# India being left out of Afghan matrix



## Fighter488

*India being left out of Afghan matrix ​*

*Gets Kudos For Massive Civilian Assistance, But May Have Little Role In Future* 


Indrani Bagchi | TNN 



New Delhi: _The US and UK want out of Afghanistan so they are looking for friendly Taliban to do deals with_. Pakistan, Taliban and al-Qaida too want the US out of Afghanistan so they can go back to doing what they were doing before the Americans invaded. 
Increasingly, Hamid Karzai, sullen and soured with the US, too wants to do a deal with the Taliban. *That leaves India * with the biggest civilian assistance presence in Afghanistan  which doesnt want the Taliban back in the saddle. But while everybody waxes eloquent about Indias assistance, nobody gives it the time of day when it comes to Afghanistans future. 
At the London conference for Afghanistan starting on Thursday, the focus will be on re-energising a programme of reconciliation and reintegration of the Taliban within the establishment. Karzai supports this, while the Pakistani ISI is ready with its list of Taliban contacts to become the honest mediator between the west and Taliban, increasing their cache and their nuisance value. The new development has sparked off a debate within the MEA and PMO about Indias role and aim in Afghanistan. 
In a sign of how serious the west has become, on Wednesday, the UN removed five top Taliban commanders from its sanctions list to make a reconciliation easier. They include former foreign minister Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, former deputy foreign affairs minister Abdul Hakim, former deputy commerce minister Faiz Mohammad Faizan, a former official under the Taliban Shams-us-Safa and Mohammad Musa. They were under travel bans and assets freeze under UNSCR 1267. 
In a recent interview, Mullah Omars former trainer, retired brigadier from the Pakistan army Sultan Tarar, who goes by the name Colonel Imam, clearly said Omar was open to talks with the west. If a sincere message comes from the Americans, these people (the Taliban) are very bighearted. They will listen. But if you try to divide the Taliban, youll fail. Anyone who leaves Mullah Omar is no more Taliban. Such people are just trying to deceive, said Tarar. 
The conference will announce the setting up of a big international fund  possibly $500 million  managed by the UK and Japan to pay lower level Taliban fighters to switch sides.


----------



## EjazR

Im skeptical about Mullah Omar himself being open to talks. That would mean that he would have reconciled with the fact that his idea of a so called "Islamic state" with one party rule (i.e. Taliban) as a dictatorship was wrong; which would be welcome. And also that he is willing to participate in the democratic process.

What would be more likely is that some mid low level Taliban leaders would reconcile with the Afghan govt. in which case they would cease being "taliban". 

Besides, I don't see the Mullah Omar faction of the Afghan Taliban being particularly happy with the ISI et al either. They probably consider them as double crossers and unreliable partners because of their U-turn post 9/11

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Materialistic

It is something that had to happen. India jumped into some thing completely unnecessary and unrelated just for its own interest. UN was on war with Talibans, Pakistan is fighting with a different bread of Taliban and also its border state shared the culture with them and above that Pakistan, US and other Nato nations are into it because of the the Russian invasion of 1980's, and it is actually a left over mess of that episode. 
So, the main characters are:
Taliban 
US
Pakistan 
and other Nato nations.
where the hell India comes in from, answer nowhere. It dragged itself In.
And of course there was a warm welcome because the countries involved thought of lessening their financial load by putting bits of it on some one else(India). And now the purpose is served and they are moving back to pavilion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dabong1

EjazR said:


> Besides, I don't see the Mullah Omar faction of the Afghan Taliban being particularly happy with the ISI et al either. They probably consider them as double crossers and unreliable partners because of their U-turn post 9/11



I doubt that.....pakistan has been helping the real taliban all along and protecting mullah omar......flight out of kunduz being one example of the pak army helping the taliban.
We all knew a long while back that the US would pull out and the taliban would stage a comeback,which they have done with pakistani help.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Materialistic

> Besides, I don't see the Mullah Omar faction of the Afghan Taliban being particularly happy with the ISI et al either. They probably consider them as double crossers and unreliable partners because of their U-turn post 9/11



I saw in news about one of his interviews.As per he said, Mullah Omer is against TTP (tehreek taliban Pakistan) and their acts against Pakistan. He clearly mentioned that we have nothing to do with Pakistan government or Pakistan's internal matters and about Pakistan's involvement in war on terror, he said that he understands that Pakistan was under immense pressure from west (particularly US).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hang on guys....When you say India has been left out what exactly you mean.....

This is what i believe is our stand(Please ignore the heading - the source is dawn so heading is bound to be a little misleading for obvious reasons)
***********************************************************

NEW DELHI, Sept 24: Has India changed its stance towards a military solution to end the bloody rebellion in Afghanistan?

In his interview to the Wall Street Journal in New York, Indian Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna appeared to canvass for a political solution for the Afghan violence, but his ministry on Thursday said he was misquoted.

Even as a top US commander in Afghanistan sought more forces, Mr Krishna told the American daily that India &#8220;doesn&#8217;t believe that war can solve any problem and that applies to Afghanistan also.&#8221;

In comments published on Tuesday he said: &#8220;I think there could be a political settlement. I think we should strive towards that&#8230; India is an optimistic nation. We believe a solution can be found. If India can work happily with Great Britain after they having ruled us for so long, it only shows that we can play the game. We can be partners in development.&#8221;

Indian foreign ministry said on Thursday that there was no change in India&#8217;s policy towards Afghanistan and that Mr Krishna had been misquoted in his interview with the Wall Street Journal.

&#8220;He did not say that there should be a political settlement with the Taliban. Our policy is one of strengthening the government of Afghanistan in achieving its social and developmental objectives by rebuilding of infrastructure, providing employment, health, education, etc.&#8221;

The Indian statement said it was for the government of Afghanistan &#8220;to take the initiatives necessary *so that all those who abjure violence and extremism and accept Afghanistan&#8217;s Constitution and democratic set-up, join the political process.*
*
&#8220;It is not our position that a political settlement be attempted with those who do not share these aims&#8221;. *

DAWN.COM | Front Page | Does India favour talks with Taliban?

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

Can someone please enlighten me what different is the world body saying than what Mr. Krishna quoted??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fighter488

*'India should be transparent with Pak over Afghan'*

Thursday, January 28, 2010,12:49 [IST] 



Washington, Jan 28: Urging India to be transparent regarding its activities in Afghanistan with Pakistan, United States on Wednesday, Jan 27, has asked India to spell out its role in Afghan policy. 


Buzz up!Department of Defence spokesman Geoff Morrell said that in a recent visit to India, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the Indian leaders had discussed the need of transparency in its undertakings on Afghanistan.


&#8220;We did discuss Afghanistan with the government in Delhi and discussed the need for the Indian government to be as transparent as they can be with the Pakistani government about their activities in Afghanistan,&#8221; Morrell said.

Lauding India's support to Afghanistan, Morrell said that international community appreciates the country's support.

"They (India) clearly have contributed much in a monetary sense, financial support to the government in Afghanistan. That is greatly appreciated by us, by the Afghans, and I think by the international community," Morrell said.

However, he dismissed reports on India's role in training Afghan forces.

&#8220;Beyond that, there was this talk of perhaps the Indians providing training to Afghan forces. That is not something that I think anybody is pursuing at this point,&#8221; he said.

OneIndia News

US Urges India | Transparency on Afghan Policy | Pakistan - Oneindia News


----------



## deckingraj

^^^^^^^^^^

Just a small suggestion.. share you POV also apart from sharing news... For example i have no idea why you shared this news here??? What do you want to discuss??


----------



## EjazR

dabong1 said:


> I doubt that.....pakistan has been helping the real taliban all along and protecting mullah omar......flight out of kunduz being one example of the *pak army helping the taliban*.
> We all knew a long while back that the US would pull out and the taliban would stage a comeback,which they have done with pakistani help.



Are you so sure of that? Any credible source? Maybe the intelligence agencies but I doubt the army itself would be involved


----------



## Awesome

Pakistan makes no excuses, as long as we even suspect Indian military presence in Afghanistan (as we openly say is the case today), we will continue with our own meddling to counteract India's influence.

So if you want a stable Afghanistan, keep India out, and we'll stay out as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Asim Aquil said:


> Pakistan makes no excuses, as long as we even suspect Indian military presence in Afghanistan (as we openly say is the case today), we will continue with our own meddling to counteract India's influence.
> 
> So if you want a stable Afghanistan, keep India out, and we'll stay out as well.



Nope!...No way you will stay out of Afghanistan even if we back off because it gives you people strategic depth.


----------



## XYON

Aray Bhai?!!?? WHO IS INDIA in Afghanistan?? Despite all the hoopla and its covert espionage efforts, India will never succeed in its nefarious designs to control Afghanistan in the proverbial ''surround your enemy strategy''. History shows that India has never been a regional player in the great game played numerous times in Afghanistan so why should it be given importance now? The world powers know that very well which is the reason why India has been ignored in the London Conference.

Historically Afghanistan has been our backyard and will remain so for centuries to come despite the unnecessary wandering of a few pests every decade or so!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ek_indian

XYON said:


> Aray Bhai?!!?? WHO IS INDIA in Afghanistan?? Despite all the hoopla and its covert espionage efforts, India will never succeed in its nefarious designs to control Afghanistan in the proverbial ''surround your enemy strategy''. History shows that India has never been a regional player in the great game played numerous times in Afghanistan so why should it be given importance now? The world powers know that very well which is the reason why India has been ignored in the London Conference.
> 
> *Historically Afghanistan has been our backyard and will remain so for centuries to come despite the unnecessary wandering of a few pests every decade or so!*



Apart from other rant, bold part sums up all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## XYON

ek_indian said:


> Apart from other rant, bold part sums up all.



Thanks! I am glad you approve and accept the inevitable! 

and my condolences on the failure of your RAW and Foreign Policy for being deliberately ignored at the London Conference for the future of Afghanistan! Oh the agony & disappointment for uncle Chidambaram and Sardar MMS!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jeypore

> Sultan Tarar, who goes by the name &#8216;Colonel Imam&#8217;, clearly said *Omar was &#8220;open&#8221; to talks with the west. &#8220;If a sincere message comes from the Americans, these people (the Taliban) are very bighearted. They will listen. But if you try to divide the Taliban, you&#8217;ll fail.* Anyone who leaves Mullah Omar is no more Taliban. Such people are just trying to deceive,&#8221; said Tarar.



How wonderfull!!!!

Of course India is going to Fail, when you have retired Pakistanie Army man speaking such words. I Guess he is next in the ISI list of never to be heard from Again!!!!!

Any Orators wins hearts by words, but Actions always prevails.

Currently all we have is words from Pakistanie sides, but hardly any actions of rectifing the solution, even in there owen country forget discussing Afganistan. I think "&#8216;Colonel Imam&#8217;" sound like ones of these Baptist preacher in the church, who is screaming to his little audience.


----------



## Fighter488

deckingraj said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Just a small suggestion.. share you POV also apart from sharing news... For example i have no idea why you shared this news here??? What do you want to discuss??



The point of the above report is to show, "How quickly things are changing for India in Afghanistan, despite spending millions of our hard earned cash, there." Indian leaders must know that cash is not the ONLY gel known to modern civilization, understanding and appreciating the (Afghan) IDEOLOGY is also a crucial aspect of modern worl order."

I try to put my POV whenever I have time to do so. Many times I post a topic to share it among the friends here. It take a lot more time to write and continue with the discussion. I normally avoid long discussion that are mostly unfruitful, or end up what was said at start ups of the thread. Second most of the people just use so much rant, slang and foul language, it become impossible to continue with reasonable arguments.

I hope I have put my point across.

Fighter


----------



## Awesome

If Nato wasn't in Afghanistan, there won't be an Indian presence in Afghanistan too. That is FACT.

Its best India packs up and leaves then n there, they are all marked dead men. You have to realize, there is an India that is our enemy because of the Kashmir issue, then there is an India that is the enemy from Afghanistan that is support TTP and killing innocent men, women and children by bombing our streets and homes on a monthly basis.

There is open talk in Pakistan that we should just have all Indian positions in Afghanistan bombed, all consulates bombed, all consular offices bombed, all visa desks offices bombed, all documentation "warehouses" bombed. All the 126 offices opened in Afghanistan by the government of India - bombed!

We would do it the first chance we get. Make no mistake about it. Pakistani lives are at stake!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ek_indian

Asim Aquil said:


> If Nato wasn't in Afghanistan, there won't be an Indian presence in Afghanistan too. That is FACT.



Sir, the statement is itself an assumption as this scenario has not yet developed. 



Asim Aquil said:


> Its best India packs up and leaves then n there, they are all marked dead men. You have to realize, there is an India that is our enemy because of the Kashmir issue, then there is an India that is the enemy from Afghanistan that is support TTP and killing innocent men, women and children by bombing our streets and homes on a monthly basis.



Whether India should leave Afghanistan or not, this is a matter between those two nations. 
And there is no credible evidences about Indian involvement in TTP apart from conspiracy theories and vague statement. 



Asim Aquil said:


> There is open talk in Pakistan that we should just have all Indian positions in Afghanistan bombed, all consulates bombed, all consular offices bombed, all visa desks offices bombed, all documentation "warehouses" bombed. All the 126 offices opened in Afghanistan by the government of India - bombed!



Please do it ASAP. 
With all due respect, I assume you would be knowing the meaning of bombing foreign consulates that too on foreign soil. 



Asim Aquil said:


> We would do it the first chance we get. Make no mistake about it. Pakistani lives are at stake!



I am waiting. 
Attacks in Pakistan are sad but bombing a foreign place (that too without any proof) is just a bit much.


----------



## Ahmad

XYON said:


> Aray Bhai?!!?? WHO IS INDIA in Afghanistan?? Despite all the hoopla and its covert espionage efforts, India will never succeed in its nefarious designs to control Afghanistan in the proverbial ''surround your enemy strategy''. History shows that India has never been a regional player in the great game played numerous times in Afghanistan so why should it be given importance now? The world powers know that very well which is the reason why India has been ignored in the London Conference.
> 
> Historically Afghanistan has been our backyard and will remain so for centuries to come despite the unnecessary wandering of a few pests every decade or so!



Dont forget how public opinion is against Pakistan in Afghanistan. That is all what counts and is the most important issue.


----------



## EjazR

India has had good relations with Afghanistan and the ruling establishment since 1947 till the fall of Najibullah's govt. in '93. Najibullah's family members took shelter in Indian consulates and later took asylum in India. After that there was anarchy, and later when the Taliban took over, almost no country in the world including neighbors like Iran, the CARs and Turkey did not have working relationship with Afghanistan.

And for a Pakistani to dictate who can and can't help Afghans is again a foreigner dictating the Afghans, I would assume something highly unplatable to the Afghans, including pashtoons.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ambidex

Asim Aquil said:


> If Nato wasn't in Afghanistan, there won't be an Indian presence in Afghanistan too. That is FACT.
> 
> Its best India packs up and leaves then n there, they are all marked dead men. You have to realize, there is an India that is our enemy because of the Kashmir issue, then there is an India that is the enemy from Afghanistan that is support TTP and killing innocent men, women and children by bombing our streets and homes on a monthly basis.
> 
> There is open talk in Pakistan that we should just have all Indian positions in Afghanistan bombed, all consulates bombed, all consular offices bombed, all visa desks offices bombed, all documentation "warehouses" bombed. All the 126 offices opened in Afghanistan by the government of India - bombed!
> 
> We would do it the first chance we get. Make no mistake about it. Pakistani lives are at stake!



Indians and India will mark your words. Try to touch one single Indian and we will make sure that proper retaliation will take place.
No doubt you are talking like a terrorist who is threatening Indian mission in Afghanistan. 

But whenever there will be an attack on Indian mission in Afghanistan we will see how many Pakistanis will lie to refuse their role in those attacks. This is what you all were doing before. Its good to know that now you are upfront with your objectives. 

I think you have said what ever you wanted to say there is nothing left to speak.

Interestingly typical Pakistani cards are prematurely shown on the table by you but NATO forces are still there and still fighting your pawns even at this time.
As far as India is concerned we have nothing to worry about when ever packing our bags will be required to leave that nation again in the hands of destructive/notorious regime.

Presence of India in Afghanistan was a matter of humiliation for Pakistan not a threat. What Proof less Pakistan is speaking against our mission in Afghanistan is like G.Bush speaking about WMD in Iraq.

Furthermore Indian involvement in Afghanistan was voluntarily and well balanced. We have never trusted US or NATO and their ever changing policies for Afghanistan on and off the record. Even when our consulates were attacked we never seek physical assistance from forces.
If i could ever give you and your associates a benefit of doubt then i would like to throw a open challenge to tell me who has done more damage to Pakistan by sitting in Afghanistan, US or India. 

Your lives and prestige must be at stake and your itching might be now malignant to level your scores with Afghan people. But Indian has nothing at stake we'll pack our bags and get the hell out of there.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## notsuperstitious

To say that Indian presence in afghanistan is due to nato forces is just declaring one's ignorance of history.

About the threats, well they are words, i can talk trash, but whats the point? I'm not even frustrated to vent it.


----------



## vsdoc

Asim you have just done something many Indians on this board have been banned in the past and recently for ..... make overtly aggressive terrorist-style statements about killing, bombing, maiming and dismembering .... people and assets of the enemy country, represented by members here.

Does the fact that you are a pakistani and sapere aude (whatever that means .... though ur avtar and the general sound of it conjures up an image of *master sapera* ..... as in *sapere ka auda* ..... meant in the most awestruck respectful way of course!) give you immunity here?

Please don't bother replying to my rhetorical question ..... most of us know the answer anyways.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

May be just like condoning attacks on Indian forces in Kashmir is considered Fair game, Asim considers Afghanistan too as a disputed territory and Indian embassies as occupying forces..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## XYON

Unity said:


> Dont forget how public opinion is against Pakistan in Afghanistan. That is all what counts and is the most important issue.



Which Afghanistan 'public' are you talking about? The majority Pakhtoon Afghanistan considers Pakistan as their second home. A few Persian Afghans in the Government (like that dual named Abdullah Abdullah idiot!) who have their families living in India and being financed by the Indian Government may tend to think on the lines you say but other than that, Afghanistan & Pakistan are like wrist & fist of the same arm!!

Hamid Karzai was the owner of a famous Kabul Restaurant (whose CHOLLU KEBAB and AFGHAN TIKKA still rocks man! Yum Yum!) in Jinnah Super Market in Islamabad before he became the President of Aghanistan. He still has, like other Afghans, many business interests still in Pakistan and Peshawar. Enough Said!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## EjazR

I think the most crucial thing is will the GoP or more specifically the ISI be able to reconcile the Afghan Taliban particularly mullah omar and co.

My gut feeling is not because they have rejected similar overtures in the past. I don't see any reason for them to accept this now. What is the ISI offering them to do so. They don't want a democratically elected govt. but a one party dictatorship. And here the ISI can't deliver.

Anyways, lets see if the Taliban do accept talks or not. I guess it will be another test of ISI's capabilities if they are sucessful


----------



## Fighter488

Asim Aquil said:


> If Nato wasn't in Afghanistan, there won't be an Indian presence in Afghanistan too. That is FACT.
> 
> Its best India packs up and leaves then n there, they are all marked dead men. You have to realize, there is an India that is our enemy because of the Kashmir issue, then there is an India that is the enemy from Afghanistan that is support TTP and killing innocent men, women and children by bombing our streets and homes on a monthly basis.
> 
> There is open talk in Pakistan that we should just have all Indian positions in Afghanistan bombed, all consulates bombed, all consular offices bombed, all visa desks offices bombed, all documentation "warehouses" bombed. All the 126 offices opened in Afghanistan by the government of India - bombed!
> 
> We would do it the first chance we get. Make no mistake about it. Pakistani lives are at stake!



Never expected from you!

You look like your avatar. TOTALLY BLIND!

MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU!

Fighter


----------



## Goodperson

Asim Aquil said:


> Pakistan makes no excuses, as long as we even suspect Indian military presence in Afghanistan (as we openly say is the case today), we will continue with our own meddling to counteract India's influence.
> 
> So if you want a stable Afghanistan, keep India out, and we'll stay out as well.



Why was India let in the first Place ? Its because Afghanistan is a sovereign state which takes decision on its own.


----------



## dabong1

EjazR said:


> Are you so sure of that? Any credible source? Maybe the intelligence agencies but I doubt the army itself would be involved



flight kunduz pakistani army - Google Search

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

XYON said:


> Which Afghanistan 'public' are you talking about? The majority Pakhtoon Afghanistan considers Pakistan as their second home. A few Persian Afghans in the Government (like that dual named Abdullah Abdullah idiot!) who have their families living in India and being financed by the Indian Government may tend to think on the lines you say but other than that, Afghanistan & Pakistan are like wrist & fist of the same arm!!
> 
> Hamid Karzai was the owner of a famous Kabul Restaurant (whose CHOLLU KEBAB and AFGHAN TIKKA still rocks man! Yum Yum!) in Jinnah Super Market in Islamabad before he became the President of Aghanistan. He still has, like other Afghans, many business interests still in Pakistan and Peshawar. Enough Said!



Yes, I am talking about public, they have a very very negative idea of pakistan, and the pakhtoons you are talking about are not majority but the largest ethnic group which are 2 different cocepts. And abdullah? he is himself a Pashtoon but has his bases among Tajiks which are the second larget group in Afghanistan. Karzai himself a pashtoon is not fond of pakistan. Yes, people of afghanistan have life in pakistan due to their long stay in that country, but that will never change their mind about the negative policies of paksitan, especially pashtoons who consider NWFP as their own land which was stolen by paksitan, so stop ethnicizing the issues when you deal with afghanistan, otherwise you'll lose it all. you guys have already pushed non pashtoons away and the pashtoons dont like you because of durand line anyway.


----------



## Awesome

ek_indian said:


> Sir, the statement is itself an assumption as this scenario has not yet developed.


You're right. Hence the qualification that whenever we get that chance. It is happening.



> Whether India should leave Afghanistan or not, this is a matter between those two nations.


Well if Afghanistan does not vacate Indians, who are conducting terrorism within Pakistan, we reserve the right to do it for them and protect our country.



> And there is no credible evidences about Indian involvement in TTP apart from conspiracy theories and vague statement.


This is not being settled in the court of law, we are convinced with the evidence we do have. That's enough.



> With all due respect, I assume you would be knowing the meaning of bombing foreign consulates that too on foreign soil.


I would, but we treat them as Indian terrorist camps, not foreign consulates.


----------



## Awesome

vsdoc said:


> Asim you have just done something many Indians on this board have been banned in the past and recently for ..... make overtly aggressive terrorist-style statements about killing, bombing, maiming and dismembering .... people and assets of the enemy country, represented by members here.
> 
> Does the fact that you are a pakistani and sapere aude (whatever that means .... though ur avtar and the general sound of it conjures up an image of *master sapera* ..... as in *sapere ka auda* ..... meant in the most awestruck respectful way of course!) give you immunity here?
> 
> Please don't bother replying to my rhetorical question ..... most of us know the answer anyways.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


There is nothing wrong in saying what will and will not happen. Fact is fact, the only thing protecting Indian terrorist activities in Afghanistan is Nato's presence. We would've made sheesh kabab out of those terrorists long ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

karan.1970 said:


> May be just like condoning attacks on Indian forces in Kashmir is considered Fair game, Asim considers Afghanistan too as a disputed territory and Indian embassies as occupying forces..


Afghanistan is not, but India drew first blood by conducting terrorism upon Pakistan from Afghanistan. We have to put an end to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

Asim Aquil said:


> If Nato wasn't in Afghanistan, there won't be an Indian presence in Afghanistan too. That is FACT.
> 
> Its best India packs up and leaves then n there, they are all marked dead men. You have to realize, there is an India that is our enemy because of the Kashmir issue, then there is an India that is the enemy from Afghanistan that is support TTP and killing innocent men, women and children by bombing our streets and homes on a monthly basis.
> 
> There is open talk in Pakistan that we should just have all Indian positions in Afghanistan bombed, all consulates bombed, all consular offices bombed, all visa desks offices bombed, all documentation "warehouses" bombed. All the 126 offices opened in Afghanistan by the government of India - bombed!
> 
> We would do it the first chance we get. Make no mistake about it. Pakistani lives are at stake!



I am sure it must be a bad day for you....Usually your posts are very balanced(atleast the one's that i have read).......I can understand your frustration and why should not it be...it is a common belief in Pakistan that India is creating trouble in Baloch...However i also have some similar but contrasting to your beliefs as far as Pak and ISA is concerned....

I believe the best way for People of Pakistan is to force your government to bring the proofs out and force GOI to back off....Bombing our consulates in AF is nothing but wet dreams....Though you can do the job by using your friend Taliban....


----------



## vsdoc

Asim sheesh kabab or butter chicken we both know who has cooked what every time we have butted heads ..... officially as armies ..... or unofficially as proxies.

Teri dhamki se ek bhartiya baccha bhi nahin darta mere dost.

Chal jana hai .... aaj ke liye itna kaafi. 

Cheers, Doc


----------



## deckingraj

Asim Aquil said:


> There is nothing wrong in saying what will and will not happen. Fact is fact, the only thing protecting Indian terrorist activities in Afghanistan is Nato's presence. We would've made sheesh kabab out of those terrorists long ago.



May i ask how???? Are you saying that NATO is protecting Indian consulates?? Or your army would have attacked our consulates or what...

P.S: I was thinking that it might be bad day for you...but you are proving me wrong...With all due respect are you Asim or someone else posting from his Id??


----------



## Awesome

vsdoc said:


> Asim sheesh kabab or butter chicken we both know who has cooked what every time we have butted heads ..... officially as armies ..... or unofficially as proxies.
> 
> Teri dhamki se ek bhartiya baccha bhi nahin darta mere dost.
> 
> Chal jana hai .... aaj ke liye itna kaafi.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


None of it really was a threat. I wouldn't be the one calling the shots, I wouldn't be the one doing anything. I have no inside info, I have nothing to do with official policy of the state. I told you the mood in the country is very anti-terrorists and this is where we are heading for a showdown in Afghanistan.

Somehow speaking plainly and truthfully is too much for you guys. Would you rather listen to diplomatic double speak?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mr42O

India or Pakistan who cares ? Time to give peace to Afghanistan. What would be better than a sage nabour not used by ANY ONE not even Pakistan as many Indians think so.


----------



## DavyJones

@Asim - rest assured India will not give up it's foothold in Afghanistan easily! 
We made a mistake by dismantling our spy structure in Balochistan.
We will hurt you from Afghanistan - lets see what you can do


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

DavyJones said:


> @Asim - rest assured India will not give up it's foothold in Afghanistan easily!
> We made a mistake by dismantling our spy structure in Balochistan.
> We will hurt you from Afghanistan - lets see what you can do



ATLEAST an indian confessed of there cowardly proxys inside BALOUCHISTAN.You should have confessed earlier and taken none of the abuse indirectly from all pdf members lol about afghanistan remember kabul embassy blast?Things like that happen and sometimes they start happening to often.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

Thanks for putting you point Fighter...I would encourage you to atleast write your POV and opt out of long discussion...This way if there is anything wrong in your post someone can correct or someone can learn from it...Now i have some questions about your POV..Please see if you can reply...





Fighter488 said:


> The point of the above report is to show, "How quickly things are changing for India in Afghanistan, despite spending millions of our hard earned cash, there."



I am sorry but why do you think things are changing for us??? Do you believe that we are in AF due to the mercy of NATO??? We should be strong enough to take care of ourself and IMO we are....The govt. in AF is pro-india and i would like to see so called moderate Taliban to be part of the govt.. In fact if you see my previous post that's inline with India's understanding about the issues that AF is suffering from...

Honestly our objective is to ensure that AF is not used as a backyard against our interests...We have enough presence and engagement in AF to take care of it....rest all is nuisance so please don't bother them....One think that our babus are good in is Diplomacy thanks to the Chanikya mentality...Just to quote few examples - We have good relations with Iran and Israel...we have good relations with US and Russia....We have good relations with Iraq even during Saddam Husein era...We are the only country in the world who has the luxuary to buy state of art weapons from EU-US-Israel-Russia....I am sure all this cannot be achieved by Naive diplomats...

We have been doing a decent job in AF and will continue to do it...so relax bro





> Indian leaders must know that cash is not the ONLY gel known to modern civilization, understanding and appreciating the (Afghan) IDEOLOGY is also a crucial aspect of modern worl order."



What ideology that you think India is not understanding??? What in your eyes are the mistakes that GOI is doing in Afghanistan???




> I try to put my POV whenever I have time to do so. Many times I post a topic to share it among the friends here. It take a lot more time to write and continue with the discussion. I normally avoid long discussion that are mostly unfruitful, or end up what was said at start ups of the thread. Second most of the people just use so much rant, slang and foul language, it become impossible to continue with reasonable arguments.
> 
> I hope I have put my point across.
> 
> Fighter



Thanks for taking your time...


----------



## DavyJones

Remember that the Afghan security forces were able to repel the attack by Taliban terrorist gunmen inside Kabul recently. 

This is something Indian and Pakistani forces have not been very successful in doing in the past.

Do you think America will leave Afghanistan without a well trained security force ? India is helping in it's training as well.
And I don't think the world will forget Afghanistan so quickly like last time when no one cared. 
I forsee India becoming directly involved along with resurgent Russia. Remember India has an air base in Tajikistan just across the Afghan border.
@Aqil - well done ! Lets see if Pak carries out the threats you have mentioned.


----------



## deckingraj

XYON said:


> Which Afghanistan 'public' are you talking about? The majority Pakhtoon Afghanistan considers Pakistan as their second home. A few Persian Afghans in the Government (like that dual named Abdullah Abdullah idiot!) who have their families living in India and being financed by the Indian Government may tend to think on the lines you say but other than that, Afghanistan & Pakistan are like wrist & fist of the same arm!!




Great than you should not have any problems with Indian presence...If you guys are like wrist and fist than what is this hue and cry about?? The truth is you feel insecure and the reasons are obvious....



> Hamid Karzai was the owner of a famous Kabul Restaurant (whose CHOLLU KEBAB and AFGHAN TIKKA still rocks man! Yum Yum!) in Jinnah Super Market in Islamabad before he became the President of Aghanistan. He still has, like other Afghans, many business interests still in Pakistan and Peshawar. Enough Said!


Even great... President of the country also favors you....What else you want....What can india do if not only people of AF but also their president favor you....If what you are saying is truth then Pak has nothing to worry about.... Though reality might be different from your assesment...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

DavyJones said:


> Remember that the Afghan security forces were able to repel the attack by Taliban terrorist gunmen inside Kabul recently.
> 
> This is something Indian and Pakistani forces have not been very successful in doing in the past.
> 
> Do you think America will leave Afghanistan without a well trained security force ? India is helping in it's training as well.
> And I don't think the world will forget Afghanistan so quickly like last time when no one cared.
> I forsee India becoming directly involved along with resurgent Russia. Remember India has an air base in Tajikistan just across the Afghan border.
> @Aqil - well done ! Lets see if Pak carries out the threats you have mentioned.



Do u think if suicide bombers enter a capital blowthemselves inside or near govt buildings and embassies thats a success?While 80 - 90% countr being ruled by them?
Its not just india training there police there are 44 countries doing the same.
Tajikistan so what?indians are there coz of UN>?
India playing role lol man didnt ou read todays newspaper about indias role to be cut?CONFRENCE IN TURKEYE??
We dont have a problem sitting outside afghanistan just dont poke your nose into PAK-AFGHAN issues?
Indians work in afghanistan like bheegi billies NO OFFENCE
We already have tolded them about Pakistan training there armed forces.
They dont need india for training no offence coz the art of proxy war isnt enough they need actuall war tatics that forced a country several size of ours to retreat and beg for a cease fire in UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DavyJones

Pakistan Nationalist - before refuting some one's argument at least take the pain of researching his assertions seriously.

Indian air base in Tajikistan - Farkhor Air base
Farkhor Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also read -
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - India's foray into Central Asia
Thanks !


----------



## Ahmad

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Do u think if suicide bombers enter a capital blowthemselves inside or near govt buildings and embassies thats a success?While 80 - 90&#37; countr being ruled by them?
> Its not just india training there police there are 44 countries doing the same.
> Tajikistan so what?indians are there coz of UN>?
> India playing role lol man didnt ou read todays newspaper about indias role to be cut?CONFRENCE IN TURKEYE??
> We dont have a problem sitting outside afghanistan just dont poke your nose into PAK-AFGHAN issues?
> Indians work in afghanistan like bheegi billies NO OFFENCE
> We already have tolded them about Pakistan training there armed forces.
> They dont need india for training no offence coz the art of proxy war isnt enough they need actuall war tatics that forced a country several size of ours to retreat and beg for a cease fire in UN.



Brother PN,

Pakistan which is a strong country in the region have problems with their Taliban and cant contain their atrocities, look at the taliban that they are capable of attacking anywhere anytime, even intelegince and army HQs are not safe, tell me if we can expect anything better for afghanistan's security forces compare to pakistan?

the other thing, it is very incorrect to say that the taliban rule any part of afghanistan let alone 80%.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

DavyJones said:


> Pakistan Nationalist - before refuting some one's argument at least take the pain of researching his assertions seriously.
> 
> Indian air base in Tajikistan - Farkhor Air base
> Farkhor Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Also read -
> Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - India's foray into Central Asia
> Thanks !


Davy jones from pirates of the carabean also give me link where india has any links land , sea , or air or even cultural and religious ties or links with CENTRAL ASIA or afghanistan.And in case of a war or trade how will india use them without a way through PAKISTAN?Thanks


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Unity said:


> Brother PN,
> 
> Pakistan which is a strong country in the region have problems with their Taliban and cant contain their atrocities, look at the taliban that they are capable of attacking anywhere anytime, even intelegince and army HQs are not safe, tell me if we can expect anything better for afghanistan's security forces compare to pakistan?
> 
> the other thing, it is very incorrect to say that the taliban rule any part of afghanistan let alone 80%.



My dear afghan brother i dearly respect your views but brother taliban on our side are no more the instruments of proxy by a ogre or monster of a country which feeds on them.And yet alhamdullilah we are able to f..k these proxy scums from swat to no pak afghan border.But situation is worse in afghanistan there is no infrastructure or strong institutions thanks to the destruction invited by shumali itehad and india into our beloved brotherly country AFGHANISTAN.
But saying that taliban are not strong is just false because if they werent strong NATO and USA along with UNs special envoys wouldnt be meeting them and wanting them to join the govt. to end this bloodshed.
About this misunderstanding that AFGHANISTAN is our backyard its taken very wrongly.The fact is that direct or indirect problems or achievements effect Pakistan.
And india has no role in our PAK-AFGHAN future so the evil should be niped in the bud.Its the same india that was inviting and supporting RUSSIA in the 70s along with shumali itehad and its same Pakistan that was hosting 8 million AFGHANS.
While USSR was destroying AFGHANISTAN and masscring afghans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DavyJones

Pakistani Nationalist - have fun with this one
Buddhas of Bamyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also read up on Afghan Indian relations. Remember Indians, Pakistanis and Afghans are from the same racial stock Islam or Hinduism is irrelevant.
Afghans love Indian film music and movies.

Also don't forget the traditional Indo -Russian ties - that's how we have a foothold in Central Asia. 
The Northern Alliance has been our ally for many years


----------



## deckingraj

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Davy jones from pirates of the carabean also give me link where india has any links land , sea , or air or even cultural and religious ties or links with CENTRAL ASIA or afghanistan.And in case of a war or trade how will india use them without a way through PAKISTAN?Thanks



With all due respect some of your assertions are so biased that i don't feel like replying.. However this one deserves a reply...

Very well said...Now you should not have any problems with any IAF base in Central Asia...right??? 

Though for some reason your ex-army chief and President said this 

_Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, has raised his concern to the Tajikistan government on the fact that Indian planes can reach Pakistan within minutes.
_

Defence Aviation: Farkhor a Indian Air Force base in Tajikistan


May be he knows about some secret land,sea, air or even cultural links of India with central Asia...

Anyways on a serious note even few planes there is a a headache for you...Because then you have to put your defenses in your western border as well...We choose to use them or not is a separate discussion...but you cannot ignore the fact that there are some fighter planes who can attack your western border...Am i making sense??

P.S: I am not sure if i misunderstood your post but seems like you believe India cannot reach AF or central Asia without passing through pakistan...I would say please come out of this myth...


----------



## karan.1970

Asim Aquil said:


> Well if Afghanistan does not vacate Indians, who are conducting terrorism within Pakistan, we reserve the right to do it for them and protect our country.



Bring it on Dude.. Sounds so similar to a kid saying :jab mere papa office jaenge tab main tujhe dekh loonga"



Asim Aquil said:


> This is not being settled in the court of law, we are convinced with the evidence we do have. That's enough.



The judge, The Jury and the executioner.. hmm.. who else follows that mentality.. Terrorists?? 



Asim Aquil said:


> I would, but we treat them as Indian terrorist camps, not foreign consulates.


Mudrike .. someone??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Lol one word for you and shumali tajik and hazara itehad TALIBAN second one stock doesnt mean ONE ETHNICITY?About tajikistan base how many jets do u have there?and wont they be shot down by next ISLAMIC afghan government which will be neutral?or atleast pro PAKISTAN to an extent?
About indo- russia your just good paying clients to russians.And about movies hell i think most indian films are watched in Pakistan while our music is heard in india almost all indian movies have PAKISTANI MUSIC so what?doesnt make a big difference.About SHUMALI ATEHAD buddy i dont tihink you know the ground realities S.I consists of minority hazar and tajiks who are hated by majority AFGHANS meaning PUSHTOON.And your foothold is onl limited to russia even then you have no route for logistics ssupport in case of a war.
A swift attack on tajik base will eliminate your jets like PATHAN KOT.And for logistics you will have to pass through Pakistan that you wont even have a chance.


----------



## Awesome

#1 We have no doubts India would make it easy. It will be a difficult task.

#2 This is not a threat. I have at no point vented any sort of threat statement, I have stated things that are as they are. Pakistan has not threatened to bomb Indian consulates either. But ultimately thats the path we're heading for. Once Nato leaves, the path is clear for us, those consulates are ours for the taking.

Once Nato leaves there is no reason for Pakistan to gather proof and rally the world against India. It's much simpler to blow your terrorism network.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

karan.1970 said:


> The judge, The Jury and the executioner.. hmm.. who else follows that mentality.. Terrorists??


Israel does, America does.

Its okay when you're fighting against the terrorists as we are.


----------



## Awesome

I feel like some people are wasting their time by threatening me about consequences or begging me to see reason. I just stated an inevitability. Its gonna happen.

I hope it doesn't, I hope Indians protect their terrorists and save us the trouble for a showdown in Afghanistan by leaving. But its gonna happen one way or the other if the Indians don't go.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Asim Aquil said:


> #1 We have no doubts India would make it easy. It will be a difficult task.
> 
> #2 This is not a threat. I have at no point vented any sort of threat statement, I have stated things that are as they are. Pakistan has not threatened to bomb Indian consulates either. But ultimately thats the path we're heading for. Once Nato leaves, the path is clear for us, those consulates are ours for the taking.
> 
> Once Nato leaves there is no reason for Pakistan to gather proof and rally the world against India. It's much simpler to blow your *terrorism network*.



It will do well if you check on who the world calls the epicenter of terrorism and an international migrane....


----------



## Awesome

karan.1970 said:


> It will do well if you check on who the world calls the epicenter of terrorism and an international migrane....


Only Pakistan's opinion matters and who do WE call terrorists.

Perhaps you should follow what the American recently told you guys. Be transparent about your activities in Afghanistan to the Pakistanis. Convince us you're not terrorists and that why we should spare your lives once Nato leaves.

It's worth a shot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Asim Aquil said:


> *Only Pakistan's opinion matters and who do WE call terrorists.*
> 
> Perhaps you should follow what the American recently told you guys. Be transparent about your activities in Afghanistan to the Pakistanis. Convince us you're not terrorists and that why we should spare your lives once Nato leaves.
> 
> It's worth a shot.



With this attitude do you think we give two hoots about Pakistan's opinion?? Our activities are as transparant as they can be. Its Pakistan who is so busy trying to read between the lines and finding conspiracies that its not even able to understand simplest of messages...About yet another blatant threat in your post, you have tried it in Punjab and got whipped.. You have been trying it in Kashmir and afghanistan and look where it got you. Keep living in delusions of being an invincible martial race and see where you land in next couple of decades. .

Reminds me of a story of 2 brothers. One of them plays a nasty prank on the other. The one who bore the brunt of the prank simply walked away without much of the scene. The prankster first considered it as his victory. After some time though, he started analyzing his brother's behavior and started questioning his lack of reaction. He convinced himself that his brother has something nastier up his sleeve and will definitely get back at him. From that point onwards, his life became a continuous process of watching over his shoulder to be ready for the prank he expected his brother to play on him. Basically became paranoid and started analyzing and over analyzing every thing his brother did and interpreting it as some scheme or the other. All this while his brother stayed cordial with him and watched him go to pieces. No revenge from his brother could have been worse than what the prankster did to himself

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultimate Warrior

Asim Aquil said:


> Only Pakistan's opinion matters and who do WE call terrorists.
> 
> Perhaps you should follow what the American recently told you guys. Be transparent about your activities in Afghanistan to the Pakistanis. Convince us you're not terrorists and that why we should spare your lives once Nato leaves.
> 
> It's worth a shot.




Kahani abhi khatam nahi hui............picture abhi baaki hai mere dost.

So wait and watch............bye


----------



## Awesome

Its a self-defence attitude.


----------



## TechLahore

Unity said:


> Dont forget how public opinion is against Pakistan in Afghanistan. That is all what counts and is the most important issue.



If you are referring to that recent so-called, "Survey", I think many of us made the point in that thread that a) it is not inclusive as far as we are concerned, b) it could not have extended to no-go areas which are by definition not aligned with the current northern alliance + ex-UNOCAL employee government and c) it was conducted under the auspices of the current afghan government which is - by all accounts - mired with corruption, filled with warlords that have their own agendas and not representative of the Pashtun/Baloch/pro-Talib Uzbek numbers in Afghanistan.

We don't buy the results of this survey.

I don't wish to argue with you. There is only one thing to do. Sit and wait and see what happens in Afghanistan over the next two years. We've already waited 8 years, what's another two. If you are right, then Pakistan will not have any meaningful influence in Afghanistan, and if we are right, then India's role will be marginalized.

Let's just wait and see.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SMC

karan.1970 said:


> It will do well if you check on who the world calls the epicenter of terrorism and an international migrane....



We have been over this several time dude. What you're saying is a very simplistic and naive view. Other states only criticize and appreciate whom they need to do so. It's not like they are transparent and impartial. They do whats in their interests. We know for a fact that india is supporting mass terrorism on an epic scale, yet western states won't acknowledge that because its not in their interests to do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notsuperstitious

Ahsan_R said:


> We have been over this several time dude. What you're saying is a very simplistic and naive view. Other states only criticize and appreciate whom they need to do so. It's not like they are transparent and impartial. They do whats in their interests. We know for a fact that india is supporting mass terrorism on an epic scale, yet western states won't acknowledge that because its not in their interests to do so.



Will it be ok if we changed the nameplate like in Muridke?

Because we also know for a fact that pakistan is supporting terrorism on a mass scale.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

fateh71 said:


> Will it be ok if we changed the nameplate like in Muridke?
> 
> Because we also know for a fact that pakistan is supporting terrorism on a mass scale.



Did the naked snake charming sadho sitting under a big banyan tree tell you ?
About maridke?


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Did the naked snake charming sadho sitting under a big banyan tree tell you ?
> About maridke?



Khisiyani Billi khamba noche??

C'mon PN, you can do better....


----------



## notsuperstitious

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Did the naked snake charming sadho sitting under a big banyan tree tell you ?
> About maridke?



No, the same djinn that's been telling you guys.


----------



## karan.1970

Asim Aquil said:


> Israel does, America does.
> 
> Its okay when you're fighting against the terrorists as we are.



which are your own creation. Reap what you sow is so Clichéd but couldnt have suited any better.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

fateh71 said:


> No, the same djinn that's been telling you guys.



Telling us what?the caught RDS?medicine?surgical equipment?indian made weapons?or bas...d spies like kashmir singh?or sabarjeet bastard who killed several innocent people in blasts?or the facts that terrorists like balach and harbiyar confessing of being supported by some terrorist bas...ds from kabul on national tv?
If thats the djin then Heil naked indian swami snake charmer sitting under a banyan tree.moun mein ram ram baghal mein churi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Ahsan_R said:


> We have been over this several time dude. What you're saying is a very simplistic and naive view. Other states only criticize and appreciate whom they need to do so. It's not like they are transparent and impartial. They do whats in their interests. We know for a fact that india is supporting mass terrorism on an epic scale, yet western states won't acknowledge that because its not in their interests to do so.



One thing you learn in management is that there is no reality. Its only perception. It doesnt matter what you believe is real. Unless your perception of reality matches with rest of the world, you will always find yourself swimming against the current as in the case of Pakistan today. And peceptions are not formed in vacuum. They are based on past displayed behaviour. So today Pakistan calling someone else a terrorist and asking rest of the globe to take its word for it is a very huge ask. That is further made difficult by Pakistan's past track record in this. For the moment , lets leave the whole Kashmir issue on one side. The problem that Pakistan faces is that US that knows the complete details of how pakistan nurtured insurgency in Afghanistan both pre and post USSR war is standing against the same taliban that Pakistan created. Since US was fully in the know of Pakistan's strategy in Afg in the past, Pakistan has no hope in hell of wriggling its way out by pleading innocence. Because of which it has to watch helplessly as the US drones massacre its strategic assets in Afg. Knowing all this, when the world body hears pakistan accuse India of formenting terrorism in Pakistan, the reaction is pretty obvious. You may chose to discount it by calling it a falsehood or a partial reaction, but then going back to the strat of my post.. there is no reality in vacuum. Its all about perception...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Telling us what?the caught RDS?medicine?surgical equipment?indian made weapons?or *bas...d *spies like kashmir singh?or sabarjeet *bastard *who killed several innocent people in blasts?or the facts that terrorists like balach and harbiyar confessing of being supported by some terrorist *bas...ds *from kabul on national tv?
> If thats the djin then Heil naked indian swami snake charmer sitting under a banyan tree.moun mein ram ram baghal mein churi.



Dude.. go easy on expletives.. You have just gone past the number of posts that you were able to put up before you got banned last time. I really enjoy sparring with you.. Would hate to see mods take action again..So lets keep this at a civilized if not friendly level..


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

karan.1970 said:


> Dude.. go easy on expletives.. You have just gone past the number of posts that you were able to put up before you got banned last time. I really enjoy sparring with you.. Would hate to see mods take action again..So lets keep this at a civilized if not friendly level..



Why is it bad to abuse a convited murdering terrorist scum on a death row?If it is im more then happy to call saberjeet a bastard 100000000 times.


----------



## Desert Fox

jeypore said:


> How wonderfull!!!!
> 
> Of course India is going to Fail, when you have retired Pakistanie Army man speaking such words. I Guess he is next in the ISI list of never to be heard from Again!!!!!
> 
> Any Orators wins hearts by words, but Actions always prevails.
> 
> *Currently all we have is words from Pakistanie sides, but hardly any actions of rectifing the solution, even in there owen country forget discussing Afganistan*. I think "Colonel Imam" *sound like ones of these Baptist preacher in the church, who is screaming to his little audience.*



Lol, look who's talking! you people don't even have sanitation or enough toilets for your more than 600,000 million population and you want to help build Afghanistan?

About "colonel Imam", i saw his interview on youtube, the guy doesn't scream , he speaks softly and kindly like a true disciplined civilized soldier!


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

fateh71 said:


> Your opinion does not matter, only india's opinion matters. We have kasab, muridke, jud, dawood hiding in pak, daily infilteration attempts in kashmir, kabul embassy blasts etc all linked to bas...ds in your nation. we have survey results showing 43% pakistanis support terrorism in the form of let. you will reap what you sow, if you think this nonsense is a one way street, then you are going to find out two can play the game.
> 
> about the indian involvement in terrorism, give us proof that is acceptable to our courts and then we'll see what we can do about it


And your opinion does?
you have kasab and nothing else, wats jud?and wats your evidence reguarding muridke?
and tell me what evidence do you have reguarding Mr dawood ibrahim living in Pakistan?
whats the evidence reguarding kabul blast????
if you dont have any please shut the fudge up.
Wasnt manomohan singh given evidence in egypt?if he denies hes nothing more then a liar
isnt india warned times and again?
Isnt india stealing water and violating indus treaty?isnt india violating human rights in kashmir>?isnt india violation UNs charter reguarding independence and refrendum????????
What about indian ba...d spies in our jails>like saberjeet singh?kashmir singh?
Give us proof against hafiz saeed that OUR COURTS APPROVE 
advice = crying like a unpaid escort never helps try reality.


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Why is it bad to abuse a convited murdering terrorist scum on a death row?If it is im more then happy to call saberjeet a bastard 100000000 times.



Chill kar dost.. Was just asking you to avoid breaking the forum rules that's all..


----------



## Desert Fox

DavyJones said:


> *Remember Indians, Pakistanis and Afghans are from the same racial stock Islam or Hinduism is irrelevant.*




What the? Where the hell do these indians come up with this stuff? what the hell have you been smoking? can i get some?

this is hilarious 

Afghans have nothing in common with india, and neither does Pakistanis (except Mohajirs)! 

Not trying to be racist here, but this is fact, Afghans look nothing like indians! Trust me, i know Afghans because of seen a lot of them!

And when you compare a indian with Afghan you'll know what i mean!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

karan.1970 said:


> With this attitude do you think we give two hoots about Pakistan's opinion?? Our activities are as transparant as they can be. Its Pakistan who is so busy trying to read between the lines and finding conspiracies that its not even able to understand simplest of messages...About yet another blatant threat in your post, you have tried it in Punjab and got whipped.. You have been trying it in Kashmir and afghanistan and look where it got you. Keep living in delusions of being an invincible martial race and see where you land in next couple of decades. .
> *
> Reminds me of a story of 2 brothers. One of them plays a nasty prank on the other. The one who bore the brunt of the prank simply walked away without much of the scene. The prankster first considered it as his victory. After some time though, he started analyzing his brother's behavior and started questioning his lack of reaction. He convinced himself that his brother has something nastier up his sleeve and will definitely get back at him. From that point onwards, his life became a continuous process of watching over his shoulder to be ready for the prank he expected his brother to play on him. Basically became paranoid and started analyzing and over analyzing every thing his brother did and interpreting it as some scheme or the other. All this while his brother stayed cordial with him and watched him go to pieces. No revenge from his brother could have been worse than what the prankster did to himself*



Wow, that sounds so out of this world! What kind of prank did he play on him that he would turn paranoid?


----------



## DavyJones

@Aqil - Be ready to face the music from India as well .. you think we will give up our system in Afghanistan so easily ? You are wrong - I think the Indian government has a long term plan. Bleed you white in Balochistan to force you to stop bleeding us in Kashmir.
You stop this Kashmir blah blah and we will give up our Afghan network


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

DavyJones said:


> @Aqil - Be ready to face the music from India as well .. you think we will give up our system in Afghanistan so easily ? You are wrong - I think the Indian government has a long term plan. Bleed you white in Balochistan to force you to stop bleeding us in Kashmir.
> You stop this Kashmir blah blah and we will give up our Afghan network



Dude your either confused or a total doushe bag.First you say india has stopped spreading terrorism in balochistan and cursing india why u guys had invested there if your role was to be fudged and now this CRAP.
Balochistan is calm now thank almighty but what will happen to you in afghanistan when Talibs come to power?
Face the music lol did you face just a little bit in mumbai?with just 10 punks?
moral of the story= live and let live.
if you wont you will be fudged by the guy whose been putting up with your bad behaviour.
BLEED WELL.


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Face the music lol did you face just a little bit in mumbai?with just 10 punks?
> BLEED WELL.



Friend

Jiske ghar mein aag lagi ho, usko padosi ki kamiz me ched dekh kar khush nahin hona chahiye...


----------



## karan.1970

SilentNinja said:


> Wow, that sounds so out of this world! What kind of prank did he play on him that he would turn paranoid?



Read the story more carefully on who was going paranoid


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

karan.1970 said:


> Friend
> 
> Jiske ghar mein aag lagi ho, usko padosi ki kamiz me ched dekh kar khush nahin hona chahiye...



Same goes for youwhat you sow so shall you reap .Aur apna ghar dekho dos you have 2 dozen insurgencies goes both ways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakSher

Let India invest its dollars, so we can benefit from that later in Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

DavyJones said:


> @Aqil - Be ready to face the music from India as well .. you think we will give up our system in Afghanistan so easily ? You are wrong - I think the Indian government has a long term plan. Bleed you white in Balochistan to force you to stop bleeding us in Kashmir.
> You stop this Kashmir blah blah and we will give up our Afghan network



you think we have forgotten East Pakistan?


----------



## SMC

karan.1970 said:


> The problem that Pakistan faces is that US that knows the complete details of how pakistan nurtured insurgency in Afghanistan both pre and post USSR war is standing against the same taliban that Pakistan created. Since US was fully in the know of Pakistan's strategy in Afg in the past, Pakistan has no hope in hell of wriggling its way out by pleading innocence. Because of which it has to watch helplessly as the US drones massacre its strategic assets in Afg. Knowing all this, when the world body hears pakistan accuse India of formenting terrorism in Pakistan, the reaction is pretty obvious. You may chose to discount it by calling it a falsehood or a partial reaction, but then going back to the strat of my post.. there is no reality in vacuum. Its all about perception...



Whatever the perception might be, it is not necessarily true. Perceptions are what states tell to their citizens and sometimes citizens of other states. And what they say will be in its interests, which may not be what really happened.

Now as far as the reality goes, of course there is a reality. What really happened. Very few might know what it is, but it exists. And it's pretty obvious that if some happened in a specific way, then that thing happened that way, and that's the reality associated with that event. Now everyone has their own version of reality for each events, but that's irrelevent. THE reality is always something that exists.

Now as far as the Taliban go, I am sure we have been over this before, but the Taliban was not nurtured by Pakistan, it was supported. Hope you can see the difference. And it was supported because it had high support in Afghanistan. Pre-USSR you cannot blame Pakistan because Middle east and US were the main supplier of weapons and Pakistan was only a pawn. 

You referred to the Taliban as in insurgency. They are not an insurgency. They were during soviet invasion, but as soon as they won against them, they were not the insurgency anymore. And again, Pakistan did not nurture them, rather support them. There is a difference between the two.

Now as far as the common indian card goes, i.e. Pakistan supported terrorists, well which terrorists are you talking about? In Afghanistan? Because that's an extremely weak case. In India? Again maybe from an indian perspective, because the freedom fighters in Kashmir are called terrorists in india, but the world doesn't care about Kashmir (again its not in their interest). Outside of Kashmir, there has been no support. So again, where?

Now as far as massacring the Pakistan assets you talk about.. hmm, is it really that way? Do the attempts to talk to Taliban prove that version of reality of yours?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Creder

Man i just want this whole BS to be over, its so frikin depressing sitting here and reading news about sh**t blowing up all over the place.. hope the US gets out of there and everything can go back to how it was


----------



## XYON

deckingraj said:


> *Great than you should not have any problems with Indian presence...If you guys are like wrist and fist than what is this hue and cry about?? The truth is you feel insecure and the reasons are obvious....*
> 
> 
> Even great... President of the country also favors you....What else you want....What can india do if not only people of AF but also their president favor you....If what you are saying is truth then Pak has nothing to worry about.... Though reality might be different from your assesment...



When one has 'unnecessary pest infestation' in one's backyard, one takes action to remove the infestation! Quite Simple Really!!


----------



## XYON

Unity said:


> Yes, I am talking about public, they have a very very negative idea of pakistan, and the pakhtoons you are talking about are not majority but the largest ethnic group which are 2 different cocepts. And abdullah? he is himself a Pashtoon but has his bases among Tajiks which are the second larget group in Afghanistan. Karzai himself a pashtoon is not fond of pakistan. Yes, people of afghanistan have life in pakistan due to their long stay in that country, but that will never change their mind about the negative policies of paksitan, especially pashtoons who consider NWFP as their own land which was stolen by paksitan, so stop ethnicizing the issues when you deal with afghanistan, otherwise you'll lose it all. you guys have already pushed non pashtoons away and the pashtoons dont like you because of durand line anyway.



  

Dude! Are you serious with your above 'analysis'? Obviously this is the Ghaanjaa that you may have smoked speaking!!

You have absolutely no idea on Pak-Afghan relations do you? This is actually good for us, we need fools like you t advise your government on sending more Indians to Afghanistan!!!


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Same goes for youwhat you sow so shall you reap .Aur apna ghar dekho dos you have 2 dozen insurgencies goes both ways.



I agree.. I wish in my lifetime, I get to see our countries getting to a point where they mind their own business without meddling in others' affairs.. Life will be so much better for a common citizen then.. This is exactly whats holding us back.. Else there is no reason why India and Pakistan can not be like a china or europe economically...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## XYON

karan.1970 said:


> I agree.. I wish in my lifetime, I get to see our countries getting to a point where they mind their own business without meddling in others' affairs.. Life will be so much better for a common citizen then.. This is exactly whats holding us back.. Else there is no reason why India and Pakistan can not be like a china or europe economically...



Let go of Kashmir & we can ALL live happily and merrily ever after like the Europeans or any 'peons' that you may desire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kavin

*Pakistan's Afghan influence seen limited*

ISLAMABAD, Jan 30 (bdnews24.com/Reuters) - Pakistan has shown support for Afghanistan's invitation to the Taliban to take part in a peace council but the old Taliban ally has only limited influence over the militants, who many expect will reject the offer.

The Afghan government on Thursday invited the Taliban to a jirga, or traditional council, during an international conference in London as its Western allies worked out plans to try to end the war in Afghanistan.

Taliban representatives were not at the conference. A spokesman for the group said on Friday his leaders would decide soon whether to join the talks.

Pakistan, facing an insurgency by indigenous Taliban allied with the Afghan militants, wants a peaceful Afghanistan but more importantly, it wants the growing influence of old rival India in Afghanistan kept to a minimum.

Pakistan is viewed with deep suspicion in Kabul because of its ties to the Taliban, whom Pakistan backed through the 1990s.

The hardline Islamists are the only Afghanistan faction over which Pakistan has any influence and can use as leverage to try to limit India's influence, and for the time being, Pakistan is likely to tread very carefully.

Main Taliban factions, such as those led by veteran guerrilla commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and supreme Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar, derive much support from supply networks and bases on the Pakistani side of the border.

As efforts to stabilise Afghanistan gather pace, Pakistan is likely to use those groups as bargaining chips, said Khadim Hussain of the Pakistan-based Aryana Institute think-tank.

"I don't think Pakistan is going to put all of its cards on the table. They will try to keep some of them for their own interests and agenda," Hussain said.

"Pakistan will keep the whole thing very vague so it can address its own interests and foreign policy agenda."

In an indication of the quickening pace of diplomacy, a U.N. official said members of the Taliban's leadership council had secretly met the U.N. representative for Afghanistan in Dubai last month to discuss the possibility of laying down arms.

TROOPS OUT

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi said in London he was satisfied with the outcome of the international conference, which he said had addressed all Pakistani concerns.

Pakistan has long stressed the need for talks and Qureshi said Pakistan would help, if asked.

"Pakistan has said that we want the reconciliation process to be Afghan-led," Qureshi told a news conference. "If the Afghans so desire, we are willing to facilitate."

Underlining Pakistan's determination to keep India out of any Afghan process, Qureshi expressed satisfaction a proposal to set up a regional body including India had been dropped.

"Pakistan said there was no need for a new regional architecture ... Today, our point of view was understood and incorporated."

But analysts said the question of Pakistani pressure on the Taliban to get them to the jirga might be irrelevant if, as they expect, the Taliban reject the invitation.

"Pakistan does not have as much influence over the Taliban as it used to," said a former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan, Ayaz Wazir.

Even when Pakistan was one of three countries to recognise the Taliban government, they never took orders, he said.

"They would listen to Pakistan but then do whatever they wanted. Why would they accept our advice now when they're fighting on their own?," Wazir said, adding he thought the Taliban would reject the invitation to talks.

"If they wanted to take part in such jirgas then they wouldn't have fought for eight or nine years," he said.

"They don't accept Karzai and say he is imposed by the United States, then why would they join this? First they want foreign troops to leave."

Veteran journalist and Afghan expert Rahimullah Yusufzai said the Taliban had shown signs of flexibility, saying they would not let Afghan soil be used for attacks on others in an apparent reference to reining in their al Qaeda allies.

But he also said the Taliban were unlikely to attend the jirga and would repeat their demand for foreign troops to leave.

However, the jirga could lure some ethnic Pashtun tribes allied with the Taliban back to the fold, said Hussain.

"I don't think there is going to be any compromise by those Taliban closely linked to the international jihadist network," he said. "But as far as the affiliated tribes are concerned, they can be negotiated with."


----------



## Fighter488

Just to answer your query below


deckingraj said:


> Thanks for putting you point Fighter...I would encourage you to atleast write your POV and opt out of long discussion...This way if there is anything wrong in your post someone can correct or someone can learn from it...Now i have some questions about your POV..Please see if you can reply...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but why do you think things are changing for us??? Do you believe that we are in AF due to the mercy of NATO??? We should be strong enough to take care of ourself and IMO we are....The govt. in AF is pro-india and i would like to see so called moderate Taliban to be part of the govt.. In fact if you see my previous post that's inline with India's understanding about the issues that AF is suffering from...
> 
> Honestly our objective is to ensure that AF is not used as a backyard against our interests...We have enough presence and engagement in AF to take care of it....rest all is nuisance so please don't bother them....One think that our babus are good in is Diplomacy thanks to the Chanikya mentality...Just to quote few examples - We have good relations with Iran and Israel...we have good relations with US and Russia....We have good relations with Iraq even during Saddam Husein era...We are the only country in the world who has the luxuary to buy state of art weapons from EU-US-Israel-Russia....I am sure all this cannot be achieved by Naive diplomats...
> 
> We have been doing a decent job in AF and will continue to do it...so relax bro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ideology that you think India is not understanding??? What in your eyes are the mistakes that GOI is doing in Afghanistan???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking your time...



*India 'could do business' with Taliban: reports​*(AFP) &#8211; 5 hours ago

NEW DELHI &#8212; India may join world powers in engaging with moderate Taliban in Afghanistan, despite worries about repercussions for its own security, reports said Saturday.

India still considers the Taliban to be a terrorist group with close links to Al-Qaeda and other outfits. ( My point was that we should had been more flexible with this approach, right from begining. After all Talibans were not coming to India to implement Sharia! Had there been any immidiate casuality of this ideology, it would have been Pakistan first, due to its proximity, not India!) 

But New Delhi would back proposals to reach out to them conditionally, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told the Times of India newspaper in an interview published Saturday.

"The international community has come out with a proposition to bring into the political mainstream those willing to function within the Afghan system," he said.( It is better than nothing, atleast!)

"If the Taliban meet the three conditions put forward -- acceptance of the Afghan constitution, severing connections with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and renunciation of violence -- and they are accepted in the mainstream of Afghan politics and society, we could do business," added Krishna.

The Economic Times quoted Krishna as saying the Taliban "should be given a second chance" and that military action was not the only way to counter their activity.

Krishna's comments follow a major international conference in London this week where nearly 70 countries backed a 500-million-dollar Afghan government drive to tempt fighters to give up their weapons in exchange for jobs and other incentives.

India has provided over one billion dollars in humanitarian and development assistance to Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted in 2001 and also warily backed US President Barack Obama's surge of 30,000 extra US soldiers.

But it has expressed concerns that an early US exit from the war-torn country could reverberate in the region, already reeling from a wave of militant violence in Pakistan.

"We're next door and our experiences make it difficult for us to differentiate between good or bad Taliban," Krishna told the Times of India. ( I am sorry but I disagree. We are not next door! It is Pakistan my Dear S M Krishna! They should be worried)

He said Afghanistan's stability depended on neighbouring countries' "support, sustenance and sanctuaries for terrorist organisations" ending immediately, an apparent reference to long-time foe Pakistan.

AFP: India 'could do business' with Taliban: reports


----------



## Fighter488

We never assesed it correctly, "How eager US and NATO to leave AF quickly". The following sequel of events found us on the wrong side of the unfolding events!
Fighter

*Washington works the ******-India triangle​*By Zahid U Kramet 

LAHORE - The United States' ****** special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been running from pillar to post between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India *to end the "war on terror" *and bring some sort of stability to the South Asian region. 

Until now they have not made much progress. The war persists. A troop surge in Afghanistan was seen as the solution. And, acceding to the requests of his counter-insurgency expert, General David Petraeus, and his commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, President Barack Obama sanctioned an additional 30,000 US troops to ramp up the approximately 100,000-strong coalition force already present in Afghanistan. 

Obama's December 1, 2009, address at the West Point Military Academy charted a new course when he remarked, "These additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in 2011 ... America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan." In his State of the Union address this week, Obama reiterated his commitment to having US troops begin to leave Afghanistan in July 2011. 

Reinforced at frequent intervals subsequently was that Pakistan held the key to bringing the conflict to an end. But a trust deficit existed. Pakistan felt it had sufficient influence over the Afghan Taliban to pursue peace talks. The US persisted with "no quarter" to any of the Taliban. 

Pakistan's perspective was that the al-Qaeda-aligned Pakistani Taliban led by Hakimullah Mahsud in South Waziristan needed to be tackled first. The US insisted the Afghan Taliban's Sirajuddin Haqqani network, which allegedly had a fallback position in North Waziristan, must be targeted simultaneously. 

Pakistan asked to use armed drones on selected targets. The US opted to operate them unilaterally, indifferent to the political consequences of the collateral damage with which Pakistan would have to contend. From the Pakistani viewpoint, the cruelest cut of all came when Holbrooke announced during a visit to New Delhi that India's role was crucial to ensure regional peace, while Pakistan held India responsible for the restiveness in its western province of Balochistan. 

What rankled even more was when Indian intelligence chief Lieutenant General R K Loomba was surreptitiously allowed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to visit the Afghan National Army (ANA) headquarters in Kabul. This conveyed the impression to Pakistan that the US could be looking at India to oversee ANA operations against the Taliban on the withdrawal of the international forces from the country beginning in July 2011. 

A paper published by the US think-tank Council on Foreign Relations titled "Terrorism and Indo-Pakistani escalation" further aggravated the situation when it warned of more "Mumbai-style" attacks emanating from Pakistan which would warrant India's imminent retaliation. (This was a reference to the attack by militants on the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008 in which more than 150 people were killed.) 

After an exchange of fire on the Pakistan-India border shortly thereafter, Shireen M Mazari, the editor of the English-language daily The Nation, found these signals ominous. In a front-page report titled "A two-front threat emerging for Pakistan", she wrote, "A nightmare security scenario for Pakistan seems to be emerging - that of a two-front military conflict ... after meetings between Indian officials and America's Holbrooke and Gates ... we are seeing unprovoked military firing." The implication was obvious. 

Pakistan's immediate reaction was that it could not provide any guarantees against more Mumbai-type attacks, with Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reportedly saying to Gates, "Pakistan is itself facing Mumbai-like attacks almost every other day and when we cannot protect our own citizens how can we guarantee there wouldn't be any more terrorist hits in India?" 

Gates is then said to have upped the ante with the caution that unlike the Mumbai attack, India would not show restraint if attacked again. The same day, Pakistan's Inter-Service Public Relations chief Major General Ather Abbas conveyed a message to the visiting US dignitary that the Pakistan army was looking to consolidate its gains rather than opening new fronts in its tribal areas. 

But the hard-pressed Pakistan security apparatus had moved on to counter the rampant Taliban in another way. A week earlier, on Saturday January 16, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran inked a regional pact to confront the Afghan insurgency trilaterally and rejected a British proposal to include countries which were not contiguous to Afghanistan, but agreed to include all those that were, namely Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China. 

The Islamabad meeting and the trilateral summit that followed in Istanbul were a prelude to the grand London conference on Afghanistan that began on Thursday. The gala event has drawn 60 countries and has essentially been contrived to deliver the message that the world stands united against al-Qaeda, but ready to accede to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's reintegration proposal for the Taliban. 

America had finally accepted the need for this some days earlier, with Holbrooke reported to have said, "We are ready to support it." He did not divulge how exactly this was to come about. What Holbrooke did say, however, was, "There are a lot of people out there fighting who have no ideological commitment to the principles, values or political movement led by Mullah Omar." 

Mullah Omar is an al-Qaeda ideologue and he would have to be won over for the war in Afghanistan to be brought to an end. The onus of responsibility for this will inevitably fall on the International Security Assistance Force-propelled ANA forces in Afghanistan, and the Pakistan army on its side of the border. But reining in Mullah Omar is not outside the realm of reality. It begins and ends with the exit of foreign forces from Afghanistan. And that is already on the anvil. 

Obama has played his cards cleverly with his surge and withdrawal strategy in Afghanistan. He has been helped by near-unanimous support for financial assistance to rescue Afghanistan at the London conference. On the implementation of its objectives, the Western coalition will not be seen to have won the war, but much less the "arch-villains". Al-Qaeda, however, is another matter. 

Osama bin Laden's latest audio relay, if authentic, first and foremost referred to the plight of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are Arab. The Arabs are Muslim for much the larger part. Obama would need to be seen addressing the Israeli settlements issue and the two-state prescription in earnest if he is to make a mark in the Muslim world. 

In a recent interview, Obama stressed that a second term in office was not his primary objective. Being acknowledged for his achievements during his first term was of far greater significance. Breaking the deadlock in Afghanistan would be one such achievement. But if the ultimate aim is to break al-Qaeda's back, it would require resolving the Palestine issue - and that may call for a New York conference. 

Zahid U Kramet, a Lahore-based political analyst specializing in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, is the founder of the research and analysis website the Asia Despatch. 

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) 


Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan


----------



## deckingraj

Fighter488 said:


> Just to answer your query below
> 
> India still considers the Taliban to be a terrorist group with close links to Al-Qaeda and other outfits. ( My point was that we should had been more flexible with this approach, right from begining. After all Talibans were not coming to India to implement Sharia! Had there been any immidiate casuality of this ideology, it would have been Pakistan first, due to its proximity, not India!)



No buddy that would be a wrong assessment...India has been a victim of the so called islamic terrorism(i have to use this word) and pakistan using them as their pawns would have/have served as a medium to fulfill their agenda....There has to be a reason that people like OBL were protected by these taliban pigs...If we ignore that we have always been supportive of Northern Alliance in AFghanistan and even before 9/11 only 3 countries supported Taliban regime... Above all how can we forget Indian Airlines Kandahar episode?? That episode simply showed how much control Pakistan/ISI has on AF....

Some points above will give some idea of why New delhi would like to see dooms day for Taliban...As far as flexibility is concerned here again we are doing a good job.. From a position of saying that there is nothing called moderate taliban we are saying look who so ever is ready to give up arms and is ready to back the current govt. welcome them..



> "The international community has come out with a proposition to bring into the political mainstream those willing to function within the Afghan system," he said.( It is better than nothing, atleast!)



Ofcourse it is ...In fact it is a move which shows that we mean Biz in AF and are flexible enough....Look at what he say's below...Perfect Chanikya statement...Any taliban living upto the below given expectations won't be a taliban any more...




> "If the Taliban meet the three conditions put forward -- acceptance of the Afghan constitution, severing connections with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and renunciation of violence -- and they are accepted in the mainstream of Afghan politics and society, we could do business," added Krishna.[/COLOR="blue"]




The Economic Times quoted Krishna as saying the Taliban "should be given a second chance" and that military action was not the only way to counter their activity.




> "We're next door and our experiences make it difficult for us to differentiate between good or bad Taliban," Krishna told the Times of India. ( I am sorry but I disagree. We are not next door! It is Pakistan my Dear S M Krishna! They should be worried)



I have already quoted why this statement is wrong...We are definitely next door neighbour...Before 9/11 Pakistan and Taliban were all bread and butter...Its the US forced U-turn that has caused some rift which is not as big as it appears on periphery...Secondly the ideology has/is causing lot of damage in Pakistan which can have grave implications on India...If they can attack Lahore they sure will get the capacity to strike Amritsar...So indeed we are next door neighbour....


----------



## Fighter488

deckingraj said:


> No buddy that would be a wrong assessment...India has been a victim of the so called islamic terrorism(i have to use this word) and pakistan using them as their pawns would have/have served as a medium to fulfill their agenda....There has to be a reason that people like OBL were protected by these taliban pigs...If we ignore that we have always been supportive of Northern Alliance in AFghanistan and even before 9/11 only 3 countries supported Taliban regime... Above all how can we forget Indian Airlines Kandahar episode?? That episode simply showed how much control Pakistan/ISI has on AF....
> 
> Some points above will give some idea of why New delhi would like to see dooms day for Taliban...As far as flexibility is concerned here again we are doing a good job.. From a position of saying that there is nothing called moderate taliban we are saying look who so ever is ready to give up arms and is ready to back the current govt. welcome them..
> 
> 
> 
> Ofcourse it is ...In fact it is a move which shows that we mean Biz in AF and are flexible enough....Look at what he say's below...Perfect Chanikya statement...Any taliban living upto the below given expectations won't be a taliban any more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Economic Times quoted Krishna as saying the Taliban "should be given a second chance" and that military action was not the only way to counter their activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already quoted why this statement is wrong...We are definitely next door neighbour...Before 9/11 Pakistan and Taliban were all bread and butter...Its the US forced U-turn that has caused some rift which is not as big as it appears on periphery...Secondly the ideology has/is causing lot of damage in Pakistan which can have grave implications on India...If they can attack Lahore they sure will get the capacity to strike Amritsar...So indeed we are next door neighbour....


Dear 
Answer may go a little OFF-TOPIC!

We have more serious issues than so called 'ISLAMIC TERRORISM'. Why we forget the so many armed conflicts that are plaueging this country. For India, Naxals are far greater threat than TALIBANS IN AFGHANISTAN ! Or Islamic millitants coming from across border! They are in thousands, for a conservative estimate!

How about a systematic and sustained 'COMMUNAL CONFLICT' throughout the country, many times fully sponsered by state governements? Is it not a BIG INTERNAL problem with an 200 million MINORITY population ! None, on this planet, have so many disgruntled religious minorities !! Don't you see this a HUGE issue than few hundred die-hard Talibans?

Can't you understand the simple facts the so called 'ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY' is for selected few, atleast till now, in this country. Poor are getting poorer. We must have to make sure that we provide basic human necessities EQUALLY, throughout 1 billion plus population. Is it not a BIG issue? 

Can we ignore the dirty political system prevailing in this country! Can Shiv Sena goons, out to protect the so called 'MARATHI MONOS' are not as threating to this country as do 'ISLAMIC TERRORIST' or CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES ! Can this divide and rule politics sustain an 'AKHAND BHARAT (UNIFIED INDIA)' goal a reality!

These are only a few points. More are there. We need to prioritize and take as solid an action as we, e.g., demand from Pakistan for 26/11 carnage. 

Sorry to stir the hornest's nest, that we dream to make 'FULLY FURNISHED' for our future generations!

Fighter


----------



## deckingraj

Fighter488 said:


> Dear
> Answer may go a little OFF-TOPIC!
> 
> We have more serious issues than so called 'ISLAMIC TERRORISM'. Why we forget the so many armed conflicts that are plaueging this country. For India, Naxals are far greater threat than TALIBANS IN AFGHANISTAN ! Or Islamic millitants coming from across border! They are in thousands, for a conservative estimate!
> 
> How about a systematic and sustained 'COMMUNAL CONFLICT' throughout the country, many times fully sponsered by state governements? Is it not a BIG INTERNAL problem with an 200 million MINORITY population ! None, on this planet, have so many disgruntled religious minorities !! Don't you see this a HUGE issue than few hundred die-hard Talibans?
> 
> Can't you understand the simple facts the so called 'ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY' is for selected few, atleast till now, in this country. Poor are getting poorer. We must have to make sure that we provide basic human necessities EQUALLY, throughout 1 billion plus population. Is it not a BIG issue?
> 
> Can we ignore the dirty political system prevailing in this country! Can Shiv Sena goons, out to protect the so called 'MARATHI MONOS' are not as threating to this country as do 'ISLAMIC TERRORIST' or CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES ! Can this divide and rule politics sustain an 'AKHAND BHARAT (UNIFIED INDIA)' goal a reality!
> 
> These are only a few points. More are there. We need to prioritize and take as solid an action as we, e.g., demand from Pakistan for 26/11 carnage.
> 
> Sorry to stir the hornest's nest, that we dream to make 'FULLY FURNISHED' for our future generations!
> 
> Fighter




A short answer would be NO...A BIG NO...we cannot and should not ignore our internal issues...be it rot politicians...be it naxals or anything else...However does that mean we should ignore this grave external threat that these lunatics pose to us??? Calling them a few hundred talibans is a serious under-estimation of their might and capabilities...A force who can fight with Nato for 8 years and still holding the ground cannot and should be mistaken as soft target....Have you forgot mumbai??? Don't you see the kind of capability they(i don't see any difference b/w LET..Taliban) have which is increasing everyday?? Have you forgotten serial bombs that rock the whole country in 2008and befor that??? Just see what is going on in Pakistan....You never know there might be a suicide attack while we are talking...Just imagine any such situation in India...How grave it would be...so they might look like a small problem on the periphery but they have the potential to put South Asia in flames...

Regarding your comment on growth for only few people i would disagree...Yes you are right that the gap has increased b/w rich and poor but if you look at the statistics we have reduced our poverty by almost 10% in last decade...Does that mean we have done enough for them...hell NO...does that mean we have done nothing for poor...well Hell NO...If you look anyway i would prefer India with few very rich bringing lot of money which might bring few poor out of poverty than an India without any progress thereby leaving no room for the poor to come out of their shell...

What say???


----------



## Fighter488

deckingraj said:


> A short answer would be NO...A BIG NO...we cannot and should not ignore our internal issues...be it rot politicians...be it naxals or anything else...However does that mean we should ignore this grave external threat that these lunatics pose to us??? Calling them a few hundred talibans is a serious under-estimation of their might and capabilities...A force who can fight with Nato for 8 years and still holding the ground cannot and should be mistaken as soft target....Have you forgot mumbai??? Don't you see the kind of capability they(i don't see any difference b/w LET..Taliban) have which is increasing everyday?? Have you forgotten serial bombs that rock the whole country in 2008and befor that??? Just see what is going on in Pakistan....You never know there might be a suicide attack while we are talking...Just imagine any such situation in India...How grave it would be...so they might look like a small problem on the periphery but they have the potential to put South Asia in flames...
> 
> Regarding your comment on growth for only few people i would disagree...Yes you are right that the gap has increased b/w rich and poor but if you look at the statistics we have reduced our poverty by almost 10&#37; in last decade...Does that mean we have done enough for them...hell NO...does that mean we have done nothing for poor...well Hell NO...If you look anyway i would prefer India with few very rich bringing lot of money which might bring few poor out of poverty than an India without any progress thereby leaving no room for the poor to come out of their shell...
> 
> What say???



Think again Dear!
Read the my post again ! The point I am raising are exactly the same you are worried, viz a viz, external factor! If we keep our hme in order we WILL snap the BIG CHUNK out of the so called 'BASE' from these threat posers!
The problem with Pakistan populace are almost same as with Indian population and hence the set of (Common) problems!

NATO was not 'INVITED' by Afghans!And Afghans also fought with SOVIETS for ten yeras! THEY FOUGHT AMONG THEMSELVES FOR 10 YEARS! Fighting is thier pride. Let them fight it out themselves! It is ALQAEDA you are confusing with! TALIBAN and ALQAEDA are two different entities. If we mistook AFGHAN national resistance (Taliban) with any other group, we will be suffering like mentioned in this thread.

MUMBAI like episode are a big worry, but its solution do not lie in afghanistan!

Fighter


----------



## Fighter488

*India rethinks policy to keep Afghan influence*




An initiative by Western powers seeking peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan is forcing India to modify its policy toward the hardline Islamists to avoid being marginalised in a country Delhi sees as key to the country's security.

Officials fear an Afghan plan endorsed by global powers to win over Taliban foot soldiers will give rival Pakistan a greater say in the peace process and may ultimately lead to a Taliban takeover once Western forces leave Afghanistan.

The six-decade India and Pakistan rivalry since their independence from Britain in 1947 has turned Afghanistan into a proxy battleground, whose control both countries see as vital to their interests.


Their rivalry complicates Western efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's call on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to help reach out to the Taliban is threatening to undo eight years of financial and diplomatic investment that gave New Delhi great influence over Kabul.

"Delhi's failure to respond to the changing situation in Afghanistan might cause huge setbacks for India," C. Raja Mohan, a foreign policy expert at the US Library of Congress, wrote in the Indian Express newspaper on Monday.

"India had a great run in Afghanistan in Phase One (since 2001 until recently) ... However, the stasis that had gripped India's security policy in recent months and some fine manoeuvring by the Pakistani army threaten to marginalise Delhi in Phase Two."

The urgency to acquire a role in Afghanistan, even if limited, may have already prompted India to soften its stand on the Taliban so as not to be seen as blocking the peace process.

Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna said at the weekend New Delhi was willing to back efforts to seek peace with the Taliban to stabilise neighbouring Afghanistan.

"We are willing to give it a try," Krishna said, provided the Taliban accepted the Afghan constitution and severed connections with al Qaeda and other militant groups.

India seeks to retain influence in Afghanistan to deter any anti-India militant training camps there -- which it accuses rival Pakistan of backing -- and to more generally try to counter a militant Islamic surge threatening regional security.

The Karzai administration, for its part, has deep suspicions about Pakistan, which considers Afghanistan as a strategic fallback position in the event of another war with India, and because of Islamabad's ties to the Taliban.

"If the outcome of the London meeting is to be assessed, the world is trying to cut a deal with the Taliban and India has to accept that," said Uday Bhaskar, head of New Delhi-based strategic affairs think tank National Maritime Foundation.

"India has to shape its policy in the light of this reality ... otherwise it runs the danger of being on a standalone mode."

But India's traditional ties with Afghanistan and its popularity with Afghans from Bollywood films to aid projects -- it is spending USD1.2 billion to build roads and power lines in Afghanistan -- puts New Delhi on firm ground in the war-torn country.

It is this aspect of their relationship that India could be strengthening in the coming years as a counterpoint to any Pakistan-backed move to marginalise New Delhi.

"India's presence in Afghanistan is tremendous and it is that goodwill that clearly gives India its strength," said Savita Pande, professor of South Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Last week, India announced hundreds of fellowships to support Afghan students pursuing higher education in the field of agriculture, a sector seen as crucial for improving Afghan lives. "India has always been Afghanistan's development partner and this is a strong aspect of the relationship that will be developed further," said an Indian government official.

Moreover, a quick breakthrough with the Taliban is no certainty, given that the militants may be in no mood to compromise at a time when they are tightening their hold over much of Afghanistan.

"So we have to see how realistic this peace offer is," said a Western diplomat, who asked not to be named.

"The other aspect is whether Pakistan still retains the same influence over all sections of Pushtuns, because their leverage has largely been over the hardline faction, which in any case is unlikely to be part of the peace process."


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

IMO, the only way India 'loses' in Afghanistan is if Afghanistan is has a government that respects Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity, and 'loses' even more if such an Afghanistan is stable and prosperous or on the road to such a state.

Whether Karzai remains pro-India or not matters little to Pakistan's interests if the GoA comes to an understanding with Pakistan on the issue of the Durand (likely to be an 'open borders' kind of deal as has been proposed for the LoC) and respects Pakistan's sovereignty.

This is of course assuming a 'zero sum' mindset amongst Indian policy makers. The above situation could also be viewed as a 'Win Win' for both sides.


----------



## DavyJones

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> IMO, the only way India 'loses' in Afghanistan is if Afghanistan is has a government that respects Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity, and 'loses' even more if such an Afghanistan is stable and prosperous or on the road to such a state.



India loses if Afghanistan has an extremist Islamic government (like Taliban) who are hell bent on imposing strict Islam in their country and the region as well as supporting Pak in Kashmir. For years Taliban was a training ground for terrorists who were aiming to wrest Kashmir from India. Many Afghans also fought India in Kashmir after being encouraged by the Taliban. 
Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues, gave safe passage to Pak terrorists involved in and released after IC 814 and persecuted religious minorities and women. It pushed Afghanistan into the middle ages. Pakistan was responsible for this monster and was riding this monster for it's own ends.
India wants Taliban out. Any secular govt and system that is nuetral on Kashmir will do.
Your argument holds no water - India does not want to break up Pakistan - stop living in 1971.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Whether Karzai remains pro-India or not matters little to Pakistan's interests if the GoA comes to an understanding with Pakistan on the issue of the Durand (likely to be an 'open borders' kind of deal as has been proposed for the LoC) and respects Pakistan's sovereignty.
> 
> This is of course assuming a 'zero sum' mindset amongst Indian policy makers. The above situation could also be viewed as a 'Win Win' for both sides.


This statement makes more sense. I think India-Pak-Afghanistan should all push for open borders. North India- Pak and Afghanistan have a lot in common so there is no point of fighting for territory when a lot can be gained by working together.


----------



## Fighter488

*Surge, Bribe And Run ​*
Any US deal with Taliban will be a huge mistake 


Brahma Chellaney 

What US president Barack Obamas administration has been pursuing in Afghanistan for the past one year has now received international imprimatur, thanks to the well-scripted London conference. Four words sum up that strategy: surge, bribe and run. Obama has designed his twin troop surges not to militarily rout the Afghan Taliban but to strike a political deal with the enemy from a position of strength. Without a deal with Taliban commanders, the US cannot execute the run part. 
The Obama approach has been straightforward: if you cant defeat them, buy them off. Having failed to rout the Taliban, Washington has been holding indirect talks with the Afghan militias shura, or top council, whose members are holed up in Quetta, including the one-eyed chief, Mullah Omar. The talks have been conducted through the Pakistani, Saudi and Afghan intelligence agencies. 
Obama, paradoxically, is seeking to apply to Afghanistan the Iraq model of his predecessor, George W Bush, who used a military surge largely as a show of force to buy off Sunni tribal leaders and other local chieftains. But Afghanistan isnt Iraq, and it is a moot question whether the same strategy can work, especially when Obama has not hidden his intent to end the US war before he comes up for re-election. In a land with a long tradition of humbling foreign armies, pay-offs are unlikely to buy enduring peace. All that the Pakistanbacked Taliban has to do is to simply wait out the Americans. After all, popular support for the Afghan war has markedly ebbed in the US, even as the other countries with troops in Afghanistan exhibit war fatigue. 
If a resurgent Taliban is now on the offensive, with 2008 and 2009 proving to be the deadliest years for US forces since the 2001 American intervention, it is primarily because of two reasons: the sustenance the Taliban still draws from Pakistan, and a growing Pashtun backlash against foreign intervention. 
The US military and intelligence have carried out a series of air and drone strikes and ground commando attacks in Waziristan against the Pakistani Taliban, the nemesis of the Pakistani military. The CIA alone has admitted carrying out at least 11 drone strikes in Waziristan to avenge the bombing of its base in Khost, Afghanistan, by a Jordanian double agent, who in a pre-recorded video said he was going to take revenge for the US attack  carried out at Pakistans instance  that killed the Pakistani Taliban chief, Baitullah Mehsud. *But, tellingly, *the US military and intelligence have 
not carried out a single air, drone or ground attack against the Afghan Taliban leadership. To help facilitate the ongoing indirect negotiations, the CIA and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are working together, including in shielding the Afghan Taliban shura members. 
Obamas Afghan strategy should be viewed as a short-sighted strategy intent on repeating the very mistakes of American policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past three decades that have come to haunt US security and that of the rest of the free world. Washington is showing it has learnt no lesson from its past policies that gave rise to Frankensteins monsters like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and to the state within the Pakistani state, the ISI, made powerful during Ronald Reagans presidency as a conduit of covert US aid for anti-Soviet Afghan guerrillas. 
To justify the planned Faustian bargain with the Taliban, the Obama team is drawing a specious distinction between al-Qaeda and the Taliban and illusorily seeking to differentiate between moderate Taliban (the good terrorists) and those that rebuff deal-making (the bad terrorists). The scourge of transnational terrorism cannot be stemmed if such specious distinctions are drawn and the security interests of the worlds most populous democracy, which confronts a tyranny of geography, are ignored. India, on the frontline of the global fight against transnational terrorism, will bear the brunt of the blowback of Obamas ****** strategy, just as it came under terrorist siege as a consequence of the Reagan-era US policies in that belt. 
The Taliban, al-Qaeda and groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba are a difficult-to-separate mix of soulmates who together constitute the global jihad syndicate. To cut a deal with any constituent of this syndicate will only bring more international terrorism. A stable Afghanistan cannot emerge without dismantling the Pakistani militarys sanctuaries and sustenance infrastructure for the Afghan Taliban. Instead of seeking to achieve that, the US is actually partnering the Pakistani military to win over the Taliban. 
Even if the Obama administration managed to bring down violence in Afghanistan by doing a deal with the Taliban, that would keep the Taliban intact as a fighting force, with active ties to the Pakistani military. Such a tactical gain would exact serious costs on regional and international security by keeping the ****** region as the epicentre of a growing transnational terrorism scourge. Regrettably, the Obama administration is falling prey to a long-standing US policy weakness: the pursuit of narrow objectives without much regard for the security of friends. 
_*The writer is professor, Centre for Policy Research. *_


Today's TOI editorial page.
Fighter


----------



## Fighter488

I pity these articles and thier writers. They are still lamenting what is NOW past! They have no future plan or alternate backups to fall in!

Fighter


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

DavyJones said:


> This statement makes more sense.



'This statement' was attached to the the rest of my post.

This is the problem with dissecting posts and replying to individual bits and pieces of the post as if they have no connection, and why I detest 'line by line' replies that lose sight of the overall context of the remarks made.



> I think India-Pak-Afghanistan should all push for open borders.



An open border with Afghanistan makes sense since it is in essence an 'open border' already, and such an agreement resolves the major source of tension between the two.

Between India and Pakistan such an arrangement would be entirely new, and therefore contingent upon the resolution of multiple disputes and various other issues such as the economic impact upon Pakistani businesses of open trade with India.


----------



## paritosh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> IMO, the only way *India 'loses' in Afghanistan is if Afghanistan is has a government that respects Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity, and 'loses' even more if such an Afghanistan is stable and prosperous or on the road to such a state.*



AM would you please elaborate how would such a situation be a loss for us?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

paritosh said:


> AM would you please elaborate how would such a situation be a loss for us?



I did, if you read the rest of the post, but I'll try and explain again.

I based those comments on the premise that Indian policy makers would view the situation as a 'zero sum game' (I am not suggesting that they see it that way, but assuming so for the sake of argument).

If Indian policy makers view Afghanistan as a 'zero sum game' then for them any Afghan government that accepts Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity is of no danger to Pakistan. If such an Afghanistan is also on the road to stability and prosperity, then that is even better for Pakistan, since Pakistan has paid an enormous cost dealing with Afghan instability in terms of refugees, crime, weapons, drugs etc. and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan minimizes those negative factors for Pakistan.

A prosperous Afghanistan would also engage in far greater trade with Pakistan and the rest of the world, and given that Afghan trade would transit through Pakistan, all of the above would have a positive impact on Pakistan's economy, if managed properly.

So from a hypothetical Indian 'zero sum' perspective, a GoA that respects Pakistan's sovereignty and comes to an accommodation with Pakistan on the Durand Line completely frees up Pakistan from concerns on its Western Front, and in fact boosts Pakistan for the reasons I mentioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I did, if you read the rest of the post, but I'll try and explain again.
> 
> I based those comments on the premise that Indian policy makers would view the situation as a 'zero sum game' (I am not suggesting that they see it that way, but assuming so for the sake of argument).
> 
> If Indian policy makers view Afghanistan as a 'zero sum game' then for them any Afghan government that accepts Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity is of no danger to Pakistan. If such an Afghanistan is also on the road to stability and prosperity, then that is even better for Pakistan, since Pakistan has paid an enormous cost dealing with Afghan instability in terms of refugees, crime, weapons, drugs etc. and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan minimizes those negative factors for Pakistan.
> 
> A prosperous Afghanistan would also engage in far greater trade with Pakistan and the rest of the world, and given that Afghan trade would transit through Pakistan, all of the above would have a positive impact on Pakistan's economy, if managed properly.
> 
> So from a hypothetical Indian 'zero sum' perspective, a GoA that respects Pakistan's sovereignty and comes to an accommodation with Pakistan on the Durand Line completely frees up Pakistan from concerns on its Western Front, and in fact boosts Pakistan for the reasons I mentioned.



a democratic country can have whatsoever relations with any other country...we(India) neither have the muscle nor the clout to influence the foreign policies of other countries(the way say the americans do)
so we'd have to live with such a scenario...

but really the equation that everything good for Pakistan and it's economy is bad for us is not true.Don't you remember that we ourselves granted Pakistan the most favored nation status....for a long time?
it was being touted that when Gen. Musharaf would visit India during the Agra summit he'd bring in the economic angle int common perspective...and CII(confederation of Indian Industries) people were thrilled at that prospect...

The problem would come either when a non-democratic govt gets elected and turns into a satellite state of Pakistan...
or when the GoA funds/collaborates on missile and nuke tech with Pakistan...


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I SAY PAKISTAN SHOUDL TAKE OVER AFGHANISTAN NOW ..


----------



## ek_indian

iron falcon999 said:


> anybody is a fool if he thinks india is failing in afghanistan.remember all the new afghan civil servants are trained in india.they hav been brainwashed with an indian touch.besides social approach to afghanistan is the best way to win confidence of those people.lots of afghan boys are studying in india and they are all going back to afghanistan to help indians and natives lead norml lives. nato isnt leavin anytime soon.10 years more atleast.by that time all afghan civil servants will be india trained.raw is doing agood job there.



Anything to back up all these??


----------



## foxbat

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I SAY PAKISTAN SHOUDL TAKE OVER AFGHANISTAN NOW ..



funny...


----------



## karan.1970

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I SAY PAKISTAN SHOUDL TAKE OVER AFGHANISTAN NOW ..



why do you say such things friend.. ??


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

> or when the GoA funds/collaborates on missile and nuke tech with Pakistan...



can you plz elaborate this point ..? What problem ..?


----------



## Fighter488

*US ties India-Pak talks to Afghanistan*
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, 6 February 2010, 01:37am 


WASHINGTON: The persuasive hand behind the India-Pakistan thaw has welcomed New Delhi&#8217;s decision to talk to Islamabad while underscoring the 
dialogue&#8217;s importance to the situation in Afghanistan rather than to Pakistan&#8217;s peeves about Kashmir. 

Two senior US officials who gave thumbs up to India&#8217;s move explicitly linked the decision to the complex situation in Afghanistan where New Delhi and Islamabad are locked in shadow boxing that could prove detrimental to Washington&#8217;s goals of enforcing peace and exiting from there. Neither of them mentioned Pakistan&#8217;s obsession with the unresolved Kashmir issue or India&#8217;s focus on terrorism. 

''We are supportive of dialogue among India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as a key component of moving ahead and achieving a stable region,'' P.J.Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State who is also the state department spokesman said on Thursday when asked about the Indian offer, adding, ''We certainly have been encouraging steps that both Pakistan and India could take to address mutual concerns and to take appropriate steps so that tensions can be reduced, cooperation can be increased, and as a result, you have a more stable region that is focused on threats &#8211; both interests that they share and threats that they share.'' 

*The US concern about Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan&#8217;s Kashmir agenda was made even more explicit by Washington&#8217;s special Representative to ****** Richard Holbrooke, who made an important pronouncement &#8211; that will be music to New Delhi&#8217;s ears &#8211; by endorsing India&#8217;s stake in the war-torn country where Pakistan is questioning its locus standi.* 

''The Indians have a legitimate series of security interests in that region, as do a number of other countries, including, of course, Pakistan, China and all the other countries that neighbor on Afghanistan,'' Holbrooke said at a briefing for the international media. ''And any search for a resolution of the war in Afghanistan requires that the legitimate security interests of every country be understood and taken into account.'' 

''The dilemma arises when those security interests tend to be in conflict,'' Holbrooke continued in his exposition of the India-Pakistan face-off. ''And Afghanistan has suffered throughout history by the fact that it has sometimes become the terrain for surrogate struggles for power. We do not want to see that happen.'' 

While some US analysts have suggested resolving the Kashmir issue is central to US success in Afghanistan, Holbrooke declined to endorse the line of thinking, in keeping with the counter-view that Kashmir was just a symptom of Pakistan dysfunction, not the cause. Asked how important Kashmir is for reducing tension between 
India and Pakistan, Holbrooke dismissed the issue from the US agenda while declining to even mention the K-word at a time when Pakistan is poised to put it back on the front-burner. 

*''On the specific you talked about, we are not going to negotiate or mediate on that issue. And I'm going to try to keep my record and not even mention it by name, Holbrooke said, adding, &#8220;But I want to be clear that anything that the two countries do to reduce tensions or improve relations will be something we would applaud and encourage*.&#8221; 

&#8220;But we are not going to act as intermediaries between Islamabad and New Delhi. That is not what we are here to do. I'm not just talking about myself,&#8221; Holbrooke maintained, suggesting that it was broadly the policy of the Obama administration and a continuation of the Bush White House&#8217;s policy of not highlighting the Kashmir issue. 

Statements from the two officials on a day Pakistan pushed the envelope on Kashmir (with Kashmir Day rallies across the country) in response to India&#8217;s offer on talks indicated that US did not share Islamabad&#8217;s agenda on key issues, including downsizing New Delhi&#8217;s role in Afghanistan. The global think tank Stratfor has already forecast a deadlock without American help. 

"India will want to talk about Pakistani-sponsored militancy and Taliban negotiations. Pakistan will want to talk about everything else. It will be up to the United States to attempt to bridge this difficult gap," Stratfor said in an analysis on Thursday. 

Though little progress has been made in India's efforts to get Islamabad to crack down on India-focused militants operating on Pakistani soil, India's concerns over Taliban appeasement in Afghanistan are driving New Delhi toward engagement with Islamabad, the think tank said. 

US officials were clearly in the loop on the Indian olive branch, with various administration mandarins having made known for weeks that Washington prefers engagement to India&#8217;s posture of no-talks till Pakistan acts on 26/11. The reasoning in Washington was that India&#8217;s ''obdurate'' position was allowing Pakistan&#8217;s militaristic constituency to up the ante and build up a hostile atmosphere at the expense of its peace-seeking civil society, undermining US goals in Afghanistan


----------



## Fighter488

*Afghanistan: Most invaded, yet unconquerable ​*
ADITYA MENON , 6 February 2010, 01:07pm 

Since the 8th Century B.C., the area today called Afghanistan has incessantly been roiled by external invasion or internal strife. Geography had The national game, buzkashi, is said to have been invented as a defence against Genghis Khans army. Afghanistan has remained the playground of world powers over centuries placed it such that it became a natural theatre of the Great Games between imperial powers fighting to control trade routes and expand influence as well as the object of a political Buzkashi between local feuding elites. *Great emperors like Darius I, Alexander, Kanishka, Genghis Khan, Timur, Babur and Nadir Shah all fought their way through Afghanistan. Yet it has never been completely conquered or colonised.* This is the paradox of Afghanistan - most invaded and yet unconquerable. Because of this, regimes were always weak and susceptible to foreign pressure. Yet its society has been resilient and uncompromising towards alien rule. How does one then explain the Afghan paradox? There are a number of contextual factors such as its rugged topographical features, existence of deep and multifaceted cleavages among the population, the centrality of tribal social groupings, and the negative role played by neighbours and external powers. However, central to this paradox is the inhibited development of political institutions in Afghanistan. 

The foundations of the modern Afghan state are said to have been laid by Ahmad Shah Durrani in the 18th Century . A central role was played by Amir Abdur Rahman Khan who was called 'Iron Amir' for his brutality and ruthless expansionism. Over the years, Afghan rulers have utilised the discourses of Islam, tribe, kinship, Durrani supremacy and Pashtun nationalism to legitimise their rule. However, the dominant feature of Afghan polity has been internal colonialism by a Pashtun (especially Durrani Pashtun) dominated political culture. The Taliban in many ways represented a culmination of this trend. This lies at the root of the deep ethnic fissures that are central to Afghanistan. 

A weak Afghanistan has served the interests of all, right from the Mughal-Safavid rivalry, the power politics between Czarist Russia and Great Britain and the Pakistani search for 'strategic depth' . It was the theatre where the Cold War was played out by the Americans and the Soviet Union. This lack of a centre and weak political institutions is crucial in the context of the various external invasions that have taken place; external powers have mostly been successful in capturing major cities like Kabul, Kandahar and Herat. But external occupation has always failed when faced with guerrilla opposition in the countryside. Historically , the Afghan concept of authority has based on tribal lines. Central leadership has been more like a 'first among equals' rather than a more hierarchal structure as has been the case in India or Iran. Moreover, being an arid and agriculturally poor region, there has never been sufficient resources for the creation of centralized state institutions. Therefore, there has been limited political institutionalisation and penetration of the society by the state. As a result, regimes such as that of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and the Taliban showed their 'strength' by public displays of power such as brutal punitive punishments and moral policing. 

Factors such as topography and the tribe-centered nature of society cannot be changed. Therefore, the focus of any efforts at securing a stable future for Afghanistan should be on creating stable political institutions. Free and fair elections are an important step in this direction. But as recent attempts at negotiating with the Taliban indicate, the way to political power in Afghanistan is still through the barrel of a Kalashnikov. There is a long way to go before Afghanistan moves beyond the Great Game and the political buzkashi. 

*THE GREAT GAME *
Coined by Arthur Conolly, an intelligence officer of the British East India Company, the term "The Great Game" acquired widespread popularity thanks to Rudyard Kipling's novel, Kim (first published in 1901). It referred to the strategic rivalry between Britain and Russia for supremacy in Central Asia, which began around 1813. Worried about the prospect of a Russian invasion of India, the British were determined to maintain Afghanistan as a buffer state. Constant efforts were made by the British and Russians to influence the politics of Afghanistan , through diplomacy, espionage and occasionally, force. The British twice attacked Afghanistan. The *first *war (1839-42 ) ended in disaster with just one Briton, Dr William Brydon, surviving a retreat begun by a 16,000-strong contingent. The *second *Anglo-Afghan war (1878-80 ) was more successful, ensuring British control of Afghanistan's foreign policy. The classic Great Game ended with the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, under which Russia accepted Britain's control over Afghanistan, as long as the British did not attempt any regime change.


----------



## Fighter488

*IS THE NEIGHBOURHOOD SET TO GET EVEN MORE 
DANGEROUS​*? 



INDRANI BAGCHI DIPLOMATIC EDITOR 


In December, 2007, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, threw out two Britons  Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson for allegedly bribing Taliban leaders in Musa Qala, Helmand, where British troops were fighting  not always to advantage. Karzai, apparently enraged that the British were paying off the Taliban behind his back and demanding that these leaders be accommodated in the Afghan government, refused to comply, and in the face of British displeasure, expelled them. 
Semple, said security officials in Afghanistan, is probably best described as the Afghanistan-Taliban brains trust for the UKs MI6, its external intelligence arm. In a re-run of the 19th Century Great Game adventurers, Semple has been a prime advocate of reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban as a key strategy to win the war in Afghanistan. 
His background is equally interesting  Semples father was a general in the British army and his wife Yamimas father, General Mirdha, a buddy of former Pakistani president Yahya Khan, putting him on an inside track to military-intelligence decision makers in Pakistan. The idea of wooing over softer Taliban leaders and quelling Pashtun anger isnt new or novel. Today, it is largely Semples doctrine of reconciliation thats driving the present British-led initiative to sift the good Taliban from the bad, and bring the good into the tent. Its a line that Pakistan has pushed, leveraging the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and armys deep contacts with the Taliban. Islamabad is peddling a promise, once betrayed in 1996 when the group overran Kabul, that the Taliban could be persuaded to control violence and create a backdrop that would allow the West to make a face-saving exit from Afghanistan. Alongside, the Taliban could be persuaded to be a replacement for Karzai, despised by Pakistan and slowly disgraced in Washington. 

*LONDON MOVE STUNS INDIA *

The Afghanistan conference in London last week was a shocker for Indian mandarins who had hoped to muscle in and get a larger say in Afghan policy given the money and effort New Delhi has put into the reconstruction efforts. But what happened was that India got blindsided by the British swallowing the Pakistani line that Islamabad could deliver peace by negotiating a deal with the Taliban. Shivshankar Menon, the new national security adviser, along with foreign secretary Nirupama Rao, is leading a massive review of Indias own ****** policy, which will determine not just Indias approach to Afghanistan, but also craft out a new policy of engagement with Pakistan. The announcement on Thursday of resumption of foreign secretary-level talks between New Delhi and Islamabad is a movement in that direction. (More of that, later in the story.) 
Pakistan has pushed hard to remain in the drivers seat on Afghan policy. And, at least for now, it appears to be winning by hard-selling the line that without the involvement of the ISI, re-integration will remain a non-starter. That was evident first at the Istanbul ****** meeting leading up to the January 28 London conference, where Pakistan insisted India be kept out of the talks, and even a feeble attempt by Karzai to get India to the table was brushed off. India fretted and fumed impotently, but found itself completely dealt out of the game by Pakistan and the UK leading the charge, letting Karzai announce that he was going to draw his brothers back into the tent, and requesting the Saudis to mediate a reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban. 
This was only formalizing a process that had started in 2009, when the Taliban leadership had met with the Afghan government in the desert kingdom. These meetings broke the ice, even quietly blessed by US special envoy to ******, Richard Holbrooke. After the London conference, Saudi envoy to India Faisal Tarab told Crest in a carefully worded comment, We are ready to mediate with the Taliban, but we will not talk to terrorists. Saudi King Abdullah has just met Karzai and the outcome of that conversation could determine the success or otherwise of the proposed venture. 
For India, global approval of the reconciliation process implies Pakistan, with its ISI and army, is likely to take a leading role. As Holbrooke told MK Narayanan, who was till recently NSA, and Nirupama Rao quietly during his last visit a couple of weeks ago, Pakistan has worked itself into a paranoia about Indias presence in Afghanistan; India would have to be removed from all decision-making on Afghanistan, they insisted. As London showed, Islamabad got its way. 
For the US and UK, even though Indias assistance programme punches all the right buttons, India had to be sacrificed. Therefore, when British foreign secretary David Miliband was asked about Indias role, he hummed and hawed saying by and by. In London, India insisted on putting in phrases like the process should be Afghan-led and transparent and inclusive  words to prevent the British and Pakistanis from controlling it. But as every diplomat understands, these are words than cannot, and indeed, will not be enforced. 
*The Pakistani demand has been succinctly laid out by Munir Akram, one of its top diplomats: Pakistans cooperation should be offered only in exchange for tangible and immediate US support for Pakistans national objectives: an end to Indian-Afghan interference in Baluchistan and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas); a Kashmir solution; a military balance between Pakistan and India; parity with India on nuclear issues; transfer of equipment and technology for counter-terrorism; unconditional defense and economic assistance; free trade access. *

*KARZAI CORNERED? *

Steve Coll in his book Ghost Wars recounts an event in the life of Hamid Karzai that bears repetition, because it might be instructive even today. In 1999, when his father, Abdul Karzai, a respected Pashtun tribal leader, made an overture to Mullah Omar against Al Qaida, he was gunned down by the Taliban leaders henchmen in Quetta, Pakistan. 
The man is now being pushed into dealing with his fathers killers on an equal footing. A weakened, sullen Karzai has been battered into submission in a game where a lot of money ($500 million, $140 million of it in 2010) will be thrown at yet another attempt to win over the Taliban. US officials told Crest that while they maintain a healthy skepticism about flipping the Taliban, the US is not entirely dismissive of the fresh initiative either. This is as much to keep the British by their side as a reflection of the fact that there are serious doubts about the success of the US military strategy in Afghanistan. 
The pragmatist that he is, Karzai has been half-way down this path before. In 2004, after Karzai won his first presidential election, he held out an olive branch to the Taliban, in a reconciliation exercise. This was called Tahkim-e-Solh (Strengthening Peace). Established in May, 2005, it tried giving Taliban not guilty of criminal activity a way to return to society. It did not work, because the process was imperfect, the reintegration did not happen in many cases, the payments were delayed or not made at all. Since most were neither provided security nor money, they soon returned to the Taliban, which was more lucrative. Officials say that will be fixed, because the US-UK duo will now control the funds. But Gen David Petraeus (whos credited with the success of the coalition forces in Iraq and now heads the US central command) is skeptical. If you have an area that is insecure to begin with, then it is difficult, though not undoable, to guarantee security for somebody who wants to come in from the cold. 

*CAN INDIA PROJECT HARD POWER? *

Afghanistan and its future will prove to be Indias real test as a regional power. For the past decade, India has successfully turned itself into a huge presence and influencepeddler in Afghanistan  *through its biggest-ever use of soft power*: roads, hospitals, schools, scholarships, community development projects. Indias financial commitment in Afghanistan is upwards of *$1.2 billion*. Opinion polls put Indias popularity rating among Afghans at 71 per cent, in extreme contrast to only 2 per cent for Pakistan. 
India has refrained from using hard power in Afghanistan, and, in many ways, the Indian presence is guaranteed by the US security role. As soft-power author, Harvard Universitys Joseph Nye says, Achieving transformational objectives may require a combination of both hard and soft power. Soft power is only credible when it is matched by or surpassed by hard power. *India is paying the price, because, beyond a point, roads and dams dont help buy influence. As one top-level Afghan official said, wryly, We love India, but we fear Pakistan. That is a stronger emotion. *Indias power projection in Afghanistan has been primarily by showing its goodness. Pakistan, on the other hand, negotiates with the world with a gun held to its own head. That, as India has discovered several times in its history, is far more persuasive. 
For the moment, Pakistan has the upper hand, because both the UK and US need it more than ever. Pakistan is playing an adroit diplomatic game of chicken with the US  and winning. Islamabad may be hopelessly dependent on Washingtons money, but that doesnt stop it from refusing to give visas to US officials, refusing money that comes with conditions. Pakistan has made it clear it will not stop supporting the Afghan Taliban; there is absolutely no attempt to tackle al Qaida; and Mullah Omars Quetta Shura functions unimpeded. In short, it holds veto power over whether the Obama surge succeeds in Afghanistan. Washington, said an Indian official scornfully, is kowtowing to Pakistan just like they did to China. 
Harsh perhaps, but this view is prevalent in the upper reaches of the Indian government  to the extent that even the PM is believed to have remarked that if India and Pakistan have another fracas, Washington may not weigh in on Indias side. 
According to high-level officials in New Delhi, a successful Taliban reintegration is another term for a Taliban takeover in Kabul. Look at Yemen and you see the Afghan future. If and when that happens, we may be looking at a pre-9/11 situation, said one of them. 
Will Karzai survive? *Unlikely*. But if he is to avoid the kind of fate that befell Afghanistans president Mohammed Najibullah  who was tortured and strung up from a light post by the Taliban in Kabul in 1996 after the Soviets withdrew  Karzai needs new and improved survival strategies. These must include working out deals with warlords  tribal leaders who can help him survive the Taliban  because despite everything, the average Afghan still prefers the present government to the harsh rules of the Taliban. He cant look to the UK, US or Pakistan for help. He can look to India. Will India step up to the table? This would entail getting our hands dirty. So far, India has shied away from a robust security role in Afghanistan. 

*A WIN-WIN FOR PAKISTAN? NOT SO SOON *

It aint gonna be easy for the Pakistanis either. On the face of it, Pakistan faces the welcome prospect of putting its creation, the Taliban, back in power in Kabul, but the very fact that their leadership lives ensconced inside Pakistan means the Taliban have a stake in Pakistan as well. That has implications. 
If the Taliban does assume a position of power in Kabul, it could be a windfall for some of the armed and dangerous groups Pakistan is fighting. And the connections are wellknown now. Holbrooke said that when he saw a video of the Jordanian double agent suicide bomber issue his final message with Hakimullah Mehsud of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) sitting by his side, he thought it was shocking. It showed, if evidence was needed, that there are few lines between the different Taliban groups and al Qaida. 
Peter Bergen, an authority on Qaida, explained this to the US Congress recently: Taliban is much closer to the al Qaida today than it was eight years ago. Yes, there are local groups of the Taliban operating for purely local reasons, but the upper levels of the Taliban on both sides of the Afghan/ Pakistan border have morphed together ideologically and tactically with al Qaida. 
Dreaded Taliban war veteran Jallaluddin Haqqani and other fighters of the Haqqani clan along the Afghan-Pak frontier operate with impunity on both sides of the Khyber. They have close ties with al Qaida, and with Pakistans ISI. Then, of course, there are stand-alone warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of Hizb-e-Islami who has changed sides so many times that Afghan watchers have lost count. He now maintains close ties with bin Laden and Co and US officials say he may be one of the first to be flipped! 
So lets assume Pakistans dream comes true and the good Taliban join the Kabul government. Ahmed Rashid, a Taliban specialist and author of the acclaimed Descent Into Chaos, admits the Afghan Taliban have developed a degree of mistrust of the ISI, and grown closer to the TTP. The chances that the Pakistan Taliban could use southern and eastern Afghanistan as their strategic depth against the Pakistan army would be unconscionably high, posing a potential security threat to Pakistan itself. 

*CAN TALIBAN TURN A NEW LEAF? *

*After some 1,200 attacks a month through all of 2009 (according to the UN), the Taliban are scenting victory in Afghanistan.* A statement by Mullah Omar, rejecting the Karzai peace offer, was telling: They have tried in the past and are trying now to entangle our Muslim and brave people and their leadership, the Islamic Emirate. Some time, they announce that they will provide money, employment and opportunity to have a comfortable life abroad, for those mujahideen who agree to part ways with jihad. They think that mujahideen have taken up arms to gain money or grab power or were compelled to turn to arms. This is baseless and futile. Its a no-brainer that the Taliban leadership will not be bought. Why then, should anyone expect their rank and file to defect, when they havent for so long? 
Besides, the Taliban leadership is unlikely to allow this kind of defection without adequate retribution  in the past few years, Taliban have summarily killed people who have gone over to the government. They have systematically removed tribal chieftains opposed to the Taliban and al Qaida. Why should they stop now? 
The West appears to have adopted a stance that its okay for the Taliban to flog women and stone heretics as long as they arent firing missiles at the West. The Taliban clearly cannot accept the Afghan constitution, because their faith remains the Islamic emirate, and Mullah Omar has said as much. That should be of concern for everyone, even the Taliban-eager British. Out of 7 million children currently attending school in Afghanistan, 40 per cent are girls. Over the past few years, there has been a fair degree of womens empowerment in that country. Progress will almost certainly be a casualty under Taliban rule. 
But isnt there even a hint of a silver living? Ahmed Rashid points to Mullah Omars Eid message, repeated last week, that the Taliban would pose no threat to neighbouring countries as a sign of flexibility in the Taliban position. 

*WHAT DOES INDIA DO NOW? *

*While Pakistan is smoking victory in Afghanistan, it is also pushing for a greater focus on India-Pakistan relations*. This argument has been persuasive in Washington since the beginning of the Obama administration, but is gathering currency now. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said on Wednesday, South Asian security tensions and political dynamics significantly impact our objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The longstanding animosity and mistrust between Pakistan and India complicates regional efforts.... While we acknowledge the sovereign right of India and Pakistan to pursue their own foreign policies, we must demonstrate our desire for continued and long-term partnership with each, and offer our help to improve confidence and understanding between them in a manner that builds longterm stability across the wider region of South Asia. 
The argument within the UPA government is that if India doesnt take unilateral steps with Pakistan, *it will inevitably get drawn into a trilateral effort with the US*. Therefore, the government, even at the risk of being pilloried for succumbing to the US, is working to engage Pakistan across a spectrum of issues, starting off with home minister P Chidambarams visit to Islamabad end-February. Senior officials are certain this is unlikely to affect Pakistans support to terrorists or its position on India in Afghanistan. But not talking with Pakistan is raking in diminishing returns. 

*Not only has Pakistan won this round against India, it has won it big*. Its even managed to impress upon the world Indias nonrelevance in Afghanistan. Will India take this on the chin and continue or, in the eventuality that the Taliban-Pakistan combine returns to power in Kabul, will it cut its losses and run? 
At present there are two schools of thought in the Indian establishment. The *first *says Afghanistan is a graveyard, and Indias had a good run there for the past decade. The Hindu Kush was so named for a specific reason, said an official. But if the US security cover goes with the prospect of a Talibanised power structure in Kabul, India should reduce its presence, get its people out, and keep a modicum of influence to prevent the country from becoming a pre-9/11 anti-India space. Significantly, India hasnt taken on new infrastructure projects in Afghanistan lately. 
But *another *school says India should not only maintain its presence but add different dimensions to it. This will define how India uses its power for peace in the neighbourhood, which will not happen by cut-and-run policies. Pakistan is in Afghanistan not because it wants to have a strong and stable country next door. It is there because of its flawed doctrine of strategic depth against India. It stands to reason that Indias stakes in Afghanistan are vital precisely for that reason. Indias goal therefore should be to prevent a Taliban return. 
But the *bottomline *is that India is on its own in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan will define Indian power more comprehensively than all its ships sailing in the Indian Ocean. So what should India do? In off-the-record conversations with TOI-Crest, senior government officials said India should get a strong foothold in the Afghan administration. It needs to force situations where the Afghans will be able to take their own decisions and not be railroaded by the Pakistanis or the British. If the Afghans take their own decisions, thats good for us. 
Second, India needs to support Karzai through a period when he will surely be making existential deals to ensure a life after the US. For India, Karzai is a better bet than the Taliban, so among the first things India should do is to be able to train their officer corps, many of whom already come here for soft training. There are supporters in Karzais circle like Asadullah Khalid (erstwhile governor of Kandahar) and Gul Agha Sherzai (Nangarhar) whom India can help. Most of all, India can help Karzai govern better. 
Primarily, India will have to step up its engagement with the Pashtuns. Since 2001, India has been doing precisely this, and its no coincidence that Indias enormously successful small projects are scattered through the Pashtun provinces. As one official remarked, There is no door in Afghanistan that is closed to India any longer. But as one security official admitted, the Pashtuns will always have naturally Pakistani leanings, which have to be factored in as well. 
India s traditional engagement with Afghanistan has been through the Pashtun tribes. India has picked up a lot of IOUs over the past years, nows the time to cash in. *Indias Pashtun outreach should straddle the Durand Line though there it will be much tougher going. Meanwhile, the Tajiks and Hazaras can be empowered once again though there is no formal Northern Alliance any longer. India can join hands with the Russians and could expect some cooperation from Iran, but Iran is always iffy.* 
Former Pakistan envoy, G Parthasarathy says, Indias role cannot be marginalised. We should train the Afghan army and open Indian markets for Afghan produce. 
On the military side, there is a case for more proactive Indian security tasks in Afghanistan, without sending troops. Thus far, India has held back, which is counter-productive. The airbase in Ayni, Tajikistan, can be given more teeth. And if China can think of overseas military bases, so should India. 
* The prize is not Afghanistan, its peace*


----------



## Fighter488

*Taliban will negotiate, but path fraught with risk​*
Thu, Jan 28 2010 LONDON (Reuters) - Unthinkable a year ago and still officially beyond the pale, the idea of a political role for Taliban leaders in Afghanistan is creeping onto the agenda as war-weary governments seek to bring an end to an unpopular war.

Some say this could open the door for negotiations if the Taliban think they can secure a better settlement through talks than by waiting for U.S.-led troops to leave and then fighting their way to power through a renewed civil war.

"The Taliban know they can't take over the country. They would be presiding over a country with persistent and perennial poverty and civil war. So they would like to negotiate," said one diplomat involved in discussions about Afghanistan.

The United States and its allies have so far spoken only of reconciliation with those Taliban who renounce violence, sever ties with al Qaeda and accept the Afghan constitution.

Washington is also sending an extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in a display of strength meant to secure better terms in any eventual peace deal, and trying to peel off Taliban foot soldiers through a program of "reintegration."

It is seen as unlikely to want to negotiate as long as it believes it can still make gains on the battlefield.

"In my view the Taliban have to be convinced they cannot win before meaningful negotiations can take place," Republican Senator John McCain told reporters this weekend.

But ultimately neither side can win by military means alone, prompting many to look ahead to the day when Washington has to engage with leaders of the insurgency.

"I would trust, frankly, the instincts and the impulses of our administration to at least look at a time when that might be fortuitous," said McCain.

Many analysts say talks would need to involve Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar -- condemned in the West for his refusal to hand over al Qaeda leaders after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"As long as the leaders are not included in the talks, you cannot expect much from a meaningful peace," said Wadeer Safi, a political science professor at Kabul university.

And the price for a settlement could be high as far as the west is concerned -- for example the rehabilitation of Mullah Omar as supreme leader of Afghanistan -- even if not directly running the government.

The Taliban for their part are expected to come under pressure from Pakistan to negotiate to try to end a war which has increasingly spilled over from Afghanistan.

"The regional political situation seems to be changing and I believe now the Pakistan authorities have reached the conclusion to make the Taliban join in the talks," said Afghan analyst Khalil Roman.

*POLITICALLY DIFFICULT ON BOTH SIDES*

Washington says many Taliban leaders including Mullah Omar are based in Pakistan. And while Pakistan has far less leverage over the Taliban than it had when it nurtured them in the 1990s, it could still make life hard for them if they refused to talk.

Rather like the secret talks between then U.S. National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and the North Vietnamese which tried, and ultimately failed, to secure an honorable exit from Vietnam, any negotiations would be long and easily derailed.

They would also be fraught with risk for both the United States and the Taliban. Any hint of compromise could unleash a public backlash in the United States, as well as alienate the Taliban's own fighters and supporters.

"It is politically very difficult for both Mullah Omar and the American government," said Kamran Bokhari, at STRATFOR global intelligence group.

Whatever happens, public statements on both sides are expected to stick to existing positions. The Taliban say all foreign troops must leave before they negotiate; Washington says they must sever ties with al Qaeda and renounce violence.

But the U.S. announcement it will start drawing down troops in 2011 has already gone some way to meeting a key Taliban demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces.

For its part, the Taliban has repeated in a statement that it would not allow Afghan territory to be used to harm any other country, a reference to the demand it sever ties with al Qaeda.

Some argue the Taliban could look initially for a schedule for the withdrawal of foreign forces, along with measures like the release of prisoners and the removal of names of Taliban members from a U.N. terrorism blacklist as a starting point.

"The Taliban understand they are not going to roll into Kabul when the Americans leave," said Bokhari. "Eventually he (Mullah Omar) needs negotiations."

*But even if both sides were willing to negotiate, a major problem would be in finding the right interlocutors.*

Washington and its allies want any process of reconciliation to be Afghan-led, and President Hamid Karzai promised a peace council, or jirga, to try to forge an Afghan consensus on the issue. But Taliban leaders are unwilling to deal with Karzai, whose government they see as weak and corrupt.

In a statement on their website the Taliban rejected Karzai's attempt to reach out to them but said they were open to talks to achieve their goal of an Islamic state.

They distrust Pakistan after it turned against them after September 11, while its determination to check Indian influence in Afghanistan means it cannot act as a neutral mediator.

An attempt to get Saudi Arabia to mediate may be foundering. Analysts say Riyadh resents being asked to help without its own interests being taken into account. Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is concerned about Indian and Iranian influence in Afghanistan.

A former Taliban official said the Taliban wanted to talk directly to the Americans, whom they see as their main adversary rather than the Karzai government.

U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke said Sunday there had been no direct, secret contacts with the Taliban, but said Washington recognized the importance of reconciliation.

"But it must go hand in hand with security success. It is not an alternative to the military campaign. It requires military success to make progress," he told reporters in Munich.

(Additional reporting by Sayed Salahuddin in Kabul; Alistair Lyon in Beirut; and Mark Trevelyan in Munich; editing by Ralph Boulton)


Taliban will negotiate, but path fraught with risk | Reuters


----------



## Fighter488

Another extremely educated and plausible opinion.
A brilliant analysis I wold say! 

Kashif

*The winner takes all in Afghanistan ​*By M K Bhadrakumar 

The Nobel Peace Prize has a tradition. In the entire period from 1901 to 2009, it has never been awarded twice to any of its 97 individual recipients. 

United States President Barack Obama is thus unlikely to win a second Nobel. Yet, in an historical perspective, Afghanistan promises to become the first country in which Islamists will have been ushered into power on the wave of America's newfound smart power. 

That too may only be the beginning. "Of course Afghanistan is not an island. There is no solution just within its borders," North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary general Anders

Fogh Rasmussen said at a security conference in Munich last weekend. 

*NATO eyes Central Asia *

The international community has been led to believe that the India-Pakistan faultline is the pivotal concern in the US's diplomatic strategy in Afghanistan. *However, it is a mere subplot*. The US's principal protagonist is China, while India and Pakistan - and increasingly Russia - are more like jesters in forming the confusion and the humor in an Elizabethan drama. 

*The main plot is about the expansion of NATO into Central Asia*. At Munich, Rasmussen spoke of the "need to turn NATO into a forum of consultation on worldwide security issues ... NATO is a framework which has already proven to be uniquely able to combine security consultation, military planning and actual operations ... Afghanistan is a vivid example that in the 21st century, security can't be a relay race, with one individual handing the baton to the next runner ... That is why ... the Alliance should become the hub of a network of security partnerships ... Already today, the Alliance has a vast network of security partnerships, as far afield as northern Africa, the Gulf, Central Asia and the Pacific." 

The Central Asian region is increasingly projected in the Western media as a "ticking bomb waiting to go off". *The argument runs like this*: social and ethnic tensions are smoldering and the economic crisis is deepening, whereas the autocratic and repressive regimes are incapable of addressing the tensions; *Islamists* are, therefore, stepping into the political vacuum and Central Asia is becoming increasingly susceptible to al-Qaeda. 

The argument is gaining ground. Pakistani analyst Ahmed Rashid said recently, "[Militants] are preparing the ground for a long, sustained military campaign in Central Asia. There is now a real threat *because the Islamist surge is combined with an economic and political crisis *... The reason is that they have, first of all, done enough fighting for other people. They now want to fight for their own country. The real threat now is the fact that they are trying to infiltrate back into Central Asia .. They are trying to infiltrate weapons, ammunition and men back into Central Asia." 

*Islamists as agents of geopolitics *

There is an ominous overtone to Western reports. Al-Qaeda was used after all as justification for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. 

This is where the US's idea of reconciliation with the Taliban merits scrutiny. The idea is indeed eminently sensible at a time when Muslim anger is rising, there is growing disillusionment about Obama, and when the *US is dangerously close to confronting Iran *and a need arises to "*split*" Muslim opinion. 

At the same time, the Taliban's reconciliation also makes realpolitik. The Afghan war costs a lot of money, it costs Western lives and it cannot be won. *The Taliban's reconciliation is arguably the only option available to keep open-ended NATO's military presence in Central Asia without having to fight a futile war*. 

The ascendancy of malleable Islamist forces also has its uses for the US's containment strategy towards China (and Russia). *Islamists lend themselves as a foreign policy instrument*. The rise of Islamism in Afghanistan cannot but radicalize hot spots such as the North Caucasus, Kashmir and the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in China. 

China has the maximum to lose if a Taliban regime re-emerges. That explains the length to which Beijing went at the London conference on Afghanistan on January 28 and at the Istanbul regional conference immediately preceding it to assert that Afghanistan is far too critical an issue for regional security and stability to be left to Washington. 

*China repudiates US's strategy* 

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi *spelt out in great deal *during his speeches at London and Istanbul that Beijing intends to play an active role to safeguard its interests. 

Yang outlined the kind of Afghanistan that China wishes to see emerge out of the abyss. *First *and foremost, it has to be a peaceful and stable Afghanistan that "eradicates the threat of terrorism". *Two*, it should be an Afghanistan that accepts the "existence of diverse ethnic groups, religions and political affiliations and rises above their differences to achieve comprehensive and enduring national reconciliation". 

The accent on pluralism is a virtual rejection of the fundamentalist ideology of Wahhabism practiced by the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. *Three*, Afghanistan should "enjoy inviolable sovereign independence, territorial integrity and national dignity. Its future and destiny should be determined and its state affairs run by its own people." 

In essence, China expects a total and unconditional vacation of foreign occupation. *Four*, Yang highlighted repeatedly the centrality of regional powers in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Afghanistan "should be a part of the *regional cooperation mechanisms *... Countries of the region *have special associations *with Afghanistan." 

*He added*, "There are now quite a number of mechanisms and initiatives regarding Afghanistan. Countries in the region should increase communication to ensure that the relevant mechanisms are viable, practical and efficient and can play a positive role ... We should avoid overlapping of various mechanisms ... we should be open and inclusive and promote sound interaction with other partners ... It is imperative to respect the leading role of the United Nations in coordinating international efforts and demonstrate openness and transparency." 

*Yang then added a punchline: *[/SIZE]"Countries from *outside the region* should vigorously support the efforts of countries *in the region *and fully appreciate their difficulties in order to foster sound interactions between the two." In effect, he challenged the US's monopoly of conflict-resolution. 

*Yang demanded *that the Obama administration should get off the back of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He asked Washington to "respect the leading role of Afghanistan in economic reconstruction and let the Afghan government and people sit in the driver's seat. China supports channeling more assistance through the Afghan government and making more investment ... on the basis of equal consultations with the Afghan government." 

Equally, "[The] international community should fully respect the unique history, culture and religion as well as the current development stage of Afghanistan, take into consideration the realities and difficulties of the Afghan government and respect the wishes of the Afghan people. In short, we should let Afghanistan choose on its own a governance model most suited to its own national circumstances." 

*Obama deserves another Nobel *

Chinese commentaries have since robustly questioned the efficacy of the Obama administration's plan to "reintegrate" the Taliban, saying it is a deeply flawed idea and raises concerns that Karzai may be ultimately forced into making "certain political concessions" to the insurgents in terms of a power-sharing arrangement and constitutional reform. 

They lamented that the entire exercise aimed at "a graceful exit strategy" for the US and its allies and "appears to have been carefully stage-managed to allow the US and NATO troops to start scripting a withdrawal. But perceived in a certain light, it could be counter-productive." 

The Chinese commentaries underlined that the plan to split the Taliban by buying off its cadres and reintegrating those who had no links with al-Qaeda wouldn't work. "The United States has always tried to spend its way into a solution, a tactic that could backfire with the more extreme element of the Taliban ... the prospect conjures images of a bottomless money pit." 

China is far from alone among the regional powers to harbor deep misgivings about the US's plan to reconcile the Taliban. *Almost word-by-word, Moscow or Delhi will be pleased by what Yang said. *

Yet, if Yang's Russian and Indian counterparts chose to keep their counsel at the London conference, Obama could claim credit for it as a superb practitioner of smart power and grand bargains - worthy of a Nobel - even if his plan to pacify Taliban leader Mullah Omar gets nowhere. 

Ambassador *M K Bhadrakumar *_was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. _

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) 

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan


----------



## Fighter488

Another view of the situation. This time Pakistan centric!

Fighter


*:. Indian Prospective Retreat from Afghanistan ​*

Kashmir Watch, Feb 14

By Sajjad Shaukat 

Since the US-led NATO forces occupied Afghanistan after 9/11, stiff resistance of the Taliban militants against the occupying forces created unending lawlessness in the country which has become a most conducive place for India so as to prepare conspiracy in order to fulfill its secret strategic designs against Iran, China and especially Pakistan. 

Under the pretext of Talibinisation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, India has been running secret operations against Pakistan from its consulates in Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad, Kandhar and other sensitive parts of the Pak-Afghan border. It has spent millions of dollars in Afghanistan to strengthen its hold on the country. New Delhi has not only increased its military troops in Afghanistan, but has also decided to set up cantonments. In this respect, puppet regeme of Hamid Karzai encouraged India in using the Border Roads Organisation in constructing the ring roads by employing Indo-Tibeten police force for security. 

According to an estimate, world&#65533;s 90% heroin is cultivated in Afghanistan. However, money earned through drug-smuggling and even hostage-takings is utilized in buying weapons, being sent to the foreign agents in Pakistan. 

In the past, emboldened by the tactical support of the US and Israel, Indian RAW, based in Afghanistan has been sending well-trained agents in Pakistan, who have joined the ranks and files of the Taliban. Posing themselves as the Pakistan Taliban, they not only attack the check posts of Pakistan&#65533;s security forces, but also target schools and mosques. They are continuously conduct suicide attacks in our country. *In this context, India has also arranged some Madrassas in Afghanistan* ( This really is a NEWS to me. Fighter ) where highly motivated and RAW-paid militants are being trained with the help of Indian so-called Muslims scholars. Now, Indian support to insurgency in the Frontier Province and the Baloch separatism has become a common matter. 

Besides backing terrorism in Pakistan, India is also in collusion with the Balochi separatist leaders who have taken shelters in Afghanistan. For example, Akber Bugti&#65533;s grandson, Brahmdagh Bugti has been operating against Pakistan from Kabul. On July 23, 2008, in an interview with the BBC, Brahmdagh Bugti revealed that they &#65533;have the right to accept foreign arms and ammunition from anywhere including India.&#65533;&#65533; 

Pakistan&#65533;s civil and military high officials have been repeatedly revealing that Indian RAW, Israeli Mossad and other foreign agencies, collaborating in Afghanistan are involved in creating unrest in Pakistan 

On April 23, 2009, in the in-camera sitting of the Senate, Rehman Malik displayed documentary evidence of Indian use of Afghanistan to create unrest in FATA and Balochistan.

During various press briefings, ISPR spokesman, Maj-Gen. Athar Abbas has also indicated infiltration from Afghanistan by saying that foreign spies along with huge cache of arms, made of Indian origin were captured during the military operations.

While Pakistan&#65533;s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Quereshi have also repeatedly indicated that Islamabad has strong evidence of Indian intervention in Pakistan, and the same would be shown to the foreign countries. 

Regarding Indian undue incursion, even Pakistan&#65533;s Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani assertively said in the NATO meeting at Brussels that the NATO countries, which have greater stakes in Afghanistan, should pay heed to the concerns raised by Islamabad particularly regarding Indian interference in Pakistan through Afghanistan. On his return from Brussels on February 1, Kayani denied that Pakistan wanted a &#65533;Talibanised&#65533;&#65533; Afghanistan, and said his country has no interest in controlling Afghanistan. He further pointed out that peace and stability in Afghanistan were crucial to Islamabad&#65533;s long-term interests. 

In the past, some American officials had also suggested to engage India in ****** strategy. But while realsing the ground realties, a shift started in the US strategy in the end of 2009. In this regard, on September 20, 2009, NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had clearly revealed: "Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan including significant development efforts&#65533;¦is likely to exacerbate regional tensions." 

During his recent visit to India, US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, while discussing Afghanistan with Indian leadership, has urged India to be transparent with Pakistan about their activities in Afghanistan. 

*In this connection, some rapidly changing developments show that India will have to withdraw its networks from Afghanistan in future.* To what extent, India has been creating lawlessness in Afghanistan by using Afghan soil for terrorist activities against Pakistan as well as Iran could be judged from the fact that on January 16, three foreign ministers of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan committed to non-interference in the internal affairs of each country, ensuring that their territories were not used for activities detrimental to each other&#65533;s interests. 

On January 29 this year, in their final communique, world leaders of the London Conference agreed on a timetable for the handover of security duties to the Afghan forces in late 2010, while backing Afghan President Hamid Karzai&#65533;s plan to reintegrate the willing Taliban to pursue political goals peacefully. In this context, sources suggest that dialogue with the Afghan Taliban has already started through some backdoor channels. 

While India was interested in the training of Afghan security forces, and was covertly making strenuous efforts in that respect, but no country in the London Conference considered New Delhi&#65533;s case. On the other side, Pakistan&#65533;s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has remarked that Islamabad was ready to train Afghan forces on is own soil. In fact, Afghanistan and Pakistan share common geographical, historical, religious and cultural bonds. So Islamabad&#65533;s case of training the Afghan forces is stronger than that of New Delhi which is only manipulating the phenomenon of regional terrorism against Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

Moreover, Pakistan&#65533;s successful Swat-Malakand and Waziristan military operations have surprised the US-led western countries as our armed forces dismantled the command and control system of the Taliban militants within some months. They did in eight months what the US-led NATO forces could not do in Afghanistan in more than eight years. In this regard, while praising Pakistan&#65533;s security forces, western high officials insisted upon New Delhi to observe restraint in connection with its war-mongering style. It is due to these developments that the US and European countries have donated million of dollars for the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). 

It is owing to these new developments in relation of Pakistan and Afghanistan that while applauding Islamabad&#65533;s role against terrorism, President Obama and other high officials of America have openly been saying that they badly need Pakistan for war on terror. 

It is mentionable that in the State of the Union address, the US President Obama has repeatedly said that American combat troops will begin a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan from July 2011. Nonetheless, after bearing major losses like cost of war, amounting to more than 6 trillion dollars, financial crisis and domestic pressure, US strongly supports process of reintegration&#65533;peace and reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban with the sole aim of leaving that country in accordance with the announced schedule. 

Meanwhile, although the US-led coalition has started the operation, Moshtarak(Together), the largest offensive military operation since the in 2001 in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, yet it is also part of American fast exit strategy from Afghanistan. 

*If US-led NATO forces pull out of Afghanistan, Indian influence will be eliminated by the Taliban insurgency. As a result New Delhi will have to retreat from Afghanistan, rolling back its anti-Pakistan agenda. * 

_*Sajjad Shaukat *writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations. Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com _

Kashmir Watch :: In-depth coverage on Kashmir conflict


----------



## Fighter488

AFGHANISTAN- WHAT INDIA SHOULD EXPECT AND WHAT IT SHOULD DO | Hard News

*AFGHANISTAN- WHAT INDIA SHOULD EXPECT AND WHAT IT SHOULD DO​* 
_*Vikram Sood*, the former RAW chief explains the situation in Afghanistan and also puts forth the options available to India_


Afghanistan has been at the cross roads of great empires and thus a scene for frequent/brutal conflict but never under the control of any outside power for long.

In the last 30 years Afghanistan has seen the effects of a Communist takeover promising liberation from feudalism and assuring equality, a religious bigoted group establishing itself spearheaded by US led Islamic zeal, followed by the US attempts to give the hapless country liberty and equality. Today we once again see the return of the Taliban and the US eager to negotiate with the same ideology and the same people they wanted to overthrow in 2001. There are many who say that this is actually a display of ethnic nationalism under the guise of a religious movement.

Situation in Afghanistan is a very complex one with a number of actors - internal and external, conflicting interests and capabilities. It is not likely to change in the next few years.

&#9632;This includes the various ethnic nationalities of Afghanistan. 
&#9632;The warlords and their vested interests in the production and smuggling of narcotics, and arms.
&#9632;Corruption alone is a US $ 2 billion industry. A weak government in Kabul without any viable succession option visible. 
&#9632;Its inability to exercise any control outside Kabul is well known. It has weak army and law enforcement machineries; their growth is hindered by factors of corruption and local ethnic interests. Attempts to establish an ANA and ANP have been slow and arduous. 
&#9632;Most importantly, there is more than one group operating inside Afghanistan and many from Pakistani soil.
There are a number of external players and their own interests. The US and its allies want to make US free of any terrorism emanating from Afghanistan which is a threat to them and their allies. To do this they rely on Pakistan whose interests are different from the American interests and whose co-operation is less than forthcoming. Having made Pakistan totally indispensible to their cause, US has allowed Pakistan to play the spoiler. Pakistan, obsessed with India, has assumed that the control of Kabul slipping into the hands of the Taliban and that the Taliban being under their control would leave them in an advantageous position vis-a-vis India. The Pak establishment has endeavoured, successfully so far, to keep India out of any international arrangement aimed at solving the Afghan tangle. 

That being so, a solution to the problem is equally difficult. 

There are several kinds of insurgencies afloat in Afghanistan since 2002.

The Quetta Shura in South and Eastern Afghanistan . Sirajuddin Haqqani in Pakhtia, Pakhtika, Jalalabad . Salafis of Hayatullah in Kunnar and Nooristan. Hizb- e-Islami of Hikmetyar but have now mostly been fighting under the banner of Taliban. The Pakistani Taliban, their own sub groups according to region and clan, and their various associates from the LeT , JeM, SSP, LJ. And then, there is the Al Qaeda.

For the present Pakistan may exult. It presumes that the inevitable and hopefully substantial departure of the US/NATO would leave it with the much sought after strategic depth. 

It is difficult to predict if and when the US will change its decades old policy of pardoning Pakistan all its transgressions. What we need to take into account is that one of these days the US will carry out its much vaunted but ridiculously inadequate much delayed surge, declare mission accomplished and thin out. Its long-term policies are dictated by election year compulsions. Once the coalition forces begin to pull out a few things will inevitably happen as other interests try to fill the empty spaces. It is a retreat by another name. It is different from the Vietnam quagmire because the Vietnamese did not come after the Americans for vengeance. The Afghans will. Istanbul and London are the markers for the retreat. Although US may put whatever spin it may want to.

Pakistan will naturally assume that its moment has come again and it could now acquire its much dreamt strategic depth, throw the Indians out and be the overlord in Afghanistan.

&#9632;The Iranians are unlikely to remain idle spectators as a Sunni Wahabi neighbour is going to be an unsettling factor for them. 
&#9632;Saudi Arabia on the other hand would want a Wahabi regime in Afghanistan that would check the Iranians and hopefully also keep the anti-Saudi extremists in Afghanistan.
&#9632;The Chinese have already begun to move in with their commercial and resource interests into Afghanistan as they would see an opportunity to move closer to the Persian Gulf, given their steady relations with the Iranians. The Chinese would see themselves moving into empty spaces up to the Persian Gulf vacated by a retreating American empire without having fired a bullet and lost a man. They also need to keep the Islamist extremists away from sensitive areas like Xinjiang so their presence in Afghanistan and image might be an insurance against the marauding extremists. 
&#9632;The Central Asian Republics and Russia have their concerns about the dangers of Talibanised ideology spreading into their countries. Russia is realigning; so is Japan..
&#9632;Finally, the absence of a strong centralised authority will only create more confusion in a country that has been run on drug money and foreign doles. 
&#9632;Pakistan's exultation may be temporary. Unable to control its own territory it is unlikely to be able to run Afghanistan in the way it may want to. It does not have the resources to do so and the US, hopefully, may not sub lease Afghanistan to Pakistan this time. The other very real danger is that the Pushtuns on both sides of the Durand Line, joined together in a common fight for decades, may well ask if they fought all these years only to end up being minorities in both countries. The departure of the Coalition Forces will only add to the instability of the region and India needs to prepare itself for this eventuality. 

It is an accepted fact of history that the Taliban were the creation of Pakistan. But what is not known today is the degree of control Pakistan exercises on the Taliban.

Either way it is feared that there will be a destabilising effect on PK. One would doubt if the Pashtun/Taliban will rest after assuming power in Afghanistan. A victorious Taliban in Kabul is less likely to accept the Durand Line. 

Rahimullah Yusufzai in a recent article in the News (February 2, 2010) made this very astute observation when he said that the "Return of the Afghan Taliban to power whether by force or some peace process, would definitely raise the spirits of the Pakistani Taliban and likeminded jihadis and thus lead to fallout on the situation in Pakistan." He added that "There is bound to be fallout on Pakistan when the world's most powerful armies are involved in the longest war in the US and NATO history in neighbouring Afghanistan. And the fallout is to be expected because the US and NATO consider Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas as theatres of the same war and have thus deliberately named their strategy to deal with the challenge as ******."

If the Taliban succeed in Afghanistan then one can expect a repeat of what happened in India after the retreat of the Soviets from Afghanistan. There will be far too many of unemployed jihadis in Pakistan who would want to continue their jihad.

*The status of the Afghan army and the police *

The dilemma is that losing is not an option for the US; stalemate is strategic defeat for a superpower; troop augmentation to the extent required is unacceptable, and even a surge of 40000 is difficult. The much talked of Afghan army is still a ghost army. Ann Jones in her report in the Nation (Sep 21, 2009) had described the Afghan Army as a figment of Washington's imagination. It does not exist in the numbers claimed, it is untrained, many of the recruits/trainees are repeats who come back with new names for the money, the food and the equipment they can take away and sell. It is a frightening thought to have a man trained with rubber guns for three weeks, then given the real gun and sent off to fight battles for his country. 

This became apparent when the Helmand campaign began last July and the ANA could muster only 600 men, far short of the 90000 that are supposed to be enlisted. The hope that Afghanistan will suddenly have an efficient 134000 strong army in two years is very much a false hope. What should worry Washington is that there have been reports of demoralisation and self-doubts among some sections of the US forces. The state of the Afghan police is even worse with 60&#37; suspected to be on drugs. Ill equipped and ill trained, they are easy pickings for the Taliban. No wonder Pakistan will continue to hedge its bets with the Taliban, targeting only those that they see threatening them. They are aware also that NATO countries may not be able last out in Afghanistan much beyond 2010.

There are many Afghans who do not see the Taliban as necessarily bigoted or evil; they see the possibility of a more rational Taliban regime once the US has left.

*Striking deals with the Taliban*
It is presumed that some kind of a deal will be attempted in the months ahead. Mullah Omar will accept to negotiate only after the US /NATO leave. If the US objective is to get rid of foreign militants then the Taliban may be more willing to talk. But the trust deficit is huge. 

The Afghan/Pashtun/Taliban fear is that the surge and augmentation of ANA/ANP would eventually mean more targets, more damage more explosions - more deaths and destruction. This would be a part of the surge. 

All indications are that the US/NATO will commence withdrawal/disengagement around mid-2011. It is necessary for us to think of the post-US situation. The West had made it their business 8 years ago to get rid of Al Qaeda and Taliban from Afghanistan to make America and its friends safe. Today, they rationalise and prepare for a dignified exit by saying that Al Qaeda is not really in Afghanistan while the Taliban are a reality, so the world must deal with this reality.

There are talks of good/moderate Taliban and the hardcore/bad Taliban. These are essentially rationalisations to set the new discourse. Moderate Taliban or those who will be weaned away from the main Taliban and may not have the authority to deliver what they promise. It is doubtful, if Taliban would strike a deal with the US under pressure from the Pakistanis on terms that are more favourable to the Taliban than to Mullah Omar. Attempts to divide the Taliban have essentially failed. In India we should stop post-event rationalisations on behalf of the Americans.

*Options to Pakistan*
One sees a new mood in Islamabad post Istanbul and London. A new mood of assertiveness, self confidence and aggression is visible in Kayani's statements and Qureshi's choreographed obduracy prior to the talks and collective theatrics afterwards. Pakistan will up its demands with Washington in the months ahead. For India it will do likewise. The cue this time will be water. Pakistan will buy additional insurance for itself in Afghanistan while keeping its options in India open and up the ante in Kashmir. This will be to provoke an Indian reaction and get out of having to take sterner action against the Taliban in Balochistan and Afghanistan.

&#9632;One can expect the following in the next few months from Pakistan:
&#9632;Intefada type protests in Kashmir
&#9632;Provocations to keep Indian Army engaged yet seek their withdrawal
&#9632;Terrorism in the rest of India. 
&#9632;One can expect continued terrorist attacks in Afghanistan against Indians and Indian assets to frighten away India from Afghanistan since persuasion through the US has not succeeded.
&#9632;Water will be the issue that will be used to unite the people against India as the temperature in Kashmir is raised.
&#9632;Consolidate in Afghanistan by making itself a party to any negotiations that the Americans may have with the Taliban, so that Pakistan remains in control
&#9632;Insulate and preserve India-specific terrorist organisations for use from time to time.
&#9632;Talk to India which would be showcased as a favour to the US

*What should India do*

&#9632;Indian primary interest is to prevent Pakistan from using Afghanistan as a base for terrorist activity in India.
&#9632;The other interest is to seek access to Central Asia through Afghanistan and Iran, since Pakistan will not oblige.
&#9632;It would be self defeating to withdraw from Afghanistan at this juncture after the attack in Kabul because this is what the Pakistanis want India to do. India must therefore continue with its present policy of providing infrastructure and financial assistance to the Karzai government something which has earned India tremendous goodwill in that country. 
&#9632;It is hoped that by staying on and continuing this assistance under greater safety guarantees from the Afghan government could help strengthen Karzai's hands.
&#9632;India needs to develop contacts/strengthen them as the case maybe with all sections in Afghanistan, with different power centres and ethnic groups, including the Pashtun and the Taliban too.
&#9632;Russia, China, the Central Asian Republics and Iran are all extremely wary of the spread of Wahabi Islam and its destabilising consequences. These are the other interested regional powers with whom India must seek common ground to address common problems

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Super Falcon

hahahahhahaahhhahahaha indians willl be kicked by afghans in future for sure


----------



## ajpirzada

i see some intense debate going on in india on their fate in afghanistan. this is not less interestin than a game of chess. 

all i wish is taliban somehow come to the negotiating table and accept the democratic process which is the only way to insure peoples say. 

the issue also is that we cannot simply ignore taliban as they are a major force (good or evil it doesnt really matter as of now). however if talibans come back, this does not grantee any soft depth to pakistan. taliban dont see us as a dependable ally any more. also with them indifferent to militants from china, they might provide them refuge and hence affect pak china relationship in the long run. Furthermore if any other incident like 9/11 happens in western world then that will be the last card on the deck for pakistan doesnt matter who is involved in it. only possible gain of pakistan will be limited indian influence but that comes with a lot of risk. 

not many can see but here we have got a win win situation for everyone including india and that is the political integration of taliban even if americans have to leave. talibans should be made to agree either by ISI or anyone else that they have to cut their ties with al qaeda. a gud sign in this regard is that mullah omar has mentioned that he will not be of any threat to any country. system of democracy in line with that of iranian can be worked out where mullah omar can be made supreme leader with ceremonial powers while making sure that democracy doesnt die. 

any ideas and viewpoints are more than welcome


----------



## lemurian

ajpirzada said:


> not many can see but here we have got a win win situation for everyone including india and that is the political integration of taliban even if americans have to leave.



Power sharing is definitely a probable outcome. Can u elaborate on how the integration of Taliban is a win-win situation (for India)? As far as i know India's position is ruthlessly Anti-Taliban. I don't think either country will sacrifice its interests.


----------



## lemurian

http://http://www.dnaindia.com/india/analysis_pak-poking-nose-india-must-change-afghanistan-policy_1357372


With the US and Nato forces getting ready to withdraw as early as next year, New Delhi has to look at a situation where president Hamid Karzai and his people are no longer in control and the Taliban would once again call the shots.

&#8220;Unless India prepares for the time when the American&#8217;s pull out, we will not be in a position to face the political crisis that it will trigger,&#8221; former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said.

He suggested that one way to do so was to revive the India-Russia-Iran axis which supported the Northern Alliance and played an important role in helping the US dislodge the Taliban in 2001.


----------



## Creder

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...9879-pakistan-us-agree-new-afghan-set-up.html


----------



## ajpirzada

lemurian said:


> Power sharing is definitely a probable outcome. Can u elaborate on how the integration of Taliban is a win-win situation (for India)? As far as i know India's position is ruthlessly Anti-Taliban. I don't think either country will sacrifice its interests.



there is no such thing as 'ruthlessly anti-taliban' in any foreign policy. i have posted a news in strategic section from which you can see that pakistan has starting talking to northern alliance to work out a possible new set up in which talibans will also be a part. 
with northern alliance not going anywhere india can easily interact with them and slowly soften her stance on taliban by increasing dialogue with them. 
though in the short run it looks like a severe blow to india but with time india will regain its lost ground especially in terms of trade. afghanistan will definitely need to rebuild her infrastructure with which india can help a lot more than pakistan. 

with this new setup, afghanistan will not be sub state of any state but rather a friendly country to both of us. well i should say to the whole of region.


----------



## Creder

ajpirzada said:


> there is no such thing as 'ruthlessly anti-taliban' in any foreign policy. i have posted a news in strategic section from which you can see that pakistan has starting talking to northern alliance to work out a possible new set up in which talibans will also be a part.
> with northern alliance not going anywhere india can easily interact with them and slowly soften her stance on taliban by increasing dialogue with them.
> though in the short run it looks like a severe blow to india but with time india will regain its lost ground especially in terms of trade. afghanistan will definitely need to rebuild her infrastructure with which india can help a lot more than pakistan.
> 
> with this new setup, afghanistan will not be sub state of any state but rather a friendly country to both of us. well i should say to the whole of region.



Im sorry mate few people share that optimism of yours, for india and Pakistan Afghanistan is at the core of their strategic ineterests...Whichever country holds Afghanistan will dominate the foreign policies, economic policies and regional politics not only within this region but will also gain a powerful foothold to project itself globally..If India gains Afghanistan, they wont be there to spread flowers and build roads they're strategic interests will lie in effectively cutting the threshold between china and pakistan and will be in a much better position to assert there power and policies over Pakistan becuase they will pretty much have cornered us from all sides, as a Pakistani thats one outcome i certainly dont want happeneing.

If Pakistan gains its influence back, it will benefit a lot .. now im not even mentioning the incentives it is being offered to bring talibs and the alliance to an agreement, the edge that it will give it over India will be a decesive factor in all the our foreign policies, regarding kashmir, water and what not.

Now im sure you guys have read all the reports and what not, but here's the bottom line without Pakistan there will be no peace in Afghanistan... And no matter how much development India or any other country does its useless to bringing peace in Afghanistan because only Pakistan can bring stability to that country, for it is the only country who has sway over the parties involved in conflict.


----------



## ajpirzada

well im not saying anything much different. if you havent noticed, under this new set-up not only taliban but also northern alliance will be in the gov. though this will give pakistan a big edge in the short run but also wont close all doors for india. india will regain its ground on friendly terms by investing in infrastructure. 

this is the ideal situation which should come out of this whole set-up but definitely many actors would like to have complete influence which i dont think will be possible anymore


----------



## Creder

ajpirzada said:


> well im not saying anything much different. if you havent noticed, under this new set-up not only taliban but also northern alliance will be in the gov. though this will give pakistan a big edge in the short run but also wont close all doors for india. india will regain its ground on friendly terms by investing in infrastructure.
> 
> this is the ideal situation which should come out of this whole set-up but definitely many actors would like to have complete influence which i dont think will be possible anymore



it should be the end goal and it is the only way peace can be maintained here...if a joint talib alliance government is made to work with each other, eventually they will go back to fighting again..the only way to prevent this is to stop foreign influences, even if they are under goodwill from creeping back into Afghanistan. First if India is kicked out of Afghanistan they wont come back to build roads, there strategy will be to creep back in and try to build up they're influence...same goes for Pakistan if they are curbed out of Afghanistan they wont take lightly to it and are bound by their interests to deter India's influence..so you see the Afghanis are walking on a very thin rope here and so are the rest of us


----------



## Omar1984

Why doesn't India focus more on its immediate neighbours, Nepal, Butan, Myanmar, and Bangladesh? Why is India so obsessed about Central Asia? Even Nehru and his daughter were so obsessed about NWFP, because it is a gateway to Central Asia.


----------



## Omar1984

lemurian said:


> http://http://www.dnaindia.com/india/analysis_pak-poking-nose-india-must-change-afghanistan-policy_1357372
> 
> 
> With the US and Nato forces getting ready to withdraw as early as next year, New Delhi has to look at a situation where president Hamid Karzai and his people are no longer in control and the Taliban would once again call the shots.
> 
> &#8220;Unless India prepares for the time when the American&#8217;s pull out, we will not be in a position to face the political crisis that it will trigger,&#8221; former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said.
> 
> *He suggested that one way to do so was to revive the India-Russia-Iran axis which supported the Northern Alliance and played an important role in helping the US dislodge the Taliban in 2001*.



Thats funny. Iran sees Israel and U.S. as its biggest threat, not taliban anymore...and india is israels' closest ally and voted against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005 under pressure from its' Western allies, also India backed out of the IPI.

And Russia today is getting closer to China.

India belongs in South Asia, far away from Central Asia.


----------



## ajpirzada

Creder said:


> it should be the end goal and it is the only way peace can be maintained here...if a joint talib alliance government is made to work with each other, eventually they will go back to fighting again..the only way to prevent this is to stop foreign influences, even if they are under goodwill from creeping back into Afghanistan. First if India is kicked out of Afghanistan they wont come back to build roads, there strategy will be to creep back in and try to build up they're influence...same goes for Pakistan if they are curbed out of Afghanistan they wont take lightly to it and are bound by their interests to deter India's influence..so you see the Afghanis are walking on a very thin rope here and so are the rest of us



1: yes they will fight if they are left on their own. but not if they are ruled by someone who is acceptable to both of them. i dont remember the name but in this other news there was a name of a son of some King. it will be quite tricky but if worked out somehow it will be best

2: which country will do wat once it looses phase 1 is not what i am talking about. wat i am talking about is what they should do to keep them relevant. this crave for complete influence in afghanistan will not be gud in long run


----------



## lemurian

Omar1984 said:


> Thats funny. Iran sees Israel and U.S. as its biggest threat, not taliban anymore...and india is israels' closest ally and voted against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005 under pressure from its' Western allies, also India backed out of the IPI.



I think the only perspective that Iran and India share is that there is no "good" Taliban and bad Taliban. Iran takes the position that involving the Taliban would worsen the regional situation.

Afghanistan to top India-Iran talks - India - The Times of India

On the other hand India Iran relations are not at their best as you pointed out.. I would also like to point out that India has had a harrowing experience with the Taliban(1999 Kandahar Hijack).. It wont be easy coming to terms with recent developments . But there may be no other option. Interesting situation


----------



## asq

Ahmad said:


> Dont forget how public opinion is against Pakistan in Afghanistan. That is all what counts and is the most important issue.



only y the people who were against Pakistan will now have another survey in favor o f Pakistan, u should know how it works, look at the elections, who won and who was favorite, that should tell u something about surveys


----------



## asq

EjazR said:


> India has had good relations with Afghanistan and the ruling establishment since 1947 till the fall of Najibullah's govt. in '93. Najibullah's family members took shelter in Indian consulates and later took asylum in India. After that there was anarchy, and later when the Taliban took over, almost no country in the world including neighbors like Iran, the CARs and Turkey did not have working relationship with Afghanistan.
> 
> And for a Pakistani to dictate who can and can't help Afghans is again a foreigner dictating the Afghans, I would assume something highly unplatable to the Afghans, including pashtoons.



a mere rant.


----------



## EjazR

^^^
I would be much obliged if you could tell me what is incorrect in what I said.

Isn't it true that only Pakistan, UAE and KSA recognized the Taliban. And Iran and CARs were actively involved in opposing the Taliban. 

Ahmed Rashid's book *Taliban *is one of the main sources that I have based what I have said this on. He has been reporting for this region for the past 25 years.


----------



## asq

EjazR said:


> ^^^
> I would be much obliged if you could tell me what is incorrect in what I said.
> 
> Isn't it true that only Pakistan, UAE and KSA recognized the Taliban. And Iran and CARs were actively involved in opposing the Taliban.
> 
> Ahmed Rashid's book *Taliban *is one of the main sources that I have based what I have said this on. He has been reporting for this region for the past 25 years.



Ejaz u r wrong million percent,

let me set the record stright for you from now own.

Talibans were created on the request by you know who, and as we were requested we could only do it if we recognised them, do you not understand that how could Pakistan ask a group of people to fight one of the best Army in the world and not recognise them.

India was a full supporter of Russians invation and now it is plying a clever game that if they were always for Afghans and it is two face by not stepping up to tell that Russia duing their invation killed 2.5 million afghans were wrong and that India was wrong in suporting Russians in their failed adventure, how can India live with itself.

Iran was opposed for its interests about shia/sunny problem created by those who like to see disunity in Muslims. And play their game like puppets. CAR is part of the same game. 

Let me ask u a question? 

What did Pakistan gain out of Talibans, other than thousands of pakistani killed. We had our heart at the right place for not allowing Russians, a communist entity to take over Afghanistan, of coarse our brothers, Pashtuns played a big role in it. But they been doing this for this area for centuries.

I have not read Rashid's book but if he undermined Talibans, he is not right. I also think that the whole world should have stepped up and recognise talibans, this mess would have not taken place had they done this, but they left this mess only for Pakistan to tackle. 

Now I am not a suporter of Talibans, but if they tell me the truth I will accept it, and the truth starts when Europeans consorsium came to Afghanistan to help them during their rule and instead of promising help to feed hungry childern and built school.

They decided to repair Statues, now i am all for preserving history, but first thing first and that is to feed childern, talibans in their anger destroyed Statues, I donot condone their action of destroying statues, they did not however destroy all of the statues, there are still many left.

But why would Europeans consorsium commit to statues, when urgent help is needed for living. This kind of act i would say will not win people over, they had a differant agenda than the one neccesary to solve the problem at hand.

LET ME PUT UP AN ARTICLE BASED ON TRUTH,FACTS AND VALUES.
IT IS A MUST READ FOR ALL WHO UNDERMINE ISLAM AND PAKISTAN.

Dr. Munir Elkassem exposes world hypocrisy regarding reaction to Taliban

READ THIS TRUE EVALUATION AND THAN TALK TO ME.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

asq said:


> only y the people who were against Pakistan will now have another survey in favor o f Pakistan, u should know how it works, look at the elections, who won and who was favorite, that should tell u something about surveys



I havent got a clue what you mean by this post? When they conduct a poll, they ask questions randomly from people, no matter who they are. and the poll was coducted in 34 provinces. and now, if you dont accept that pakistan is not having good image in afghanistan then it is your choice and you can burry your face in the sand as much as you like, but that's not gona help you.

About the election, i dont know what you mean? who won and who lost? what is that? the election had alot of difficulties, the current was rightly accused of vote rigging in the south, and the election was truely danted by this fraud. although the election in the north, central parts, most of east and all of west were fair and free.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Ahmad said:


> Yes, I am talking about public, they have a very very negative idea of pakistan, and the pakhtoons you are talking about are not majority but the largest ethnic group which are 2 different cocepts. And abdullah? he is himself a Pashtoon but has his bases among Tajiks which are the second larget group in Afghanistan. Karzai himself a pashtoon is not fond of pakistan. Yes, people of afghanistan have life in pakistan due to their long stay in that country, but that will never change their mind about the negative policies of paksitan, especially pashtoons who consider NWFP as their own land which was stolen by paksitan, so stop ethnicizing the issues when you deal with afghanistan, otherwise you'll lose it all. you guys have already pushed non pashtoons away and the pashtoons dont like you because of durand line anyway.



is this a joke? Learn the ground realities. The people of NWFP/FATA are proud Pakistanis. This is as much our land as it is for Baluch/Punjabi/Sindhi/Kashmiri brothers & sisters. In fact, I have spoken to common people in Peshawar (shop-keepers, traders, cart-pushers even); it is Pakistanis who have the grievances - when Afghans come to this city hanging their flag and thinking this is their playground. On the other hand, I've met Afghans who now call themselves Pakistanis (a lot of them are born, raised, clothed and fed here).

Who are you to speak on behalf of Pakhtuns? There are more here in Pakistan than in Afghanistan!! Ask any Pakistani --he/she will tell you that their heart bleeds for Afghanistan and we want it to stablize. It's in our own geo-political and economic interests. But it annoys the Pakistani when you abuse our hospitality. 

People like Karzai, and other Afghans may or may not like Pakistan; maybe you can collect statistics and evidence, since you speak with such conviction. rolleyes

They come to Pakistan and take jobs; they settle here as permanent refugees (3-4 million of them). So if Afghans hate Pakistan, why do they come here then?



you sure you aren't indian yourself?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Telling us what?the caught RDS?medicine?surgical equipment?indian made weapons?or bas...d spies like kashmir singh?or sabarjeet bastard who killed several innocent people in blasts?or the facts that terrorists like balach and harbiyar confessing of being supported by some terrorist bas...ds from kabul on national tv?
> If thats the djin then Heil naked indian swami snake charmer sitting under a banyan tree.moun mein ram ram baghal mein churi.



Refer to confirmation of hindustany meddling, by Ehsanullah Aryanzai -- an advisor to Afghan government


http://pakobserver.net/200904/02/news/topstories08.asp


----------



## ramu

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Refer to confirmation of hindustany meddling, by Ehsanullah Aryanzai -- an advisor to Afghan government
> 
> 
> Top Stories | Pakistan Observer Newspaper online edition



Unbiased source


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

I would direct you to Afghanistan's Ariana TV but maybe you'd also call that biased?

learn about the Jirga that took place, all the info is online


----------



## EjazR

asq said:


> Ejaz u r wrong million percent,
> 
> let me set the record stright for you from now own.
> 
> Talibans were created on the request by you know who, and as we were requested we could only do it if we recognised them, do you not understand that how could Pakistan ask a group of people to fight one of the best Army in the world and not recognise them.


Sorry, I didn't get you here. Are you implying Americans or Saudis? The Taliban started of as an independent force but soon after, they were being backed by Pakistani agencies, GoP and then Saudi Arabia and American companies later. Please clarify what you mean here.




asq said:


> India was a full supporter of Russians invation and now it is plying a clever game that if they were always for Afghans and it is two face by not stepping up to tell that Russia duing their invation killed 2.5 million afghans were wrong and that India was wrong in suporting Russians in their failed adventure, how can India live with itself.


I guess you mean USSR if your talking about the soviet invasion. Indira Gandhi was in power, she should have condemned it outright, it was blatant aggression that India should have opposed and I am 100&#37; against the stand taken by India at that time. But GoI couldn't do that because USSR was the biggest provider of aids and arms to India. 

That is the problem you run into when you are taking aid from other countries and become a mute follower of the country that provides aid to you. But nevertheless, there was extensive condemnation by the public. There were protests in front of Russian embassy in India. 
Interestingly the PM during '79 was Morarji Desai and he had also expressed to USSR his reservation on the invasion and was a bit more vocal against it. However, he lost the elections to IG later.

And materially as well India did not contribute anything so a "full supporter" is wrong label. With Pakistan being armed with the latest US weapons for practically free and the open tilt US had shown to Pakistan in '71. GoI had to find other "friends" to help it out.

However, coming to the Taliban era post '93-94 then there was some active intervention by India. But it was still minimal when compared to Iran or CARs one of the reasons being the long supply lines.



asq said:


> Iran was opposed for its interests about shia/sunny problem created by those who like to see disunity in Muslims. And play their game like puppets. CAR is part of the same game.


CARs are sunni majority. Ahmed Shah Massod was sunni. it might have played some part for Iran. But the main reason was that Taliban was perceived as a Pakistani/Saudi/US proxy for some countries and on top of that it was the most brutal regime Afghanistan had seen, although some might say that the brutality was needed to bring Afghanistan back to peace.




asq said:


> Let me ask u a question?
> 
> What did Pakistan gain out of Talibans, other than thousands of pakistani killed. We had our heart at the right place for not allowing Russians, a communist entity to take over Afghanistan, of coarse our brothers, Pashtuns played a big role in it. But they been doing this for this area for centuries.


My view is Pakistan did not gain. Some others might differ. But how many Pakistanis realise that? Some (including Pakistanis) would say that one of the reasons why the Afghan Foreign Policy failed was because it was concentrated only in the hands of the army and agencies and the elected civilian gov.t never really had any input or a debate on what to do. A moral of the story here is that Pakistan foreign policy particularly for its neighbors should be given to its elected representative rather than being discussed and decided upon in closed rooms by agencies and army. Otherwise the decision made by few will result in entire nation to suffer.



asq said:


> I have not read Rashid's book but if he undermined Talibans, he is not right. I also think that the whole world should have stepped up and recognise talibans, this mess would have not taken place had they done this, but they left this mess only for Pakistan to tackle.
> 
> 
> Now I am not a suporter of Talibans, but if they tell me the truth I will accept it, and the truth starts when Europeans consorsium came to Afghanistan to help them during their rule and instead of promising help to feed hungry childern and built school.
> 
> They decided to repair Statues, now i am all for preserving history, but first thing first and that is to feed childern, talibans in their anger destroyed Statues, I donot condone their action of destroying statues, they did not however destroy all of the statues, there are still many left.
> 
> But why would Europeans consorsium commit to statues, when urgent help is needed for living. This kind of act i would say will not win people over, they had a differant agenda than the one neccesary to solve the problem at hand.



He wrote this book in 2000-2001. It was before the 9/11 attacks. It is quite balanced. I also agree that nowadays a "section" of the public likes to indulge in Islam bashing for no justifiable reason and link Taliban to some "pure Islam" when that is far from the truth. There are plenty of regimes that have done worse human rights violations and atrocities than the Taliban but now Islam is in the spotlight. 
But one of the reasons is because a section of Muslims themselves kept calling it a sharia state and a Islamic regime confusing non-Muslims even further.




asq said:


> LET ME PUT UP AN ARTICLE BASED ON TRUTH,FACTS AND VALUES.
> IT IS A MUST READ FOR ALL WHO UNDERMINE ISLAM AND PAKISTAN.
> 
> Dr. Munir Elkassem exposes world hypocrisy regarding reaction to Taliban
> 
> READ THIS TRUE EVALUATION AND THAN TALK TO ME.



An interesting article but not completely accurate. He rightly says that Islam does not allow the things that the Taliban are doing and don't be hypocritical when you equate Taliban actions to Islam and declare that they are the worst when there have been even worse cases of HR violations. He also correctly points out some positive acts the Taliban did but there are some inaccuracies in that as well.

Ahmed Rashid who has been reporting from Afghanistan and Pakistan for 25 years would have certainly more knowledge than this person.

Secondly, there is no reason to link Islam and Pakistan when we are discussing state policies. Or like the author did the Taliban with Islam. The mistakes made by Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam so why do you want to do that. Is criticizing Pakistani policies equivalent to criticizing Islam?No 
I am a proud Muslim and I have always defended Islam against unjustified allegations and clarified misconceptions. So no need to bring Islam here


----------



## EjazR

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> I would direct you to Afghanistan's *Ariana TV *but maybe you'd also call that biased?
> 
> learn about the Jirga that took place, all the info is online



He is the head of Ariana TV, so it would be helpful to come up with another source. I know that there was some issues about involvement in Baluchistan but nothing related to TTP. Still very hard to find credible detailed info on this.


----------



## ADT

India needs to stay out of Afghanistan and let the U.S./NATO/UN do their jobs. India is nothing but a nuisance in Afghanistan.


----------



## DaRk WaVe



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmad

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> is this a joke? Learn the ground realities. The people of NWFP/FATA are proud Pakistanis. This is as much our land as it is for Baluch/Punjabi/Sindhi/Kashmiri brothers & sisters. In fact, I have spoken to common people in Peshawar (shop-keepers, traders, cart-pushers even); it is Pakistanis who have the grievances - when Afghans come to this city hanging their flag and thinking this is their playground. On the other hand, I've met Afghans who now call themselves Pakistanis (a lot of them are born, raised, clothed and fed here).
> 
> Who are you to speak on behalf of Pakhtuns? There are more here in Pakistan than in Afghanistan!! Ask any Pakistani --he/she will tell you that their heart bleeds for Afghanistan and we want it to stablize. It's in our own geo-political and economic interests. But it annoys the Pakistani when you abuse our hospitality.
> 
> People like Karzai, and other Afghans may or may not like Pakistan; maybe you can collect statistics and evidence, since you speak with such conviction. rolleyes
> 
> They come to Pakistan and take jobs; they settle here as permanent refugees (3-4 million of them). So if Afghans hate Pakistan, why do they come here then?
> 
> 
> 
> you sure you aren't indian yourself?



Dear Abo Zolfiqar, 

Where did I question the patriotism of Pakistani Pakhtuns? There might be some pakistani pakhtuns who have nationalistic ideas of separating NWFP, but vast majority of them are pakistanis first then pakhtuns, i can strongly see it in this forum and other places. That was not my point. I had another point that if pakistan tries to ethnicize(which is already doing) the issue of afghanistan and if they try to have ethnic based policies in Afghanistan then it will not be good for pakistan, becuse this policy will boost ethno nationalism among the ethnicities in Afghanistan and the pashtoons of afghanistan will have their eyes even more on NWFP. There was a survery recently by BBC which showed absolute majority of afghans didnt favour pakistan. I am not talking on behalf of pashtoons of afghanistan, thats what they say, i dont say anyting.


----------



## Fighter488

*Afghanistan: India digs in​*


_Intelligence Sees ISI Hand In Bid To Drive Indians Out _


TIMES NEWS NETWORK 



New Delhi: On February 26, when a suicide assault team attacked hotels and guesthouses predominantly used by Indians in Kabul, the first reaction was that this was a Taliban operation. 

But as Afghan intelligence officials began to piece things together, they discovered something else. In their initial contacts with both Taliban and al-Qaida, both groups were ignorant of the attack. 

That was surprising enough. But a few hours later, Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesperson from the Haqqani network, said they had done it. 

For Afghan officials, the trail led directly to Pakistan and to the ISI&#8217;s favourite terror group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which prompted Afghan security officials to ascribe responsibility for the attack early on. Later, they found that the attackers spoke Urdu. 

India is now convinced its people are being &#8220;stalked&#8221; in Afghanistan by Pakistan-supported groups so as to get India out of Afghanistan, *and fast*. The Kabul attack has complicated a lot of things for India, but leaving Afghanistan is not one of them. In fact, India will be investing in a lot of security assets in Afghanistan, so that prevention of terror attacks against Indian interests are easier to interdict or foil. 

As Pakistan becomes more determined to remove India from Afghanistan, by attacking the most vulnerable part of India&#8217;s presence, Afghanistan also risks becoming a theatre of India-Pakistan conflict. It&#8217;s easy to see why the US would find this troubling or complicating its war there. In Islamabad on Thursday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai referred to this as well. He particularly focused on India-Pakistan relations and Iran-US relations, both of which are being played out in his country. 

*&#8216;India close friend, Pak conjoined twin&#8217; * 

In a delicate balancing act, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday described India as a &#8220;close friend&#8221; while referring to Pakistan and Afghanistan as &#8220;conjoined twins.&#8221; In an attempt to assuage Pakistan, Karzai said his country would never allow its soil to be used for activities directed against Pakistan. TNN


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Ahmad said:


> Dear Abo Zolfiqar,
> 
> Where did I question the patriotism of Pakistani Pakhtuns? There might be some pakistani pakhtuns who have nationalistic ideas of separating NWFP, but vast majority of them are pakistanis first then pakhtuns, i can strongly see it in this forum and other places. That was not my point. I had another point that if pakistan tries to ethnicize(which is already doing) the issue of afghanistan and if they try to have ethnic based policies in Afghanistan then it will not be good for pakistan, becuse this policy will boost ethno nationalism among the ethnicities in Afghanistan and the pashtoons of afghanistan will have their eyes even more on NWFP. There was a survery recently by BBC which showed absolute majority of afghans didnt favour pakistan. I am not talking on behalf of pashtoons of afghanistan, thats what they say, i dont say anyting.




it's in Pakistan's interests for there NOT to be ethnic tensions or sectarian or other violence in Afghanistan. In fact, for years we have been hoping for an end to the carnage, as it has destabilizing factor for us as well; indians dont share a border with the land-locked country, so i dont even see what they need to (try) proving

secondly, the average Pakistani I'm sure has no ill feelings towards Afghans; not even the ones who have less of a chance getting a job since 4 million Afghans came and settled in refugee camps here. 
; not even the ones who know that illegal food herders were sending huge flocks of wheat rice & sugar to Afghanistan which helped cause price increase and shortages 


I personally couldnt care less. My mind is more focused on economy; and I know that Afghanistan needs us badly for our ports....and we need Afghanistan (a stable one) badly since it gives us direct access to land-locked Central Asian republics. Already we have access to Eurasia thanks to Isloo-Istanbul railways link. 

All we need really is proper leadership, and favourable security environment. People to people contacts and suspicion end when everybody is gaining from one another and there are mutual gains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fighter488

*Has US left India out of the loop on ******? ​*


*Complaints On Arms Supply To Pak Go Unheard *


Chidanand Rajghatta | TNN 



Washington: The atmospherics are good but the ground realities are unfavourable. India is struggling to stay relevant and advance its geo-political equities with the United States at a time Washington is buffeted by domestic pressures and international crises that are undercutting its resolve to put ties with New Delhi on a higher plane. Good intentions, broad agenda, and packed schedules notwithstanding, Indian diplomatic foray into Washington this week was notable for gripes and grievances than any significant advancement towards the stated goal of achieving a strategic relationship with the US, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had a series of meetings on Tuesday, including a drop-in by secretary of state Hillary Clinton at a state department meeting with her counterpart William Burns, but in the end there was no meeting of minds on the most fundamental security issue of the times. 

India and US disagree on Afghanistan and Pakistan. That much became clear towards the end of the foreign secretarys visit although elaboration on this issue was foiled by the cancellation of Raos wrap-up press meet (Indian Embassy said she was unwell). 

At a time when Washington is searching for an exit strategy from the A f-P ak region, a statement released at the end of her visit (in lieu of the cancelled press conference) tersely noted that she (Rao) reiterated Indias long-held position that it was important for the international community to stay the present course in Afghanistan for as long as it is necessary. The international community on the other hand wants to get the hell out of Afghanistan  yesterday. 

There were other unresolved issues. Raos engagement was also partly torpedoed by the withdrawal by the government of the nuclear liability bill in Parliament hours after her arrival here. As a result, there was little progress on tying up loose ends of the civilian nuclear deal including an agreement on reprocessing although there were brave words about the deal being on track and on schedule. 

Most notably, on the issue of high-tech cooperation, the Indian side was still pleading for removal of some its organizations from the so-called Entities List, seven years after the establishment of the group. The Indian side requested the US department of commerce to review US export controls applicable to India and update them to bring them in keeping with the changed political realities that contextualize India-US strategic partnership today, the concluding statement said. 

To say India has become a mere sideshow in Washington would be overstating it (besides meeting Clinton, Rao also called on the NSA Jim Jones and two key lawmakers on a day Washington was awash with the health care issue and the US-Israel spat). There were important advances in bilateral matters, including setting the stage for external affairs minister S M Krishnas visit to Washington shortly leading in turn to President Obamas visit to New Delhi later this year. 

But on the A f- Pak issue, India is clearly out of the loop. Pakistan is again the new game in town. Even as the Indian foreign secretary made the rounds of a capital in political and legislative ferment (over the health care bill), diplomatic corridors were abuzz with Afghan president Hamid Karzais own outreach to the Taliban through his brothers and Pakistans effort to impose itself on that engagement. 
Rao meanwhile was telling think-tankers that Taliban remained untouchables for New Delhi. Indias gripe about US arms to Pakistan also went largely unaddressed. In fact, even as Rao was complaining about the potential use by Pakistan of US-supplied weapons against India, Washington had delivered from its base in Jordan a squadron of 14 AH-1 Cobra advanced helicopter gunships to Pakistan.


----------



## Fighter488

*NSA: India to continue its relief work in Afghanistan *


TIMES NEWS NETWORK 



New Delhi: Dispelling any doubt over Indian engagement in Afghanistan in the face of rising threat perception, national security adviser Shivshankar Menon said on Wednesday that India is going to continue with its relief and reconstruction programme. Menon said that what India was doing in the country was in keeping with the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people.

&#8216;&#8216;What we are doing in Afghanistan is in response to what the people there want. We will continue to do what we are doing &#8212; restore economy and democracy and help the Afghan people lead normal lives. We will find ways to do it,&#8217;&#8217; said Menon, while releasing the book &#8216;India&#8217;s National Security Annual Review 2009&#8217; by Satish Kumar. Since the attack on Indians in Kabul on February 26, there has been constant speculation over whether or not India is going to scale down its operations. India has pledged $1.3 billion in assistance to Afghanistan. 

When asked about the status of engagement with Pakistan after the recent foreign secretary-level talks, Menon ruled out the resumption of composite dialogue anytime soon. The former foreign secretary quoted Albert Einstein to say that &#8216;&#8216;if we knew what we were doing we wouldn&#8217;t call it research&#8217;&#8217;. &#8216;&#8216;Just going back to composite dialogue doesn&#8217;t make sense; We are talking to explore what we can do but it needs two hands to clap,&#8217;&#8217; said Menon.


----------



## gen x

well as USA said many time India can play full role but they have send troops in Afghanistan


----------



## ajpirzada

*Afghanistan's brother Pakistan trumps friend India *
By Uddipan Mukherjee
Column: Machine GunPublished: March 17, 2010TOOLBAR

Kolkata, India &#8212; It&#8217;s time for India to pack up and leave Afghanistan, as no one wants it to stay there anymore. The Taliban and the Pakistani government never wanted it in the first place, and now even its friend Afghan President Hamid Karzai &#8211; admittedly under pressure &#8211; no longer wants India to interfere in the country&#8217;s affairs. It is just a matter of time now till India withdraws; only the modalities need to be sorted out. 
Karzai&#8217;s visit to Pakistan on March 10, during which he agreed to arrange a series of peace &#8220;jirgas&#8221; &#8211; decision-making assemblies with male elders or tribal leaders &#8211; with &#8220;active Pakistani involvement&#8221; made it clear that finally U.S.-Pakistan camaraderie in the global war on terror is bearing true fruit. 

The United States has disbursed the Kerry-Lugar aid package &#8211; financial assistance to strengthen Pakistan's civilian institutions &#8211; to the civil administration of Pakistan. In return, the Pakistani authorities have acted with energy in tightening the noose around the Taliban by pumping in resources to the country&#8217;s Federally Administered Tribal Areas in order to continue the military offensive. 

Ground operations in Pakistan&#8217;s Swat valley have also gone forward with enthusiasm. And to add to the list of accomplishments, several top Taliban commanders have been arrested in Pakistan, the big fish being Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, second in the hierarchy to Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban&#8217;s top leader. 

Pakistan should be praised for its cunning diplomatic moves. It has appeased the Americans by acting against the Taliban without totally alienating the Taliban.

Moreover, the civil administration seems to have handled pressures from the judiciary well, at least for the time being. Furthermore, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani configured proper arrangements with the chief of army staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, evident from the service extension of Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the chief of Pakistan&#8217;s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence.

India, however, appears to have bungled its own diplomatic initiatives. It did invest substantial finances in rebuilding war-torn Afghanistan, even completing the 200-kilometer Delaram-Zaranj highway. But it was never unambiguous in its approach. 

What did India actually want to achieve in Afghanistan? Did it want to thwart Pakistani efforts to establish strategic depth? Did it wish to use Afghanistan as a springboard into resource-rich Central Asia? Or was it just an economic venture? Only India&#8217;s foreign policy establishment can answer these queries.

Nevertheless, today even Karzai has come to terms with reality. He knows that in order to entrench himself in the seat of authority, he has to do three things. 

First, he should be on mutually agreeable terms with the Americans. Thus, he must negotiate with the Pakistani government.

Second, he needs to bring the Taliban &#8211; either the &#8220;good&#8221; or the &#8220;bad&#8221; or both &#8211; to the discussion table. To implement that, he must again appeal to the Pakistanis because of their close links with key Taliban leaders. 

Third, in order to make the first two issues a reality, he must not alienate the Pakistani civil-military elite in any manner. Thus, a natural corollary is to maintain a safe distance from the Indians. 

All of the above three moves would directly hurt Indian interests in the region. 

Actually, India&#8217;s calculations regarding Afghanistan were spectacularly misleading. It probably believed, definitely on an emotional note, that the United States could be bought by the nuclear deal, its vote against Iran, stalling the Indo-Iran gas pipeline and other nice rhetoric. 

But the United States wanted a far stronger ally, which could bring not only finances but also military might into Afghanistan if needed. And India vacillated on this point, torn by Gandhi-Nehru doctrinal ideology and post-Cold War realities. 

Finally, India succumbed to indecision, which has been the hallmark of Indian foreign policy ever since the country gained independence. 

So when the India-educated Karzai says, &#8220;India is a close friend of Afghanistan but Pakistan is a brother of Afghanistan. Pakistan is a twin brother. We are conjoined twins, there&#8217;s no separation,&#8221; India surely must shiver. 

In fact, this was inevitable and the signs were long apparent, at the London Conference on Afghanistan in January for example. India just did not pick up the signals on its radar, or perhaps simply did not heed the vibrations on the screen &#8211; which seems most likely. 

-- 

(Uddipan Mukherjee has a doctorate in physics from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, India. He writes on international relations and security issues pertaining to India. He blogs at: Machine Gun. &#169;Copyright Uddipan Mukherjee.) 


Afghanistan's brother Pakistan trumps friend India - upiasia.com


----------



## ajpirzada

i think india packing up and leaving is quite over blown. 
india will retain its economic presense but its earlier influence over afghan setup might get eroded


----------



## DaRk WaVe

*India out of the loop on ******​*
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
Mar 18, 2010

WASHINGTON: The atmospherics are good but the ground realities are unfavourable. India is struggling to stay relevant and advance its geo-political equities with the United States at a time Washington is buffeted by domestic pressures and international crises that are undercutting its resolve to put ties with New Delhi on a higher plane.

*Good intentions, broad agenda, and packed schedules notwithstanding, Indian diplomatic foray into Washington this week was notable for gripes and grievances than any significant advancement towards the stated goal of achieving a strategic relationship with the US, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had a series of meetings on Tuesday, including a drop-in by secretary of state Hillary Clinton at a state department meeting with her counterpart William Burns, but in the end there was no meeting of minds on the most fundamental security issue of the times.*

*India and US disagree on Afghanistan and Pakistan. That much became clear towards the end of the foreign secretary's visit although elaboration on this issue was foiled by the cancellation of Rao's wrap-up press meet (Indian Embassy said she was unwell).*
At a time when Washington is searching for an exit strategy from the ****** region, a statement released at the end of her visit (in lieu of the cancelled press conference) tersely noted that &#8220;she (Rao) reiterated India's long-held position that it was important for the international community to stay the present course in Afghanistan for as long as it is necessary.'' The international community on the other hand wants to get the hell out of Afghanistan &#8212; yesterday.

*There were other unresolved issues. Rao's engagement was also partly torpedoed by the withdrawal by the government of the nuclear liability bill in Parliament hours after her arrival here. As a result, there was little progress on tying up loose ends of the civilian nuclear deal including an agreement on reprocessing although there were brave words about the deal being on track and on schedule.*

Most notably, on the issue of high-tech cooperation, the Indian side was still pleading for removal of some its organizations from the so-called Entities List, seven years after the establishment of the group. &#8220;The Indian side requested the US department of commerce to review US export controls applicable to India and update them to bring them in keeping with the changed political realities that contextualize India-US strategic partnership today,'' the concluding statement said.

*To say India has become a mere sideshow in Washington would be overstating it (besides meeting Clinton, Rao also called on the NSA Jim Jones and two key lawmakers on a day Washington was awash with the health care issue and the US-Israel spat).* There were important advances in bilateral matters, including setting the stage for external affairs minister S M Krishna's visit to Washington shortly leading in turn to President Obama's visit to New Delhi later this year.

*But on the ****** issue, India is clearly out of the loop. Pakistan is again the new game in town. Even as the Indian foreign secretary made the rounds of a capital in political and legislative ferment (over the health care bill), diplomatic corridors were abuzz with Afghan president Hamid Karzai's own outreach to the Taliban through his brothers and Pakistan's effort to impose itself on that engagement.*

*Rao meanwhile was telling think-tankers that Taliban remained untouchables for New Delhi. India's gripe about US arms to Pakistan also went largely unaddressed. In fact, even as Rao was complaining about the potential use by Pakistan of US-supplied weapons against India, Washington had delivered from its base in Jordan a squadron of 14 AH-1 Cobra advanced helicopter gunships to Pakistan.*

India out of the loop on Af-Pak - India - The Times of India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DaRk WaVe

*Pakistan's role in Afghanistan : Tickets to the endgame*

*Pakistan wants a say in ending the war, and it knows how to ask*

Mar 18th 2010 | ISLAMABAD | From The Economist print edition

A HIGH-LEVEL delegation of Pakistanis is due to sweep into Washington for the restart on March 24th of a &#8220;strategic dialogue&#8221; with America. The Pakistanis have muscled their way to the table for what looks like a planning session for the endgame in Afghanistan. The recent arrest of the Taliban&#8217;s deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and a clutch of his high-ranking comrades, has won them a seat. 

The Pakistani team, led by the foreign minister, will include both the army chief and the head of the army&#8217;s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). America has upgraded its own representation at the talks, last held in mid-2008, from deputy-secretary to secretary-of-state level. The dialogue is supposed to cover the gamut of bilateral issues, including help for Pakistan&#8217;s fragile economy, and even, on its ambitious wish-list, civil nuclear technology. 

But the future of Afghanistan is the most pressing topic, and in Pakistan that issue is always controlled by the powerful army and the ISI. Pakistan believes that the Americans are coming to understand its fear of encirclement: a rising India to the east, uncertain relations with Iran to the west and growing Indian influence in Afghanistan to the north-west.

Whereas some see in Pakistan&#8217;s arrest of Mr Baradar hints of a strategic shift against its old jihadist proxies, it seems depressingly more likely to be an attempt by the ISI to grab control of the Taliban&#8217;s negotiating position. Mr Baradar had been making overtures directly to Hamid Karzai&#8217;s government in Kabul&#8212;bypassing Pakistan. 

According to a senior Pakistani official, the detention of Mr Baradar is a double victory for Pakistan. It has captured a Talib who had become troublesome. And it hoped to win plaudits for cracking down on the insurgency&#8217;s leaders, meeting longstanding demands from the NATO-led coalition and Afghan government. 

Instead, it finds itself criticised anew, despite dropping the denials it has maintained since 2001 that Afghan Taliban leaders were on its soil, and despite having acted against one of them. By some accounts Mr Karzai is angry that his favourite Talib was locked up. Other regional powers, such as India, Iran and Russia, are said to be alarmed that Pakistan is putting itself in the driving seat in the Afghan negotiations. According to Ahmed Rashid, a veteran observer of Afghanistan, Pakistan&#8217;s reinvigorated interference in its neighbour&#8217;s affairs risks setting off a regional competition for influence that could push Afghanistan back into the sort of civil war it endured in the 1990s, between proxies backed by outside powers.

Pakistan&#8217;s position has evolved. Rather than seeing the ethnic-Pushtun Taliban as its best hope of a friendly government in Kabul, its policymakers would now prefer the Taliban to be part of a broader-based Afghan government. Perhaps it has realised at last that extremists wielding unbridled power from Kabul tend to export disaster across the porous border they share. So Pakistan also needs links with non-Taliban elements in Afghanistan. 

America is taking a harder line than most of its partners, Britain included, in seeking to weaken the insurgency, perhaps even inducing some rebel commanders to defect, before considering talks with the Taliban leadership. But as America plans to start drawing down its forces next year, the jostling for a political settlement is well under way. Pakistan&#8217;s basic demand is that any future regime in Kabul must be Pakistan-friendly, by which it means not too close to India. The Pakistanis believe they are close to convincing America that they hold the key to stabilising Afghanistan.

Pakistan's role in Afghanistan: Tickets to the endgame | The Economist

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fighter488

*Arrests by Pak attempt to scuttle talks with Taliban: UN diplomat ​*


Sachin Parashar | TNN 



New Delhi: As India laid out its Afghanistan policy on Friday, even entailing reintegration of the Taliban, there was more evidence to suggest that Pakistan will stop at nothing to acquire strategic depth in that country. 

Outgoing UN chief in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, has said that the recent spate of arrests of powerful Taliban leaders, including Mullah Baradar, was effected by Pakistan on purpose to sabotage UNs initiative to engage Talibans supreme leader Mullah Omars men. While admitting that the UN had preliminary talks with Taliban leaders in Dubai, Eide said the talks with Omars men had been progressing well until a certain moment a few weeks ago. 

The effect (of the arrests) in total, certainly, was negative on our possibilities to continue the political process that we saw as so necessary at that particular juncture, the Norwegian diplomat told BBC, adding that the Pakistanis did not play the role they should have. 

As much as India dislikes the idea of any agency engaging Mullah Omars Taliban, this disclosure by the diplomat will lend credence to speculation in India that Pakistan, through these arrests, is sending the message that no settlement would be possible without its playing a stellar role in it. 

India made it abundantly clear on Friday that it was not averse to Taliban reintegration even though it will oppose all attempts by the Taliban to become a part of the Kabul government in any reconciliation initiative. 


Highly placed government sources said India will not oppose the reintegration of any group if it shuns violence, snaps links with all terror groups and is willing to accept the democratic government in Afghanistan. 

They said that India will have no problems with reintegration as it is doing the same thing in the north-east and other parts of our own country. There will be a problem only if these men are given a role in the government. The thing with Taliban is that they want the whole cake, not just a slice of it, said a source, adding that even the London Conference had not called for reintegration of Taliban as a whole and only stressed on allowing them a respectable position in society on certain conditions. 

Sources said there was no question of India being deterred by General Ashfaq Kiyanis offer in particular to play mediator between the Taliban and US-led forces. We know that it is not a zero-sum game for us. Pakistan has traditionally had an important role in Afghanistan but it reduced after 9/11. The US knows what the consequences would be if Taliban were to come back. They also know that it was Pakistan who created Taliban, said the official. 

He went on to say that it would be too simplistic to believe that the US would just walk away from Afghanistan. 

Stating that India had symbiotic links with Afghanistan, he said there was no question of scaling down its developmental operations in the country.


----------



## PakSher

India will make more changes because Indian policy failures are on their way just as India failed in Sri Lanka and Nepal.


----------



## Fighter488

A flawed logic indeed. How come two different scheme of thought fits together here? 

1. Taliban reintegration 
2. Even though it will oppose all attempts by the Taliban to become a part of the Kabul government.

Some one in MEA really sucks.

Fighter


----------



## DaRk WaVe

> *Arrests by Pak attempt to scuttle talks with Taliban: UN diploma*t



*Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says*​
Former U.N. representative in Afghanistan Kai Eide is greatly exaggerating his new claims that he had months of discussions with senior Taliban leaders, his former top deputy tells The Cable.

*"He was not meeting with senior Taliban leaders," said Peter Galbraith, who was Eide's No. 2 and close friend until Eide fired him for raising questions about the U.N.'s lack of action over the massive election fraud perpetrated by President Hamid Karzai's government last September, in an interview. "He's greatly exaggerating."*

Galbraith, who was aware of the meetings but did not participate in them, said that they were with lower-level people who may or may not have had ties to the Taliban.

"The meetings were not particularly often and it was never clear where these people stood and what their connections were to the Taliban," he said, suggesting they might have been disgruntled former Taliban associates.

*Galbraith also rejected Eide's contention that the recent arrests of Afghan Taliban leaders by the Pakistani military was the reason the talks broke down, as Eide claims.
*
"The discussions ended when he left UNAMA," he said, referring to the removal of Eide by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in December. "The arrests have nothing to do with it."

Galbraith is clearly no disinterested observer, but Special Representative Richard Holbrooke also said Friday that the recent arrests and the drive to pursue reconciliation with the Taliban have nothing to do with each other.

*"We are extremely gratified that the Pakistani government has apprehended the No. 2 person in the Afghan Taliban ... this is a good thing," Holbrooke said. "It's not related [to reconciliation] ... We don't see this as linked."*

The U.S. government was aware of Eide's discussions. "He had mentioned this to us in a general way," Holbrooke said, responding to questions posed by The Cable at a Friday press conference, *adding that there was no U.S. involvement in the talks.
*
Holbrooke had called the press conference to discuss the next week's landmark meetings between the United States and Pakistan in Washington, the first round of the new "strategic dialogue" between the two countries.

"It's a major intensification of our partnership," said Holbrooke. "This is not a photo op ... this is an intense, serious dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan."

The Pakistani delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and will also include Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, incoming Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Prime Minister Zardari's advisor Wazir Ali, Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, and many others.

The U.S. contingent will be led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will include Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, NSC Senior Director David Lipton, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, and many others.

The trilateral dialogue between the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will still go on and another meeting could come later this year, according to Holbrooke. Holbrooke is headed back to the region next week, stopping off in Brussels before going on to Afghanistan. He was going to stop in Pakistan but that became unnecessary because the Pakistanis are coming to Washington, he said.

The question of how to disperse billions of dollars of new aid to Pakistan, a point of contention between Holbrooke and Senate leaders, was discussed during a high-level meeting at the White House Friday morning, Holbrooke said, where "almost every senior person in the United States foreign policy community was in the room."

Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says | The Cable


----------



## DaRk WaVe

> *Arrests by Pak attempt to scuttle talks with Taliban: UN diplomat*




*Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says*​
Former U.N. representative in Afghanistan Kai Eide is greatly exaggerating his new claims that he had months of discussions with senior Taliban leaders, his former top deputy tells The Cable.

*"He was not meeting with senior Taliban leaders," said Peter Galbraith, who was Eide's No. 2 and close friend until Eide fired him for raising questions about the U.N.'s lack of action over the massive election fraud perpetrated by President Hamid Karzai's government last September, in an interview. "He's greatly exaggerating."*

Galbraith, who was aware of the meetings but did not participate in them, said that they were with lower-level people who may or may not have had ties to the Taliban.

"The meetings were not particularly often and it was never clear where these people stood and what their connections were to the Taliban," he said, suggesting they might have been disgruntled former Taliban associates.

*Galbraith also rejected Eide's contention that the recent arrests of Afghan Taliban leaders by the Pakistani military was the reason the talks broke down, as Eide claims.
*
"The discussions ended when he left UNAMA," he said, referring to the removal of Eide by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in December. "The arrests have nothing to do with it."

Galbraith is clearly no disinterested observer, but Special Representative Richard Holbrooke also said Friday that the recent arrests and the drive to pursue reconciliation with the Taliban have nothing to do with each other.

*"We are extremely gratified that the Pakistani government has apprehended the No. 2 person in the Afghan Taliban ... this is a good thing," Holbrooke said. "It's not related [to reconciliation] ... We don't see this as linked."*

The U.S. government was aware of Eide's discussions. "He had mentioned this to us in a general way," Holbrooke said, responding to questions posed by The Cable at a Friday press conference, *adding that there was no U.S. involvement in the talks.
*
Holbrooke had called the press conference to discuss the next week's landmark meetings between the United States and Pakistan in Washington, the first round of the new "strategic dialogue" between the two countries.

"It's a major intensification of our partnership," said Holbrooke. "This is not a photo op ... this is an intense, serious dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan."

The Pakistani delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and will also include Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, incoming Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Prime Minister Zardari's advisor Wazir Ali, Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, and many others.

The U.S. contingent will be led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will include Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, NSC Senior Director David Lipton, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Under Secretary of Defense Mich&#232;le Flournoy, and many others.

The trilateral dialogue between the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will still go on and another meeting could come later this year, according to Holbrooke. Holbrooke is headed back to the region next week, stopping off in Brussels before going on to Afghanistan. He was going to stop in Pakistan but that became unnecessary because the Pakistanis are coming to Washington, he said.

The question of how to disperse billions of dollars of new aid to Pakistan, a point of contention between Holbrooke and Senate leaders, was discussed during a high-level meeting at the White House Friday morning, Holbrooke said, where "almost every senior person in the United States foreign policy community was in the room."

Eide "greatly exaggerating" Taliban talks, former deputy says | The Cable

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DaRk WaVe

*India against US reconciliation with Taliban​*
India has advised the United States against any attempt for ''reconciliation'' with the Taliban, as it might take Afghanistan back to the pre-9/11 days with an ''obscurantist and mediaeval regime'' back to power in the country.

*New Delhi believes that Washington needs to decide if it wants to be responsible for establishing a regime that is &#8220;a complete antithesis to the lofty ideas of human rights and women&#8217;s empowerment that the US champions worldwide.&#8221;* Highly-placed sources said that New Delhi conveyed its concern over the pitfalls of a move for reconciliation with the Taliban to the visiting US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs Robert Blake. 

Blake was in a tour to India from Thursday to Saturday. He will also travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan. &#8220;There cannot be a distinction between good Taliban and bad Taliban. There is nothing called good Taliban, and we still believe the Taliban are bad,&#8221; said a senior official.

He, however, pointed out that New Delhi was in favour of reintegration of Taliban elements into the system of governance in Afghanistan, if they eschew violence. 
&#8220;This is what we are doing with the insurgents and extremists in our country too and we think this is what can be done to initiate a political process in Afghanistan if the international community believes that the problem could not be resolved militarily,&#8221; he added. 

*Military training*

New Delhi also made it clear that it would not scale down its &#8220;development partnership&#8221; with Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Kabul on February 26 last, and was even ready to provide military training to a larger number of personnel of the Afghan National Army in institutions in India, if President Hamid Karzai&#8217;s government asked for it.

The terrorist attack in Kabul on February 26 last resulted in the death of 16 people, including six Indians. The terrorists apparently targeted the Indian Medical Mission.

India against US reconciliation with Taliban

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fighter488

ToI feed dated 27th March 2010.

Fighter



*IN THE LINE OF FIRE *

*Intercepts nail LeTs Kabul plan ​*


_Reveal Its Designs To Drive India Out _


Sachin Parashar | TNN 



New Delhi: There is no dearth of Indian officials who believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) played an important role, if not the main lead, in the February 26 Kabul attack and going by what is on record, the confidence doesnt seem misplaced. The fact that LeT is now deeply involved in attempts to drive India out of Afghanistan has been made obvious by several satellite phone conversations intercepted by Indian agencies in the past few months. 

These intercepts, which have been brought to the notice of US security agencies, are in Urdu and not just in Pashto which, according to Indian officials, suggests the involvement of LeT. The location of the satellite phone in most of these conversations was established in areas adjoining the Kunar province along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It is well known that Kunar is the place where LeT was first formed in the early 1990s. 

One such conversation was intercepted in the first week of February by RAW in which terrorists were heard talking about the need to hurt India in Kabul. Even though this was taken as a precursor to a major attack on Indian interests in Kabul, the attacks on February 26 could not be prevented because the modus operandi or the timing was not discussed in the conversation. 

Unlike earlier, apart from Pashto, many of these recent intercepts have been in Urdu. These were taken up with US agencies and they later authenticated them, said an official source, adding that through the intercepts, India has been able to confirm at least five meetings since September last year in which plans to attack Indians in Afghanistan were discussed. 

These intercepts also revealed that ISI officials were in constant touch with not just LeT but also other groups in Afghanistan to carry out attacks against Indians and Indian establishments in Afghanistan. The first of these was in Kunar in September last year in which LeT played host to ISI, Taliban leaders and other groups like Hizb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) which is headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an ISI lackey and rabid India-baiter. According to Indian officials, it appears that the LeT is trying to revive its old base in Kunar and use it to carry its battle against India to Afghanistan. 

A week after the February 26 attacks on Indians in two guesthouses, a spokesperson for the Afghan intelligence service had said that the perpetrators were from LeT because they were heard talking in Urdu by those present at the spot. He had said the Afghan government was very close to establishing this. US counterterror coordinator Daniel Benjamin said in Delhi that US was focusing on LeT because it was filling up the gap left by a diminished al-Qaida.


----------



## Fighter488

*We are ready to reconcile with India: Taliban *




New Delhi: Claiming that it was not in &#8220;direct conflict&#8221; with India, Taliban has said there was a possibility of reconciliation even as it justified the February 26 Kabul attack on Indians as a &#8220;legitimate&#8221; action. 

In a self-contradicting interview, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed his organisation did not want India out of Afghanistan but attacked the country for supporting the Hamid Karzai government and western forces. &#8220;If the Taliban returns to power, we would like to maintain normal relations with countries including India. It&#8217;s possible for the Taliban and India to reconcile with each other,&#8221; Mujahid told a news magazine. 

He said &#8220;India&#8217;s role is different from those countries that sent troops to occupy Afghanistan.&#8221; At the same time, he added that, &#8220;India isn&#8217;t neutral in the Afghan conflict as it is supporting the military presence of USled coalition forces in Afghanistan and working for the strengthening of the Hamid Karzai government.&#8221;Also, he said, &#8220;India has never condemned the civilian casualties caused by the occupying forces&#8221;, a reference to US-led troops in Afghanistan. Asked about the February 26 attack in which Indians, housed in two hotels in Kabul, were targeted, he said Taliban was responsible for it. PTI


----------



## pkd

*In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling*

In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling - Reuters -


----------



## ice_man

COPY PASTE OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE SO EVERYONE CAN READ!

*
In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling*

Both India and Pakistan have for decades sought to secure influence in this Central Asian geopolitical crossroads and President Barack Obama's public, if vague, time-table to start to withdraw military forces has added to an urgency to gain leverage.

With the Taliban in power during the 1990s, India lost sway in Afghanistan. Under Afghan President Hamid Karzai, India used economic clout, some USD 1.3 billion in aid, to up it presence with new consulates and the construction of power lines and highways.

For New Delhi, it helped guarantee Afghanistan would not become a harbour of militants who could cross over to Kashmir.

But the London conference on Afghanistan in January was a turning point for many in India. It ushered in the idea that Europe and the United States could accept getting certain Taliban commanders involved in a deal to bring stability to Afghanistan.

"There is a genuine sense of disappointment - even disbelief - that the US perspective on reconciling the Taliban evolved all too abruptly, contrary to what Delhi was given to understand," said MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat who has worked in Islamabad and Kabul.

While a significant number of other Afghanistan watchers say the euphoria over London was overdone, and question especially whether Washington significantly softened its position on reconciliation with the Taliban, Bhadrakumar's view is common in India.

Karzai also hinted he was now focused more on Pakistan.

"India is a close friend of Afghanistan but Pakistan is a brother of Afghanistan. Pakistan is a twin brother," Karzai said after meeting Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani in March.

It wasn't always like this. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the United States pressurised Islamabad to rein in militants. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was feted in Washington months after Hillary Clinton visited New Delhi in 2009.

Now many Indians criticised what they saw as a tepid response by Washington to what they saw as a clear Pakistani link to the attack on the Kabul guest house.

"It is unfortunate that the Obama administration has forgotten its fine rhetoric about strengthening the forces of democracy in Pakistan," said Bhadrakumar. "The US has reverted to good old-fashioned geopolitics. The US current AfPak approach has begun casting shadows on US-India ties."

It may not all go Pakistan's way.

"Islamabad believes that this stepped-up cooperation will enable it to win long-term concessions from the US, which would give Pakistan a geopolitical balance against India," Eurasia analyst Maria Kuusisto wrote in a report. "The US is likely to adopt a highly cautious approach to these Pakistani requests."

Manouvre

Indian officials believe that while Islamabad is winning the PR war, India has room for manoeuvre &#8212; and the Indian Express reported on Monday that New Delhi may be willing to reach out to some Taliban elements to counter Pakistan.

"Of course Pakistan is better at shouting from the rooftops," said one Indian senior government official. "But we are not on the defensive. They will not get what they want.

But tension with Washington has surfaced, with India mulling legal action to force the United States to grant it access to David Headley, who admitted in a US court this month that he scouted targets for the Mumbai attacks, which killed 166 people.

In a front page story, the Indian Express warned that the US companies could fail in their bids for a USD 10 billion contract for 126 fighter aircraft &#8212; one of the world's biggest arms contracts &#8212; if aircraft sales went ahead with Pakistan.

Washington has been irked by India's parliament stalling a bill limiting nuclear firms' liability for industrial accidents, delaying entry of US firms into a USD 150 billion market.

"The worry is caused by a feeling in the policy establishment that the US wants to get out (of Afghanistan) as soon as possible," Brajesh Mishra, India's former National Security Advisor. "Pakistan wants to broker a deal. The worry is that would lead us back to the 1990s.


----------



## ice_man

Great going guys! finally after a decade of having our back against the wall "divine" help has come & Pakistan is gaining its footing again in international arena! 

Afghan taliban were never our enemies! infact they never harmed anyone they were caught up in the whole US & Al Qaeda war!

Afghan taliban never attacked any country directly! they never attacked pakistan,iran or india,kazakhsitan or any other country for that matter! TTP are a whole different entity with no links to afghan taliban! 

afghan taliban were the rightful rulers of their country until the US came in toppled their government!!! 

human rights violation aside they were able to keep the crime rate low & poppy growth lowest in the history of Afghanistan! no suicide attacks existed either! the country was safer then it is today!


----------



## prototype

ice_man said:


> Great going guys! finally after a decade of having our back against the wall "divine" help has come & Pakistan is gaining its footing again in international arena!
> 
> Afghan taliban were never our enemies! infact they never harmed anyone they were caught up in the whole US & Al Qaeda war!
> 
> Afghan taliban never attacked any country directly! they never attacked pakistan,iran or india,kazakhsitan or any other country for that matter! TTP are a whole different entity with no links to afghan taliban!
> 
> afghan taliban were the rightful rulers of their country until the US came in toppled their government!!!
> 
> human rights violation aside they were able to keep the crime rate low & poppy growth lowest in the history of Afghanistan! no suicide attacks existed either! the country was safer then it is today!



r u sure they never harmed anyone what about the attrocities they carried on millions of afgani people,and how can u say human rights aside when that itself was the biggest problem

and how afgan taliban become the rightful ruler of the nation since they were not elected by democratic process,they will again return to their old ways if come to power

though now i have a feeling it is inevitable to stop taliban from coming back to power


----------



## naved_kam

The point is not what India will have to yield, the point is what Pakistan is yielding to get this wriggling space...... If by the end, there is a security council seat for India in all this.......


----------



## Don Ramsay

alex mercer said:


> r u sure they never harmed anyone what about the attrocities they carried on millions of afgani people,and how can u say human rights aside when that itself was the biggest problem
> 
> and how afgan taliban become the rightful ruler of the nation since they were not elected by democratic process,they will again return to their old ways if come to power
> 
> though now i have a feeling it is inevitable to stop taliban from coming back to power



First of All AFGHAN TALIBAN CAN NEVER COME BACK TO POWER its 2010 not 1996

secondly what about atrocities committed by Northern Alliance after all Taliban Movement was reaction to the same war lord ism which is now again prevailing in Afghanistan.


If after invading Afghanistan US could have tried to bring balance and not have targeted Pashtuns and had controlled Northern allience things might have been different. Now you like it or not US and its allies forced Pashtuns to join Taliban. Now damage has been done only way to contain the damage is to negotiate with Taliban and with logic and diplomacy to tame them


----------



## ice_man

alex mercer said:


> r u sure they never harmed anyone what about the attrocities they carried on millions of afgani people,and how can u say human rights aside when that itself was the biggest problem
> 
> and how afgan taliban become the rightful ruler of the nation since they were not elected by democratic process,they will again return to their old ways if come to power
> 
> though now i have a feeling it is inevitable to stop taliban from coming back to power



ok crime was low! a few human rights violation well if we really talk about humans rights is south asia i guess pakistan,india,iran even china will be in for alot of slack!!!! 

you can't throw stones at other people's houe when your house is made of glass!


----------



## A.R.

ice_man said:


> ok crime was low! a few human rights violation well if we really talk about humans rights is south asia i guess pakistan,india,iran even china will be in for alot of slack!!!!
> 
> you can't throw stones at other people's houe when your house is made of glass!



i dont agree with you...
India has much better position in human right index then its neighbor...


----------



## Don Ramsay

A.R. said:


> i dont agree with you...
> India has much better position in human right index then its neighbor...




yes you are right
if we close our eyes about kashmir, raciel and religous discriminations
dalits, gujraat etc
india has good human rights records

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## forcetrip

ice_man said:


> Great going guys! finally after a decade of having our back against the wall "divine" help has come & Pakistan is gaining its footing again in international arena!
> 
> Afghan taliban were never our enemies! infact they never harmed anyone they were caught up in the whole US & Al Qaeda war!
> 
> Afghan taliban never attacked any country directly! they never attacked pakistan,iran or india,kazakhsitan or any other country for that matter! TTP are a whole different entity with no links to afghan taliban!
> 
> afghan taliban were the rightful rulers of their country until the US came in toppled their government!!!
> 
> human rights violation aside they were able to keep the crime rate low & poppy growth lowest in the history of Afghanistan! no suicide attacks existed either! the country was safer then it is today!



They also kept something else low .. common sense .. let me ask you something.. do you go to some school or college? if you have any sisters .. do they go to some school or college? you dont have to answer those questions here. Just ask yourself why you would want someone to not have basic human rights while you enjoy them.


----------



## ice_man

A.R. said:


> i dont agree with you...
> India has much better position in human right index then its neighbor...



ok let me see:

1) 1984 massacre of sikhs!

2) 1992 massacre of muslims in babri masjid incident!

3)2002 massacre of muslims in gujrat!

4) killing of Christians in ORISSA!

now let's talk about human rights violation of your neighbors!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

forcetrip said:


> They also kept something else low .. common sense .. let me ask you something.. do you go to some school or college? if you have any sisters .. do they go to some school or college? you dont have to answer those questions here. Just ask yourself why you would want someone to not have basic human rights while you enjoy them.



i am not saying taliban are good! but hey they are better than the crap in place now isn't that true? statistics speak for themselves! was the country safer then or now? and please don't tell me literacy rate has sky rocketed in Afghanistan since they left! in 10 years how many schools & colleges have been established????


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Most of this 'India is on the backfoot' analysis is highly misleading.

Somehow all these 'analysts' are assuming that Pakistan's 'success' in having its interests addressed in Afghanistan involves a return to Taliban rule - I fail to see where Pakistani leadership, civilian or military, has argued such a thing.

In fact, Gen. Kiyani and the civilian leadership have very specifically stated that Pakistan does not wish to see Taliban rule in Afghanistan. 

The most I can see, in the context of the Taliban returning to power, is a power sharing agreement between the Taliban and GoA, under which Karzai might appoint surrendering Taliban leaders as governors in some of the Pashtun provinces. Pakistan is looking for some other means to address its interests in Afghanistan - one clue might be in Kiyani's explicit opposition to India gaining any significant role in training Afghan security forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## forcetrip

ice_man said:


> i am not saying taliban are good! but hey they are better than the crap in place now isn't that true? statistics speak for themselves! was the country safer then or now? and please don't tell me literacy rate has sky rocketed in Afghanistan since they left! in 10 years how many schools & colleges have been established????



You cant keep opening schools when they keep getting splashed with acid if they go. enjoy your coffee.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Spring Onion

Agno Indians are spreading lies after lies and it works at time when the atmosphere is hot for acceptance of such lies.


On the other hand the game is getting dirtier with Indians pressurising Karzai and Russia, Iran to dump US and hold direct talks with Taliban.

and thats what Karzai is doing at the moment which is going to harm US interests.


----------



## forcetrip

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Most of this 'India is on the backfoot' analysis is highly misleading.
> 
> Somehow all these 'analysts' are assuming that Pakistan's 'success' in having its interests addressed in Afghanistan involves a return to Taliban rule - I fail to see where Pakistani leadership, civilian or military, has argued such a thing.
> 
> In fact, Gen. Kiyani and the civilian leadership have very specifically stated that Pakistan does not wish to see Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
> 
> The most I can see, in the context of the Taliban returning to power, is a power sharing agreement between the Taliban and GoA, under which Karzai might appoint surrendering Taliban leaders as governors in some of the Pashtun provinces. Pakistan is looking for some other means to address its interests in Afghanistan - one clue might be in Kiyani's explicit opposition to India gaining any significant role in training Afghan security forces.



It wont be kayanis call. We have to see who replaces him and i think religious extremism is going to stay for a while in the emotionally charged people.


----------



## Ahmad

Don Ramsay said:


> First of All AFGHAN TALIBAN CAN NEVER COME BACK TO POWER its 2010 not 1996
> 
> secondly what about atrocities committed by Northern Alliance after all Taliban Movement was reaction to the same war lord ism which is now again prevailing in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> If after invading Afghanistan US could have tried to bring balance and not have targeted Pashtuns and had controlled Northern allience things might have been different. Now you like it or not US and its allies forced Pashtuns to join Taliban. Now damage has been done only way to contain the damage is to negotiate with Taliban and with logic and diplomacy to tame them



Why is it that most of the human rights abusers and parties come out of Pakistan's sleeves and have some sort of connections with them? for example NA, the Taliban, Gulbudin Hekmatyar who ruined kabul completley with his rockets, Haqani etc. intersting.

By the way, if they were the reaction to the actions of NA and Gulbudin Hekmatyar, then why they committed the most horrible crimes and genocide thmeselves?


----------



## Ahmad

ice_man said:


> i am not saying taliban are good! but hey they are better than the crap in place now isn't that true? statistics speak for themselves! was the country safer then or now? and please don't tell me literacy rate has sky rocketed in Afghanistan since they left! in 10 years how many schools & colleges have been established????



I think you need to upgrate your information. The country was not any safer that time, alot of masacares were committed by the taliban along with demolishing cities and villages by them. Taliban barred every single girl from going to school you should know that.

By the way, even today the taliban kill alot more civilians by their suicide and other types of bombings in afghanistan that the NATO.


----------



## ice_man

my mistake people i apologize!


Taliban are bad & yet afghanis support them! and the overwhelming majority can not supress the taliban nor can they overthrow them in their areas nor can they form loya jirgas or militias to destroy taliban! 

& after 9 years of fighting the US & NATO realizes that you cannot solve the afghan issue without the support of taliban!

the problem is WE the non afghans look at the country from a western prespective! stereotypical! just the way the west views the arabs or the south aisans! we do that when it comes to the afghans!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

ice_man said:


> my mistake people Taliban are bad & yet afghanis support them! and the overwhelming majority can not supress the taliban nor can they overthrow them in their areas nor can they form loya jirgas or militias to destroy taliban!
> 
> & after 9 years of fighting the US & NATO realizes that you cannot solve the afghan issue without the support of taliban!



A recent opinion poll by the BBC showed that only 6&#37; of people are in favour of the Taliban.

And no, you look afghanistan from a pakistani perspective, not american one.


----------



## forcetrip

ice_man said:


> my mistake people i apologize!
> 
> 
> Taliban are bad & yet afghanis support them! and the overwhelming majority can not suppress the taliban nor can they overthrow them in their areas nor can they form loya jirgas or militias to destroy taliban!
> 
> & after 9 years of fighting the US & NATO realizes that you cannot solve the afghan issue without the support of taliban!
> 
> the problem is WE the non afghans look at the country from a western prospective! stereotypical! just the way the west views the arabs or the south aisans! we do that when it comes to the afghans!



And you view them how again? as someone who is going through what they are going through? now the only thing i agree with you is that the taliban are a necessary "problem" with no solution in sight. I pray that my children dont have to face anyone as ignorant as them.


----------



## Spring Onion

Ahmad said:


> I think you need to upgrate your information. The country was not any safer that time, alot of masacares were committed by the taliban along with demolishing cities and villages by them. Taliban barred every single girl from going to school you should know that.
> 
> By the way, even today the taliban kill alot more civilians by their suicide and other types of bombings in afghanistan that the NATO.




*Pa jang kay mari kegi * the sitting looters and warlords in Karzai Govt are no saint either they had committed the same attrocities.

Anyway thats not point of debate here


----------



## ice_man

when everyone wants to take what i said out of context i rather not debate...! 

read my first post please!


----------



## prithwidw

Jana said:


> Agno Indians are spreading lies after lies and it works at time when the atmosphere is hot for acceptance of such lies.
> 
> 
> On the other hand the game is getting dirtier with Indians pressurising Karzai and Russia, Iran to dump US and hold direct talks with Taliban.
> 
> and thats what Karzai is doing at the moment which is going to harm US interests.



Sources?
If none, then please do not troll.


----------



## Ahmad

*Pa jang kay mari kegi *

No dear sister(hope you dont mind me saying it), that is not the case. They specifically target people and specific category of people. They entered people's houses, killed everybody they saw. The above sentece of yours can be accepted in termes of PA and ANA, if civilians get killed by their fire power you can understand why, but not the way they masacared people, based on their beliefs, regional affiliation or ethnicity.

*
the sitting looters and warlords in Karzai Govt are no saint either they had committed the same attrocities.

Anyway thats not point of debate here*

Yes, they are not any better, i do agree with you. Gulbudin, Rabbani, Sayaf, Muhaqiq, Fahim, Dostum are not any better. By the way, the Taliban are also the War and drug lords, nobody can say they are peacelords. Except the above morons are not killing people anymore, but Gulbudin and Mullah Omar are still slaying the people.


----------



## forcetrip

ice_man said:


> i am not saying taliban are good! but hey they are better than the crap in place now isn't that true? statistics speak for themselves! was the country safer then or now? and please don't tell me literacy rate has sky rocketed in Afghanistan since they left! in 10 years how many schools & colleges have been established????



DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Taliban torch boys? school in Lower Dir


----------



## Fighter488

TOI editorial page, dated 05th April 2010.

Fighter


*Soft Power, Hard Battles ​*


_Indias goodwill-hunt in Afghanistan needs a degree of hard power to complement i_t 


*Ashok Malik *



Anyone who follows office politics will be familiar with the *POPO *principle. POPO  Pissed On and Passed Over  refers to a hardworking individual whose integrity and work ethic get him nowhere, who finds himself overlooked for rewards and promotions, sidelined by craftier colleagues. Partly because hes too straight and naive and partly because he just doesnt know how to play the game, Mr POPO ends up as a spectacular underachiever. 

In the past few weeks, Indian foreign policy has convinced itself it is a victim of the POPO principle. Indian diplomats have found America and its allies strangely unresponsive to their core security concerns. The Barack Obama administration seems to take this country for granted. To top it all, Pakistan is exultant, believing it has trumped India yet again. 

Afghanistan has been both the trigger and the setting of this snubbing. India is being edged out of the reckoning in Kabul. Of the two recent conferences to discuss the worlds most troubled region, it was not invited to the one in Istanbul. At the other conference, in London, the host governments proposal to do a deal with a section of the Taliban and exit, supported enthusiastically by Islamabad, won the day. Indias protests didnt gain much traction.

*India feels cheated, even a little bewildered. *From building power transmission infrastructure to highways, from enhancing health and education capacities to training election officials, it has done a lot in Afghanistan. Often it has attained its social sector goals with more efficient spending than extravagant western aid agencies. Yet, this has gone under-recognised. 

*In a sense, India is talking the wrong currency*. *The harsh truth is *the conflict in Afghanistan and neighbouring provinces of Pakistan has reached a stage when a stakeholders commitment is gauged in terms of boots on the ground. When project Afghanistan started off in October 2001, it was both a nation-building and a containment (of the Taliban-al-Qaeda) enterprise. In 2010, in a very substantial measure, containment has become the priority. 

As it happens, India has contributed to the nation-building aspects in Afghanistan but not quite to the containment of Islamist militia. _It has no soldiers in Afghanistan and, frankly, there is no political stomach or civil society resolve to send soldiers into that country. Instead, India has put forward good works, goodwill among ordinary Afghans and cultural influences as proof of its irreversible interest in Afghanistan._ 

The debate on Indian troops in Afghanistan is a decidedly tricky one. After 9/11, India offered to send in soldiers with the American forces and the Northern Alliance. Washington vetoed it. Instead, it used New Delhis offer to blackmail Islamabads generals into joining the war. The story has moved since then, but India hasnt. Today, not only has India forgotten that post-9/11 offer as a rare moment of bravado  or perhaps thoughtlessness  it has practically shouted from the rooftops that it will not send its regiments into Afghanistan. Instead, ministry of external affairs (MEA) officials have indicated that if the Americans leave Kabul, so will the Indians. 

Consider the message being sent. Not only will India not send troops, it will not even hold out the threat of sending troops. This is almost a form of unilateral disarmament. It allows adversaries to make advance calculations. As for friends or potential friends, it has them see India as much less of a stakeholder in Afghanistan than India sees itself. Despite the honesty of its intentions, Indias strategic establishment has to be alive to this gap in perceptions. 

To be fair, the issue is larger than merely Afghanistan. India has big power aspirations, at least regional power aspirations. Yet, it runs an astonishingly risk-averse foreign policy that is completely incommensurate with its ambitions. The refusal to even consider 
threatening to send troops to Afghanistan is a sample of this attitude. 

There are other examples. The India-United States nuclear deal ran into opposition within the MEA bureaucracy, not because it was a bad deal but simply because old habits and mindsets were not comfortable with dramatic change. Going back further, it was fortunate Atal Bihari Vajpayee ordered the Pokhran tests only two months after becoming prime minister in 1998. Had he waited longer, had he considered wider consultations, the system would have dissuaded him. The timing would never have been deemed perfect: _Sir, we cant do it this month, there is a United Nations conference on human rights. It will send a bad signal. _

A corollary to a risk-averse foreign policy is a misreading of how far soft power can get you. As is evident in Afghanistan and elsewhere, India has enormous reserves of soft power. Yet, there are severe limits to what soft power can achieve if it does not have a degree of hard power complementing it. 

*Essentially, India has two great power templates before it: the US and the European Union*. Both are multicultural and democratic, both have economic heft and cultural leverage. The US combines these attributes with military muscle. The EUs militarism is limited to conferences on climate change. Which one does India want to be? 

*The writer is a political commentator. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fighter488

*Kabul Dur Ast​*
_Karzais looking elsewhere. Has India lost whatever leverage it had in Kabul?_

*Pranay Sharma *

http://img687.imageshack.us/i/kabulcheckpost20100405.jpg/
*Shiny shells* A security checkpost on the outskirts of Kabul

*How Indias Helping*


Committed $1.3 billion onvarious projects. 
Built the 218-km Zelarang-Delaram highway to enable south-western Afghanistan to access the Iranian port of Chabahar. 
Constructed the 220KV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a 220/110/20KV sub-station at Chimtala. 
Built the Salma Dam power project (42 MW) in Herat province (to finish by 2011). 
Constructing the Afghan parliament building (to be completed by 2011). 
Helped expand the Afghan national TV network, provided uplink and downlink facilities over all of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. 
84 small projects in areas of agriculture, rural development, education, health, vocational training and solar energy. 
Gifted three Airbus aircraft along with essential spares to Ariana Afghan Airlines. Also,
400 buses, 200 mini-buses and 105 utility vehicles.
*****​

The city of Kabul always seems swathed in the ambience of indolence and insouciance, depending on the direction in which you are looking. In the city centre of Charahi Ansari, under the mellow afternoon sun, families mill around shops, restaurants and kabab corners. Some simply loiter around, relishing the balmy spring season after months of bitter winter. But turn around and you watch in horror the ugly scars of a city that hasnt had any respite from violence for nearly 25 years.

In Charahi Ansari itself, you find pieces of evidence. These testify to the wounds inflicted on India. There, in a corner, stands the charred shell of the Park Hotel. Opposite the hotel stands what was once a guesthouse. It could be mistaken for an ancient ruin, but for the thick layer of soot covering it. These two buildings were the targets of wanton attacks on February 26terrorists had triggered off an explosive-laden vehicle, tossed grenades and fired at random, killing 10, including seven Indians.

http://img209.imageshack.us/i/kabulcheckpost20100405.jpg/
*Young targets* An Afghan takes aim with a toy pistol in a Kabul market


These devastated buildings are also monuments to what has been called the proxy war involving India and Pakistan in Afghanistan. (India, however, rejects the word proxy, claiming it hasnt targeted Pakistanis there.) They are depressing symbols of the collateral damage India has been suffering ever since the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and the Haqqani faction of the Taliban have taken to hitting soft Indian targetsthose brave, faceless footsoldiers of Indian diplomacy labouring in a precarious environment to enhance Indias interests in Afghanistan, and who become a face with a name only through a violent death. The Indian embassy in Kabul has been targeted twice in two years. A diplomat and a military attache have died. Elsewhere, an engineer was beheaded.

The Indo-Pak battle for influence in Afghanistan is as old as the American invasion of that country. Pakistan had always roiled at the ouster of the Taliban, whom they had fashioned into a fighting force to acquire control over Kabul and through them gain what is called strategic depth. To the paranoid Pakistani, India always loomed on his eastern border; a strong Indian presence in Afghanistan or an independent Kabul could strategically sandwich his country. Once the Taliban rallied back, and the post-9/11 dispensation in Kabul floundered, Pakistan began to target India.

http://img528.imageshack.us/i/kabulcheckpost20100405.jpg/
Indian engineers at work at the Afghan parliament construction site


But the game is becoming deadlier and bloodier now. American President Barack Obama favours a political solution, wants to negotiate with the Taliban, stabilise Afghanistan, and withdraw a substantial number of troops at the earliest to appease a domestic audience. This has given the necessary opening to Pakistan to regain its lost influence in Kabul. And its trying to achieve the goal quite ruthlesslyby commissioning terror groups to muscle India out.




> Theres no question of retreating from Afghanistan, says an Indian diplomat. But India is scaling down.


 

Theres no question of retreating from Afghanistan, says a senior Indian diplomat. Such brave words are perhaps for public consumption, for there are tell-tale signs of India scaling down its presence here. Nearly 50 per cent of Indian personnel working on various projects in Afghanistan have been sent home. The Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabulthe only childrens hospital in the countryis without an Indian doctor; any medical guidance from New Delhi is rendered through teleconferencing. And though four other medical missions are working now, India isnt taking on any new projects, content to complete the two on handthe Salma dam and construction of the Afghan Parliamentof the $1.3-billion worth of Indian projects initiated here. The SEWA (Self-Employed Womens Association) scheme, hugely popular as it empowered Afghan women, has been put on hold; Indian-run vocational courses have been suspended; and the training of Afghan civilian personnel, whether in government or civil society, will only be imparted in India now (see infographic).

http://img522.imageshack.us/i/kabulcheckpost20100405.jpg/
Treatment through videoconferencing at the Indira Gandhi childrens hospital


A senior MEA official justifies the scaling down saying no new projects are being taken up because we have not been asked to by the Afghan government. He points out that many of the 3,500 Indians in Afghanistan now are there of their own accordand are not working on Indian government projects. If some of them now want to return to India, how can we stop them, he asks.

Considering the popularity of these projects, its debatable whether India would have desisted from proposing new projects to the Afghan government. New schemes would have augmented further the formidable soft power India already enjoys hereBollywood remains extremely popular, and now even TV serials command an enviable following (TV star Smriti Irani is fast becoming a household name). India remains the favourite destination of Afghansthe Indian embassy and four other missions here issue 350 visas daily, a fact borne out by the packed thrice daily flights between Kabul and New Delhi.

So is it that President Hamid Karzais government doesnt want Indians here?
http://img384.imageshack.us/i/indianengkabul20100405.jpg/
Indian engineers working out at a gym in Kabul


Karzai has been an ally of New Delhi, well disposed to India because of, among other things, having studied here. He has also had testy relations with Pakistan, distrustful of its machinations and proximity to the Taliban. Most Afghan observers say things began to change when Karzai began to reach out to Pakistan last year. Partly, he did this out of desperationthe US and other western powers began to gun for him months before the November election, believing he didnt serve their interests. In addition, Obama unveiled his new Afghan policy, opting for a surge in Afghanistan and promising a scaling down of American troops by mid-2011. This fanned the already existing speculation that the Obama administration wasnt really averse to the return of a reformed Taliban.

Boxed into a corner, Karzai began to play a few cards of his own. He opened channels of communication with the Taliban to cobble together an arrangement. He reached out to Mullah Baradar, an influential Taliban leader. Karzais audacity stung Pakistan, which was kept out of the negotiations. Islamabad retaliated, arresting Baradar and sending the message loud and clearpeace in Afghanistan cannot be contemplated without a role for Pakistan.




> Karzai decided to blow with the wind. Through Pakistan, he now hopes to strike a peace deal with the Taliban....


 

Meanwhile, Pakistan was shuffling its own cards, launching an unprecedented crackdown on the Pakistan Taliban in the tribal areas. It earned the country crucial brownie points, convinced the Americans that army chief Ashfaq Kiyani was serious about his intent to fight terror, and enabled Pakistan to claw back from the margins to occupy centrestage in the unfolding drama in Afghanistan. Some, however, say its more the British than the Americans who have allowed Islamabad to emerge as the sole arbiter for peace and stability in the war-torn country.

Karzai decided to blow with the wind. He toured Pakistan recently, described it as the twin of Afghanistan and showered lavish praise on Islamabad. Its through Pakistan that Karzai now hopes to strike a peace deal with the Taliban, and share power with them. To this end, the Afghan president has convened a peace jirga for April 29. Says Haroun Mir of the think-tank Centre for Research and Policy, Karzai will try to get his deal with the Taliban approved by the jirga.

http://img697.imageshack.us/i/fashionkabul20100405.jpg/
The veil is still there, but fashion is back too; mannequins display the latest cuts

But why convene a peace jirga? Mir says Karzais position in Parliament has been undermined, and he believes the best option for him is to get the support of tribal elders who command clout outside the house, among the masses. Karzai is also planning a Kabul Conference later to consolidate his support base and win legitimacy for the jirgas decision.

An indubitable survivor, Karzai knows his peace plan could run into rough weather, particularly as his own cabinet colleagues are opposed to it. Many of his colleagues belong to ethnic minority groups or are dubbed liberal Pashtuns, leaders who had suffered tremendously under the rule of the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. They are opposed to any deal with either Pakistan or its proxy, the Taliban. Which is why a senior Afghan government advisor admits, Karzai has lost the game in his mind as he feels cornered from all sides. Though he is talking about a deal with the Taliban, even he knows that it will be like signing his own death warrant. Well have to wait and watch on what he does ultimately.

Obviously, Karzais machinations have made India nervous. In a rethink of its own policy, India has indicated that the rehabilitation of Taliban soldiers who joined the movement for money and are now willing to abjure violence is acceptable. But it remains steadfastly opposed to the reintegration of the Taliban, or sharing power with them. As a senior Indian diplomat puts it, If that happens, it will mean not only a legitimisation of the Taliban ideology but also a clear indication of throwing the Afghan constitution into the dustbin.


http://img199.imageshack.us/i/fashionkabul20100405.jpg/
The OPD is bustling at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabul


There are many here who blame India for its plight. They say India was not assertive about its presence here, thus failing to win the confidence of those who, hemmed in between Iran and Pakistan, considered it a natural ally. Says Moridian Dawood, advisor to the Afghan foreign minister, India seems apologetic about its presence. Its a regional player and must behave like one, instead of insisting on a benign presence with a penchant for staying in the background.


Many in the Afghan establishment echo Dawoods view, pointing out that even Karzai had told Indian officials that since New Delhi didnt have the stomach to back him in the face of US opposition, he had no choice but to throw his lot with Pakistan. Not only Karzai, many liberal Pashtuns complain that India didnt openly back them, preferring to cultivate its old friends in the erstwhile Northern Alliance. No doubt, India tried to correct this perception, locating many projects in the Pashtun-dominated provinces rather than at places where ethic minority groups are in a majority. But this has not quite earned it enough dividends.

http://img519.imageshack.us/i/fashionkabul20100405.jpg/

Should Karzai and the Taliban strike a deal, Afghanistan could again slip into chaos, imperilling Indias $1.3 billion investment and the energy it expended to acquire a salience here. No wonder, Indian officials are burning the midnight oil, trying to refashion its Afghan policy. Should it put its weight behind the groups which constituted the Northern Alliance, a formation thats bound to oppose a return of the Taliban? Or should it play both ends, refrain from shutting the door on the Pashtuns? Says Dawood, I dont believe this is the end-game. But India, which enjoys so much popular support among Afghans, must have the stamina and patience to stay the course. It cant afford to run away.


www.outlookindia.com | Kabul Dur Ast


----------



## Fighter488

*India to stay in Kabul: PM to tell Obama ​*


*Indrani Bagchi* | TNN 



*Washington*: Amid rising concern that the US may agree to Islamabads insistence that India be kept out of Afghanistan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama are looking for ways to repair the bilateral relationship. 
Bilateral issues, the regional situation and the US-India disconnect on Afghanistan will dominate discussions when they meet today. The discussion was deemed significant enough for Singh to advance his arrival here by a day. 
The PM will stress that India will continue to have a presence in Afghanistan regardless of anything the US or Pakistan does there. 
In his meeting with Obama, the PM will emphasize that an Af-Pak solution cant be achieved by letting Pakistan have a veto on Afghanistan. 
Meanwhile, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon will push for direct Indian access to Pakistani-American LeT operative David Coleman Headley, when he meets his counterpart, General James Jones, here this week. 

*India committed to keeping Afghanistan moderate, safe​*

*Washington*: The US is increasingly seen to be in harmony with the Pakistani mantra of reconciliation with the Taliban in Afghanistan. 
To that extent, PM Manmohan Singh will tell Obama that India will continue to maintain its presence in Afghanistan regardless of the US position. 
We will continue to play our role in Afghanistan, said sources. Afghanistan is in Indias periphery and India has core interests in keeping a moderate, democratic Afghanistan that does not become a hotbed of Pakistan-sponsored or assisted extremism. 
Indias concerns stem from two things: Pakistan has, according to reports, asked the US to ensure that India closes operations in two of its consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar. 
Second, Pakistan, according to Indian intelligence, continues to support terror groups like LeT and Haqqani network to target Indian interests in Afghanistan. 
On Friday, Afghan security forces nabbed a suicide bomber squad on the outskirts of Kabul that was expressly intended at getting Indian diplomats and embassy. India considers this to be a serious threat and the PM will stress this in his discussions. 
On a larger scale, sources said, the PMs discussions with Obama will cover issues of Asian security, where India has a different view from say, Australia, which has put forward its own plans on an Asian architecture. India wants to emphasize maritime security, where its view coincides with the US, but may not do so with China. 
In the past few months, while the military situation in Afghanistan has improved, the PM is likely to make the case that the political situation has got more fragmented. 
Hamid Karzai, for instance, according to Indias assessment, is feeling increasingly threatened by the prospect of an increased Pakistan role in the future of Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kinetic

Fighter488 said:


> *Kabul Dur Ast​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OPD is bustling at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabul
> 
> 
> www.outlookindia.com | Kabul Dur Ast



Everything is good except this one!!!! They have to name everything in and outside India with Gandhi's name!!!! Here in India every new project is now named after Rajiv Gandhi. From sea links to air port, from IIM to research centres!! Why they just name India Gandhistan or Congressland?


----------



## Fighter488

Another brilliant peace of realistic analysis by M K Bhadrakumar. He explores a subject from so many angles that one is always left with a feeling of 'FULFILLED'!  

A must read till the end.

Fighter


*COMMENT*
*The flying Sikh and the peacenik​*
By *M K Bhadrakumar *

Senior Indian officials in their private briefing insist there was "almost a Zen-like spiritual quality" to the meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and United States President Barack Obama in Washington last Sunday. However, the question being posed by the Indian strategic community is still: "Does Obama care about India?" 

At the bottom of such poignantly contrasting characterizations of statecraft lie two factors. *First*, the residual feudal mindset of the Indian invariably attributes what are in reality flaws in policies to personal vagaries in the thinking of the leader. It's not so simple. Statecraft is a complex crucible where the witches brew is a broth 
of many strange ingredients that might or might not include "a pilot's thumb, Wreck'd as homeward he did come", as the first witch in William Shakespeare's Macbeth claimed. 

*Second*, generally speaking, India faces an existential dilemma insofar as it is never quite willing to admit it is solely responsible for giving its own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely. It fails to account for its "leap of faith", a phrase commonly attributed to the 19th century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard - believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable without empirical evidence. 

Sunday's meeting between the "flying Sikh and the peacenik" - to borrow the words of an Indian editor - was keenly awaited. There is a lot of angst in Delhi about the orientations of the Obama administration's South Asia policies. Somehow the fizz has gone out of the US-India relationship. This was most conspicuous from the fact that the two sides almost underplayed the Manmohan-Obama meet. The usual hype was lacking in the White House press statement. 

According to the Indian strategic community in Delhi, the fault lies entirely at the doorstep of the Oval Office. Simply put, Obama is a different man from George W Bush, who was by implication a passionate lover of India through a longstanding family relationship with the country. 



> Is Obama the real problem in US-India relationship today? Is it that he does not really care for India? An answer can be faithfully derived only if a close look is at taken the three main "fault lines" in current US-India ties: Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Asia-Pacific.



The *Indian strategic thinkers* take umbrage that the Obama administration is determined to end the fighting in Afghanistan and as a means of securing that objective, seeks the Taliban's reintegration and reconciliation. They feel badly let down. *They want the fighting to go on and on till the Taliban are bled white and vanquished from the face of the earth.* 



> They are unwilling to concede that the Taliban could be essentially a homegrown Afghan movement that outsiders have cynically manipulated over years.


 Thus, they feel "deeply disturbed" about what is unfolding and feel cheated that the Obama administration "shunned advance consultations on Afghanistan with its Indian partners". 

The fact of the matter, however, is that those Indians are almost completely alone in the region in clinging on to their one-dimensional view of the Taliban as a 100% Pakistani clone. Almost all major regional powers of consequence to the Afghan situation - Iran, China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Central Asian states - agree on the limited point that there is need of an inclusive pan-Afghan solution to the present problem if the peace dividends are to be enduring. 

In Delhi, arguably, the Indian establishment also has grudgingly come to be aware that the "reintegration" of the Taliban is something that mainstream Afghan opinion itself desires and the international community seeks and India, therefore, doesn't have the locus standii to be unilaterally prescriptive. 

But the so-called Indian hawks shall have nothing of such blasphemous thoughts. 

There is also some sophistry here. The heartache among the Indian hawks about the reconciliation with the Taliban is actually all about their deeply flawed assessment of the Afghan situation in the past eight years. The sad reality is that the overwhelming bulk of the Indian strategic community has no clue about the fundamental aspects of the Afghan problem and harbors simplistic notions about its long-term ramifications for regional security and stability not only with regard to South Asia but Central Asia as well. 



> Until very recently, they fancied an Indian military deployment in Afghanistan and an open-ended war in which India and the US as allies work tirelessly toward purging the Hindu Kush of the Taliban movement through the use of force.



*A Clausewitzean war* 

*The Indians never really comprehended *at anytime during the past eight years or so that this has been a Clausewitzean *war that is also linked to the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a world security body, the long-term US military presence in "Inner Asia" and the US's containment strategy toward China's rise and Russia's resurgence.* The result has been plain to see. Pakistan was shrewd enough to assess the potentials of the war and to work out its geopolitical positioning, whereas Indians find themselves in near-total isolation. 

Besides, Indians overlook that Obama represents the US interests and his mandate is to show "results" in an increasingly hopeless war that is becoming unpopular in the West. The Afghan conflict has become unsustainable politically and financially over the medium term and become a futile war that is locked in stalemate with no real victors. 

Also, a gifted politician like Obama has no intention of committing political hara-kiri as the campaign for the presidential election of 2012 draws close. He cannot continue with the war simply for the sake of pleasing the Indians and getting the US-India partnership in the "war on terrorism" to be waged ad infinitum. For argument's sake, it is highly doubtful such misconceptions would have figured even in Bush's grotesque world view. 

Obama has an extremely erudite mind and sizes up that despite the shenanigans of the Pakistani military, he needs to forge a working relationship with Islamabad to extract as much cooperation as possible in bringing the fighting in Afghanistan to an end. All indications are that Obama conveniently looks away from raising dust over the Pakistani generals' doublespeak in the fight against terrorism since he is coolly logical about his priorities at this point in time. 

He estimates that just as in Delhi, the political elites in Islamabad also have a zest to be co-opted as the US's principal instrument of geo-strategy in South Asia. He will be extremely unwise not to exploit the factors of advantage in the US's favor. 

Having said that, Obama isn't overlooking, either, that the Indians *almost instinctively sweat under their collar*  as he forges closer working relationships with the Pakistanis. *He has therefore repeatedly made assuaging gestures toward the Indian leadership*, stressing that the long-term imperatives of US-India relationship are not to be hyphenated with the emerging US-Pakistan partnership in Central Asia. Alas, he cannot help it if US-Indian cooperation in critical fields such as agriculture or education do not appear sexy enough to the Indian strategic community. 

Despite Delhi's claims to be an emerging regional power, the hard reality is that relations with Pakistan remain the core issue in its foreign policy. A senior Indian journalist present at the Indian officials' briefing in Washington on the Manmohan-Obama meet on Sunday pointed out that there were as many as 30 direct or indirect references to Pakistan and, in fact, during the Q&A, 11 out of 13 questions from the media persons related to Pakistan. As he pointed out, "If she [the Indian official] had refused to answer any questions on Pakistan because the subject of her press conference was the highest level Indo-US meeting, there would have been only her opening statement and two questions: one about Obama's forthcoming visit to India and another about the sanctions Obama wants to impose on Iran soon." 

*Obama can't pressure Pakistan *



> To be fair to the Indian strategists, a huge and almost unbridgeable hiatus has appeared between the Indian expectations of the US pressuring Pakistan to do away with its terrorist infrastructure and the US's alleged unwillingness to apply such pressure on the Pakistani military. This is most evident in the Obama administration's dogged refusal to give Indian intelligence direct access to interrogate David Coleman Headley, a prime suspect behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008, aside from allowing Delhi to extradite him.



*The Indians have a point in saying that* in a comparable situation over the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Americans would have bombed India to the Stone Age if Delhi refused to hand over its own Headley. Especially if it insisted on keeping him behind the purdah (veil) somewhere in detention in a south Indian city and argued that it had a "plea bargain" with him. 

But then, these are the realities of world politics. The US never ever has hidden its inability to treat other nations as equals or its John Waynesque ways in world politics: that might is right under all circumstances. Neither has it given up its prerogative to pursue its national interests first and foremost even at the cost of other nations sacrificing theirs. 

To be sure, if the Indian perceptions of recent years in the promised land of the US-India strategic partnership turned out to be full of weeds and bleached bones, is it Obama who is at fault? The Indians could have easily learnt from the Iranians who live in their close neighborhood or the Iraqis in Mesopotamia who were their ancient partners in the civilized world millennia ago, how ruthlessly self-centered the US could be when the chips are down. 

Yet Obama is an exception. He has not hidden his genuine warmth toward India and all the values of humaneness that Indians can legitimately claim as their historical legacy. More than that, as a pragmatist and patriot, he is intensely aware that ignoring or neglecting the relationship with India will deeply injure the US geopolitical interests in the Asian continent. 



> Equally, he has no reason to slight India, a country that he knows to be genuinely enthusiastic about almost everything American, *which is extremely rare nowadays *to find on this planet.



All the same, Obama's primary loyalty will still be toward his own American people. He must give overriding priority to safeguarding America's homeland security and the American facilities and lives overseas and as Vladimir Lenin once told Leon Trotsky, if it becomes necessary for securing peace in Afghanistan, he may even have to wear a petticoat. 

However, that doesn't confuse Obama's true role as a democrat when his team deals with the tough generals in Rawalpindi. 

*Finally*, what disheartens sections of the Indian strategic community most about Obama is that he is revamping the architecture of the US's Asia-Pacific strategy. They placed a touching faith in the US's grit and capacity to thwart China's rise and in that struggle, they visualized India's role as the great Asian "balancer". 

It is Obama's misfortune that he is presiding over the global economic downturn as it exposes the US's inexorable decline as a superpower. *At any rate, the Indians were naive to have overlooked that the US and China were locked in a deadly embrace of interdependence that didn't allow them the luxury of going beyond an occasional sparring.* The bitter truth is the Indians are unwilling to admit that they misread the tea leaves when Condoleezza Rice led them up the garden path and today they would rather place the blame on Obama. 

*They are unwilling to ask searching questions about the entire basis of the global vision that the Indian policy makers subscribed to in the recent years, especially since 2005.* Is Obama to be held responsible for India's gross neglect of its neighborhood policy, its cavalier demolition of India's traditional ties with Iran, the deliberate atrophying of its profoundly strategic partnership with Russia or India's unpardonable failure to come to terms with China' rise? 

Again, the US is justified in securing its hardcore interests by striving to establish a vice-like grip over Indian policies but ultimately it should have been up to the Indian leadership to have created space for the country to maneuver in the highly volatile international system in order to pursue their interests rather than be boxed in. 



> There is no way Indians can justify their failure to pursue an independent foreign policy. If they find themselves today sitting on the ground and telling "sad stories of the death of kings", is it Obama who is at fault?



The existential angst in the Indian mind is in actuality nothing else than the experience of human freedom and responsibility. India is an emerging power in the world order and it cannot insist on living an inauthentic existence.​
_Ambassador_ *M K Bhadrakumar* _was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. _

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) 


Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan


----------



## karan.1970

Kinetic said:


> Everything is good except this one!!!! They have to name everything in and outside India with Gandhi's name!!!! Here in India every new project is now named after Rajiv Gandhi. From sea links to air port, from IIM to research centres!! Why they just name India Gandhistan or Congressland?



Directly proportional to the % of time the public of INdia elected Congress to run the country vis-a-vis all other parties put together...


----------



## ramu

Kinetic said:


> Everything is good except this one!!!! They have to name everything in and outside India with Gandhi's name!!!! Here in India every new project is now named after Rajiv Gandhi. From sea links to air port, from IIM to research centres!! Why they just name India Gandhistan or Congressland?



This is not ideal but in a Government led by Congress, key players can't see beyond the Gandhis for obvious reasons to impress 10 Janpath and for reasons unknown. I am not a great fan of dynasty politics but people in India love the Gandhi family ans this is a mystery I cant reason.


----------



## Fighter488

ramu said:


> This is not ideal but in a Government led by Congress, *key players can't see beyond the Gandhis *for obvious reasons to impress 10 Janpath and for reasons unknown. I am not a great fan of dynasty politics but people in India love the Gandhi family ans this is a mystery I cant reason.



This is what is called ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, and Gandhi's are masters of it right from Nehru era. Congress leadership is nothing but a slave of Gandhi family. And it seem to last for ever ! 

Fighter


----------

