resisting Afghan entanglement | NDTV Video

There can be only two reasons for this comment

1. The Taliban are more independent than we think they are and want to wrap up this fight with the Americans by keeping India out by assuring us that our interests will not be harmed post the withdrawal of International forces. (The Taliban fanatics must understand that India doesn't want to occupy A'stan but just wants it to prosper so that crazies who seek to harm India don't train there.)

2. Another perspective is that the Pakis are feeling the heat from the Americans and have called on the Taliban to put out a warning asking India not to get involved.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jun 2012 02:58

Roperia wrote:^ more on the same story

India has done well to resist US calls for greater involvement in Afghanistan, the Taliban said in a rare direct comment about one of the strongest opponents of the hardline Islamist group that was ousted from power in 2001. The Taliban also said they won't let Afghanistan be used as a base against another country, addressing fears in New Delhi that Pakistan-based anti-India militants may become more emboldened if the Taliban return to power.
Taliban praises India for resisting Afghan entanglement | NDTV Video

There can be only two reasons for this comment

1. The Taliban are more independent then we think they are and want to wrap up this fight with the Americans by keeping India out.

2. Another perspective is that the Pakis feeling the heat from the Americans and have called on the Taliban to put out a warning asking India not to get involved.

Taliban has been responsible for the killing of Indians in Afghanistan and inside India.
lThey were responsible for the FLight IC814 and the killing of Indian passenger and helping the hijackers,

Where were they when India was in trouble. Let them answer that

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 18 Jun 2012 03:07

Acharya wrote:...
Taliban has been responsible for the killing of Indians in Afghanistan and inside India.
lThey were responsible for the FLight IC814 and the killing of Indian passenger and helping the hijackers,

Where were they when India was in trouble. Let them answer that

I agree with you that Taliban are not our friends. I was just exploring the idea whether there can be any Indian reconciliation with the Taliban.

I mean at one level they are just Islamic fanatics and we have absolutely nothing in common with them.

Taliban has hard power and nuisance value. I was thinking of how do we minimize the nuisance value?

What are the prospects of our relationship with the Taliban if we were to assume that they were to succeed (there chances are slim given the Afghan army and air power contingent Americans are going to leave behind.)?

1. They are going to kill more Paki army soldiers and civilians unless the Pakis Talibanize themselves.

2. They might let the Jihadi forces from Pakistan train there to harm India.

3. They are going to fight western troops and harm western interests.

If we can somehow prevent #2 from happening and confine the Taliban's interests in only A'stan and Af-Pak border, India should be happy with the outcome.

To achieve that, if Americans can degrade them to a level where they can't pursue all three, India should be happy. I just want to make sure that when Taliban stop pursuing #3, #2 should cease as well. If the #1 happens for another 100 years on the Durand line, I won't shed a tear for the Pakis.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Jun 2012 09:49

Acharya wrote: Where were they when India was in trouble. Let them answer that

They may understand Pakistaniyat a little better now than they used to. For now we watch and wait.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 18 Jun 2012 23:16

Pushto singer Ghazala Javed shot dead

http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-54932 ... -shot-dead

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 23:50

India eyes Afghan coal after iron, copper, gold

Indian government officials will visit Afghanistan to look at the possibility of exploring and mining coal
Ruchira Singh

New Delhi: Indian government officials will visit Afghanistan to look at the possibility of exploring and mining coal after winning rights to mine iron ore last year and bidding for copper and gold this year, a risky venture being pushed to overcome the shortage of resources.

A delegation comprising Coal India Ltd (CIL) chairman S. Narsing Rao, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd chairman Sutirtha Bhattacharya and officials from the coal ministry will shortly visit Kabul, and following discussions and reviews of prospective coal basins, an agreement is likely to be signed for bilateral cooperation in developing coal assets, Mining Weekly said on its website, attributing the information to a coal ministry official.

An Afghanistan government official close to the process of mineral block auctions confirmed that an Indian delegation is scheduled to visit, but added it was too early to discuss concrete business plans. “They are coming for bilateral talks,” said the official, who didn’t want to be named. “I don’t know if it will be for exploration of coal.”

The Afghan official said the government will soon issue a tender to appoint a consultant to undertake a preliminary study of coal deposits in the mineral-rich country, following which coal blocks could be auctioned in a manner similar to the iron ore, copper and gold blocks. “There is some high-quality coal available in Afghanistan. After we do this study we will open this market as well,” the official said. “The study may take one year.”

A consortium of Indian companies led by state-run Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), including NMDC Ltd, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, JSW Steel Ltd, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd and Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd won three iron ore deposits in Hajigak, about 100km from Kabul, in November, which is a $10.8 billion project. The group also intends to build a steel mill.

A second consortium, including National Aluminium Co. Ltd and Hindustan Copper Ltd, recently bid for copper and gold deposits in Shaida, Badakshan and Zarkhashan and has been shortlisted to place financial bids.

Behind the latest venture in the politically unstable nation is the foreign ministry’s push for geopolitical presence in Afghanistan on fears China may increase its influence in the neighbourhood by winning mineral assets.

“Afghanistan may be a very tough place to work in, particularly given the investment risks,” CIL chairman Rao said, without confirming if he will go to Kabul.

CIL, the world’s largest coal mining firm, produced 435.84 million tonnes (mt) coal in 2011-12, up 1% over the previous year, but behind its target of 440 mt after flooding in east India and a labour strike.

This year, the state-owned miner is under added pressure to boost production, owing to the fuel-supply pacts it has been asked to sign with power producers, and it is looking at importing coal to meet its shortfall.

India produces about 530 mt coal, but needs 100 mt more because of rising industrialization.

The Planning Commission has recommended that CIL import 45 mt coal in 2012-13 to ensure 393 mt of supplies to thermal power producers, while the minimum supply target has been set at 347 mt, an 11% increase over CIL’s supplies to power plants in the previous year, Mining Weekly said. The official in Afghanistan said it may finalize copper and gold block bidders next month.

On way to build a sustainable afghanistan

Our contributions to afghanistan:
"Our Good Friend and Cousin": India in Afghanistan

Map of India.
Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported

Map of India.

India is a major source of aid and economic development for Afghanistan. And New Delhi's commitment to the war-torn country is not just about gaining leverage over Pakistan.

By Eric Lund for ISN Security Watch

In the shadow of the bombed out Darulaman Palace in central Kabul, Afghanistan’s new parliament building is being constructed by an Indian firm. The US$83 million project is set to be completed by the end of this year, and is India’s most visible investment in the Afghan capital – but Delhi’s engagement with Afghanistan since 2001 runs deep and broad across the country.

As the international 2014 troop withdrawal from Afghanistan approaches, focus is increasingly shifting to countries in the South and Central Asian neighbourhood and the role they will play once the US and its NATO allies have left. Despite the attention given to Pakistan, or even to China’s investments in the Afghan mineral sector, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of India.

Relations between Afghanistan and India were, until the Taliban seized power in 1996, traditionally friendly. India signed a “friendship treaty” with Kabul in 1950, strengthening trade and diplomatic relations. When Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in 1979, the then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi refused to condemn the invasion and maintained good terms with the Soviet-backed government. Although the descent into civil war between Soviet troops and the US-supported mujahideen left Delhi less maneuvering space in the country, Indian levels of investment remained relatively high throughout the 1980s.

The arrival of the Taliban government in 1996, however, prompted India to shut down its Kabul embassy and cut all ties with the new fundamentalist regime. The years of Taliban rule allowed Pakistan to gain significant influence in Afghanistan, to the chagrin of Delhi. The 2001 US-led invasion and the fall of the Taliban regime was seen as an opportunity by Indian policy makers to rebuild relations with Kabul and play an influential part in the country.

Indian motives for its post-2001 involvement in Afghanistan are multi-layered. India wants a strong and democratic Afghan state that does not slide into extremism again, potentially destabilising the region. Delhi is also cautious about Pakistan gaining too much influence in the country. As pointed out in a recent report by the International Crisis Group, there is a growing concern about links between Pakistan-sponsored militant groups operating in Afghanistan (Haqqani network) and anti-Indian terrorist groups (Lashkar-e-Tayyba, Jaish-e-Mohammad).

The South Asia scholar Christine Fair has argued that Indian involvement in Afghanistan is not just Pakistan-centric, but equally focused on projecting India as a rising global power and an important player in its immediate neighbourhood. There are also economic reasons, with India keen to use Afghanistan for facilitating access to Central Asian energy supplies.

With more than US$2 billion pledged since 2001, India is today the by far largest regional donor in Afghanistan and the fifth largest in the world. India has refused to contribute troops in Afghanistan, and has instead taken a “soft” approach focusing on aid and development.

Delhi has funded four major infrastructure projects in Afghanistan: already completed are the Delaram-Zaranj highway, which links Iran to the Garland “ring road” highway that connects most major Afghan cities; and a 442 km power line connecting Kabul to Uzbekistan, which has given the capital 24-hour electricity supply for the first time in years. Still pending are the Kabul parliament building, and the rebuilding of the Salma Dam in Herat province, which will provide electricity and irrigation in western Afghanistan.

Beyond the large infrastructure projects, India’s investment in Afghanistan also extends to food aid, rural development projects and healthcare. Thousands of Afghan students have been given scholarships to study in India. India is also one of Afghanistan’s major trading partners, and the flow of goods has been strengthened by a “Preferential Trade Agreement” signed in 2003. In April this year, the two governments announced a framework agreement on Indian investment in Afghanistan’s ore industry, and Indian companies have been given the mining rights to the Hajigak iron ore deposits, estimated to hold 1.8 billion tonnes of ore. Afghanistan’s largely untapped mineral wealth is thought to be worth some US$3 trillion, and is often talked of as key to ensuring the country’s economy. On a recent visit to Delhi, Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul expressed hope that the ore agreements showed that Indian involvement in Afghanistan was “shifting from aid to investment”.

From talking to ordinary Afghans around the country, it becomes clear that Delhi’s soft power approach has generated much goodwill. India consistently ranks highest in opinion polls of countries Afghans have the best perception of, while Pakistan usually takes the bottom place. It is also difficult to miss the influence of Indian culture in the country - Bollywood movies are popular in cinema halls and on the black market, while the TVs in the Kabul Airport lounge show Indian soap operas on repeat.

This is not to say that the Indo-Afghan relationship has been without friction. Indian workers and sites have been the target of several high-profile attacks since 2001, most notably the 2008 Taliban bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in which 58 people were killed. After an Indian construction worker was shot by the Taliban in 2005, India dispatched some 200 paramilitary troops to provide security for Indian workers across the country. The presence of armed Indian forces along Pakistan’s western border prompted protests in Islamabad, questioning India’s real motives for its Afghanistan engagement.

Some analysts have also warned that Indian engagement in Afghanistan could be detrimental for the country in the long-term. With international troops withdrawing, competition between India and Pakistan could precipitate a new “great game” between the two countries that could have a negative impact on Afghanistan’s stability.

The inevitable question is if India can expand, or even maintain, its presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Delhi is at least publicly committing to doing so, as evidenced by the Afghan-India strategic partnership signed in October 2011. The deal commits India to expand its training of Afghan security forces, includes provisions on strengthening bilateral trade, and reassured many Afghans about India’s long-term intentions. Despite this, there are signs that India is now reevaluating its Afghan policy with the major development projects completed – but what the outcome might be is still unclear.

It is, however, obvious that India’s future constructive engagement with Afghanistan will be of immense importance to the country as the international presence ebbs after 2014. India has proved a reliable and capable partner for Afghanistan, whose aid and development efforts have been of direct benefit to many ordinary Afghans.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Jun 2012 23:46

Did anyone hear about this cancelled DIA(US defence intel agency) conference on Balochistan/Tribal zone?

---------
US wants India to help Afghanistan join South Asia as supposed to Central Asia Region. India will train leaders in Afghan army.