India / Afghanistan - A New Strategic Relationship

[Samudragupta]

A lot of rants mixed with some reality

The West is not going to sit idle..they are surely going to strike back....they are in for blood...last time they sat idle "barbarians" from the East destroyed Rome and brought the dark age.....sometimes i feel they still have a groudge that India did not send their philosopers to Rome to stop the maurading Christians to destroy it......But the question is where will they strike now?

[Dilbu]

The usual lifafa article threatening Karzai with dire consequences and claiming India is the bad guy.
Soft responses to aggression?

His ‘marvelous performance’ in this regard would surely uplift and strengthen his status and stature in the eyes of the US authorities and would no doubt boost up his role as a tool in the present political system of Afghanistan.But at the same time if the Haqqanis are really playing in the hands of the ISI and Pakistan is playing a double game in dealing with extremists, Karzai will have to face more severe reaction from them.

Accusing Pakistan of nurturing the terrorists and patronizing the extremists has now become the most favourite hobby for USA, India and President Karzai. They have left no stone unturned to prove that Pakistan is responsible of creating unrest in Afghanistan. The matter of fact is that in this blame game against Pakistan; Mr Karzai is being exploited and misused by his US and Indian benefactors simply because of his innocence and weaker political understanding. He seems totally unaware of the gravity of his statements and negative impact of his words while talking about Pakistan. It is a daylight fact that there could be no peace in Afghanistan without Pakistan. USA and the NATO forces one day will have to quit Afghan lands and the actual sons of the soil, the Pashtuns and the Afghans, would take hold of Afghanistan.

Followed by some of the usual allegations against India and then some wetting of pants.

More alarming is the news that India will also be holding war games along Pakistan’s border in near future. These war games are specifically formulated to capture enemy’s strategic assets and paralyzing its defence capability. The government of Pakistan must review its soft approach and mild reactions to the ever-increasing Indian aggression. Matters with India seem impossible to be settled through negotiations and peace-talks. The government of Pakistan must reconsider the state of affairs with India. A stern response to the Indian aggression would be in the larger benefit of not only the people of Pakistan but also in the interest of Indian-held Kashmir and Afghanistan.

[Philip]

AS mentioned above,this year is going to be a bumper yr. for the drug lords who will be able to fund the fighting very well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -cent.html

Afghanistan opium production set to rise 61 per cent
Opium production in Afghanistan is set to rise by nearly two-thirds this year, with farmers' revenues set to soar compared to last year's harvest blighted by disease, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

Xcpts:

Ten years after the 2001 US-led invasion to drive the Taliban from power, Afghanistan produces 90 per cent of the world's illegal opium, funding much of the militia's insurgency despite an expensive Western eradication programme.

The UN said that cultivation of the poppy crop reached 131,000 hectares in 2011, seven per cent higher than in 2010 "due to insecurity and high prices", said the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in its annual opium survey.

And with the crop yield per hectare up markedly from last year, overall production would potentially rise by 61 per cent on last year, the report said.

The consistency of the area under opium production indicates a major failure on the part of Nato's civilian partners – notably provincial reconstruction teams – to convince farmers to switch to alternative crops.

The price of dry opium rose 43 per cent this year compared to 2010 and total farm-gate income is set to increase by 133 per cent to reach $1.4 billion in 2011, or nine per cent of Afghanistan's GDP, the report said.

"If the profits of manufacturing and trafficking heroin are added to this figure, opium is a significant part of the Afghan economy and provides considerable funding to the insurgency and fuels corruption," it said.

"We cannot afford to ignore the record profits for non-farmers, such as traders and insurgents, which in turn fuel corruption, criminality and instability," said UNODC country head Jean-Luc Lemahieu.

"This is a distressing situation," he added.

About 78 per cent of cultivation was concentrated in southern Afghanistan, the heartland of the Taliban-led insurgency and where the United States has concentrated a troop "surge" designed to beat back the militia's influence.

Another 17 per cent was produced in the lawless and remote southwest, which include the most insecure provinces in the country, the report said.

"This confirms the link between insecurity and opium cultivation observed since 2007," it said.

Afghan authorities have been trying to rid the country of illicit opium production with help from its international allies since the Taliban were ousted from power in a US-led invasion in late 2001.

"The total amount of hectares eradicated increased by 65 per cent in 2011. However, the area eradicated represents only three per cent of the total cultivation area," Lemahieu quoted UNODC chief Yury Fedotov as saying.

"While there has been progress in some counternarcotics areas, the medium term indicators for opium production are not positive," he added.

Experts say the Taliban's involvement in the drugs trade stretches from direct facilitation – such as providing farmers with seed, fertiliser and cash advances on their crop – to distribution and protection.

PS:Whatever happened to "Agent Orange"? I'm sure that the US's dirty tricks dept. would've by now produced something equally effective but less lethal? Therefore,the simple truth is go for destroying the opium producing areas which are under Talib/Paki control and watch the results.Om-Baba,bring on the B-52s!

[abhischekcc]

Revenues do not fall when opium crop is destroyed, prices simply move up.

If last year crop was destroyed by blight (and IIRC Russia had a hand in doing this), then pressure would be on the procurement phase, not in distribution or final sales (in WEurope).

If this year, the crop has been good, it will depress prices across the pipeline, reducing profits, but increasing pressure for market share.

But in reality, the Taliban/ISI has built a large reserve of opium stock - reputedly as much as 10 years worth of consumption. So good or bad year does not mean anything in the real market.

[RajeshA]

But in reality, the Taliban/ISI has built a large reserve of opium stock - reputedly as much as 10 years worth of consumption. So good or bad year does not mean anything in the real market.

That is what needs bombing!

[jagga]

Delhi sees the Good, Bad and the Ugly in Kabul’s theatre

Washington, too, may have reason to be unhappy with New Delhi taking the plunge to more proactively direct the course of developments in Afghanistan. Although, the US and Pakistan have a blow-hot-blow-cold relationship, when it comes to critical tests, the US has been unable to stand up to the Pakistani military establishment; and, it has failed to check the depredations of terrorist groups operating either with Pakistani support or from Pakistani soil.

Therefore, India has reason to be disappointed with Washington and wary of its inability to thwart Pakistan’s attempts to wreck peace and foment armed conflict in the region. This became all too clear when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once again made the distinction between “good terrorists and bad terrorists” after Admiral Mike Mullen pointed at the Haqqani terror network as being virtually an arm of Pakistan’s ISI.

After Mullen’s damning revelation, countries such as India and Afghanistan that expected Washington to step up pressure on Pakistan have been let down badly. Islamabad hit back at the US to remind the world that the Haqqani network was a US creation in decades past for fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

As a result, US-Pakistan tensions worsened. But it also exposed that the Haqqani network — linked to the al Qaeda and thes Taliban, and suspected to have had a hand in a series of terror attacks including on the US and Indian missions in Kabul — was hand-in-glove not only with the ISI but also Washington.

In fact, Washington did not deny that it had been negotiating with leaders of the Haqqani network and lobbying for their inclusion in the government in Kabul. What the sound and fury of US-Pakistan exchanges clarified beyond doubt was that Washington could not be trusted to stick to the right side in Afghanistan, including its own policies and commitments.

The US made up with Pakistan, suggesting that the CIA and the ISI might be working in tandem to bring round the Haqqani network to serve their agenda and keep Afghanistan destabilised. With a leading member of the Haqqani clan in US custody — and, possibly as a negotiator — it emerged that the US-Pakistan rift was not over Haqqani’s terrorism.

Far from that, it was, among other things, a tussle between the US and Pakistan for using the Haqqanis as an instrument of policy in Afghanistan. Clinton removed the last layer of doubt over this by implying that the Haqqanis qualified as “good terrorists” in the company of the CIA but as “bad terrorists” if they fell victim to Pakistan’s machinations.

The high-voltage drama must have been most instructive to Delhi and reinforced its resolve to opt for an independent course in Afghanistan, throw its weight behind Karzai, and jointly seek Iran’s cooperation in preparation for the withdrawal of US troops.

The India-Afghan strategic partnership, particularly the decision to back Karzai in the period leading to the withdrawal of foreign troops in 2014, should be viewed in the context of these realities.

The most important part of the partnership is India’s decision to mentor and train Afghan security forces. This signifies stepped-up Indian engagement with the security situation as well as with Karzai’s friends and allies, especially in case of another civil war breaking out in Afghanistan

Secondly, India is seeking to assert itself as a stakeholder in Afghanistan’s stability and economic development premised on this. This is borne out by MoUs signed for mineral exploration and development of hydrocarbons. Thereby, the Indian stakeholder in Afghanistan would not be the government alone, but also Indian industry and investors. The vast untapped mineral reserves of Afghanistan hold enormous potential and acquiring a stake in these would give Indian involvement greater strategic depth.

With a new partnership in place, New Delhi needs to move swiftly on establishing an access route to Afghanistan for trade and transit that is not dependent on Pakistan. This is critical for securing our interests and investments as operationalising the airbase in Tajikistan — though of strategic value — would not serve the purpose of commerce.

[JE Menon]

Above is largely nonsense. Unfortunate and cock-eyed analytical capabilities some of our DDM have...

[Pranav]

Brit and Amreeki voices are playing up the resentment of the Paks against the Indo-Afghan agreement.

Karzai was allowed to visit India and sign the agreement, while Hillary is making soothing noises for the Paks.

West is trying to shift the Paki rage towards India.

India should provide help but it should be low key to keep the Pak rage focused elsewhere.

Afghan Army should be supported but it should be restructured as a coalition of anti-Pak militias, with units based on tribal kinship. A good chunk of the Indian assistance should go to those component militias that are reliable and effective.

A unified Afghan national identity is desirable and should be promoted. The militias will be the fallback option so that the people can defend themselves in case the centre loses its grip.

[Agnimitra]

Does the following expain why VP Hamid Ansari visited Turkey?
MKB:
Tehran dilutes Delhi-Kabul pact

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Monday - hardly five days after the signing of Delhi’s pact with Kabul - and suggested that Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan should intensify their consultations so that a “regional convergence and understanding” emerges through sustained effort with regard to the Afghan problem. Ahmedinejad told Karzai, “Enemies never want to see friendship and brotherhood in the region and we should do our best to bring hearts and thoughts closer to each other.”

There couldn’t be a clearer indication by Tehran that it dissociates completely from the Indian policy to train and equip the Tajik forces who dominate the Afghan security and defence establishment as part of a zero-sum game with Pakistan.

India’s only hope of breaking out of regional isolation lay in reviving the strategic understanding with Tehran with regard to the Afghan situation. Simply put, Tehran is not willing to have a selective partnership with Delhi or a ’stand-alone’ deal on Afghanistan - with the present Indian leadership of Manmohan Singh, at least. Tehran is not willing to overlook a series of calculated snubs by the two successive Manmohan Singh governments over the past 5-year period.

Indeed, some of the Indian decisions were patently absurd and deliberately intended to humiliate Iran - such as the parallel decisions in 2009 to refuse to launch an Iranian commercial satellite while at the same time launching two Israeli military satellites. (Iran subsequently launched its satellite.)

The deliberate decisions to degrade the India-Iran ties taken by the Manmohan Singh governments are gong to take a heavy toll on India’s regional strategies. Do not expect Iran to bend over backward to facilitate India’s policies toward the Central Asian region, either.
India’s regional isolation coincides with a period when the geopolitics of the region are profoundly changing. Significantly, Pakistan is taking up with Afghanistan a proposal to build a highway connecting Tajikistan with Gilgit-Baltistan via Wakhan Corridor. By the way, the proposal to boost communication links also comes within the ambit of the regional forum comprising Russia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan (to which Iran also may be admitted.)

On the other hand, India is daydreaming about establishing its first-ever military base abroad in Ayni in Tajikistan. Defence MInister A.K.Antony apparently raised with the Russian side during his recent visit to Moscow a proposal to have a Russian-Indian joint base in Ayni. But Russia (or Tajikistan) is highly unlikely to annoy Pakistan (or China). Nor is Iran, which has close ties with Tajikistan, going to be party to India’s entry into the Central Asian ‘great game’.

[Varoon Shekhar]

Apart from the presumptuousness behind the idea of a 'role' for India, Madagascar, Benin or anyone( rather, imagine countries pursuing the concept of ethical self-interest) , Indians should ask these Western commentators/interlocutors, why should Pakistan have a 'role' and not India. What precisely is the danger to their countries, UK, US, France et al , of India having an increased 'role'. Bearing in mind, that India is progressive and will support entities that are progressive, within reason. Whereas increased Pakistani influence will enhance fanaticism, fundamentalism and terrorism in the region, and possibly the world. Why can't Indian spokesmen simply say that India will support the more enlightened, liberal groups that are moving Afghanistan in the direction of democracy and pluralism. While at the same time, India is conducting legitimate trade, investment and developmental work that will benefit Afghanistan and India together. You don't have to be a PhD to say these concise little things.

[RamaY]

Brit and Amreeki voices are playing up the resentment of the Paks against the Indo-Afghan agreement.

Karzai was allowed to visit India and sign the agreement, while Hillary is making soothing noises for the Paks.

West is trying to shift the Paki rage towards India.

-snip-

I was thinking about this scenario.

Earlier the strategy was to ask Hastinapura not to react to Paki terror attacks, for any Indian response would pull paki-mercenary force from the western theater.

Now that the west realized paki-perfidy they are stoking a ind-pak fight so pakis can divert their irregulars to eastern theater thus giving the west enough calm to declare victory and return home.

What could be Indian strategy in this scenario?
- Play dumb. Continue no-action if there are western-induced terror attacks? Pakis may move their forces to eastern border but there will be no action. As the west tries to leave, these forces will be moved to west to recapture their strategic depth.

- Play smart. Go along with western perfidy. Acquire key defense h/w on war-footing basis (those light-weight howitzers, MKIs, ac couple of squadrons of MMRCA, PINAKAs, hundreds/thousands of AKASHs, >1000 Brahmos, Arjuns etc.,). Be ready and take the Paki bait and deliver a nice thappad.

[Samudragupta]

There can be no Thappad without first securing the Hindukush...

[Pranav]

Earlier the strategy was to ask Hastinapura not to react to Paki terror attacks, for any Indian response would pull paki-mercenary force from the western theater.

That was the conventional wisdom in the press but it never sounded right ... paks have been backing the haqqanis / talibs 100%, and west was always aware of it. So there was no advantage to the west to keep the pak army in western theatre.

[svinayak]

Apart from the presumptuousness behind the idea of a 'role' for India, Madagascar, Benin or anyone( rather, imagine countries pursuing the concept of ethical self-interest) , Indians should ask these Western commentators/interlocutors, why should Pakistan have a 'role' and not India. What precisely is the danger to their countries, UK, US, France et al , of India having an increased 'role'. Bearing in mind, that India is progressive and will support entities that are progressive, within reason. Whereas increased Pakistani influence will enhance fanaticism, fundamentalism and terrorism in the region, and possibly the world. Why can't Indian spokesmen simply say that India will support the more enlightened, liberal groups that are moving Afghanistan in the direction of democracy and pluralism. While at the same time, India is conducting legitimate trade, investment and developmental work that will benefit Afghanistan and India together. You don't have to be a PhD to say these concise little things.

Does India have to explain its foreign policy to other countries.
India has to deal only with Afghan people. It is not another countries land

[RajeshA]

India's Options in Afghanistan

Here is how I see the pitfalls of our Afghanistan policy.

Iran
As we have heard again, Iran is asking for a tripartite solution between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Looking at Afghanistan it is basically the meeting place between Pakistan and Iran with a sprinkling of Uzbeks and Turkmen thrown in. That is the inner circle of stakeholders due to the cultural and sectarian demographics of Afghanistan. Then there is the wider circle of stake-holders - India, Russia, USA, China, maybe Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

As I see it, India is interested in Afghanistan, due to following reasons:

1. India looks upon herself as a civilizational state which once bordered Afghanistan and that historical memory creates our stakes in Afghanistan.
2. India reciprocates the interests of the Afghans in India.
3. India is also interested in Afghanistan as a bridge into Central Asia, where we have economic and security interests.
4. India wants to deny Pakistan the luxury of getting Afghanistan in its strategic grip, from where it can conduct Jihad against the world, including India, without taking any responsibility for it.
5. India wants to use Afghanistan to capture Pakistan in a pincer hold.

It is precisely because India has interests in Afghanistan that it increases Iran's bargaining power. I wrote a somewhat detailed post earlier on the power-play in the region.

1) The more Pakistan gets scared of India's role in Afghanistan, the more easily Iran can get Pakistan to strike a deal with it on terms which are mutually agreeable!

1. Pakistan keeps the US out of Afghanistan, Iran keeps India out of Afghanistan.
2. Pakistan does not push for total control of the Taliban over Afghanistan, Iran can thus assure the Tajiks and the Hazaras that their security would be assured. The Afghan war ends.
3. Both Iran and Pakistan (through China) can exploit the mineral resources of Afghanistan.
4. Iran, Pakistan and China can share Central Asia among themselves.

2) Secondly Iran's position in the Islamic world has become somewhat more fragile. Shi'as are murdered in Pakistan openly, and Iran cannot do anything about it. Shi'as are under siege in Yemen, and Iran is helpless. Shi'as are persecuted in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and Iran can only look helplessly on. Hezbollah is slowly being cut off from the Shi'a stronghold in Iran-Iraq as Syria is slowly slipping from Shi'a influence.

Iranian Theocracy is desperately looking for a way to bolster its Islamic position [1] [2]. Its best bet is to turn Ummah politics from one of conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis to West/Israel against Islam.

A ceasefire between Taliban and Northern Alliance which includes the Shi'a Hazara, as well a decrease in anti-Shi'a violence in Pakistan would go a long way in bolstering Iran's position as a strong Muslim power. It would prove that Iran can indeed look after the Farsi-speaking people of Afghanistan (Tajiks, etc.) as well as ensure safety for Shi'a in the region. Both of these goals are however dependent on Pakistani cooperation with Iran.

3) Thirdly Iran is desperately trying to not become a target of American and Sunni war machine (with Israeli capacity covertly thrown in). It does not want American shock and awe on its cities and power plants. It can do without the Saudis deploying their influence all over to hit out at Iran.

With USA coming out with an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in USA, the pressure on Iran becomes even more acute.

Pakistan plays an important part in GCC's war potential as recruits etc. Pakistan has some influence over Saudi Arabia in times of heightened war hysteria between Sunnis and Shi'as. Here too Pakistan can help.

Moreover Iran also does not want Americans to be opening a front against Iran from Afghanistan or through Pakistan. Something Americans may do if it comes to war. Iran wants Pakistan to deprive Americans of such a facility.

Also Iran wants Pakistan to put an end to Jundullah's activities against Iran from Pakistan Baluchistan.

Summarizing, it is in Iran's interest to make a deal with Pakistan, and India's dependence on Iran for access to Afghanistan gives Iran all the more leverage to strike a deal with Pakistan.

Iran was offering Pakistan to build the whole Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline and offering Pakistan gas, even though Pakistan hardly has money to pay anybody. Now Iran gets another card to play - Indian access to Afghanistan. Let's also be clear that India cannot give Iran anything, that Iran cannot get from China. So wouldn't Iran now be making Pakistan an even better offer?

USA
Right after India and Afghanistan signed the deal, we say how Ms. Unfair and other voices in the West started talking about how this deal would jeopardize Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan, and how Pakistan would be even more unwilling to cooperate. Also Unfair pulled out India's role in Baluchistan right out of her musharraf at the drop of a hat!

India can expect a steady stream of criticism from some sections of American press and think tanks as well as from UK from now on.

Everybody would from now on be sucking up to the Pakistanis highlighting India's 'nefarious' designs in Afghanistan, and getting Pakistan to cooperate with them. All would now be shooting from India's shoulders.

It is true that State Department and Madam Hillary would be praising Indian role in Afghanistan, but there will be steady efforts at rapprochement between USA and Pakistan with USA using the Indian bogey to get Pakistan's cooperation.

Russia
We remember how Russia too was against Indian use of Ayni Airbase in Tajikistan to support Indian efforts at stabilizing Afghanistan.

Summarizing, neither Iran nor USA are really on Indian side in Afghanistan! Russia too want to keep big powers out of Central Asia if it can help it, or dependent on it if it is willing.

*****************

So what do we have going for us?

1) The Afghans! The Afghans understand that India is out there to help them as far as we can! They have seen how we have been helping them in nation building.

2) The Afghans hate the Pakis! So there too India and Afghanistan have a convergence of strategic interests. The Tajiks have seen how their leaders like Ahmad Shah Masood and Barhanuddin Rabbani have been assassinated by ISI and its Al Qaeda friends. The Pushtuns are also not very fond of how ISI has been using them as fodder in their wars and efforts to control Afghanistan. Nor are they really impressed by the Talibanic form of Government.

3) The CARs: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan would agree with India that Talibanism in Afghanistan cannot be allowed to take full hold. India has been a strong supporter of the Northern Alliance in the past, and promises to be now, which happens to coincide with the interests of these countries as well.

4) The Tajiks in Afghanistan would appreciate any peace that Iran can bring for them from Taliban attacks, but there is no guarantee that the Taliban would really listen to Pakistan, should Pakistan make the deal with Iran. The Tajiks, Hazaras would continue to live in fear of being swamped by Taliban. So regardless of whether Iran enters a deal with Pakistan or not, Northern Alliance would look for strong friends like India.

5) Whatever route the USA finds into Afghanistan, it will most likely want to support some part of the current political system and would not like everything to revert back to how it was on 7th October, 2001 when Operation Enduring Freedom began. Surely USA is in talks with all sorts of suspicious groups like Haqqani, so one can't really trust the Americans really whether they would stand and fight for the current political system.

6) Russia is apprehensive over what comes in Afghanistan. Russia too does not want drugs to be pouring in from Afghanistan. Russia does not want Chechens to be getting training in AfPak. Russia does not want Islamism infecting its Muslim population. Russia does not want the CARs to destabilize. So Russia and India can still cooperate if India defers some decision making in the region.

*************

What should India do?

India cannot let Iran to play the same role Pakistan has been playing with USA. We do not have the money!

1) India can provide Afghans with training for ANA and ANP! The training should be in India for the most part. Indian troop presence in Afghanistan should be kept to a minimum. Those Indian troops which are deployed in Afghanistan need to be self-sufficient.

2) India should be willing to invest in Afghanistan. India should continue to remain a dependable partner of the Afghans in its social and economic development.

3) Even as India desists from becoming too dependent on Iran for security cooperation. We should involve Iran in the economic cooperation in Afghanistan, in extraction and transport of minerals from Afghanistan.

4) India needs to set up a coalition of those who are really interested in keeping Taliban from achieving full control over Afghanistan. This coalition should be one which needs not depend on Pakistan. India, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia should definitely belong in this coalition. Iran should be invited but it cannot be trusted.

5) We need to build an India-allied Network of Afghans, actually a fighting force of say 4-5 thousand men - both Tajiks and Pushtun who are willing to hit Pakistan and hit them hard.

Furthermore ...

6) India should deepen her interaction with the Afghans. Indians need to visit and study all the various ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities in Afghanistan. We need to do extensive anthropological study there. We need to build relations with them and seed them with an interest in India. Even in the Pushtun regions, where we believe that the local warlords can provide protection to the Indians, we should start NGOs. In return for this protection, we can offer these warlords, their kin, the medical facilities in India, as well as an easy access to stay, education, etc.

7) India should offer the Afghans to build an Afghanistan museum in India to which Afghanistan can name a director and even personnel. Such a museum can be Delhi. All the pre-Islamic and some Islamic artifacts from Afghanistan would be transferred to this museum for safe-keeping. It would be an Afghan museum, but in India. India should arrange to transport as much cultural treasure as possible to India. One never knows when Taliban really takes over!

Here is my earlier proposal for India's policy in Afghanistan

1. The Urgency
2. The Proposal
3. International Coalition
4. Security Frameworks

[Lilo]

Pakistan Seeks Control of Its Afghanistan Endgame - Bruce Riddal

The US has little choice but to engage the world’s sixth largest nation, yet any hopes about negotiating with the Taliban to end the war vanished with the assassination of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani. Pakistan’s insecurity and ambition, along with the US need to protect itself from terrorists, ensure continuation of a deadly embrace. – YaleGlobal

Encouraging Taliban attacks on NATO, leaders of the Pakistan military and its intelligence service are impatient for the US to abandon the war in Afghanistan. The Pakistani goal is to prevent a pro-India government in Afghanistan and install instead a puppet Islamic regime.
.
.
So the Pakistanis are now encouraging the Taliban to step up the war on NATO. They are convinced the Americans and Europeans are going to give up in Afghanistan and sooner or later cut and run. The ISI closely monitors the media on both sides of the Atlantic and reads polls that show support for the war is dwindling. They see Obama’s decision to draw down US surge forces faster than Mullen and other generals wanted as a sign American resolve is collapsing. They remember well that the US walked away from Afghanistan and Pakistan after defeating the Russians and are convinced it will happen again.

Now Pakistan wants to accelerate American departure. By spectacular attacks like the one on the embassy, the ISI hopes to convince Americans that the war is hopeless and that defeat is inevitable therefore give up now rather than later. If the TV talking heads say the war is unwinnable, America will quit.
.
.
Some had hoped that Pakistan would at least facilitate talks between the Kabul government and the Taliban insurgency to provide a face-saving way to end the war. But the assassination of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani on September 20th has dashed any hopes of a negotiated agreement. Rabbani, long an enemy of the ISI, was charged by President Hamid Karzai with leading talks with the Taliban, but was murdered when a suicide bomber sent by the Quetta Shura on a fake peace mission blew himself up as he embraced Rabbani. Given the close connection between the Quetta leadership and the ISI, it is hard to believe the ISI did not have knowledge of the plot.
.
.
Admiral Mullen rightly has argued that despite all the frustration with Pakistan, despite the fact that they are helping to kill American soldiers, the US has no viable choice but to engage with the world’s second largest Muslim country and the sixth largest nation in the world. But the engagement is increasingly hostile; the US is now engaged in an undeclared air war in Pakistani territory. More SEAL missions are likely to protect American cities from bin Laden’s successors. Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world, and the deadly embrace between America and Pakistan becomes more deadly every day.

[Lilo]

Rji,

Iran will hardly see pakistan as an ally of first choice in Afghanistan. Even in the remote chance that such a scenario comes to pass, the purer than thou question will begin to operate and in no time iranians and taleban will be at each other's thoats. The cooperation with pakis is probably a bluff by iranians to maximize their payoff with respect to other players in Afghanistan (India , Russia ,USA ).

Further Iran's influence is ever increasing rather than decreasing in middle east in the longterm (inspite of recent happenings in syria) and they don't have any pressing need to get into tactically brilliant ventures with pakis in afghanistan. Unkil is already in a drawdown and iran is in no immediate hurry knowing that . Its sole concern will be the level of unkil's permanent presence in afghanistan post 2014 and would like a say in the ongoing negotiations by unkil with karzai for permanent bases in afghanistan. Here india would should act deftly and get US and Iran to agree on broad aspects of such a presence . The pieces will then be set .

China's role is a wildcard though - it will be weighing between its needs in xinjiang and needs of pakis and itself vis-a-vis US and India.
Probably a wait and watch policy in the first few years ?

The capability of paki strategists to retain positive control of Jihadis is a big suspect and THIS will be the biggest fear of all the potential allies to pakis in their afghan venture.

[member_19969]

India ready to stay the course in Afghanistan

[Philip]

I am very wary of India's Afghan gambit.Thd etails need to be fleshed out and examined very carefully.What are we getting ourselves into? We are not a rich nation like the US which a decade on cannot finance the Afghan operation any longer and consequently,with all its "warring" around the globe has bankrupted itself!

We must approach it most cautiously and avoid making the pitfalls that bedevilled the British Raj,Soviets,US/NATO et al."Fools step in where angels fear to tread",is a saying perfect for Afghanistan.I also forsee difficulties if we think that we can operate an expeditionary military base in Tajkistan or elsewhere in Central Asia,as the states where mostly Soviet republics ,with ties to Moscow and would look to it before embarking upon any side-show with another miitary power.What we should do though is to offer military help to the Central Asian republics,gifts of military eqpt. like ALH helos,etc.,soft military assistance like training,etc. and get them to involve themselves more into an anti-Taliban/Paki force/coalition. It is far easier for us to operate a base/military facilities in Vietnam or anywhere in the ASEAN region than Afghaniostan,where the cocktail of ethnic tribes and the lucrative drug trade muddies the waters.

The real clue to solving the Afghan riddle is Pakistan.Pakistan hrough the ISI/Taliban-one and the same monster,has to be weakened so that it cannot devote all its resources and attention to capturing Kabul.It has to be internally weakened by encouraging the "splittist" movements within if it continues to wage a proxy war with India.If it cannot come to an understanding with India that the Afghans must be left alone to sort themselves out,then while it looks towards Afghanistan,its nether end must get the spear point.This also requires some cooperation from the Iranians,which at the moment seems remote given India's portrayal to the world that we are Uncle Sam's lackey and competing with Pak to be the rent-boy of Asia! This is why even the Russians are wary of an Indian active involvement in the Central-Asian region.If we truly want to go it aone in Afghanistan,looking after our interests frist,we must display a genuine independent foreign policy and cast off th e shackles of Washington and our beloved PM must first cast off his uniform of a White House butler.

[RajeshA]

Lilo ji,

I think neither Iran would fully block India from accessing Afghanistan nor would Pakistan fully block US access to Afghanistan. It is not about blocking, but rather one of controlling.

Iran wants that Pakistan does not allow American presence in Afghanistan or Pakistan to become such that it is against Iranian interests and Pakistan too (now with Indo-Afghan Security Accord) does not want Iran to give India complete unhindered access to Central Asia.

True, Iran does not see Pakistan as its ally of first choice. In fact Iran does not see Pakistan as much of an ally at all. But in this case, for Iran it is not about having allies! It is about controlling one's enemies, their capacity and their actions.

If by gifting gas and controlling Indian access to Afghanistan, Iran can stop Pakistan from acting against Iranian interests, then it would be a coup!

Iran and USA cannot really reach any agreement! I was recently amused at Iran castigating the Turks for not being sincere towards Palestinians and for being American lackeys. The Iranians fear that Americans and Sunnis would make common cause some day and attack it. Such an attack would be more bruising to it than the occasional pure on pure on the ground.

In fact Iran may want to even see an Indian Pakistan war for that distracts the pure from attacking less pure and both unite to attack the Kufr.

[Atri]

I am very wary of India's Afghan gambit.Thd etails need to be fleshed out and examined very carefully.What are we getting ourselves into? We are not a rich nation like the US which a decade on cannot finance the Afghan operation any longer and consequently,with all its "warring" around the globe has bankrupted itself!

Many years ago when recession had not struck the world, Bush was still in Power and India and UPA was negotiating with US for Nuke deal, although cash for votes had not happened, (in short, when honeymoon of UPA-1 was ongoing), I had written following on another forum and also much later on blog. Here are the relevant portions.

For good or for evil, the moment when NATO decides to leave Afghanistan, the situation would be extremely serious in India. Given the current political and cultural instability of GOI and Hinduism respectively, the primary response of India towards the problem of Pakistan will be that of profound confusion as it is today. I guess, since India and Hindus do not have answer towards solving the problem of Pakistan and Islam respectively in subcontinent, their current reaction is instinctively based upon buying as much time as they can and wishing maximum possible infliction of damage on Pakistan by NATO. I guess, if NATO stays in Pak-Afghan region for 12-15 years more (which most probably they will), they will end up exhausting and squandering most of their wealth and lots of their men in the region. The direct beneficiaries of this scenario will be China and Islamic world and in weird way, India. I consider this situation similar to one in deccan in late 1680's when 27 year long Deccan conquest of Aurangjeb ended up weakening Mughal empire and strengthening Marathas. Now, who will play the role similar to the one which Marathas played in 1700's is matter of great interest.

One thing for sure, if NATO forces are unsuccessful in defeating taliban in Pakistan-Afghanistan region (which most probably they will, since they are yet to clearly identify their enemy), even if they succeed in fracturing and dividing Pakistan, the devastation caused by them will be a catalyst for the formation of new Islamic state which will be modelled upon the Caliphate. Taliban is a movement, an ideology which cannot be defeated by weapons alone. It has to be tackled by ideas, a crucial point which is missing in the apparent War On Terror by the West. Without participation of India, West cannot win in south Asia. And India cannot win unless Hinduism finds a way of successfully assimilating the Muslims in the subcontinent. This process will take at least 60-80 years, perhaps more but definitely not less.

India OR Islamic federation backed up by China, both might have a fair chance to rise over the ruins of defeated West, just like Marathas rose on the ruins of Mughals. The odds will be in favour of Caliphate, given the laziness of Indians. However, if by then Indian religions find a satisfactory answer for assimilation of muslims in mainstream Indian society ending their alienation, India will rise for sure. The direct consequence of battle of Rajasthan (Rajputs Vs Arabs) and simultaneous rise of Adi Shankara on India was 400 years of complete stability, prosperity and independence to India. India's only hope is to deliver a similar performance again.

I believe that it is in India's interest that showdown happens with Islamists, PRC and West (preferably not at same time). What is happening now is that India is slowly being elbowed out. I agree with sentiment that AFG story might end up catastrophic (when we decide to put boots on ground). But it will mostly serve as the stone which starts off an avalanche. That avalanche is extremely essential for survival of India as a rashtra, though it might be detrimental to current iteration of Republic of India. ROI needs a thorough formatting. There are many bad sectors in the core-aspects of the system today and not all can be salvaged. India has to quickly get out of the region moment the avalanche starts and is stabilized. India will have to bear those consequences too, internally though. But it will clear and level the uneven playing ground and make it just and fairer.

The decade of 1670-1680 was very very crucial for India and Indic civilization as whole. This was the time when India (in iteration of Mughals led by Aurangzeb) lost the control over AFG to Pushtun tribes which were later taken up by Afsharid dynasty of Iran. This was also the time when central power of India started waging a destructive war on rest of India and for Sanskriti. Because something had to make up the loss of AFG. Aurangzeb's mindset and actions towards Hindus 1670 onwards went on becoming progressively harsher as he withdrew from Pyrrhic campaign of AFG. I said this recently in west asia dhaga and saying it again here. We are on one bank of the "Ashru-Sveda-Rakta Nadi" (River of tears, sweat and blood) and victory is on other side.

I fully support this move by GOI, although I feel I know how it might end up. I hope when time comes to withdraw, the then incumbent leader does not make it an ego problem and makes a sound and timely judgement and cut the slack and fall back to the second (the current national borders) and then third line of defense (Much inside the present borders).

[Agnimitra]

Atri ji, very interesting. So you are saying that Indian entry into AFG could be the testing 'base condition' that begins the recursive unravelling of the current rashtriya dispensation of India (Nehruvian?). It would test and expose the unaddressed inherent weaknesses of the current ideological paradigm. Hopefully, an able and straightforward person would step in as India introverts and help resolve the troubling question. Hopefully this happens under fortuitous circumstances of spiritual awakening and robust national defence of the core state (Shankara + Rajputs). If this good fortune does not visit us after an AFG failure, then it will be disaster and further susceptibility to succumb. But if it does happen then action on Avagana-sthan could be the Chintamani that caused a metamorphosis within the Bharatiya core state.

[ramana]

Another view of the Indian move towards Afghanistan

India's move driven by China

[Samudragupta]

But ultimately neither the Marathas nor the Pustuns could stand in front of the basic natural law of resources and technology to harness it to channelize the human spirit in the form of British.....Whatever you are thinking is only the human spirit but what about the other factors the resources and the technology...who will be the Brits in our times??????

[ramana]

Congress?

[Samudragupta]

Le it survive the G 's first

[svinayak]

Many years ago when recession had not struck the world, Bush was still in Power and India and UPA was negotiating with US for Nuke deal, although cash for votes had not happened, (in short, when honeymoon of UPA-1 was ongoing), I had written following on another forum and also much later on blog. Here are the relevant portions.
Without participation of India, West cannot win in south Asia. And India cannot win unless Hinduism finds a way of successfully assimilating the Muslims in the subcontinent. This process will take at least 60-80 years, perhaps more but definitely not less.

India OR Islamic federation backed up by China, both might have a fair chance to rise over the ruins of defeated West, just like Marathas rose on the ruins of Mughals. The odds will be in favour of Caliphate, given the laziness of Indians. However, if by then Indian religions find a satisfactory answer for assimilation of muslims in mainstream Indian society ending their alienation, India will rise for sure. The direct consequence of battle of Rajasthan (Rajputs Vs Arabs) and simultaneous rise of Adi Shankara on India was 400 years of complete stability, prosperity and independence to India. India's only hope is to deliver a similar performance again.

You are giving too much credit to this modern day jihad. These are manufactured jihad and this will get stamped away once west wants to stop it. Current Pak social islamic structure/Islamic state is a manufactured one in the last 30 years and cannot be sustained in the modern world and is there only because of the western support.

I believe that it is in India's interest that showdown happens with Islamists, PRC and West (preferably not at same time). What is happening now is that India is slowly being elbowed out. I agree with sentiment that AFG story might end up catastrophic (when we decide to put boots on ground). But it will mostly serve as the stone which starts off an avalanche. That avalanche is extremely essential for survival of India as a rashtra, though it might be detrimental to current iteration of Republic of India. ROI needs a thorough formatting.

One of the superpower had decided to get inside the ring and on the ground. This has leveled the field in the world for the first time after 200 years. By squeezing the region out it can be stabilized.

The decade of 1670-1680 was very very crucial for India and Indic civilization as whole. This was the time when India (in iteration of Mughals led by Aurangzeb) lost the control over AFG to Pushtun tribes which were later taken up by Afsharid dynasty of Iran. This was also the time when central power of India started waging a destructive war on rest of India and for Sanskriti. Because something had to make up the loss of AFG. Aurangzeb's mindset and actions towards Hindus 1670 onwards went on becoming progressively harsher as he withdrew from Pyrrhic campaign of AFG. I said this recently in west asia dhaga and saying it again here. We are on one bank of the "Ashru-Sveda-Rakta Nadi" (River of tears, sweat and blood) and victory is on other side.

Fundamentally India is a different country from those times 400 years ago.
The current Af Pak is a game of the super powers and even now China and India are pawns in this game.
The pawns have to fight among themsleves to get *some* freedom but will take a long time.

[brihaspati]

Le it survive the G 's first

If it follows the Brits in spirit - then they get their gluteals kicked by Pashtun taqyia.

[svinayak]

It’s a fantasy to think we are winning the war in Afghanistan
Ten years after the West intervened to overthrow the Taliban regime, our strategy is still fatally flawed, argues a former ambassador to Kabul.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html
By Sherard Cowper-Coles8:20PM BST 06 Oct 2011

But the real test is not what happens when and where Western forces are present, but what happens where and when they are not. And here the record of lasting achievement is more mixed, and the prospects darker.
If the insurgency infecting much of Afghanistan is compared to a cancer, the International Security Assistance Force’s operations are little more than anaesthetic. Those military operations lower the fever of anarchy, temporarily and locally. But they are not curing the underlying disease. General Petraeus’s own Counter-Insurgency Field Manual makes the point that COIN – counter-insurgency – is mostly politics. Without a credible political product to offer populations caught in the crossfire, no settlement will hold. That is the fatal flaw in the whole intervention.

Despite or perhaps because of the heroic enthusiasm of often ignorant armies keen to do as much of this as they can themselves, we have never seriously addressed the politics of stabilising Afghanistan. The problems began with the decision 10 years ago to co-opt the hated warlords as our agents for overturning the Taliban regime. In doing so, we forgot, if we ever knew, that the Taliban had begun, in the early 1990s, as a popular religious movement against the depredations of those same warlords.

We compounded the error by convening, at Bonn in December 2001, a peace conference to which only the supposed victors of the short war were invited. The vanquished were never part of what followed. Worse still, they hadn’t even been properly vanquished, merely pushed back into the great sanctuary areas of the southern deserts, and back across the Durand line into Pakistan.
We then went on to give Afghanistan a constitution, designed by a Frenchman and imposed by an American, out of keeping with the tradition of informal federalism which had kept the country together for its two centuries of existence. In our well-meaning naivety, we insisted on concentrating power in Kabul, in a single executive president, and on an elaborate – and quite unsustainable – superstructure of elections.

[Atri]

You are giving too much credit to this modern day jihad. These are manufactured jihad and this will get stamped away once west wants to stop it. Current Pak social islamic structure/Islamic state is a manufactured one in the last 30 years and cannot be sustained in the modern world and is there only because of the western support.

Atri ji, very interesting. So you are saying that Indian entry into AFG could be the testing 'base condition' that begins the recursive unravelling of the current rashtriya dispensation of India (Nehruvian?). It would test and expose the unaddressed inherent weaknesses of the current ideological paradigm. Hopefully, an able and straightforward person would step in as India introverts and help resolve the troubling question. Hopefully this happens under fortuitous circumstances of spiritual awakening and robust national defence of the core state (Shankara + Rajputs). If this good fortune does not visit us after an AFG failure, then it will be disaster and further susceptibility to succumb. But if it does happen then action on Avagana-sthan could be the Chintamani that caused a metamorphosis within the Bharatiya core state.

Acharya ji, I think Carl ji has already answered and elaborated on my concerns. I am not overestimating the nuisance value and nuisance potential of Jihadis and Islamists. I think I know what they are really worth. I am worried about the willingness of ROI to pay the cost which will be incurred in nipping off the Islamists in bud. British India allowed the things to go out of hand for partition to materialize. A power which could suppress 1857 and 1942 was helpless while dealing with ML is both unbelievable and unacceptable.

I had said in one previous article of mine that interests of post Aurangzeb Mughals (and associated network), British and Nehruvian INC are coherent. ROI is continuation of British India which in turn in continuation of Mughal India and not Maratha India.

And their opponents Maratha-Sikhs, Revolutionaries and MKG's Congress, and "Integral-Humanists" of post independence era too are of same lineage. Their interests in respective eras were coherent and fundamentally opposed to Mughal, British and Nehruvian regime respectively. These triads are linked in spirit to their lineages. on macro level, the priorities of the triads will be similar. And the ruling triad has betrayed the opposing triad time and again after asking for their help and yet the nationalist triad do not learn. This is indication that we might have stuck in a repetitive loop.

Fundamentally India is a different country from those times 400 years ago.

I agree.. Hence I am quite hopeful that we will make it to the other side.

But ultimately neither the Marathas nor the Pustuns could stand in front of the basic natural law of resources and technology to harness it to channelize the human spirit in the form of British.....Whatever you are thinking is only the human spirit but what about the other factors the resources and the technology...who will be the Brits in our times?

Precisely. This is the key question. India was always a net exporter, whenever she was happy.The repetitive loop I hinted above shall continue until the next technological leap which will again rid India of import-dependence. This is done either by controlling the region where we import the essentials from. OR by finding totally new way of meeting those essential needs from something indigenous and sustainable. There is no other way. It was horses in mughal times and textiles in british times and oil in nehruvian times. What will be next?

[svinayak]

Atri
You have not replied to my superpower game in af Pak region

They may collude to make sure that nobody controls the area and can make private deals with the islamic networks and keep the rest of the nations out

[svinayak]

by finding totally new way of meeting those essential needs from something indigenous and sustainable. There is no other way. It was horses in mughal times and textiles in british times and oil in nehruvian times. What will be next?

It will be by controlling the knowledge/science/new tech

[RajeshA]

Originally posted by Acharya

Published on Oct 11, 2011
By Tormana @ PashtunForums.com
Pashtuns and Pakistan: PashtunForums.com

Like a vampire which preys on others because it lacks the means to produce its own blood, Pakistan is instinctively driven to survive through terrorism, and to seek the company of those who practice it, because Pakistan was born with fundamental flaws. These flaws actually date back to events which occurred over a century before Pakistan's birth.

In 1839, the British Empire sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.


In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.


When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India - it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947 and is an historical fact.


In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repulse the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.


Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it worries can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.


When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.


After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Bin Laden's AlQaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.


When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.


Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries - first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.


At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.


Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights it feels are owed to it from sovereignty, but wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.


Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.


The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states - Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab - would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.


Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country - indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another - they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.


Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation - but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.


If only Washington policymakers could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.


The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.

I posted something similar some time ago.

Indians have to take control over this narrative.

We are always being told that for Pakistan, Kashmir is the core issue. That is humbug. J&K lies in India, is administered by India, so why the khujali in Pakistan's musharaff.

Pakistan's core issue is Pushtun question. Pakistan's insecurities come from Pushtunistan. Pakjabis have had a history, where the Pushtuns have often lorded over them. Pakjab has often been invaded from the Northwest. This makes Pakjabis' worries understandable viz-a-viz Pushtuns.

All that the Pakjabis are doing is waging war on the Afghans because of such past considerations, and because it is always like this, it is difficult to explain war on other Muslim people, Pakjabis have come up with the explanation that their enemy is India, and that they are involved in Afghanistan to fight India in some proxy wars there, all a load of crap.

Pakistan's whole enmity against India is based on a lie. They shout at us but kill in the Northwest. All of it is used to as a cover to kill Pushtuns. They say, they need Afghanistan as strategic depth against India. It is the other way round, they need India as strategic depth against the Pushtun.

Now don't get me wrong. They are our ideological enemies and that enmity runs deep, but the enmity does not have strategic imperatives as Christiane Fair seems to imply. On the other hand, they have a strategic enmity with Afghans, but are ideologically completely in bed with them. Ideology too helps them hide this strategic enmity.

Without an enmity with India, the Pakjabis would be hard put to explain their militarized society, which they use to suppress the Pushtuns. With whichever power in Afghanistan, the Pakjabis have fought, they have always used the Pushtun as cannon fodder, and sacrificed Pushtun lives to line their own pockets. With America's Global War on Terror, Pakjabis were very happy. Pakjabis could still keep a mask, and bring instability and mayhem to the doorstep of the Pushtuns.

Osama bin Laden was ensconsed so long in Pakistan after 2001 under the watchful eyes of ISI, a full-time Pakjabi outfit. Before that OBL was an honored guest of Mullah Omar, another ISI puppet. Post-9/11, when USA demanded that Taliban deliver OBL to USA, the Taliban refused citing some code of hospitality. It is the ISI that didn't allow Taliban to extradite OBL. It was not Taliban that were hosting OBL directly, it was the ISI all along. ISI wanted USA to come into Afghanistan, even if it meant losing their puppets in Kabul for the time being. It is the ISI that has all the time been waging war against USA, including 9/11. For what? Well to keep Pushtuns again under siege, under bombardment, and to keep on getting money from the USA.

The one thing, Pakjabis cannot allow is to let Pushtuns come to peace. For Pakistanis it is important that the Pushtuns be in a constant state of war. Have we not heard reports as to how the Pakistani Army Generals were quite in favor of having USA use the Shamsi Airbase for drone-attacks against the Pushtun. Pakjabis treat Pushtun life as totally worthless. Pushtuns are to be used as pawns. Pushtuns are to be used as cannon-fodder.

So Pushtun are asking, if the Pakjabis have been giving shelter to OBL, as became apparent, why are they being droned and bombed by both Americans and Pakjabis. That is why the cover that the Pakjabis have always been using to hide their war against the Pushtuns is now slowly coming apart. The Pushtun are finding out, that Pakjabis were allowing the Americans to drone them for a crime they did not commit, and in fact for which the Pakjabis are responsible. That is why Pakistan is so pissed off with American. Because by smoking out OBL from his cave in Abbotabad, the Americans have pulled away the mask which the Pakjabis were wearing - that they are not responsible for American war on Afghans.

The Pakjabis could have stopped the war anytime by handing over OBL to the Americans, and the Americans would probably have left Afghanistan. But the Pakjabis did not do that. The Pakjabis could have stopped the drone attacks any time, at least from Pakistani soil, but the Pakjabis did not do that. The Pakjabis could have stopped American supply routes from supplying American troops in Afghanistan, but Pakjabis did not do that.

In fact the Pakjabis invited the Americans into Afghanistan, and brought about the whole war on the Pushtuns.

And it is not just the Americans. It was the ISI, who got the Wahhabi Arabs to come to Afghanistan and find sanctuary there, besides helping out with the Jihad against Soviet Union. The Pakjabis have incessantly followed the policy of Islamizing the Pushtun, making them more radical, and Arabs were a big help there. The Islamization, the Talibanization helped Pakjabis to make the Pushtun forget what they were fighting for, to forget their ethnicity. The Talibanization and OBL drama made Pushtuns who thought locally to start thinking in terms of Global Jihad, something that was of no interest to the Pushtun.

The Pakjabis now believe that they have inculcated so much Islam and anti-Americanism into the Pushtun, that the Pushtun would now start seeing the Pakjabis as their protectors. So Kiyani now does not mind the souring of relations with America, for any souring now, with Kiyani showing balls, would make him a hero, including for the misled Pushtuns. Through the Haqqani network and the Quetta Shura, the Pakjabis again want to subvert Afghanistan and rule over the destinies of Pushtuns.

Getting the Pushtun to rise and demand their own Pushtunistan is the only way, they are going to get rid of Pakjabi yoke.

The enmity with India is a big decoy to punch the Pushtuns, and to radicalize them, without taking any of the blame. That is why the Pakistanis would never give up their enmity with India. Enmity with India gives the Pakjabis a foil to keep the Pushtun areas unstable. When India, USA and the whole world keeps on telling Pakistan, that their main threat is not India but the Taliban, we never get through the message, and we wonder why?

For one thing the message is only half correct. It is true that the various Pushtun tribes under the name TTP have attacked Pakistani establishment, but the world understands that as Islamists trying to take over the place. And the Pakjabis probably just giggle, that our collective hate of Islamism, has made us blind to reality, that it is just a local tussle of power between the Pakjabis and the Pushtuns for control. The Pushtuns use Islam, because their society has been so radicalized, that just demanding Pushtun rights would be considered an affront to the brotherhood of Muslims, and Pushtun fighters would not be sufficiently motivated. Using Islam motivates the Pushtuns to take a punch at the Pakjabis.

Secondly the Pakjabis would never accept that, for that would mean that their Islam can cause divisions, and should they accept that, their Pushtun "countrymen" would accuse the Pakjabis of not believing in the brotherhood of Muslims and thus of being munafiqeen, inviting even more attacks from the Pushtuns who use Islam as a motivator.

Thirdly and more importantly, it would bring Pakjabis dangerously close to losing the carefully woven mask behind which they hide their face and true thoughts - that the Pushtun are the enemy of the Pakjabis and need to be crushed.

So the Pakjabis would keep on repeating that their main enemy remains India. They have nothing to fear from India, but can use the foil.

We Indians too buy that the Pakistanis are so ideologically indoctrinated that they are blinded by hate, and cannot see that we mean them no harm. That is all true, but not the real cause for Pakistan's behavior. Their reasons for alleged enmity with India is a strategic imperative. So Pakistan will use both Enmity with India and Islamism to keep the Pushtun locked up.

To make this strategy credible and possible, Pakistani Establishment had to brainwash itself too, especially as it fitted perfectly with their ambitions in the world.

Why is Pakistan so scared of Indian developmental aid to Afghanistan? They themselves know that India has marginal military and intelligence presence there. India's developmental aid is turning minds in Afghanistan. It is making Afghans, making Pushtun like Indians again. It is proving to the Pushtuns, that India is no enemy of the Pushtun, neither ethnically speaking nor because of Islam.

This makes the job of Pakistanis a lot more difficult to convince their own Pushtun that India is their common enemy. Without the glue of a common enemy, the Pushtuns may simply go their own way and demand a separate Pushtunistan.

So enmity with India helps Pakistan in multiple ways - to keep Pushtuns on their side by projecting India as a common enemy; as well as to impress upon the USA, that Pakistan's nuclear ambitions and erratic ways are all because of India.

If we want the Pakjabis to get off India's back, we need to get Pushtunistan independent.

Just some thoughts

Then I had an exchange with someone in WaPo about the Pushtun question.

All the Pakistani "soldiers" who lost their lives in "War on Terror" were all Pushtuns - all expendable lives as per Pakistan's Punjabi Army.

In fact, these lowly paid Pushtuns of the Frontier Corps are recruited for the sole purpose of letting them to be slaughtered by the Taliban, so that the Punjabis can say, that they too are losing lives in the WoT. In fact the Punjabis are more than happy that able-bodied Pushtuns are getting killed. The more Pushtuns that get killed, the less there are to challenge Punjabi domination over Pushtun areas.

Where as the Pushtuns are used as cannon fodder in the War on Terror and bear the brunt of this war, the Punjabi Generals grow fat on the money showered on them by the Americans.

So don't come with all these false numbers of how many Pakistanis have lost their lives in the War on Terror!

The Pakistani dog and pony show has reached its end!

You simply need to look at the evidence available. When there was Army operations in Swat, do you know how many people were internally displaced, mostly due to indiscriminate firing by Pakistani soldiers?! None of the 150,000 IDPs were given shelter or food inside Punjab. The IDPs were directed to go and look for comfort in other places in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and even Karachi, but Punjab did not accept them.

When the Punjabi Chief Minister introduced the subsidies on wheat flour, he made sure that none of that wheat flour was being diverted to the hungry and poor in Pushtun lands.

Every time the Pushtun soldiers of Frontier Corps get taken prisoner by the Taliban-e-Tehreek Pakistan (TTP), one hardly hears of Punjabi Army ever making any substantial efforts to get them released. At the end of the day, either they are murdered by the Taliban or the FC soldiers join them.

Perhaps you may have heard how the Punjabi ISI force Afghan Taliban fighters under their command to bomb schools and kill other Afghans, and not just Americans, even though the Afghan Taliban fighters are not really keen on hurting their own. It is simply because Punjabis don't care about the welfare of the Pushtun.

All you need to do is to really calculate how much money has been spent by Pakistan on the development of NWFP/KP, which does not help the Pakistani Army in one way or another, and to compare that with how much money has flowed into Punjab and to the Punjabi Army! Do the numbers, and everything would be clear to you!

The War on Terror suits the Punjabi Generals well. All the sacrifices are borne by the Pushtuns and all the rewards are scooped by the Punjabis. Of course the Punjabi Generals either directly or indirectly give the Pushtuns the Kool-Aid about Islam, and how the Pushtun are Defenders of Islam, etc. etc. all the time putting Pushtun lives at risk!

The Punjabis are sh*t scared of the Pushtun, so they keep on playing games with the Pushtun

Again you like to fool around with figures. There were never 20 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. They were more of the order of 3 million refugees.

Secondly those refugees never took refuge in Punjab, but only in NWFP, in Pushtun areas, and considering that Afghanistan does not recognize the Durand Line, as far as the Pushtun are concerned they were still in Afghanistan, where they took refuge!

Weren't those refugees used by the ISI, of course with American funding, to train as Mujahideen and go fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1980s? So why deny that ISI were indoctrinating them to do Jihad? Isn't it true, that Pakistan also financed the Taliban and supported them in any way possible to capture Afghanistan in the 1990s?

So why do you play the zero-credibility role that the Islamic radicals came with the refugees. They were radicalized by the ISI to begin with!

As far as India is concerned, we have given refuge to a substantial number of Afghans, considering that we do not border them. We still generously give visas to Afghans to come to India for medical treatment, and education! In fact, Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, himself a Pushtun, did his postgraduate course in India.

[Philip]

Ramanna is quite right that the PRC push into Afghanistan-ostensibly for economic reasons is setting off alarm bells in India.I have maintained frod ecades that the PRC is step-by-step making plans to establish a land route through to the Gulf through Tibet and Af-Pak.The mineral wealth in Afghanistan has been estimated to be in the region of trillions.In Madagascar,the PRC now controls "10,000 qs.km" of territory,ostensibly for farming etc.A huge Chinese naval/military base is sure to be established .

Now if you take the link further,with the PRC operating the panama Canal,one can see that the PRC is establishing its "string of pearls" to eventuallu encircle the globe! This is how the US has maintained its hegemony as top dog by its many bases in every ocean.It is Maritime power and strength alone that delivers results on land.In WW2,both Japan and Germany were defeated because the Allies had superior naval power.The Germans could not stop the Artic convoys supplying war material to the beleagured Russians,could not win in N.Africa because of British naval power in the Meditt. using Malta as an unsinkable base and the Japanese in the Pacific after their victory at pearl suffered several defeats,the most damaging being that at MIdway,when the bulk of their carriers were sunk.Had the japanses sent in their navy into Ceylon and S.India when the British were retreating in indecent haste after the fall of Singapore,and established a foothold in Ceylon in particular which was undefended,the history of WW2 might've been different.Using the INA,India could've risen up against the British had Netaji been fighting on Indian soil from the south and a pincer movement with Rommel's Afrika Korps would've seen the two Axis powers linbk uop in Egypt/the Gulf and all the oil falling into the hands of the Axis powers.It would've then been exceptionally difficult for the US to have defeated Japan awhich would've had such enromus strategic depth and access to key resources like oil,minerals ,etc.

Our strategy in Afghanistan should be focussed on establishing a permanent presence in economic development and working out a strategy with the northern states and Russia to guarantee the independence of the country free from the mahcinations of Pakistan and keeping out bthe Chinese military from establishing military bases there.In this,the US would certainly welcome any such endeavour.

[RajeshA]

Don'ts

In Afghanistan, there should be some dos and don'ts for us:

a) Never depend on Iran for the security aspects of our mission in Afghanistan.

b) Never build a security strategy for Afghanistan based on defense alone.

c) Don't have more Indian soldiers stationed in Afghanistan than we have consulates there: max 10,000. Plus those for protection of our investments there like in mining!

[RajeshA]

Can India go **** Pakistan in the name of Islam?

Yes, we can!

One of our problems in India is that we don't want to pick a fight with Pakistan, because we think about how it is going to play out with the Muslims in the world, especially Muslims in India! Pakistan will try to make any war between Pakistan and India into a war between Islam and Kufr, and mobilize all the Jihadis of the world to fly down into the region and get other Muslim countries to become critical of us!

There is an escape route to all this!

Let's for a moment consider India and Afghanistan to be allies. Let's consider India to assume for herself the role of providing the security umbrella to Afghanistan, more or less in the same way USA does so for Japan!

Now if the Pakistanis do anything to Afghanistan, attack Afghanistan's Presidency or Parliament or the various Governors or Pakistani forces are found to be fighting in Afghanistan against the Government there, then India gets called out to come to Afghanistan's help, say perhaps due to some Treaty provisions, say something like what they have in NATO Article 5.

I think that should be India's next step! Indo-Afghan Security Alliance (IASA)!

Basically we are looking for a fight with Pakistan, we want to rip open Pakistan with our bare teeth! We just don't want all those fish-bones in the Piranha, called Islam, to get stuck in our mouth!

So if we get into a fight with Pakistan due to Afghanistan, our little Islamic brother in Central Asia, then we neutralize Islam. Then it is a clean fight between two neighbors. In 1971 too, Pakistan could not really make it a case of Islam vs. Hindu! Just like we came to the help of Bangladesh, we can go to the help of Afghanistan this time!

This is the kind of treaty we need with Afghanistan. Whenever Afghans ask for Indian help, we kick butt in Pakistan - all in the name of Treaty Obligations. We want such a treaty to be not only signed between Afghanistan President and Indian Prime Minister, we in fact want the Afghan Parliament to ratify such a treaty!

Next time it comes to problems in Afghanistan due to some Taliban group taking sanctuary in Pakistan, we lash out at Pakistan.

What gives us the right to hit at Pakistan? Well last time I saw, Afghanistan was a neighboring country to India. There is a little bit of Wakhan Corridor that touches Gilgit-Baltistan, a de-jure part of India.

Any war with Pakistan which has to do with their mischief in Afghanistan is far easier to justify to the world than a war over Kashmir or even terror acts against India. This may seem cruel to say this, but we know the reality. All that can be turned around by the Western and Muslim media as "Hindu India trying to dominate over smaller neighbors like Pakistan etc."

So if we take over PoK during the course of this war, it is not because "we have something against peace with Pakistan" or "we crave for Muslim lands" but because that was the only way to meet our treaty obligations for coming to Afghanistan's aid. We needed a direct route. If we take over Baluchistan, again it is only so that we can come to Afghanistan's aid, which has been targeted so mercilessly by Pakistan sponsored terrorism.

"We can take Pakistan's terrorist misbehavior and attacks, for the sake of peace, but we cannot allow our little Muslim brother - Afghanistan to suffer at the hands of a terrorist bully - Pakistan! In order to protect our brother Afghanistan, we will go over all mountains (PoK) and deserts (Baluchistan) to come to their rescue!"

Of course, before this can happen, NATO/ISAF/US would have to leave Afghanistan!

We should look at the budding relationship between India and Afghanistan as our licence to slap and whip Pakistan anytime we want!

[brihaspati]

Atri and Acharya ji,
things might have changed in superficial form, but some of the essential processes remain unaltered practically perhaps for thousands of years. Moreover they hold not only for the subcontinent but also for the outside.

In the process of formation of major rashtryia powers there are two distinct stages based on the role of the mercantile forces. In the initial stage, the internal economy of the rashtra develops to an extent where there is a small surplus and potential seen by the rising mercantile and financial forces in expansion of their market penetration outside their rashtryia territory. It is at this stage they sponsor/align/support a regime which will do this for them in return for the regime leaders personal ambitions and objectives being satisfied at the same time.

In the second phase once the expansion is successful, and indigenous growth becomes sustainable with infusion of externally extracted capital and markets, the mercantiles will go for a stabilizing and hedging stratgey. Among many other aspects, a key part of this phase is the hedging on both sides of the pro-rashtryia and anti-rashtryia forces which might have arisen in reaction to the first phase of expansion. For the mercantiles it is always about continued profits, and in this they will first use the rashtra - nationalism/imperialism/ideology whatever is convenient - to expand their financial and profit base. Once the rashtra sort of saturates in giving further benefits, the rashtra will be quietly and subtly thrown out of consideration and the mercantiles will think of new trans-rashtryia structures as the base of their profit making has now gone beyond the initial framework of the rashtra.

If you apply this model carefully, you will see it happening for both UK and USA in the modern phase, and many similar outcomes for ancient known "once"-superpowers.

The exceptions to this model typically happen where the initial rashtra itself does not have the societal and ingenuity depth combined with resources to sustain a strong mercantile core. These are the rashtras which may actually escape the cycle of mercantile expansion and hedging, and may sustain themselves on ideological or other terms - because the mercantiles can never really take off.

Both AFG and PAK traditionally have remained weak mercantile core regions. At the moment China is maintaining its momentum because it is on a temporary phase of mercantile dependence on the rashtra. But there are already signs that the mercantile core is developing and expanding and starting to hedge its interests over and above that of the regime.

India's difficulty is that the mercantile core has always sustained itself - especially in the northern plains and the coastal south, even through invasions and changes of regimes. They perhaps have the longest experience out of any other zone in the world to do so, and have now refined themselves to an exquisite finesse of a "financial culture" which will really stop at nothing - I mean in hedging - to secure their perceived guarantee of profits. In this perception, involvement in AFG and PAK militarily is yet too costly compared to continued profits.

Once regimes come under the supreme controlling interests of financial networks, they start going down. India's punch in AFG needs a critical level of involvement and commitment below which nothing tangible will be gained. For India to really become proactive again, the mercantiles will have to suffer blows to their ineterests within the status quo, and need the strong arm of the rashtra to secure them their profits "outside".

Of course another way is to bypass the mercantiles altogether and see that they get destroyed in the first place. A new one will surely come up - but in the transition phase they will be weak - and only in that time gap can a determined rashtra redraw real and virtual borders, of nations as well as interests.

[Lalmohan]

but b-ji, since the mercantile class also funds the rashtra - directly or indirectly, you cannot quite destroy them either

[Philip]

Always remember the Raj dictum that you can only "....rent an Afghan"!

[RajeshA]

Always remember the Raj dictum that you can only "....rent an Afghan"!

I think the goodwill that India enjoys in Afghanistan should be built upon! We also would have to ensure that the propaganda remains pro-India.

On the security side, we should create an illusion of a strong alliance. Every international alliance is based on illusions only. But we should of course always be cognizant of the transactional nature of the alliance.

In our case, a formal alliance with Afghanistan gives India a real excuse to beat up the bully whenever we feel like - all without making it a religious war!

If India has to underline her place under the sun, then we will have to show that we take alliance obligations very seriously. That is when all small time countries move over to one's corner in the ring!