India being left out of Afghan matrix

[Fighter488]

Just to answer your query below

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) – 5 hours ago

NEW DELHI — 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]

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]

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]

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]

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???

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[paritosh]

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...