India not to undertake fresh projects in Afghanistan

[Flintlock]

India not to undertake fresh projects in Afghanistan
4 Aug 2008, 0318 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi,TNN


NEW DELHI: India is not likely to undertake fresh infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Instead, the focus will be on completing the projects that are already on.

After the Zaranj-Delaram highway, India's biggest project will be building the parliament, a sort of showpiece construction that has already suffered some delays.

But for the time being, India's energies are being taken up beefing security of India's missions in Afghanistan. After the attack on its Kabul embassy, the threat to India's Jalalabad mission is increasing. Therefore, a huge exercise is underway to build systems and structures in Kandahar, Jalalabad, Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif to protect Indian missions — even learning from some of the shortcomings in Kabul.

The Kandahar mission should actually be the most vulnerable, but sources said the access roads from Pakistan to Jalalabad were better.

All Indian projects will now ramp up security and this will be one of the key discussions with president Hamid Karzai. But there is a basic difference between what the ITBP securitymen are armed with and what the Taliban come with.

Whereas the Indians have only rifles, the Taliban come with grenade launchers and automatic weapons. This, security sources said, needed to be addressed urgently. India will also increase its security cooperation with the Afghan government but this will be done with great care because both the Taliban and Pakistan's ISI have infiltrated many sectors of the establishment.

The growth of the Taliban and its infiltration by the ISI means India will be under greater threat in Afghanistan than ever before. The Taliban under Mullah Omar is less of a coordinated force than under Jalaluddin Haqqani, who straddles both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

According to sources, Haqqani now controls a deadly force of 6,000-8,000 fighters, all potential suicide bombers. The ethnic mix is interesting — Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, even Pakistani Punjabis. In recent battles in Gardez-Khost areas and in Nuristan province, locals are not even claiming bodies of fighters, because most of them are unknown.

But it is clear that while India's presence in Afghanistan's security sectors is increasing, there is little appetite in India to immerse itself in Afghanistan's war. It's a losing battle for India, sources said. India would find itself pitched against Pakistan in a way that would be destructive for it.

[email protected]

 

[nitesh]

That's good move first finish the existing projects and then think of others.

 

[Flintlock]

India has decided that it doesn't want to get stuck in the Afghanistan quagmire. A wise decision.

Indian presence should be light and imperceptible, but effective all the same.

 

[nitesh]

Does this mean that once the projects are complete the security personal will be called back? If yes, then who will secure them in the volatile country.

 

[Xeric]

India not to undertake fresh projects in Afghanistan
4 Aug 2008, 0318 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi,TNN


NEW DELHI: India is not likely to undertake fresh infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Instead, the focus will be on completing the projects that are already on.

Somebody said and i quote: LATOON K BHOOT BATON SAY NAHI MANTAY...UNQUOTE.

Whereas the Indians have only rifles, the Taliban come with grenade launchers and automatic weapons.

My poor indian elite comandos...

According to sources, Haqqani now controls a deadly force of 6,000-8,000 fighters, all potential suicide bombers. The ethnic mix is interesting — Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, even Pakistani Punjabis.

Hmmm, i think i should laugh on this one.

 

[Neo]

That's good move first finish the existing projects and then think of others.

Or maybe be more obidient and listen to Uncle.

 

[vish]

Or maybe be more obidient and listen to Uncle.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Plus, our Afghanistan policy is more long-term than you are assuming.

 

[Neo]

Pot calling the kettle black?

Just telling the truth..

Plus, our Afghanistan policy is more long-term than you are assuming.

Good luck, you'll never get strategic depth the way way you want. Your position is secured as long US is there.

 

[cactuslily58]

Just telling the truth..


Good luck, you'll never get strategic depth the way way you want. Your position is secured as long US is there.

For how long... & then what ?

 

[Contrarian]

Good luck, you'll never get strategic depth the way way you want.

Neo, India does not need any kind of strategic depth in Afghanistan, Pakistan wants that. What we want is good relations in Afghanistan that undercut Pakistan's influence there. What we dont want is a repeat of the old days when we had not contact with Afghanistan and Pakistan used Afghans to fuel terrorism in Kashmir.

Your position is secured as long US is there.

Which is going to be for a long time. And that is why till the US is there, we can create more and more projects to have more and more goodwill before the US leaves.

If you really want to experience it, you must go to Kabul and say that your a Hindustani, you will be suddenly treated with so much respect and warmth, you will find it highly surprising. That is what im talking about, we have generated a LOT of goodwill in Afghanistan by not helping the coalition there in military aid but civilian aid, by building schools, roads, parliament, donating buses, etc, etc.

And i find this a very good decision. India should first finish a good bunch of its projects before starting new ones there, otherwise our security there will be overstretched and we cannot send in more security personnel there either- The KEY to the goodwill is to have MINIMUM Indian security presence there, so that the locals dont mind us like they do for the ISF. India must LOOK different than the others, preception is just as important, and the Afghans should percieve that India is there to help and not to trouble them.

Once those projects get completed more can be started.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Neo, India does not need any kind of strategic depth in Afghanistan, Pakistan wants that. What we want is good relations in Afghanistan that undercut Pakistan's influence there.

Which is going to be for a long time. And that is why till the US is there, we can create more and more projects to have more and more goodwill before the US leaves.

If you really want to experience it, you must go to Kabul and say that your a Hindustani, you will be suddenly treated with so much respect and warmth, you will find it highly surprising. That is what im talking about, we have generated a LOT of goodwill in Afghanistan by not helping the coalition there in military aid but civilian aid.

And i find this a very good decision. India should first finish a good bunch of its projects before starting new ones there, otherwise our security there will be overstretched and we cannot send in more security personnel there either. The KEY to the goodwill is to have MINIMUM Indian security presence there, so that the locals dont mind us like they do for the ISF.
Once those projects get completed more can be started.

I don't really see how Pakistan could be looking for 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan, based on the definition of 'strategic depth' (on Wiki atleast):

"Strategic depth is a term in military literature that refers, broadly speaking, to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production."

AFAIK, there were never any plans to relocate industries or cities into Afghanistan.

Even if the need for relocating military assets away from the IB was there, Balochistan would be utilized.

The goal in Afghanistan for both India and Pakistan is to deny the other influence. India can only do that so long as Karzai or someone of similar ilk runs Kabul.

This report is interesting when seen in the backdrop of this article:

India-Pakistan Strife May Hurt US in Afghanistan​

...Some U.S. officials say they are concerned that the growing roles of Pakistan’s rivals in Afghanistan are feeding the ISI’s desire to support the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

The officials say a better U.S. policy would have been to limit India’s high-profile activities inside Afghanistan. They also say Washington may again need to play a more active role in mediation between Islamabad and New Delhi to stabilize Afghanistan and the broader South Asian region.

“Having the Indians running around Afghanistan was sure to invite retaliation,” said a U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in Afghanistan. “We may need to play a more direct role in calming things down.”...

India-Pakistan Strife May Hurt US in Afghanistan « Biodun Iginla’s Weblog

As I have argued before, for the US to ignore the geo-political dynamics of the region, especially the Indo-Pak rivalry, has been foolish, with respect to getting full Pakistani cooperation.

Going back to the Afghan Civil war, peace in Afghanistan has always been tied to all the major players in the region being involved and having their concerns addressed.

 

[Cheetah786]

India has announced an additional $450m aid to Afghanistan for development projects in the country.

Earlier, India had pledged $750m to rebuild Afghanistan's infrastructure.

The announcement was made by Indian PM Manmohan Singh at the end of his talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

President Karzai is on a two-day visit to the Indian capital, Delhi.

India is one of Kabul's leading donors and a close ally of Afghanistan.

Bilateral trade has grown rapidly, reaching $225m in 2006-2007.

Mr Singh and President Karzai also discussed the security of Indians working in Afghanistan.

Mr Singh said the recent bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was an assault on Indo-Afghan relations.

The attack killed more than 50 people.

'Attack on friendship'

"Terrorism has no barrier, it is not bound by any restraint. It was an attack on the friendship between India and Afghanistan," he said.

Officials from India and Afghanistan have publicly accused elements in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of involvement in the attack. Pakistan has denied that its spy agency was involved in the bombing.

Over the weekend, Mr Singh raised the issue with Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani in Colombo on the sidelines of the regional Saarc summit.

Mr Gilani has offered to investigate the attack, India's foreign secretary said.

Several thousand Indians are engaged in development work in Afghanistan, and the Indian government has been planning to beef up their security.


So this karzai wants better relation ship with India cool yet at the same time he thinks Pakistan is bad OK i just have few questions.

This so called leader remember when Russians were slaughtering afghans India was a Russian Allie.

He himself with his family took refuge in Pakistan(should have been shoot and fed to pigs)
he wants Pakistan not to deport all Afghans living in Pakistan.
he doesn't want Pakistan to seal its border with Afghanistan.

Where is he going to go after Americans are out of there which is coming soon.

 

[Contrarian]

I don't really see how Pakistan could be looking for 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan, based on the definition of 'strategic depth'
AFAIK, there were never any plans to relocate industries or cities into Afghanistan.

Even if the need for relocating military assets away from the IB was there, Balochistan would be utilized.

Pakistan's width is very small, in case India advanced through the frontlines, or incase of any problems, Pakistani generals always counted on unstinted support of Afghanistan, they wanted to be able to withdraw into Afghanistan should the push come to shove. Relocate any resources or anything they required away from India, like i said, Pakistan has very small width. In short they wanted the depth in the country they did not have.

Then again, its not me, but a whole host of Pakistani politicians and generals who used the term.

The goal in Afghanistan for both India and Pakistan is to deny the other influence. India can only do that so long as Karzai or someone of similar ilk runs Kabul.

India's role has only come in after US entered Afghanistan. Before that it was simply not possible, Pakistan had complete control of Afghanistan, they used Afghans for terrorism, etc, etc.

Its not a case of denying the other influence, its much more for Pakistan, for India, its about denying Pakistan influence or at the very least have its own influence there, something that it could not even have dreamed about during the Taliban regime.

And that is why India wants all the goodwill it can get now, so that even after Karzai goes, we have influence there, so that the local population does not resist India. The entire purpose of the civil aid is just for that. Therefore we cannot have many security personnel present there. Gives a bad view.

This report is interesting when seen in the backdrop of this article:

Going back to the Afghan Civil war, peace in Afghanistan has always been tied to all the major players in the region being involved and having their concerns addressed.

India was never the player who had a say in Afghanistan for a long time.

 

[Contrarian]

Where is he going to go after Americans are out of there which is coming soon.

That is not happening soon. Neither of the next two US Presidential candidates have even hinted at leaving Afghanistan, with Obama even saying what was needed was a return of emphasis on Afghanistan.

I'v been hearing the whole 'Americans are leaving soon' routine for a long time, its not happened till now, and it doesn't look imminent either.

 

[GHATAK]

Just telling the truth..


Good luck, you'll never get strategic depth the way way you want. Your position is secured as long US is there.

I agree that our position is secure till US is in Afghanistan.
But also I would say that, till there is a terrorism threat in the world, Nato forces will remain in afghanistan.

Regd obeying Uncle Sam, If I start saying about Pakistan, it will not be nice.
So avoiding it.

Because you are very mature in your other posts - I take this post of yours as an exception.