Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

[ShauryaT]

Pakistan is the common enemy of both nations ..

Pakistan co-option is essential for Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot afford TSP as an enemy. Please do not look at the Durand line as the divider between Af-Pak. The divide lies much to the east. India does not have the heft to control Afghanistan without Pakistani co-option. Chabahar without TSP co-option is a risk and to what degree will Iran allow military supplies is a question. Never forget this 2/3rd of Pashtuns live east of the Durand line. There is a potential for a game changing equation in the region, if the right cards are played by Indian leadership. We need to provide a credible and sustained presence in the region to keep China at Bay, external powers like US out, Persian ambitions in check. The Pashtuns are one of the most rabid human resources available to Pakistan. It is only through an entente with the Pashtuns can India have any hope of controlling Afghanistan. Right now, TSP has a lock on this resource, through the Taleban and its Ghilzai support base. If Pakistan is not co-opted, some presence can be still be had but a controlling one will be difficult to come by. Do not think 2014, think 2024.

[kasthuri]

What does this mean, in light of US-India statements?

Russia and China eye role in Afghanistan and Pakistan

[Rangudu]

Same jokers wanted to see a reduced role for India in Afghanistan and used to complain about the many consulates and claimed they were staffed by spies."*

* Despite Indian spies really working for US!!!

Treating the US or for that matter any large entity as a monolith is probably not appropriate ramana garu. The jokers i.e. TSP appeasers had forever been the dominant voices in the cacaphony but only recently have things been changing.

That said, I don't see much benefit from India committing troops at this stage when Unkil's commitment is unclear for the post-2014 stage.

[shyamd]

I think Afghanistan will be the biggest test to Indian National security and thanks for pointing out demographics here which is extremely important. If we are going to win in Afghanistan it requires Pashtun participation, not just minorities. Hence why our aid program's are focused on Pashtun areas.

As for troops, no way without Russia and Iran. But we are putting the skeletons in place for a bigger presence.
Iran and Russia will change their minds eventually. Both sides know what it means.
It's imperative that Iran remains in a good position to be able to support us.

Counter terror/joint military operations between Russia Iran and India are essential.

It is unacceptable to be cut off from Russia and central Asia.

[ramana]

ShauryaT, Baitullah was an important factor. he got killed by US under TSP misguidance.

Baitullah types are the Pashtun civil war inside TSP.

Its not the Durrani but the Ghilzais that need to be coopted.


Durrani types historically looked to Persia while Ghilzais looked at Delhi. India allowed the Islumabad to replace Delhi in Ghilzai mind space.


The problem as I see is that Indian sub-continent is like a lonkg rope with head in 21st century and the tail in 7th century.

Creation of Durrani Afghanistan and the later Partition has created Westphalian nation states but they violate the fundamental premise of Treay of Westphalia that the people can follow any religion of their choice and not that of the ruler or head of state.

So how can modern states survive when they are based on pre-modern ideas?

I think SAARC type federation provides a framework where in the re-arranged states from TSP and Afghanistan can exist upto the Hind Kush mountains.


Rangadu, India was and should pursue own interests and not be anyobdy's water carrier.
Its height of arrogance for US interlocutors who have defeat staring them in the face to expect India to bail them out when they worked very hard to stymie India.

India needs to bring about Pashtun reconciliation. It has to be based on Pasthun nationalism and not religion.

[Fidel Guevara]

For those in awe of US machismo vs India's dossier-sending habit, the last few months have seen the Khans adopt the dossier approach. Recent comments from Panetta :

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday that the United States was "reaching the limits of our patience" with Pakistan (indistinguishable from some recent GoI statements)

"We have made that very, very clear time and time again, and we will continue to do that ," he said.

"Anybody who attacks U.S. soldiers is our enemy. We are not going to take it," he said. (but you are taking it, sir, you are taking it fully on the chin each and every day)

Panetta's strongly worded remarks come three days after a CIA drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region killed Abu Yahya al-Libi, the No. 2 man in al Qaeda

[svinayak]

Same jokers wanted to see a reduced role for India in Afghanistan and used to complain about the many consulates and claimed they were staffed by spies."*

* Despite Indian spies really working for US!!!

Treating the US or for that matter any large entity as a monolith is probably not appropriate ramana garu. The jokers i.e. TSP appeasers had forever been the dominant voices in the cacaphony but only recently have things been changing.

That said, I don't see much benefit from India committing troops at this stage when Unkil's commitment is unclear for the post-2014 stage.

Unkil has a long term agreement with Afghanistan till 2024.
So there are not going to vacate the region.

GOTUS have a reached a cul de sac with policy on Pakistan and there is no more space for change in Pakistan.
This is when they need an external player and India has been chosen. This was only after they have tried all their cards on Pakistan just short of breaking from Pakistan. They have maintained their link with Pak mil and other organizaiton. New news is that The Pakistan lobby in DC has grown stronger.

[svinayak]

I think Afghanistan will be the biggest test to Indian National security and thanks for pointing out demographics here which is extremely important. If we are going to win in Afghanistan it requires Pashtun participation, not just minorities. Hence why our aid program's are focused on Pashtun areas.

As for troops, no way without Russia and Iran. But we are putting the skeletons in place for a bigger presence.
Iran and Russia will change their minds eventually. Both sides know what it means.
It's imperative that Iran remains in a good position to be able to support us.

Counter terror/joint military operations between Russia Iran and India are essential.

It is unacceptable to be cut off from Russia and central Asia.

India will need multiple routes to central asia.
Afghanistan is not a test to Indian National security. India has to follow containment strategy for Af Pak area for another 30 years.

[ramana]

I think this the best thread for this report. It can also go in geopolitics thread among others.

NightWatch 6 June 2012

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO): Leaders from the six SCO members plus invitees are meeting in Beijing this week to discuss mutual security interests, counter-terrorism, economic cooperation and Afghanistan, Those in attendance include Russian President Putin; Chinese President Hu Jintao who is the host; and leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Mongolia, India, Pakistan and Iran also have sent delegations as observers. President Karzai leads a guest delegation from Afghanistan.

News services reported Chinese President Hu as saying China should be involved in Afghanistan's peaceful reconstruction. "We will intensify communication and coordination on key global and regional issues to safeguard common security and the development interests of member states," Hu said.

Comment: Geography remains one of the most powerful and the most enduring background factors in international relations. Continental systems abide. The SCO is based on a geographic community of interest.

As a pan-Asian system its members will profit or suffer from whatever the Western intervention in Afghanistan leaves behind. For example, the Chinese already have a head start in exploiting Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The members are discussing security in central Asia after the Western troops depart.

SCO is not a military alliance in any sense. However, regional stability and security cooperation are two of its core precepts. Member states periodically participate in counter-terrorism exercises. In the NightWatch hypothesis, the SCO fits into the 70-year process of restoring normality in Asia in which Asian states take responsibility for Asian security.

Philippines: American troops, warships and aircraft can once again use their former naval and air facilities in Subic, Zambales and in Clark Field in Pampanga as long as they have prior clearance from the Philippine government, a senior defense official said.

"They can come here provided they have prior coordination from the government," Defense Undersecretary for defense affairs Honorio Azcueta told reporters after his meeting with General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Monday.

Comment: The Philippine leaders are wrapping themselves in the American flag in their dispute with China over islands and seabed resources in the South China Sea. The problem is geography and China's anti-secession law. Geography will not change and the Chinese are proscribed by law from abandoning their claims to it, despite the proximity of powerful US naval forces. There will be more standoffs.

India-US: During a two-day stop in New Delhi, US Defense Secretary Panetta urged Indian officials to take a 'more active role' in Afghanistan and tried to allay their concerns about a new US strategy for Asia that aims in part to counterbalance China's increasing influence and military power. In a speech Wednesday at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, Mr. Panetta said that the military relationship between the United States and India must deepen.


Comment: India rejected the Secretary's overture and held no joint press conference after high level talks. What the Secretary said must happen will not happen, except on a case by case basis and primarily for air force and some high tech weapons systems.

As for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, that already is taking place on a scale not reflected in the Secretary's remarks. India was and remains the ally and supplier of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance of Uzbeks and Tajiks against the Pashtun Taliban and the Indian Border Roads Organization has been building roads in southwestern Afghanistan to Iran for years.

India will not be a US ally or serve US interests. US and Indian strategic interests are not fundamentally congruent for many reasons rooted in Indian history. This is not new or news. Indians would be even less likely to cooperate with the US at a time when the US military profile in South Asia is diminishing.

Pakistan: Pakistan is impeding US attempts to curb the flow of bomb making materials from Pakistan to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, a report by the Government Accountability Office obtained by USA Today shows. The report, which has not been officially released, focused on State Department efforts to measure efforts aimed at fighting improvised explosive devices in Pakistan.

Comment: IEDs are the favorite weapon of the Taliban, but Afghanistan makes no batteries, no garage door openers, no plastic, no wire and no ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Almost all are imported from Pakistan and the flow has increased steadily for at least six years. The ammonium nitrate is manufactured in only two plants in Pakistan.

A thing to understand is strategy in continental Asia has bearing on the islands in Asia. Its the Chinese drive in Central Asia that forces the US to got to Philippines after so many years.

[Rangudu]

ramana

Your Baitullah theory is a tad simplistic IMHO. Unkil took him out not because they were tricked by Kayani but because at the core Baitullah was a TSPA asset. Despite his attacks on TSPA, Baitullah obeyed the call of Hamid Gul types to take out Benazir. There is still a video floating around in youtube on Hamid Gul and co praising Baitullah long after his death.

The Ghilzai-Durrani model too ignores some irreversible changes that have taken place in FATA and Eastern Afghanistan since 2008. Virtually all traditional Ghilzai tribal maliks and other elders have been wiped out by the likes of Baitullah/Hakeemullah/Haqqani, often with the connivance of TSPA, which fears the exact same outcome you talk about. This is an irreversible change. Just read Farhat Taj's book - she has all the names of people killed. On top of this, Unkil's "night raids" and Karzai's goon militias have taken out more of the elder jihadi types who could still see things through a Pashtun lens.

The only anti-TSPA power center among Pashtuns that is still left is basically infected with the pan-Islamic jihad virus. There is no cure for that. This is also why TSPA finds it impossible to separate its "good jihadis" like Haqqanis from Al Qaeda types. After all, if TSPA was able to pull out Al-Libbies from its hat on its own, it would have done so.

History is often a useful guide to understand current trends. But history is also replete with step changes and discontinuities that lead to irreversible developments.

The chances of India or any other power reviving the pan-Pashtun thinking are lower than Kapil Sibal becoming a free speech advocate.

[Kanishka]

Published In The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2012

Afghan conundrum: Time to revisit Afghan policy assumptions, says experts

The US is not losing in Afghanistan and an exit is not it’s only remaining option, as is generally believed in Pakistan.

Haider questioned the hypothesis that Afghan insurgents would wait to strike or that the government in Afghanistan would crumble and the Afghan National Police (ANP) and the Afghan National Army (ANA) would unravel after NATO quits Afghanistan. Contrary to popular belief, NATO pullout might not lead to a situation reminiscent of the 1990s for regional actors like Pakistan to have a more dominant role, he said.

Haider maintained that the US, the ANA and the ANP, had not done as badly in combat as is assumed in Pakistan. He added that NATO had installed institutional structures in Afghanistan which “no matter how imperfect” are capable of operating and sustaining themselves in the future.

Haider called for a synchronisation of Pakistan’s policy on India on both the eastern and western borders. If Pakistan was opening up to India for trade and people-to-people contacts on the eastern border, it needed to evolve some understanding with India over its role in Afghanistan as well, he said.

Speaking on the recently held Chicago summit, Ambassador Ali Sarwar Naqvi, executive director of the Centre for International Strategic Studies, called it “a humiliation for Pakistan”, wherein the head of the state of the host country did not extend the courtesy of a meeting to the Pakistani president. He was of the opinion that in the West, Pakistan is perceived as a state that tolerates, or perhaps supports, terrorism. Naqvi called for a review of Pakistan’s Afghan policy in a way that would put Pakistan ahead of other priorities.

Former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) DG Lt Gen (retd) Asad Durrani questioned the perception that the US would want a stable, peaceful, and democratic Afghanistan. He was of the view that he had not seen much of an effort on the part of the US to that end.

Meanwhile, Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood also called for a review of Pakistan’s Afghan policy, calling it stuck in the past and oblivious of negative consequences for Pakistan.

Furthermore, German Embassy Deputy Head of Mission Stephan Roken urged for greater understanding of the Pakistan narrative in the west and called on the Pakistani government to use every opportunity to help with the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

[pankajs]

India to host conference to boost pvt sector investment in Afghanistan

Washington, June 8: India will host a conference on Afghanistan to discuss ways to boost international private sector investment in the war-torn country later this month, a top US official has announced.

This is probably for the first time post 2001 that India is hosting an international conference, of any kind, on Afghanistan, where the country has quietly invested more than $2 billion.

Curiously enough the announcement in this regard has come not from India, but from Obama administration’s point man on South and Central Asia ahead of the June 13 Strategic Dialogue between India and the United States.

“India also hosts on June 28th a conference to examine ways to boost international private sector investment in Afghanistan,” the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Mr Robert Blake, said in his address to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a prestigious American think-tank.

This conference, Mr Blake said, will feature over 50 Afghan firms — with at least 10 of the companies owned by women — whose presence will spur direct business-to-business links between Afghan and international firms.

The New Delhi conference then will inform a July 8th Government summit in Tokyo that will develop strategies for Afghanistan’s economic development, the senior US official said.

Afghanistan, Mr Blake said, would be one of the key issues of discussion when the Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton, holds talks with the Indian-delegation led by the External Affairs Minister, Mr S.M. Krishna, in Washington on June 13.

[Kanishka]

I'm stocking up on popcorn and coke!

US will do whatever necessary to protect forces in Pakistan, Panetta says

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has not visited Pakistan since taking over as defense secretary a year ago.

In a visit to India and Afghanistan this week, he skipped Islamabad again and expressed outright frustration with the Pakistani leadership and the safe havens they provide the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier province, especially the so-called Haqqani network.

Admiral Mike Mullen in a parting shot at the Pakistanis did not mince his words when he said Pakistan's intelligence service provides direct support of the Haqqani network, whose fighters are killing US troops in Afghanistan.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News on the tarmac in Kabul, Secretary Panetta was forthright in expressing his mounting frustration with the Pakistanis.

"We cannot continue to tolerate a situation where Haqqanis, terrorists on their side of the border, come across, attack our troops, kill our troops, and then return to a safe haven in Pakistan. That's intolerable," Panetta said before boarding his plane back to the U.S.

"You know we have urged them time and time again that they have to deal with that situation, that we cannot allow that to happen. And we’ve reached the limits of our patience with regards to just standing back and not having the Pakistani’s take the action that they have to take if we're going to control that situation."

He added the US is at war in the FATA, or Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, but stopped short of saying the US was at war with Pakistan.

"You know, without ever getting into the details of what we may or may not do I think it suffices to say that the United States will do whatever we have to do to protect our forces," Panetta said.

He added the Haqqani network was responsible for a sophisticated attack this week that left dozens of Afghans dead near a NATO base.

They were the strongest words yet from a US defense secretary about the double game Pakistan is playing with the United States in Afghanistan.

Pakistan closed the borders with Afghanistan last November, forcing the US military and NATO to come up with alternative more expensive supply routes through Central Asia.

Pakistani Ambassador Sherri Rehman called Panetta's remarks, "unhelpful."

[abhishek_sharma]

Abu Yahya al-Libi: A unifying force lost

[ShauryaT]

Mission Taliban

Mission Taliban

There are certain immutable laws of military history that repeated attempts at disproving them only end up confirming their veracity. One such law has to do with certain countries being simply intolerant of interventions by foreign powers. Vietnam and Afghanistan come readily to mind; they are the fabled “graveyards of empires”. India is at the other end of this spectrum; it is, in military sociologist Stanislaw Andreski’s pithy phrase, “the land of subjugations”. No invader in India has not succeeded in establishing his rule on parts or whole of this country.

Vietnam has kept the Chinese empire at bay for a thousand years, and compelled chairman Deng Xiaoping, “the great helmsman”, to ponder his folly of sending the People’s Liberation Army into Vietnam in 1979 to “teach” this pesky country a “lesson” only to see his forces get mauled. Afghanistan is the other black hole that many outside powers have, at great cost, discovered is best left undisturbed and to its own devices. There is always a huge cost to getting involved in Afghanistan.

It is easy to capture Kabul, immensely more difficult to control the Afghan countryside — a fundamental lesson few invading forces have understood before going in. So when Lieutenant-General John C. McColl of the British Army led the Nato forces into Kabul in January 2002 and fairly easily ran the Taliban regime of the one-eyed Mullah Omar out of town, he must have believed his job was done. General John Keane at the head of the East India Company Army must have felt much the same way as he took Kandahar, reduced Ghazni, and marched to Kabul in the Spring of 1839, and replaced the reigning monarch, Dost Mohammad, with the more pliable Shuja Shah Durrani — a feat repeated by the UN-mandated ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in 2004 with the installation of Hamid Karzai.

There might be no annihilation of the departing ISAF like the one suffered at Gandamak in the winter of 1842 by the retreating Company forces, but there’s also no doubt as to who has won this fight, and how it might spur “jihad”.

The Chicago Summit on Afghanistan ended on Sunday with US President Barack Obama’s plan to “cut and run” from Afghanistan being endorsed by relieved members of the Nato, who have been hankering to get the hell out. This will be the third time in recent history — after Vietnam and Iraq — that the United States, following a forceful intervention, got mired in a hopeless and bloody war, decided that enough was enough, and pulled out with the mission goals unachieved. What this says about America’s staying power and stamina to its strategic allies and potential partners in Asia contemplating a belligerent China, is not hard to guess.

But the Nato plan to transfer the fighting to the newly raised 325,000 soldier-strong Afghan National Army (ANA) and police, and to decamp by 2014, is absurd.

The US has spent some $20 billion all told on ISAF operations over a decade, and no military technology has been spared — not drones, not the latest sensors that can detect movement and direct precision-guided munitions to the spot in real time — to obtain results. But nothing quite worked, and Americans lost to a motley collection of religious brigands with only their faith, Kalashnikovs and Improvised Explosive Devices to rely on. Now the nascent ANA is supposed to finish the job ISAF started with nothing like the battlefield tech-support and infrastructure the foreign armies benefited from, and with only a bare-bones presence of American Special Forces to buck up the Karzai government’s spirits. And all this is to be accomplished on an annual Nato dole of $4.2 billion for a country with a diminished GDP of $17 billion. Fat chance!

The response, in the event, to contemplating any kind of Indian military role in Afghanistan would instinctively be “Good god, no”! Think again. India has not had the foresight to protect itself by securing a defence perimeter at a distance from the homeland, and has time and again found the enemy at the gate. Moreover, it has been a habitual free-rider on security usually provided by the United States. Every American official passing through Delhi in the last several years has dutifully heard Indian pleas to not distinguish between the good and the bad Taliban, for ISAF not to leave Afghanistan precipitately, and for Washington to stay militarily committed to the Karzai government.

Well, the Western troops are going home and a friendly Afghanistan is in peril. Ideally, the best thing would have been for the Indian and Pakistani governments to agree to send a joint South Asian peacekeeping force to that country. That isn’t feasible, or is it? Surely, MEA can send out feelers to Islamabad.

On its own, India should, of course, quickly ramp up its “training, mentoring and instructing” efforts. But it is in India’s interest to do more. The Indian government had almost dispatched an Infantry Division to Iraq in 2003 to please Washington. Surely, the Indo-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement signed on October 4, 2011, hints at much larger Indian stakes in Afghanistan and an Indian military role in that country. With their vast counter-insurgency experience, Indian Army contingents can leverage the high comfort levels the Afghan people will naturally have in dealing with them. They will be able to conduct their business with empathy while retaining Afghan goodwill.

Deploying a static Indian military presence, say, in the Hajigak region where Indian companies have mining concessions and will need protection, seems a reasonable first step. It will free up ANA for fighting elsewhere. The more kinetic element could be Indian Special Forces deployed to fight in support of ANA and alongside the American Rangers and SEALs in the toughest terrain against currently the most formidable guerrilla adversary — the battle-hardened Taliban cadres. Para-commandos are the sharp edge of expeditionary forces that India needs to stress and to bulk up for the future. No better place for them to sharpen their fighting skills than in a difficult country related to us intimately by history.

The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

[svinayak]

India's role in Afghanistan

[ShauryaT]

My views on the BK Article:

There are more good reasons for Indian presence in the area and worth the blood and sweat it will entail.

1. It is a fact since ancient times that this region has always been dependent on the Indian and/or Persian empires and has mostly been a vassal of these empires, alternatively.

2. The socio-economic, geo-political and demographic realities of Afghanistan are such that it can never become truly independent for a long time to come.

3. One has to look at the Durand line as an artificial line which has no adherence and acceptability to the Pashtuns, on both sides of the line

4. Within Afghanistan the Pashtuns are a majority and 2/3rd of the Pashtun population lives east of the Durand line!

5. What this means is without the support of the Pashtuns of the region, the stability of Afghanistan is impossible. It is very hard to distinguish the Taleban from the Ghilzai tribes.

6. The Durrani tribes, who form the elite that Karzai belongs to are the opposing population and to an extent this is also a civili war with one set of pashtuns against another and allied with other tribes of the region and then opposed to other ethnic regions of Afghanistan

7. The traditional Indian alliances with the Northern Alliance partners is simply not good enough to control Afghanistan due to these demographic realities. An entente with the Pashtuns is necessary and especially with the Durrani Pashtuns.

8. The Geo-political realities demand that Pakistan be co-opted for such a mission. I am not sure if we have the wherewithal and heft to sustain such a mission using the Iran/Chabahar route or if Iran would be even willing to see Indian military pass through this route. What it means to me is that eventually if we start on this route, then should have the wherewithal to subdue any Iranian objection or cold feet they develop.

9. It is in Indian interests to control this region and get a formidable presence. 20% of the PA is filled with Pashtuns. It is the Pashtuns, who are the most exploitable rabid human resources that PA has been able to exploit against us in the past. We need to build our own assets in the region – IMO with or without Pakistan support.

[ShauryaT]

There is another speech also, which I found boring, linking only he Q&A.

Although not Af-Pak only, good number of questions and answers on the issue.

[ShauryaT]

The problem as I see is that Indian sub-continent is like a lonkg rope with head in 21st century and the tail in 7th century.

I think, I superficially understand the above, however am sure there is a deeper thought process there, some day you will have to elaborate and explain.

Creation of Durrani Afghanistan and the later Partition has created Westphalian nation states but they violate the fundamental premise of Treay of Westphalia that the people can follow any religion of their choice and not that of the ruler or head of state.

So how can modern states survive when they are based on pre-modern ideas?

True, and this is exactly why I am opposed to self goals of not engaging and watching the show from the side. We simply cannot afford to. We are the only force in the region that has this type of a tolerant structure. We cannot afford to led the neighborhood fall. It shall not be a clean break. 1000+ years of a lack of a political union and its effects shall not be erased overnight but what we cannot afford to do is let it slide further. It will affect us all.

Added: The purpose of the Indian union can only be one, i.e: to restore her spiritual ethos back - we are a long, long way from that primary goal. Once that goal is firmly in grasp, only then does it become worthwhile to take the islamic memes head on. Until that time, half way measures that at least arrest the slide will have to do.

The Americans/West really has no interests in Afghanistan. Their only mission of trying to ensure that the region does not produce a threat to their interests, has essentially failed.

While they have the luxury to pack up and go and continue to kick butt from afar, we do not enjoy the same. The effects of a failed Afghanistan will be most felt on Pakistan and as Pakistan fails, its effects on India cannot be stopped. We are courting with extreme danger and the last thing we should be hoping for in this scenario is for the US to come in a bail us and the region out. Time to take control and intervene. Not because the US has failed but because, we should have never let this happen in the first place.

[svinayak]

India has to do 30 years of funding inside Afgh area atleast around 1B every year.

[Kanishka]

'Pak's 'unwise plan' of trumping India in Afghanistan against greater interests of world

An editorial in a Pakistan daily has said that the country's narrow interest in having more influence than India in Afghanistan should not trump the greater interests of the world.

For the U.S., thwarting the Haqqani Network is vital to its plans for withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2014, it said. The only way the U.S. can leave the country without having to admit defeat is if violence in Afghanistan is significantly reduced. Pakistan, however, thinks that by keeping the Haqqani Network operational, it can both counteract Indian influence in Afghanistan and get a seat in the post-U.S. Afghan government that it expects to be dominated by the Taliban, it added.

According to the editorial, Pakistan needs to realise how unwise this plan is. It is essentially a rerun of the Afghan policy of the 1980s and 1990s, when the same flawed logic brought the country lots of guns, drugs and refugees but little security while destroying the nation of Afghanistan.

The editorial said that while the country is fighting the Pakistani Taliban and sacrificing a tremendous amount of blood in doing so, it is ignoring the Haqqani Network, which primarily carries out attacks in Afghanistan.

It added that after years of diplomatic inquiries and suggestions that Pakistan might want to consider the Haqqani Network as a threat as well, the U.S. has finally reacted harshly in the form of a speech given by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said the U.S. is "reaching the limits of our patience" with Pakistan and urged it to deny the Haqqani Network a safe haven in North Waziristan.

Pakistan certainly has a case when it tells the U.S. that it does not have enough troops at its disposal to fight the Haqqani Network in what would surely be a long and bloody battle in North Waziristan, it said. But the problem is that the military is perceived by many as being hand-in-glove with the Haqqani Network, through its intelligence agencies, it added.

The end result is that Pakistan is not only making it harder for peace to take hold in Afghanistan, but it is also harming Pakistan's own interests because the rest of the world does not believe Pakistan when it says it is innocent of any interference, it said. (ANI)

[ShauryaT]

Road map for Afghanistan
Pakistan left with limited options
by G Parthasarathy

MEETING officials and academics in Washington just prior to the Chicago Summit gave me an interesting insight into the mood in Washington, even as the “end game” in Afghanistan gets under way. Amidst much fanfare, President Obama administered two direct snubs to the Head of State of “major non-NATO ally,” Pakistan. After making it clear that he had no intention of meeting President Zardari unless the supply routes to Afghanistan from Pakistan were reopened, President Obama chose to conclude the Chicago Summit by paying handsome tribute to Russia and Central Asian countries, which had facilitated the transit of American supplies to Afghanistan, while pointedly excluding any mention of Pakistan.

Even American journalists and academics, who have for years been apologists for Pakistan’s military, now fret and fume at the very mention of its name. It is a pity that it was the affable President Zardari, and not the crusty and jihadi-oriented General Kayani, who was to be the Pakistani recipient of this American dressing down.

Nothing surprising emerged from the Chicago Summit, with NATO members falling in line for an extended commitment of assistance to Afghanistan, well beyond the day they would end combat operations. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen averred: “We will stay committed and see it to a successful end”.

Standing beside President Obama, President Karzai made it clear that Afghanistan intends to do its best to ensure that it “is no longer a burden on the shoulders of our friends in the international community”.

There is little doubt that if allowed to determine their own destiny, free from Pakistani malevolence, Afghanistan, which has huge natural resources of coal, copper, iron ore, cobalt, gold and lithium, estimated to be worth $1 trillion, can become an economically vibrant country. It could serve as a conduit for Central Asia’s natural gas to India. And, it has substantial potential for the export of agricultural products. But, will the Generals in Rawalpindi, blinded by their quest for “strategic depth” and “jihad” against India, even as their own country is consumed by extremist violence, have the good sense to allow this to happen?

The road map for future American policies was set out in the Strategic Partnership Agreement that President Obama signed with his Afghan counterpart of May 2, the first anniversary of the day the American Special Force targeted Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad and exposed to the world (but evidently not to our “romanticists” in Pakistan), the duplicity that characterises the policies of General Kayani and his cohorts. This agreement is valid till 2024.The Strategic Partnership Agreement confirms that American combat operations in Afghanistan will end in December 2014.

The US has, however, pledged to provide military assistance to Afghanistan “so that Afghanistan can independently secure and defend itself against internal and external threats, and help ensure that terrorists never again encroach on Afghan soil and threaten Afghanistan, the region and the world”. The assurance is, therefore, that Afghanistan will be assisted to deal not only with threats to its security, but also to eliminate terrorists who operate across international borders.

While the lead role for counter-insurgency operations will be handed over to the Afghans next May, after substantial reduction in force levels, the US and Afghanistan will have to negotiate a Bilateral Status of Forces Security Agreement in the next year to provide the framework for a continued presence of US forces in a counter terrorism role beyond December 2004.

Clearly recognising Russian and Iranian anxieties, the agreement stipulates that Afghan soil will not be used against any third country and includes an American assurance that it does not seek permanent facilities in Afghanistan.

Alluding to efforts for dialogue with the Taliban, the Afghan Government has pledged that any agreement reached with the Taliban “shall uphold the values of the Afghan Constitution”. While these affirmations may appear reassuring to some, one has to carefully see how the situation plays out in Afghanistan.

While American officials proclaim that the US will not leave Afghanistan till their task is completed, there is a body of Americans who feel that what happened following American military interventions in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somali could well be repeated. There is, however, realisation that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan will only embolden radical Islamists to target American interests across the world.

While the Americans and their NATO partners have been able to hold firm in rejecting Pakistani conditions and extortionist demands for reopening of supply lines to Afghanistan, it is evident that the process of American and NATO engagement with Pakistan will continue.

In the meantime, Pakistan’s economic woes are mounting as its internal debt reaches 65% of GDP and its external debt exceeds $60 billion. Pakistan has already defaulted on payments to foreign power producers. While General Kayani and his colleagues know that their grandiose plans for military modernisation will suffer grievously as the US Congress places tight conditions for further American assistance, the civilian government will have to face the public backlash, should it choose to reopen supply routes for the Americans. But it does appear a face-saving way will be found in course of time for reopening NATO supply routes in Pakistan, whose air space remains open for such supplies.

The focus of attention in the coming years is thus going to be on whether the Afghan forces will be able to hold major towns in Southern Afghanistan like Kandahar and Jalalabad in the face of Taliban attacks. It appears unlikely that the Afghan National Army (ANA) will be able to hold rural and mountainous areas near the Durand Line, particularly in South-Eastern Afghanistan. This will necessitate a continuing “counter-terrorism” role for the Americans.

There are, however, doubts if the war-weary American public will relish this. So an important question which remains is whether the Americans will fulfill their commitment to ensure that “terrorists never again encroach on Afghan soil and threaten Afghanistan, the region and the world”.

Pakistan has two alternatives to choose from. The first will be to join the international community and regional powers in building a stable and self-reliant Afghanistan through regional trade, oil and gas pipelines and development of Afghanistan’s vast resources of gold, copper, lithium, coal and iron ore. India and China are already in the process of investment in resources like iron ore, coal and copper and in oil exploration and steel. Alternatively, General Kayani can continue on the present path of jihad and “strategic depth,” unleashing more destruction and misery on the hapless people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[ShauryaT]

India has to do 30 years of funding inside Afgh area atleast around 1B every year.

Not only funding but put boots on the ground, wield the sword, sacrifice its blood and in exchange control and temper the ideas and foreign influences Islamic or Western.

Giving the money is easy it is only the Vaishya Dharma being used, all four aspects of the Purusha have to play a role the Kshatriyas, the Brahmin and most important the Shudra. Do not need Americans or Chinese to build dams. It has to come down to basics and these basics are powerful symbols. Half the country's crops rot in drought and a quarter more get destroyed due to pests. It is these basic issues that need solving. As a symbol, let this region be the largest wine growing country in Asia. Grapes after all is an age old fruit grown here. I am waiting to sip my Afghani wine!

[svinayak]

India has to do 30 years of funding inside Afgh area atleast around 1B every year.

Not only funding but put boots on the ground, wield the sword, sacrifice its blood and in exchange control and temper the ideas and foreign influences Islamic or Western.

Giving the money is easy it is only the Vaishya Dharma being used, all four aspects of the Purusha have to play a role the Kshatriyas, the Brahmin and most important the Shudra. Do not need Americans or Chinese to build dams. It has to come down to basics and these basics are powerful symbols. Half the country's crops rot in drought and a quarter more get destroyed due to pests. It is these basic issues that need solving. As a symbol, let this region be the largest wine growing country in Asia. Grapes after all is an age old fruit grown here. I am waiting to sip my Afghani wine!

Small boot presence is OK for 2 decades.
Boots can be put in AFPak seriously after 30 years. We need atleast 1 million Indians to settle inside Afghanistan permanently.

[Johann]

At the end of the day there has to be a movement among the Pashtuns thats stronger than the Taliban if there's to be any lasting hope.

Something else that has to change is the curriculum of madrasas. There used to be a time when they taught philosophy, literature and advanced logic and the Persian that went with all of it. After 1857 the revivalist movements like the Deobandis stripped out the advanced Persian, the arts and the 'rational sciences' and replaced it with Arabic and hadith studies. Gulf money since the 1970s has deepened this process. Islamic culture in the Subcontinent needs its soul back.

[devesh]

oh, by "soul", you mean the old overtly rapine culture where abducting kafir women was the norm? or was it the periodic temple destruction, and kafir killing you are talking about? I am very interested to know what this "soul" is. it is a very mysterious concept when one is talking about Islam.

[Johann]

Devesh,

Why did the Bamiyan Buddhas remain standing for 1300 years of Islam in Afghanistan? Something has obviously taken for a turn for the worse.

[devesh]

was there anybody left in Afghanistan who still worshiped Buddha, when the Taliban tore down those statues?
over that 1300 period the kafirs were killed or converted. then, when no one was left from that culture, the last remnant monuments were taken down. is that supposed to make us kafirs all mushy and gooey inside? all starry-eyed with big eyes full of hope about the pure and oh so innocent "soul" of Islam?

[Johann]

Devesh,

The local Shia Hazara regarded those Buddhas as part of their heritage in the way that most Egyptians are proud of the Pyramids. They still mourn the loss.

Incidentally there used to be 200,000 Hindus and Sikhs living in Afghanistan until the rise of the Taliban.

Where did the Taliban and its ideology come from? The Deobandi madrasas inside Pakistan. Their syllabus is literally a step backwards when you look at what was taught in madrasas 200 years ago. The removal of Persian high culture has not been a good thing.

[abhishek_sharma]

Did Nader Shah come from Persia?

[Rudradev]

Yes he did. The Durrani dynasty, Afghan harbingers of what is being peddled here as a desirable "Persian High Culture", was founded by Ahmad Shah Abdali... one of Nadir Shah's generals.

Abdali won a pyrrhic victory at the third battle of Panipat, and Indian history (not the version prescribed by the British) tells us more than enough about the behaviour prompted by his "Persian High Culture."

[Johann]

To make an analogy, the value of German high culture could be dismissed as a figment of the imagination because of the Kaiser and Hitler. But the fact is that Germany's rehabilitation has had everything to do with that society's commitment to quality education.

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.

Modern Iran has one of the best educated and artistically productive populations in the Muslim world, and that's changing society from the inside out, despite whatever restrictions the most zealous Khomeinists attempt. That hunger for both knowledge and beauty is very much tied to the cultural legacy of the Shahnameh, Ghazali, Rumi, etc.

The fundamentalists were very specific about why they decided to cut both training in the traditional 'rational sciences' and Persian from the madrasa syllabuses in the Subcontinent. They were afraid that it led believers astray.

Its not an accident that the most progressive parts of the Afghan population were and are the Dari (i.e. Persian) speaking elements of the population.

[devesh]

Devesh,

The local Shia Hazara regarded those Buddhas as part of their heritage in the way that most Egyptians are proud of the Pyramids. They still mourn the loss.

Incidentally there used to be 200,000 Hindus and Sikhs living in Afghanistan until the rise of the Taliban.

Where did the Taliban and its ideology come from? The Deobandi madrasas inside Pakistan. Their syllabus is literally a step backwards when you look at what was taught in madrasas 200 years ago. The removal of Persian high culture has not been a good thing.

is there a source to the claim of 2 lakh hindus and sikhs before Taliban? I would like to see it. Also, would like to see which area they were concentrated in?

eh, what is this "Persian High Culture"? those influenced by that "high culture" have a pretty well recorded history that demonstrates their "culture" in the Deccan. this "persian high culture" has left a glorious history which tells of their skills in destroying civilization. a visit to Hampi should clarify this. what was once possibly the greatest city on Earth, at the height of its glory, was looted, pillaged, and destroyed, while its inhabitants were put through heinous torture on mass scale. of course, raping and enslaving kafir women on the scale of 10's of thousands was also very much part of this "Persian High culture".

and I'd really like to know of sources which confirm what was taught in madrasas 200 years ago. and if there is such a source, is it uniform across all the Islamic countries? did the syllabus differ from place to place? I would assume that to be the case, considering that the centralized Saudi funding hadn't begun by then yet. so, even if some isolated "sources" do appear, I hardly think it can be applied to madrasas all over. in absence of such proof, there is no reason to claim that the core gist of teachings in the madrasas was any less discriminatory towards and disparaging of kafirs.

[abhishek_sharma]

Modern Iran has one of the best educated and artistically productive populations in the Muslim world, ...

Pretty low baseline.

That hunger for both knowledge and beauty is very much tied to the cultural legacy of the Shahnameh, Ghazali, Rumi, etc.

India does not need to import the hunger for knowledge and beauty from outside. As far as I know, we were doing fairly well before 1000 AD.

The fundamentalists were very specific about why they decided to cut both training in the traditional 'rational sciences' and Persian from the madrasa syllabuses in the Subcontinent. They were afraid that it led believers astray.

Why ? The influence of "Persian high culture" could have restrained/stopped them from being fundamentalist?

... and Persian from the madrasa syllabuses in the Subcontinent. They were afraid that it led believers astray.

Really? Evidence?

[devesh]

To make an analogy, the value of German high culture could be dismissed as a figment of the imagination because of the Kaiser and Hitler. But the fact is that Germany's rehabilitation has had everything to do with that society's commitment to quality education.

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.

Modern Iran has one of the best educated and artistically productive populations in the Muslim world, and that's changing society from the inside out, despite whatever restrictions the most zealous Khomeinists attempt. That hunger for both knowledge and beauty is very much tied to the cultural legacy of the Shahnameh, Ghazali, Rumi, etc.

The fundamentalists were very specific about why they decided to cut both training in the traditional 'rational sciences' and Persian from the madrasa syllabuses in the Subcontinent. They were afraid that it led believers astray.

Its not an accident that the most progressive parts of the Afghan population were and are the Dari (i.e. Persian) speaking elements of the population.

now we are moving far from the original post about the Pushtuns becoming Talibanized b/c of loss of "persian high culture". if the Taliban got rid of the "persian high culture", and your assumption is that "200 years ago" this culture existed as part of Afghani society, then there are still glowing examples of Afghani behavior under this "high culture". i'm sure I don't need to expand on that, as that history is very well known.

another thing that is not clear is to what extent this "high culture" played any role whatsoever in Afghanistan. let us forget Persia and focus on Afghanistan, as that was the point where this discussion began. I am genuinely curious about this, as I don't really know the answer to it myself. how deeply was this "high culture" embedded in Afghanistan. you have claimed that all madrassas taught this culture, so is it safe to assume that the significant portion of the population which received madrassa education were seeped in this "culture"? if that is so, then what gave birth to the Taliban in the first place?

if madrassas, which play such a prominent role in Islamic countries, were neck deep in propagating Persian High Culture, how did the Taliban even happen in the first place? if this "high culture" could do nothing to stop the true nature of Islam from asserting itself, isn't it a flawed argument to claim that its presence somehow "softened" or "tamed" Islam?

forget Persia. I see no evidence that this "persian high culture" in any way reduced the rapine mentality of the Islamics in Afghanistan.

[Johann]

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.

[devesh]

abhishek_sharma ji,

yes, it seems we get every once in a while somebody lecturing us about the great and noble high culture of the Islamic nations and how we should respect and admire them. they don't seem to understand this simple concept: why the f*** do we care what magical carpets were being manufactured in some desert country? thanks, we were doing fine and well before, and if left alone, are more than capable to doing so in the future. they can keep their "persian high culture" to themselves, thanks.

[devesh]

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.

now this is Paki commentary. blaming this, that, or the other, for their behavior. yes, oh the evil British abolished Persian. look how much H&D loss that created to the Islamics. so what should Indians do in modern day? fund and propagate a foreign language that has roots and loyalty outside the country, all in the hope that it will instill this mythical "high culture" in subcontinental muslims?

once again I have to ask, what did this "high culture" do to the psyche of the subcontinental muslims while it was prevalent? you are citing its abolition as a fundamental cause for modern Jihadism. so there is a clear assumption of "better" or "opposite" behavior while this "high culture" was being practiced. there is no evidence to support that claim, and on the contrary, there is much which proves it false.

[Rangudu]

Devesh

FYI, this BBC report says some 50k Sikhs & Hindus were in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban taking over.

I'll let Johann address your questions to him, but my 2 paise is that Turko-Persian invasion/assimilation etc. is part of Indian history, so the notion that we'd all be better of without the Persian High Culture is moot, even if true. That said, it is curious that the Afghans of today who are most pro-India are Dari speaking people.

I'd also not dismiss the claims on pre-Taliban madrassa curriculum. After all, the Taliban were so clearly born out of the Saudi funded and Zia-ul-Haq nourished Deobandi madaris. If all madrassas were the same in terms of preaching hatred, the Taliban would have been born eons ago, wouldn't they? I don't dispute that the jihad virus has been in existence since the 7th century, but no doctor would treat the flu the same way as he would the Ebola, would he? To put it another way, you can express a tolerance for the common flu over Ebola in a world where viruses cannot ALL be eradicated totally, right?

[abhishek_sharma]

Johann: You said:

The fundamentalists were very specific about why they decided to cut both training in the traditional 'rational sciences' and Persian from the madrasa syllabuses in the Subcontinent.

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.

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

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.

That is certainly not true. 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.

From wiki

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.

The British might have started using English for their own reasons. As I have said before, after 1837, Persian script was used to write Hindustani (instead of Devanagari script).