Afghanistan News & Discussion

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Apr 2010 09:53

Afghanistan's Multiple Personalities
Our diarist flies from Kabul to Mazar-e-Sharif, carrying photos of old, lost friends.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... sonalities

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Apr 2010 14:23

Kabul’s New Patron?
The Growing Afghan-Chinese Relationship

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... new-patron

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Apr 2010 10:23

Massive blast and heavy British casualties feared.Tragic.Past time for the wets to hit the true HQ of the Taliban,Islamabad.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 099126.ece
British security staff feared dead after suicide car bombs blast Taleban capital

Excerpt:

As many as seven Western contractors were feared dead last night when the southern Afghan city of Kandahar — the target of Nato’s next big operation — was hit by a huge suicide bomb.

Windows were blown out two miles from the blast after a vehicle was driven into a compound housing foreigners. It penetrated the first security barrier but failed to breach a second before guards opened fire.

A police spokesman, Mohammad Nabi, said that seven foreigners, believed to be British, died in the blast. Other reports offered different estimates of the death toll, with some suggesting that Afghan staff were among the casualties.

Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half brother of the President, Hamid Karzai, and an influential figure in the city, said that at least six people were killed, including three foreigners and three Afghan soldiers, and several more people had been injured.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Apr 2010 18:57

Hamid Karzai's Reconciliation Strategy

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 18 Apr 2010 00:46

This post in is response to Carl_T's post in the Indo-US thread. Basically, Carl's contention is that Persia (Iran) has always had a more direct role in Afghanistan and has a greater influence (historically) and has ruled over all of Afghanistan for the longest time. I humbly disagree.

Mods can delete if found irrelevant.

Carl_T wrote:You are equating Gandhara = Afghanistan. My point is, Gandhara is only a part of Afghanistan with major parts in Pakistan (taxila, peshawar) , (your own links show that). As for the rest of Afghanistan, it is historically Persian. Iran is the country that has cultural links to the western parts of the region, even today the western side of Afghanistan is Tajik. Afgh is a relatively recent creation.
Iran has direct interests there, and they are the ones that will not be let in. But we are off topic, this should be in Afgh thread.

If I may say so, I am doing no such thing. Hindu Shahis were only mentioned as the last relevant “Indics” (to use a BR term) to rule Afghanistan (from Kabul).

However, Afghanistan, by no means, historically *belongs* to Persia (Iran).
* The Sassanids only ruled Afghanistan from 225-600 AD (the religion of the masses still remained Buddhist/Hindu – not “fire worshippers”). Darius invaded, but never ruled for a long time [from 552 to 486 BC]. Where else is the Iranian (pre-Islamic) influence?
Go back a bit:
* Chandragupta Maurya defeats Seleucus 1 in 303 BC (after Alexander has departed) - rule extends to Afghanistan
* Ashoka's reign takes over in 250 BC – rule extends to all of Afghanistan (Ashoka’s Tablets are found all over Afghanistan)
* 250 BC - 128 BC The Bactrian Greek Kingdom is mainly Buddhist
* Kushanas (notably, Kanishka – Mahayana Buddhism - the Bamiyan Buddhas - Vairocana and Sakyamuni, - were carved at time) rules from 50-250 AD - rule extends to all of Afghanistan
* 8th Century to 10th Century - Hindu Shahis – rule from Kabul
* Rule of Ghaznavids - and the rest, is Islamic, History

Iran has an interest there, no doubt, because of shared borders, but India’s Interest is very, very old (at least equally old) and historical and my original post was in response to a quote from an America Individual who asked what business India has in Afghanistan?(Vaahic Pradesh), other than containing Pakistan?

Per your contention, the parts of Afghanistan that were in the Indian zone of influence are in parts of north and eastern Afghanistan - okay, but that means the parts that were not under influence were Western and Southern - surely that is not all of Afghanistan either.

My last post on this topic.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 18 Apr 2010 01:22

I changed the statement from "historically Persian" to " Iran has strong claims" because the first is tentative and too strong a statement to make.

Part of the issue is that we shouldn't look as Afghanistan as a singular entity, as it is only relatively recently that it has been one. So I think it would be more accurate to refer to the specific regions within Afghanistan.

The point that was brought up was: India has greater historical connections and roles in Afghanistan than other countries, however I believe Iran does.

My contention is that the eastern side of Afghanistan is "Indic", for example "Gandhara" and the larger western side is "Iranic", for example Khorasan in the north.

Now I'm not too clear on who ruled the area that was Khorasan before Darius, if someone could clarify.

Regarding the above points:

- How can we say that Achaemenid rule left no "Persian" influence in future Khorasan?
- Islamic armies only entered India after they had torn through the Sassanids.
- According to you Sassanids only ruled Khorasan for about 400 years, well, how long did the Mauryans rule it for? Certainly not longer.
- As for Kushans, parts of the Kushan empire were buddhist, but I don't think that is true for all parts.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Apr 2010 01:52

SSridhar wrote:Hamid Karzai's Reconciliation Strategy

India should leave no stone unturned to make this Jirga successful and let Afghans decide their own fate . This Jirga will also be an excellent oppertunity for GOI to open communication channel with various power player in Afghanistan .

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Apr 2010 09:00

Americans threatening the Karzai brothers with liquidation:

Now that Karzai is following his own script, the authors of this war have dropped all pretence that they wanted an independent democratic government in Afghanistan. For example, Rudy Giuliani, who was one of the leading neoconservatives making the case for invasion, just said: "Karzai's there because of us, he's our creation, we put him there... I'm not sure we want to engage in the fiction that we're dealing with a democratically elected [leader]... that'd be a major fiction." He said that now Karzai fleetingly follows his people's demands rather than ours, there "might be grounds for shooting" him, and "we need to think about what comes after." He then added, with no irony: "This guy's a thug."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 46255.html

Ahmed Wali Karzai "presents a huge challenge for us, that's for sure," another senior military official said. Added a Western diplomat in Kabul: "Is it a campaign to liberate Kandahar city from the Taliban or to liberate it from Wali Karzai? The two come together."

One senior U.S. military official described a personal visit he said he made two weeks ago to Karzai in Kandahar to threaten him with arrest or worse. "I told him, 'I'm going to be watching every step you take. If I catch you meeting an insurgent, I'm going to put you on the JPEL,' " the Joint Prioritized Engagement List, reserved for the most wanted insurgents. "That means," the official said he told Karzai, "that I can capture or kill you."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 090_2.html

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Apr 2010 18:31

It's kind of funny to see US Gov people talking about Karzai's electoral fraud.

Not that the fraud did not happen. But the time to speak up was before the run-off. Abdullah Abdullah had demanded that the officials responsible for the fraud be removed. At that moment, not one voice from the US, UK govts or the UN spoke up to support him. That forced Abdullah to withdraw from the run-off.

Now they are stuck with Karzai, and they basically should put up with him.

skher · Post by **skher** » 18 Apr 2010 19:47

Crispin Black: Three parties, no clue about the Army

In the UK jihadist terrorism is rather obviously an internal threat. It's here and it should be dealt with here. Security begins at home not thousands of miles away in a part of the world the British left 60 years ago. A general election is under way and no one is talking about Afghanistan – not even about the MoD's failure to ensure that troops there get their ballot papers in time. Why?

Part of the answer lies in the nature of our political system. The main parties set the agenda. The Iraq war was a two-party stitch-up between the Labour government and an eager Conservative opposition. This time round on Afghanistan it's a three-party stitch-up.

Last summer it looked for a moment as if Nick Clegg, the star of Thursday's debate, was going to break ranks. In an article on 8 July he clearly signalled his growing unease with the cross-party consensus. The language was tough and honest: "Our soldiers' lives are being thrown away because our politicians won't get their act together." But it came to nothing. Clegg bought into President Obama's surge and his manifesto now promises that the Lib Dems will be "critical supporters of the Afghanistan mission".

The Conservative manifesto position is as you would expect from a party dominated by stay-behind neo-cons: "We are committed to succeeding in our mission in Afghanistan and will not leave our Forces without the resources they need to fulfil this goal." It's true that Gordon Brown has failed to equip our soldiers adequately despite his blustering denial in last Thursday's debate. But the idea that more helicopters and armoured vehicles will bring success suggests the Conservatives have not done their homework. A quick email exchange with the Soviet generals who lost in Afghanistan a quarter of a century ago might give some useful background to the grandly titled Conservative "national security team".

The silence on Afghanistan is also partly to do with the nature of many modern politicians themselves. Tellingly, neither man who would be prime minister on 7 May has served his country in any way except as a party politician. Perhaps Brown had dreams of life as a Highland officer with swirling kilt and claymore that were cruelly thwarted by the loss of an eye playing Rugby – in which case I am sorry for him.

The most serious effect of this inexperience obviously shows up in the governing party, Labour: the command and control arrangements agreed by ministers for Afghanistan are perverse and amateur. The Permanent Joint Headquarters that runs things has to work out the best way to deploy large numbers of poor bloody infantrymen on patrol in what are essentially low-density minefields. But the man in charge is an RAF officer, as is the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup – as is even our chief liaison officer to General Petraeus, who runs the American show. I doubt that Nelson would have been much good on his charger at Waterloo or the Duke of Wellington pacing his quarter deck at Trafalgar but this is how we run things in Afghanistan.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 18 Apr 2010 22:36

Strat reporting
Afghanistan: Mullah Omar Open To Peace Talks - Report

April 18, 2010
Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar is prepared to participate in peace talks with Western powers, according to two unnamed senior Taliban leaders, The Sunday Times reported April 18. The Sunday Times interviewed the two leaders in Taliban-controlled territory, and the leaders said that Omar is no longer interested in ruling Afghanistan. The leaders said the Taliban’s military campaign has three objectives: the imposition of Shariah, expulsion of foreigners and restoration of security in the country. One of the senior Taliban leaders said as long as those objectives are achieved, the Taliban are not interested in ruling the country. A Taliban spokesman has denied the report.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Apr 2010 23:46

Pranav:

Thats the way US propaganda machine works, and thats why I say never take anything that US says at face value. The same Karzai if he were doing U bidding today, or not doing whatever it is that US is pissed at him for, you would hear more about his statemsanlike qualities etc.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Apr 2010 06:00

India role in Af critical, will see it first-hand, says Roemer

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 833351.cms

: The US is looking at ways to "partner" India in Afghanistan. After India aired its concerns about the US seeming to "outsource" the solution in Afghanistan to the Taliban-friendly Pakistan, there appears to be a greater interest by the US to understand India's interests in the war-torn country and its contribution to its reconstruction. The US is also more receptive now to India's opposition to the kind of reconciliation that the British and Pakistanis seem to be selling.

US ambassador to India Tim Roemer said India's activities in Afghanistan were "critical," and that he would be travelling to Afghanistan to see Indian projects first-hand, meet Indian ambassador Jayant Prasad and get a better idea of what India wants to achieve in Afghanistan. India has spent over $1.3 billion in development projects all over Afghanistan, and is generally believed to be one of the most benign presences in that country, carrying a lot of popular support.

On the other hand, Pakistan, which continues to maintain links with the Taliban, has asked the US to ensure that India's presence is downgraded. Pakistan has also alleged that India maintains some 26-28 consulates in Afghanistan and engages in serious "anti-Pakistan" activity. This line has been swallowed by sections of the US administration, certainly the Pentagon, because it is reflected in statements by Gen Stanley mcCrystal and Gen David Petraeus.

But India's concerns have clearly generated enough questioning within the US system to warrant a greater interest in India's actual presence.

"India's role has been a great success. The US is looking for additional role for India in Afghanistan. It may include civil services and anti-corruption projects ," Roemer told reporters here.

"India's role in Afghanistan is very critical. President Barack Obama has personally said this to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and conveyed gratitude for the contribution," he said, adding that out of three components of international presence in Afghanistan -- defence, diplomatic and development -- India was involved in two of them.

...

The US has already alienated Afghan President Hamid Karzai which India feels is counter-productive to what the US really wants to achieve there. India believes that making an enemy of Karzai is probably the worst way of trying to get anything done in Afghanistan, because it would send Karzai to the arms of interests that are inimical to the US, as Karzai looks to cut deals to ensure his survival. It's not clear whether India has any effect on US thinking but after months of public bickering, the Obama administration is making the first moves to re-engage Karzai.

Of course, this is not going to go down well in Pakistan and Islamabad can be expected to make many more strenuous protests against Indian presence.

Meanwhile, India has upped its lobbying against Pakistan army getting sophisticated weapons from the US which were being turned against India. Roemer said the US took these allegations "seriously" and Pakistan could face a range of actions including sanctions. "We will look into it very seriously," Roemer said.

The PM had raised this with Obama and the latter had assured him that military supplies to Pakistan would be "monitored" by the US. "There are allegations of misuse of weapons given to Pakistan for other purposes. We will investigate it, Congress will take the issue seriously," Roemer said.

He added that the US sought India's opinions before the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue and even briefed India afterwards on the dialogue.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Apr 2010 08:05

Richard Holbrooke Press Conference

http://www.state.gov/s/special_rep_afgh ... 140473.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Apr 2010 08:06

Obama administration says conflict with Karzai is resolved

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04502.html

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Apr 2010 08:55

abhishek_sharma wrote:Obama administration says conflict with Karzai is resolved

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04502.html

Noteworthy from that piece of news:

Karzai will visit Washington on May 10-14 for meetings at the White House and with the administration's top national security officials.

An Afghan "peace jirga" with political and tribal representatives -- possibly including insurgent leaders -- that Karzai had set for early next month has been postponed until May 20, following the U.S. visit, Holbrooke said.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Apr 2010 08:14

A Killing Further Erodes Afghan Faith in Leaders

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/world ... fghan.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Apr 2010 12:50

Chaos in Kandahar before advertised NATO ofensive against the Talibs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 49623.html

Mosque murder leaves Kandahar on the edge

Deputy Mayor's assassination is latest in series of bloody attacks in city by Taliban as Nato prepares offensive

By Julius Cavendish in Kabul
Wednesday, 21 April 2010

The Taliban has said that it is stepping up its campaign in Kandahar, Afghanistan's second city

Assassins killed the deputy mayor of Kandahar yesterday as violence in Afghanistan's second city continued to spiral out of control before a planned Nato offensive.

Gunmen entered a mosque where Azizullah Yarmal was bowing his head in prayer and shot him at point-blank range, according to a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar.

It was the latest of a string of attacks in Kandahar City which has killed dozens of government employees. Hours earlier, a donkey laden with explosives was remotely detonated, killing three children from a prominent pro-government family.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Apr 2010 13:07

No plan to scale down activities in Afghanistan: India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 839476.cms

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Apr 2010 17:54

Fresh Attacks Feared on Indian Interests in Kabul

Indian assets and personnel in Kabul could come under fresh attacks in the near future with intelligence inputs suggesting that terror groups like Haqqani faction of Taliban have recently been enquiring about Indian projects and residential complexes of those working on these.

Intelligence inputs available with authorities suggest heightened threat perception, particularly for this month, to Indians working on infrastructure projects, sources said.

About 3,500 Indians are engaged in various construction projects there, including those related to infrastructure development, healthcare and social capacity building.

I hope and pray for the safety of Indians. The Indians who are working in Afghanistan under these circumstances are truly heroes.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 21 Apr 2010 18:45

I don't claim to know much but the *seemingly* sudden reversal of US relations with Karzai is nothing but media manipulation/engineering. They are sending afghans in Paki/Talibani laps in case US demostic policies make them stick to the currently announced exit deadline or even preparing a story to be consumed by sheeple in US.

As some one from US admin said earlier (to the effect) - Karzai is basically the mayor of Kabul and thanks US for his every breath.JMTNP.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Apr 2010 20:43

Satya_anveshi wrote:
As some one from US admin said earlier (to the effect) - Karzai is basically the mayor of Kabul and thanks US for his every breath.JMTNP.

This is wonderful. First use that country and train them for jihad for more than a decade.
Then invade and keep a puppet who is grateful.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Apr 2010 01:59

Khalilzad explains Karzai

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... rzai_.html

Afghan President Hamid Karzai feels "official Washington is telling the media" to write negative stories about him that create "a hostility to him from Washington," the Bush administration's envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad told C-Span's Washington Journal today.

Karzai is puzzled by the "complexity of Washington" and believes "there must be a grand design somewhere .... where everything is related to everything else and decisions are made,” Khalilzad explained.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Apr 2010 08:00

Exclusive: Death at the Afghan guesthouse

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... guesthouse

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 22 Apr 2010 19:06

Early Afghan pullout would be worse than 9/11: Merkel

BERLIN: Leaving Afghanistan too soon would be “far more disastrous” than 9/11 due to the risk of extremists acquiring nuclear materials, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday, defending an unpopular mission.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Apr 2010 23:42

Is this guy Tariq Ali a typical TSP RAPE. Like the other suave RAPE, Ahmed Rashid, that westerners court, this guy also seems to have the uncanny ability to "criticize" TSPA and yet bat for the same terrorist enterprise:

And for any solution to work, Pakistan could not be excluded, Ali said, not least because a great many Pashtuns, who live within Pakistan but don't recognise the Afghan-Pakistan border, would be up in arms. The Pakistan military would be a key player in any decision taken on Afghanistan -- along with Iran, Russia and China.

Note India is completely missing from his narrative except as an after thought until some idiot asks about "South Asia".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Apr 2010 02:57

He was "enfant terrible" of TSP politics of the late sixties. His parents shipped him off to Londonistan to save him from the wrath of Ayub Khan.
He is double distilled RAPE.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Apr 2010 03:26

CRamS wrote:Is this guy Tariq Ali a typical TSP RAPE. Like the other suave RAPE, Ahmed Rashid, that westerners court, this guy also seems to have the uncanny ability to "criticize" TSPA and yet bat for the same terrorist enterprise:

And for any solution to work, Pakistan could not be excluded, Ali said, not least because a great many Pashtuns, who live within Pakistan but don't recognise the Afghan-Pakistan border, would be up in arms. The Pakistan military would be a key player in any decision taken on Afghanistan -- along with Iran, Russia and China.

Note India is completely missing from his narrative except as an after thought until some idiot asks about "South Asia".

Read between the lines. The generals are worried that if Afghanistan unites and the TSP is not in control of Pashtuns, TSP fears that the Pashtuns on both sides of the border will revolt against the TSP. TSP is not in the game to get strategic depth as conventionally understood. Strategic Depth is a cloak to cover the dirty little secret that the Durand line cannot be sustained. If the Pashtuns are given strength, it will be the end of TSP, as we know it. Or so I imagine. Therein lies TSP fear of India's role in Afghanistan. They can live with India in bed with the non pashtuns of Afghanistan but the day India builds a relationship with the Pashtuns, it is game over.

Edited: Changes made for clarity.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Apr 2010 03:43

But Paki also know in their heart that Money play big part in Pashtoon tribal system and India becoming rich will change the game forever > all we need is a conduit to do the necessary linkage with tribes. Paki bakra will be slaughtered regardeess, if not today the n tomorrow.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Apr 2010 03:54

Meanwhile Pioneer Op-Ed suggest

EDITS | Friday, April 23, 2010 | Email | Print |

India should cut Afghan losses

Sunanda K Datta-Ray

The British joked that Calcutta (then India’s capital) and London were “mervous” when the Russians captured the town of Merv on Afghanistan’s borders. That was in 1884 when Kipling’s Great Game was at its height. It’s a moot point whether India need be so sensitive to Afghanistan 126 years later.

Of course, regional stability matters. Access to Iranian and Central Asian energy would be important if possible. But Afghan heroin is more a Western problem. As for terrorism, the assumption that Afghanistan’s ‘strategic depth’ (a much bandied about phrase) enables Pakistan to send jihadis into Kashmir and otherwise harass India recalls Singapore’s Mr Lee Kuan Yew vigorously denying that China was responsible for Pakistani mischief. Pakistanis didn’t need China, he argued, to attack India. It’s “inherent in their Muslim fundamentalism”; it’s “something visceral in them”.

The Poonch and Gilgit revolts and Kashmir invasion made that evident long before Pakistan gained a foothold in Afghanistan. India was stronger in Afghanistan then. Pakistanis accused it of instigating Pashtun separatism.

Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, disclosed in 1998 that far from invading Afghanistan for territory, oil or warm waters, the Soviets actually walked into an American trap to bog them down in a Vietnam-like war. That revelation should have convinced everyone that rocky landlocked Afghanistan is of little value in itself. But the Great Game’s demonic image of horns, forked tail and cloven hoof, revived in 1979 and rampant since 9/11 (caves bursting with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden) dies hard. Taliban-controlled Afghanistan had to be bombed back into the stone age.

Officers of the American-led coalition and their brave Pakistani jawans are trying to do that. But there is confusion between the country and people or, at least, its politicos. The US did not want Afghanistan; it wanted to exterminate Afghanistan’s then rulers. But distinctions are difficult. A ‘normal’ Afghan by day might be a Taliban by night.

The 1,610-mile Durand Line is equally elusive. Pashtuns, whose homeland it divides arbitrarily, complain they were not consulted when it was drawn in 1893. The treaty enshrining it was in English which Amir Abdur Rehman Khan, the Afghan signatory, could not read. Only 800 miles of the line were surveyed. Despite official contradictions, there were persistent reports that the treaty was valid for only 100 years. If so, it expired in 1993 and was not renewed. The Taliban refused to recognise any artificial division of Muslim lands. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai calls it “a line of hatred that raised a wall between two brothers”.

Pakistan has repeatedly breached (and probably still does) the treaty’s Article 2 reading, “The Government of India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond the line on the side of Afghanistan.” Formally, India accepts that “Government of India” has been replaced by “Government of Pakistan”. To leave no doubt on that score, the British clarified in 1950 “that Pakistan is in international law the inheritor of the rights and duties of the old Government of India” and of the UK “in these territories, and that the Durand Line is the international frontier”.

That rules India out juridically. But being housed in the old imperial capital’s North and South Blocks as well as the renamed viceregal lodge, and retaining some of the panoply of the Raj, it is not difficult to take for granted that the “successor state” (a legal position India insists on) has also inherited all the rights and duties of the old regime.

That complex may have explained Jawaharlal Nehru’s unhappiness at the time of independence at Britain pressuring the Sultan of Muscat to transfer Gwadar, then a sleepy little harbour on the Balochistan coast, to Pakistan. It could be compared to Goa or Pondicherry in the sense of being a foreign possession in a newly independent country. There was never any doubt in any Indian’s mind that the Portuguese and French enclaves should be restored without delay to India. Why then should the same principle not have applied to Gwadar?

It is too far-fetched to suggest that in 1947 Nehru foresaw Gwadar’s geopolitical importance half-a-century later or the role a China that was very different from the one he knew would play in that transformation. Nor would it be fair to accuse Nehru of disregarding that what was sauce for the Hindu goose was sauce for the Muslim gander only because he sought to diminish Pakistani sovereignty just that little bit through a foreign outpost on its territory. Nehru’s reasoning might be simpler. First, all accretions of territory should be to the successor state. And second, he could not emotionally bring himself to regard another Asian presence as colonial. It would have been different if Gwadar were Dutch instead of Arab. After the Suez and Hungary crises, Taya Zinkin, the Guardian writer, took this a stage further to argue that Nehru saw no colonialism without a conflict of colour.

At a recent meeting in London’s Chatham House a senior British diplomatist asked why India needed 26 — his figure — consulates in Afghanistan. The strategic value of an entrenched position on Pakistan’s other flank may seem to more than justify the $1.3 billion aid budget. But gratuitous offence is not always the most effective defence. Scope to squeeze Pakistan through a pincer movement may not enhance India’s security.

Apart from the continual loss of Indian lives in Afghanistan, that tactic could alienate the US which now reportedly welcomes Indian activities there. But having outsourced a large chunk of the problem to Pakistan (as in 1979), President Barack Obama probably believes Pakistan can be persuaded to share the franchise and cooperate with India once the peace dialogue is revived. American optimism falls short of Asian reality. When it comes to the crunch, the US President is likely to back Pakistan and its perhaps by then reconstructed Taliban allies.

The time may have come to take a hard look at geopolitical reality, assess modern security needs and calculate what is possible in Afghanistan. India might stand to gain more by cutting its losses and consolidating economic, technological and strategic ties with the US. If domestic growth is sustained and Americans find India an attractive market, the partnership might be a more effective firewall against depredations than continuing to risk AfPak reprisals. Afghanistan could be unwinnable for India too.

-- [email protected]

There is contradcition in that sentence. Is Mr Ray saying Indina stance in Afghanistan is against US interests?

And his prescription is right out of Islamabad!

My view is India should support the legitimate and representative central power in Afghanistan as it always did.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 23 Apr 2010 04:33

UK diplomat asks, why does India need 26 missions in A'stan. Why does UK need to have soldiers in A'stan when it is much further away than India is, it is in a different continet as a matter of fact, and has no causus belli to be there? Why, Sir?

Number of missions are there because two soverign independent countries want to have that many, none of the bl00dy business of TSP or UK.

BTW, whay was Nehru angry at the transfer of Gwadar to TSP? I am cannot understand the dense logic. Can someone explain?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 23 Apr 2010 04:51

ShauryaT wrote:Read between the lines. The generals are worried that if Afghanistan unites and the Pashtuns are not in control of TSP, TSP fears that the Pashtuns on both sides of the border will revolt against the TSP.

Interesting to note that Strategic depth was first propounded by Ranjit Singh to protect his Punjab empire. He went on a musharraf kicking expedition to FATA & North West Frontier Province (even though he did not have much interest in ruling them per se) so that there would be a buffer zone for his empire from the Pushtoons. I dont know if any modern day pious Paki Jernail will accept such a kuffar heritage of this idea.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 23 Apr 2010 12:37

Bodybuilders of Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... l?page=0,0

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 23 Apr 2010 23:01

CRamS,

Ahmed Rashid, Najam Sethi, Rashid Rehman, Tariq Ali and at least another of the RAPE elite had their formative journalistic years forged in a mildly leftist milieu (by our standards) and a fairly close exposure to the first major Baloch insurgency which was brutally crushed in the 1970s. All of them got an up close and personal look at the military in those years - Ahmed Rashid and Najam (not absolutely certain about the latter, but fairly confident) even did the guerrilla embed with the Balochis, and suffered the same hardships - for a while of course. Not sure Tariq Ali was caught up in the fervour for Baloch rights though, or that he was involved - but my bet is that he was. Things, of course, have changed a bit since then

But you can see in all of them a distaste for the military, only the degree varies...

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 24 Apr 2010 01:04

how can india ever build a relationship with the pashtuns if it says taliban is not acceptable?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Apr 2010 02:08

A brilliant piece from SKDR:

The strategic value of an entrenched position on Pakistan’s other flank may seem to more than justify the $1.3 billion aid budget. But gratuitous offence is not always the most effective defence. Scope to squeeze Pakistan through a pincer movement may not enhance India’s security.

Apart from the continual loss of Indian lives in Afghanistan, that tactic could alienate the US which now reportedly welcomes Indian activities there. But having outsourced a large chunk of the problem to Pakistan (as in 1979), President Barack Obama probably believes Pakistan can be persuaded to share the franchise and cooperate with India once the peace dialogue is revived. American optimism falls short of Asian reality. When it comes to the crunch, the US President is likely to back Pakistan and its perhaps by then reconstructed Taliban allies.

The time may have come to take a hard look at geopolitical reality, assess modern security needs and calculate what is possible in Afghanistan. India might stand to gain more by cutting its losses and consolidating economic, technological and strategic ties with the US. If domestic growth is sustained and Americans find India an attractive market, the partnership might be a more effective firewall against depredations than continuing to risk AfPak reprisals. Afghanistan could be unwinnable for India too.

But gratuitous offence is not always the most effective defence. Not Always, Mr Ray? What are the conditions when it is? Any ideas? What makes the current situation not one of those? Is gratuitous defence always the most effective defence?

Its brilliant, because this is a glimpse into our history! Something we will never know now - how the elite, intellectual, stalwarts, opinion mobilizers, brains maintained by the rulers of India thought or recommended to their kings - at the time the Pashtuns first made it a matter of annual holiday in India with holiday shopping or acquisitions of Indian real-estate, and mementos taken back to Pashtun lands - in the form of Indian women and slaves. That was in the 800's or 1000's or 1200's.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Apr 2010 03:26

Carl_T wrote:Bodybuilders of Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... l?page=0,0

UK based members might try to watch channel 4's "dancing boys of afghanistan" on the website, or through any other access medium. its a rather nauseating documentary on afghan paedo's grooming young boys for peachy bottomed cross river ops, seriously disturbing stuff. the practice is known as "baccha-bazi" and guess what? the paedo's picked up the practice 'whilst the mujahideen were over in pakistan and there was nothing to do'

you cant make this stuff up i tell you

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 Apr 2010 03:37

Lalmohan wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Bodybuilders of Afghanistan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... l?page=0,0
UK based members might try to watch channel 4's "dancing boys of afghanistan" on the website, or through any other access medium. its a rather nauseating documentary on afghan paedo's grooming young boys for peachy bottomed cross river ops, seriously disturbing stuff. the practice is known as "baccha-bazi" and guess what? the paedo's picked up the practice 'whilst the mujahideen were over in pakistan and there was nothing to do'

you cant make this stuff up i tell you

YES. Saw that on PBS, I was just searching for the whole video. That was weeeird as f***......indeed nauseating.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Apr 2010 05:22

Pre-pubescent boys being used for entertainment - pseudo-female dancers as well as sexual partners - was widely known in the Muslim world of ME. A practice continued over from pre-Muhammad days. AFG could not have escaped this being sandwiched between Persian-Iran (a hotbed of such activities among the elite in the ancient period) and the Arabs coming up through the Gulf to the south and Pak.

What has happened is a fitting of this peculiarly ME gay paedophilia within the tribal Pashtun culture of male group dancing. The extreme Islamic closeting of females has also contributed to the xhanneling of sexual efforts into these channels. The "Kite Flyer" is almost entirely based on this theme.

Just a note, this was also a common practice under the Delhi Sultans. There are explicit descriptions of collecting goodlooking boys by the Islamic elite for this purpose and there existed a flourishing slave trade in the item.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 Apr 2010 05:25

brihaspati wrote:Pre-pubescent boys being used for entertainment - pseudo-female dancers as well as sexual partners - was widely known in the Muslim world of ME. A practice continued over from pre-Muhammad days. AFG could not have escaped this being sandwiched between Persian-Iran (a hotbed of such activities among the elite in the ancient period) and the Arabs coming up through the Gulf to the south and Pak.

The Delhi sultans themselves were supposed to be a product of this...