Terror activities of Indian consulates in Afghanistan

[S-2]

Those are my references to "windmills" and that is pointed to your massive conventional army in Punjab along your eastern borders.

You are impressed by Ms. Fair I see? Here's what Ashley Tellis says-

"I am not sure I buy Christine's analysis of Indian activities in Pakistan's west: this is a subject I followed very closely when I was in government, and suffice it to say, there is less there than meets the eye. That was certainly true for Afghanistan. Convincing Pakistanis of this, however, is a different story. I think Sumit and Shaun get the bottom line exactly right: Pakistan has to recognize that it simply cannot match India through whatever stratagem it chooses -- it is bound to fail."

Here's what Aquil Shah said-

"It would be reasonable to speculate that [India's] RAW [Research and Analysis Wing] is settling scores with the ISI in Afghanistan and perhaps Baluchistan. But so far, the Pakistani military establishment has produced little evidence of the "Indian hand," and logically it doesn't make sense for India to back groups that could instantly turn their guns on New Delhi, as many of the Pakistani Taliban promised to do in the wake of the recent Mumbai attacks. The trouble with Pakistan is that the specter of the unremitting "enemy" serves the parochial interests of the military. That is why the question of civil-military relations is critical to Pakistan's external policies and behavior. When the entrenched organizational beliefs, biases, routines, and interests of the military become the primary drivers of a state's decision-making for war and peace, it has trouble written all over it."

These were Sumit Ganguly's thoughts-

"But as much as the Indians may boast about their putative pumping of funds into Baluchistan, why is the evidence for that so thin?"

Here are my thoughts-

You've an equal number of consulates in Afghanistan possibly supporting the operations of your proxy armies comprised of thousands stationed in Pakistan's FATAville and attacking daily across the border. Thousands. This has been so since 2002 with increasing violence and cost to the Afghani people and the U.N. mission.

These armies are led by such notables as Hekmatyar, Haqqani, Nazir, Bahadur, Omar, and perhaps even Mehsud among many others. Famous and notable names stemming back to the Afghan-Soviet wars in some cases. They are augmented by foreign fighters from Britain, Bosnia, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates, and Uzbekistan.

They operate from training bases and camps throughout FATA and Baluchistan. Many of these were built by the ISI and Chinese back in the Soviet war. Many more are new.

Do you face the same?

If so, then why haven't you rushed your army west to defend Gwadar-your crown jewel- against this heinous and real assault. Fact is, and you've said so yourself here, your Baluchi rebellion isn't squat.

Indeed. It isn't. Thus you make a mountain out of a molehill to rationalize the war made upon Afghanistan from your soil daily.

These conditions are not remotely comparable. Meanwhile, all those big bangs in your nation? Homegrown. You know it. I know it. Repeat after me- Mehsud, Faizullah, Faizullah, Mehsud. FATA-SWAT, SWAT-FATA.

If India is engaged in Baluchistan, would you first advise Ms. Fair that doing so from Zahedan is a matter between the Pakistani and Iranian governments? You may also advise her that Indian relations with the N.A. in Mazur-I-Sharif was twelve years ago.

Is there a problem with schools in Konar? Please explain. And then the feared Indo-Tibetan Paramilitary types with their road crews? Get real. Those people have been attacked. Men have lost their lives and deserve protection. Indians shall have security for the positive, tangible, and considerable assistance their workers render to Afghanistan.

You should pray that the Indians are attempting to sneak schoolteachers across into Bajaur. I doubt that they'd survive the journey but no nation needs good schoolteachers more than Pakistan.

I guarantee that there are no guerrilla leaders in Afghanistan whose commands remotely resemble the massive operations across the border in FATA. Not along the east and sure as hell not in Paktika, Paktia, Khost, Nangahar, Konar, or Nuristan. Nor are there the vast training camps so easily accessed in Waziristan. Nor the supply caches. The only exception could be south of Garmsir in Helmand and the British now go there.

I doubt the Indians beat the Brits to Helmand but then people here believe that Baitullah Mehsud takes Indian money. If they did, the Indians and Baluchs met a whole hell of a lot of taliban.

Now THAT'S funny.

Compared to what you permit daily from Pakistan against India and Afghanistan, I don't think anybody really gives a ratz azz. If true, most do so recognizing that nothing will change inside Pakistan either. Mehsud is a fixture. So too Omar. So too their armies and intent. Just facts of life that everybody has had to adjust.

I see nothing remotely comparable happening to Pakistan from other nations as you inflict daily from your soil upon Afghanistan. Not remotely and any suggestion of your nation under assault from without is laughable in light of the undeniable assault occurring now daily from within.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There has been a drop in infiltration only - and not in funding, "moral support". The recent gunfights in Kashmir only proved to India that Pakistan Army is still helping infiltrators across the border. This is the Indian position.
India fully reserves the right to provide "moral support" to the Baloch separatists, and its upto you guys to decide what is best for your own country.

Seriously, stop trying to take the moral high-ground because you cannot. What you can do is be practical and save your country.

Can you do that for the sake of the subcontinent ?

Oh please, resorting to a validation of your argument by dredging up isolated incidents out of a sustained and dramatic drop in infiltration and violence across the board across the LoC and in Kashmir, over the past several years, is disingenuous to say the least.

No country will be able to guarantee an absolute drop in infiltration attempts, and what Pakistan has done over the past seven years is pretty remarkable (in conjunction with stepped up Indian efforts across the LoC as well of course).

India's own media, after the recent fire fight, quoted Military sources stating that only about 300 or so militant rebels were active in Kashmir at this point.

I take the moral high ground because at this point in time, on the issue of interventions in Kashmir and Baluchistan, by Pakistan and India respectively, Pakistan does have the 'moral high ground' through a demonstrated commitment to keeping the situation calm and almost eliminating its interventionist policy in Kashmir.

A complete and final dismantling of the militant groups will of course only be feasible, due to domestic political compulsions (least of all not inviting a Taliban like backlash from the Kashmiri groups and their supporters) once India and Pakistan announce a framework for resolving kashmir, which is what I imagine the recent backchannel diplomacy was moving towards.

So once again, the onus is on India to determine whether or not she will accept Pakistan and end her continued interventionist policies in Pakistan and against Pakistan. Pakistan has tangibly demonstrated its intent for peace and normalization with India - reciprocity from India is awaited.

Cheers and good night.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here are my thoughts-

Your thoughts count for little unless you have information from PA Officers (as suggested by both CF and PS WRT Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan) indicating tangible support for Taliban activities against NATO.

Till then its just more dissembling on your part to hide your government's complicity in allowing terrorism in Pakistan to take place from territory under your control.

On Ashley Tellis:

Ashley J. Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues. While on assignment to the U.S. Department of State as senior adviser to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, he was intimately involved in negotiating the civil nuclear agreement with India.

Previously he was commissioned into the Foreign Service and served as senior adviser to the ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi...

Education

B.A., M.A.; University of Bombay; M.A., Ph.D., The University of Chicago

Sumit Ganguly's name should tip you off on where his biases lie ..

And please, stick to the topic.

Cheers and good night to you as well.

 

[S-2]

How did such a formidable force be reduced to 2-300? That's sorta cadre sized, isn't it?

"A complete and final dismantling of the militant groups will of course only be feasible, due to domestic political compulsions (least of all not inviting a Taliban like backlash from the Kashmiri groups and their supporters) once India and Pakistan announce a framework for resolving kashmir, which is what I imagine the recent backchannel diplomacy was moving towards."

I suspect America's efforts to de-stabilize Pakistan from within will succeed before you'll be able to fully dismantle those groups in any case so they shouldn't prove an issue between India and you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh, somewhat of topic, but to address this argument of 'Pakistani support for taliban attacking NATO' that was brought up by you:

BAIER: A big part of this strategy is the Pakistan side. Do you see evidence that the Pakistani military or the intelligence service — the ISI — is assisting the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

PETRAEUS: Well, let's remember the history. The intelligence services, the ISI, with our money and equipment and resources back during the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, built many of these Mujahideen organizations that sadly have now turned on Pakistani forces and authorities, assassinated Benazir Bhutto, and have killed hundreds of innocent Pakistani civilians.

There are some relationships that continue. It is not as clear as one would like. There's certainly additional focus on that. Obviously, we've had these conversations with our counterparts, with the head of ISI, Lieutenant General Pasha, and others. There is a case in the past year or so that we think was unambiguous. There appears to have been a warning prior to a Pakistani operation.

The others though are a little bit less clear in the sense that any intelligence organization has contacts with extremist groups because they're trying to recruit sources among them. And we do the same thing.

BAIER: But do you trust the Pakistanis? Do you trust them?

PETRAEUS: I think we are building that kind of trust. And that's the way I think is the best description for that. And it's hugely important that that trust be built.

There's a number of initiatives ongoing in that regard. There's a joint coordination center, for example, that is a tripartite: It's Afghan, Pakistan and U.S. forces just near the Khyber Pass in which there is gradually increasing intelligence sharing going on. And there have been some breakthroughs in that area in recent weeks.

There's additional work supporting, always enabling, assisting and providing for the Pakistani Frontier Corps in particular, and the military, but not doing. And that's the way I think that every one wants this to go forward.

FOXNews.com - Exclusive: General David Petraeus Discusses Mission in Afghanistan - Special Report w/ Bret Baier

Your heroic General Petraeus can only point to ONE possible 'unambiguous' instance of someone in the ISI tipping off the Taliban, on a raid that the PA was conducting. Everything else is based on speculation over the 'contacts' the ISI maintains with some Taliban factions, which it has never tried to hide, and even Petraeus admits are a legitimate intelligence function.

In other words, there is no evidence, NADA, nothing, to justify the rants and slander directed at the PA over the last decade in the West.

And now, a final good night.

 

[S-2]

"And please, stick to the topic"

Excuse me? No lectures when I'm decidedly addressing the comments by the deluded Ms. Fair.

Your own bias show all too well. That you dismiss those opposed while adding up those who favor such a notion makes that clear.

A.M., you poor misunderstood and oh-too-self-righteous soul, your nation isn't under any sort of attack. You said so yourself. Not in Baluchistan. Why this reversal? Where is the ASSAULT?

Ms. Fair addresses issues involving Iran, Pakistan, and India. Why do you dissemble this point? Why do you not show me the names of the famous commanders leading this attack upon your lands? Where are the thousands?

Because Afghanistan faces that daily from your lands. By your assistance. And has for years. Should India or Afghanistan be under assault, it would be only appropriate. Afterall, American PREDATORS openly retaliate wherever possible against your proxies in full recognition of this point.

A.M. you face nothing that remotely compares. You've nothing but dissemblance and, at this late date, nothing of worth to offer. Put up or shut up about this issue of assault from without when you clearly are UP TO YOUR EYEBALLS WITH ENEMIES WITHIN.

Nobody cares. Least of all you. Proof is in the pudding. Were the attacks in Baluchistan and FATA of such odious concern, your army might finally move. It doesn't and that says WAY too much.

"Till then its just more dissembling on your part to hide your government's complicity in allowing terrorism in Pakistan to take place from territory under your control."

Why, A.M.? To what point does that assist America in Afghanistan? Do we plan aid to Pakistan in the billions as camoflauge? If so, I'd rather stop and plan air-strikes myself.

A.M., you've no proof. Nothing. No proxy armies of thousands. No camps. No supply caches. No famous commanders, no big donations from the Emirates and KSA.

Nothing remotely like what you guys have done. Pakistan is the best, errr...worst at this. Nobody else so close.

Get it?

Everybody else in the world does.

Proof of your complicity? We've oodles and that's not questioned by anybody but you. It's your board and you are all certainly Pakistani but if you wish to actually suggest that your government hasn't lended considerable aid and comfort to the afghan taliban army, Hekmatyar, Haqqani, and LeT you'll find almost no listeners outside your borders that aren't muslim and many who are that also might giggle more than a tad.

Then there's always Der Spiegel. That, alone, speaks volumes.

Hey! You sleep tight there and don't let those bedbugs bite. Goodnight to you too and sweet dreams, buckaroo.

Thanks.

 

[All-Green]

Hellfire,

My point still stands.
Indian diplomacy is quite renowned but when it comes to Pakistan; they, despite having proof would first like to engage in a volley of heated warnings rather than sharing the proof.
Pakistan was calmly asking for proof and to be honest if citizens of any country are accused of something without the evidence it will be denied till evidence is shared.
The Hawkish statements given prior to sharing the evidence only served the purpose of the terrorists and deviated our attention towards the east rather than west, where the real war is being fought.

My point is that animosity in the hearts overtakes all reasoning and common sense at times like these and that is the thing which the terrorists are aware of and will exploit.

Terrorism is a common threat and to deal with it some sort of relationship needs to be developed. Giving blanket statements like Pakistan needs to stop supporting terrorists is like calling us all terrorists. If you think that is productive then you can continue to do so at your own peril!
We are already in it too deep so whats the worse that can happen to us anymore?

There are terrorist movements at war with state in India as well and if tomorrow they become international then clearly you would not want to associate them with the state!
Similar is our case, the terrorists are not part of the state.
They have their own agenda and have martyred thousands of innocent men women and children.

Taliban were a narrow minded militant movement and were 2nd generation of the Afghan Mujahidden who were living here since Afghan Jihad and fought to take over the reigns of their country and unify the people under one roof.
This was a byproduct of post Afghan Jihad instability and it was and is always in Pakistan's interest that Afghanistan is again inhabited by the millions of Afghans living in Pakistan. For that the situation in Afghanistan needs to be stabilized.
This was one of the many concerns which Pakistan was dealing with when it sympathized with the Taliban.
The Taliban at that time were not terrorists but only militants like the many other factions fighting for controlling their homeland. They were not terrorists like TTP which is blowing up innocent civilians and claiming to be on a holy mission!
Even the USA did not raise hue and cry since all thought that unification of Afghan people would be better for all.
Sadly (for all the poor citizens) the Taliban became corrupted with absolute power and started going down a road where their opponents were not tolerated and a totalitarian regime was forced on the people.
I do not think anybody (in the governments and agencies of all the parties) saw all this coming.
If Pakistan/ISI is to be blamed for the instability then clearly USA/CIA should also be bashed by India, since the root of Taliban is in Afghan Jihad.
We can flaunt the mistakes and ill fated decisions of the parties involved as much as we like but it should end with some sort of understanding for the future and mutual agreement to support each other.

The post 9/11 scenario has given birth to many Taliban which overtly support terrorist acts and therefore are following Al Qaeda doctrine.
Whether they are Taliban of the past or not is not something i am bothered with anymore, i want them all to be smashed and punished.

Al Qaeda was never ever supported by Pakistan in any form.
Thanks to Al Qaeda the Muslim world is ablaze and still you hold on to the notion that AQ is supported by Pakistan?

LeT was banned in 2002 in Pakistan. TTP is also banned but banning alone does not solve the problem and that is why there is a War being waged in Pakistan whereby our lives and families are also at stake.

It does not help anyone if Pakistan is made the scapegoat for each and every terrorist activity and is declared the root of terrorism.
Pakistan is fighting the problem and is suffering most from it as well.
It will take time and a lot of effort and support is needed from all ends.
This problem is multidimensional and has many associated causes as well which need to be addressed in time.
For now diplomatic and intelligence level support and cooperation is needed amongst these troubled neighbours.

India/Pakistan should sign a non aggression pact or something to the effect.
I am no diplomat but if the two nations are convinced by their governments that they shall not go to war, the national sentiments would shift towards the threat posed by the terrorist organizations.
It shall ensure much more focus on the ultimate threat.

Afghanistan's instability has ravaged Pakistan.
If Pakistan is unstable it shall have dire consequences for India as well.

Our situation is like three rivals facing a pack of wolves, either we fight together as allies or die one by one as enemies.

I wish we had 400 years to learn, sadly we don't as far as i see.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Well said S2. This constant complaining about Balochistan is simply self-deception by some Pakistanis who are unwilling to recognize the real and present threat to their country.

What they need is a leader who can call a spade a spade.

 

[Bull]

So once again, the onus is on India to determine whether or not she will accept Pakistan and end her continued interventionist policies in Pakistan and against Pakistan. Pakistan has tangibly demonstrated its intent for peace and normalization with India - reciprocity from India is awaited.Cheers and good night.

AM, Pakistan will claim the reward for reduction in Kashmir violence for sure, but India isnt viewing this in a one dimensional way.

As for your POV, GOP decided to pull the plug on Kashmiri terrorists and so the violonce reduced, but in India we arent still sure if Pakistan 'did it' or it happened as a natural reaction to increased violonce in western Pakistan. The convinient one for India is to think the later.

Today you ask the terrorists / extremists about their uno enemy, Indian ranks down and so does Kashmir. Their isnt enough fire in the belly to fight the Indians, but more so to fight the Christians from America, Europe and their Muslim friends.

 

[Bull]

The problem is not that they have this many and we have that many. Its the activities that are taking place over there which are problematic from a Pakistani standpoint. Otherwise Iran too has quite a few consulates in Afghanistan and you do not see Pakistan making any fuss over it. Indian consulates are taking up quite a bit of anti-Pakistani work up there. The problem that this poses for Pakistan is that this becomes an extension of the Indian threat to Pakistan. Thus the hedging game going on for both sides (Pakistan and India) just so they end up with some strategic depth after all is said and done in Afghanistan.

What goes on with US and NATO in the middle of all this in Afghanistan is not the big worry for Pakistan (actually Pakistan would accommodate the US interests if it were not for the Indian interference...there is history there to support this point). With India muddying the waters in Afghanistan, the traditional rivalry has come to fore which is why the US is advising Pakistan to no longer focus on India (without the realization that until and unless the Kashmir problem is resolved, the Indian threat to Pakistan cannot be wished away).


Pakistan's other concern is that India and Afghanistan are not land locked as is the case for Pakistan. Pakistani missions need a physical presence in most of these areas simply owing to the fact that we have a very large Pashtun population which travels and conducts business in those parts of Afghanistan. This is hardly the case for India. Anyone who says otherwise is being oblivious of these facts. Business investments can be managed out of one or two missions (or even multiple missions if they were not involved in activities targeting Pakistan).

Also inside of Afghanistan, every single Pakistani consulate is watched by the Afghan intelligence, an art that they have learned well from KHAD. They do not need any reminding on this part.

Well said and well put. But only one point, we do have a justification for having so many consulars due to the amount of aid and development work undertaken by GOI there.

 

[ajpirzada]

Analysts say India fanning unrest in Balochistan

* RAND Corporation expert says Indian officials informed
her of ‘pumping money into Balochistan’

NEW YORK: Pakistan has legitimate concerns about India’s involvement in Afghanistan and about possibilities of New Delhi fanning unrest in Balochistan, top experts on South Asia noted in a discussion on Monday.

They said the concerns needed to be addressed for regional security.

“I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India," Christine Fair, a leading American expert on South Asia said. "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the (Pak-Afghan) border.”

Pumping: "Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organisation to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security."

Fair, who is a senior political analyst with RAND Corporation, also pointed out that India was "also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar, across from Bajaur. Kabul's motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India's interest in engaging in them".

She said it would be a “mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations”.

Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford, emphasised the importance of addressing root causes of terrorism that threatened regional stability.

In this respect, he said anyone seeking greater stability in the region, or seeking to wean support for extremists and terrorists in the country" has to address Pakistan's legitimate security needs".

"This means working with neighbouring countries to draw the sting of issues such as Kashmir and Balochistan. Pakistan, for its part, must move to a fairer federal dispensation and take the opportunity for bilateral progress with India that the present context offers," he said.

Fears: Touching on a point in the context of Indo-Pak tensions and the Indian involvement in 1971 events, Stephen Cohen, a senior expert associated with Washington's Brookings Institution, said US-India nuclear deal had added to fears among some Pakistanis that the US might tilt in favour of India.

Sumit Ganguly, professor of Political Science at Indiana University, said he "never suggested that the Indians have purely humanitarian objectives in Afghanistan. That said their vigorous attempts to limit Pakistan's reach and influence there stem largely from being systematically bled in Kashmir".

"Their role in Afghanistan is a pincer movement designed to relieve the pressure in Kashmir. Whether it will work remains an open question. Meanwhile, I know that the Indians have mucked around in Sindh in retaliation for Pakistani involvement in the Punjab crisis."

However, Ganguly claimed that as much as the Indians may boast about their putative pumping of funds into Balochistan, the evidence for that was thin. app

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2,

You have offered nothing tangible to refute the information provided about Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan. All you have done is continue dissembling and going off on a tangent of 'Taliban Armies' (stay on topic like I said ).

Patraeus's words on that count say a lot - there is no evidence of institutional, tangible support for the Taliban from the ISI, because there isn't any. Pakistan hedged its bets by not handing over or killing the Quetta Shura and rightly so, given the duplicity and perfidy on display by the US.

The Afghan Defence Minister is a prodigy of Mohammed Fahim, the anti-Pakistan NA warlord, and the chief of Afghan intelligence is a prodigy of Ahmed Massoud, another former proxy of India. That in conjunction with these reports of Indian support for terrorism from territory under US control says a lot about US intentions. But then, this perfidy and treachery has been your history anyway, starting wars to usurp territory from other nations to supporting Latin American despots, the Guatemalan genocide and overthrowing democratic regimes in the Middle East.

'Manifest Destiny', or 'Strategic Interests' - the singular pursuit of 'self interest', regardless of how wrong US actions may be remains unchanged - turning a blind eye to Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan clearly demonstrates that.

This is precisely why eminent analysts such as Rubin, Rashid, Nawaz (and now Fair) and former CIA officials such as Schauer have argued that Indian operations in Afghanistan need to be made more transparent and why Pakistani concerns over India's role need to be addressed - a 'regional solution' mean more than just renaming a strategy 'Af-Pak'.

Its people like you who continue to stick to simplistic assessments, 'US is a Knight in shining armor that can do no wrong', 'Pakistan is the only bad guy and waving at wind mills', that are the problem. When we actually start seeing a 'regional approach' and Pakistan's legitimate concerns vis a vis Indian activity in Afghanistan being addressed, we might see some progress.

Cheers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well said S2. This constant complaining about Balochistan is simply self-deception by some Pakistanis who are unwilling to recognize the real and present threat to their country.

What they need is a leader who can call a spade a spade.

There is no dichotomy between pointing out the threat posed by Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan, and also recognizing the threat posed by internal elements in Pakistan. Both have to be countered.

The 'self-deception' is by those who cling to some fanciful notions of absolute right or wrong - i.e India cannot possible be supporting destabilizing elements in Pakistan from Afghanistan, despite information to the contrary.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but in India we arent still sure if Pakistan 'did it' or it happened as a natural reaction to increased violonce in western Pakistan. The convinient one for India is to think the later.

The violence in Kashmir was down before 2007, which is when there was an upsurge in the violence in Pakistan.

The situation between the forces on the LoC has also remained largely quiet, which was not the case before, and used to help infiltrate militants into Kashmir.

The linkage between Pakistan's decision to end intervention in Kashmir and the reduction in infiltration into Kashmir and the peace there is clear. India does not want to admit it because to do so would take away her favorite stick to demonize Pakistan with, plus acknowledge to her people that Pakistan was indeed sincere about peace and normalization, and then who would be the subject of finger pointing and blame deflection after every terrorist attack?

The Indian side needs a huge change in its mindset.

 

[Neo]

India and Balochistan​

Editorial: A discussion carried by American journal Foreign Affairs’ website has RAND scholar Christine Fair saying, “Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Kandahar along the border”.

If this is not enough to back up the official Pakistani point of view, read what Ms Fair says next: “Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organisation to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar — across from Bajaur. Kabul’s motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India’s interest in engaging in them”.

The above observation made by an American eyewitness has put an end to the yes-or-no debate about India’s interference inside Pakistan and its use of a “facilitator” Afghanistan government for doing so. Ms Fair may not have substantiated the allegation that India has opened “dozens of consulates” along the Durand Line to bother Pakistan, but she has told the world that India’s Jalalabad and Kandahar consulates have offices along the border. India has put over USD1 billion into Afghanistan’s reconstruction — against Pakistan’s USD300 million — when richer countries didn’t feel moved enough to invest, and thus has a kind of privileged position among the allies who are in Afghanistan under a UN Security Council resolution.

But one needs to put India’s presence in Afghanistan in perspective. And one has to see it also as an old flanking move to Pakistan’s own strategy in India’s north-eastern tribal states. In 1995, the Pakistani embassy was attacked in Kabul when India’s friend Ahmad Shah Massoud controlled Kabul; in 1996, when the Taliban entered Kabul backed by Pakistan, the Indian embassy pulled out of the country. Then there is the Indian consulate in the Iranian border city of Zahedan. Pakistan used to complain to the Shah of Iran in the 1960s about there being “too many Indians” in the consulate there. So India and Pakistan have been playing spy games with each other since 1947. We should also recall that the rebellious Nagaland leader in exile, Mr Phizo, was actually received in Pakistan in the 1950s.

India has been a favourite of Afghanistan to ward off Pakistan’s natural neighbourly dominance. It was the only country to oppose Pakistan’s entry into the UN as a new state. Recent strategies have become more dangerous. India is fomenting trouble in Balochistan and has big money invested in Iran to back up this penetration from the Iranian side. More ominously, India is working in tandem with the regional states to prevent the filling of the post-NATO power vacuum in Afghanistan by Pakistan which is seeking “strategic depth” against India. On the other side, Pakistan is still reported to be meddling in India’s north-eastern states — Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya — with help from its friends in Bangladesh.

The last time Pakistan tried to fill the power vacuum in Afghanistan it hurt itself very badly. Afghanistan is a part of SAARC and India is not very far from it if you consider that India and Iran are bound to cooperate to counter Pakistan’s domination. Both have complaints: Iran lost eight of its diplomats at Mazar-e-Sharif who were killed by Pakistan-backed Taliban in 1998; India got its civilian aircraft hijacked in 1999 and brought to Kandahar by terrorists who forced it to release three dangerous Pakistan-origin jihadis from its prison who then disappeared in Pakistan.

It is not a popular suggestion but India and Pakistan have to vow to give up their covert wars and move in the direction of normalisation as pledged in the various resolutions of SAARC. The sooner India and Pakistan restart their normalisation process the better it would be for both. Pakistan is keen on it; India will have to come to it after the May elections. There is no alternative to peace between the two nuclear powers.