What's new

Through Indian Eyes

Next if we come to Indian goals here i think this plan would brilliantly work out for us.

The reasons are:

India will be working in a place where there will be not much of a security threat. So we can continue with the goodwill gaining exercises with peace.

Also this side would be obviously friendly so no problem on diplomatic front too.

The only thing that india wants is a foothold in Afghanistan which it will get.

However there will be the flipside for us too. Once the fighting stops Pakistan can focus back on India and with the friendly Talibs at the doorstep can prepare more non-state actors for the war of thousand cuts.

Also if the encircling part of Indian strategy is true it would take a dent since India will mot be able to launch from this side. due to logistical nightmares and international presence here.

For the Afghans i mean non-Pashtun tribes this will be a blessing, as they need not worry about the Taliban coming back.

This is like a win-win situation for both India and Pakistan.

These are my personal views, please feel free to disagree.
 
.
USA cannot and will not do a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan due to face image,

USA is not going to withdrawn at all - not unless it bleeds significantly - so with no one around to make it bleed, it has no incentive to evacuate from Central Asia -- Counter to Ambassador Bhadrakumar's assertion that China and Russia and central Asian states would welcome the US forces, a series of insurgencies and small wars can erupt to ensure the bleeding part.

As for Indian interest - will they continue to have consulates on the present day Pak-Afghan border?


Then there is the question of Indian soft power, whatever the substance of that - how much influence does sit really exert - the average Afghan likes to see Indian girls dancing and falling in love - but does that mean he wants the same for Afghan girls? I don't know about that.
 
.
"Counter to Ambassador Bhadrakumar's assertion that China and Russia and central Asian states would welcome the US forces, a series of insurgencies and small wars can erupt to ensure the bleeding part."

I had that in my mind but it will also create problems for the region.
 
.
USA is not going to withdrawn at all - not unless it bleeds significantly - so with no one around to make it bleed, it has no incentive to evacuate from Central Asia -- Counter to Ambassador Bhadrakumar's assertion that China and Russia and central Asian states would welcome the US forces, a series of insurgencies and small wars can erupt to ensure the bleeding part.

As for Indian interest - will they continue to have consulates on the present day Pak-Afghan border?


Then there is the question of Indian soft power, whatever the substance of that - how much influence does sit really exert - the average Afghan likes to see Indian girls dancing and falling in love - but does that mean he wants the same for Afghan girls? I don't know about that.


Well Muse u have put forth very good point, however if the said breakage happens, the consulates will be out of question since India naturally will be operating from the other Afghanistan it recognises. That is why i said that this will be a strategic victory for Pakistan. Since the area close to its borders will be free of Indian presence leave aside influence.

The soft power if it ever comes to play will be after a long long time in the Taliban controlled area. The reason for this is simple economy. Once the Taliban are ostracised and marginalised to certain strongholds only , in the short term they will be happy but in the long term may be and i say may be they will want to develop too on all fronts. For this education is important which i don't see happening for them too soon.

I am more interested in GOP 's stance on its immediate neighbour the Taliban, what do u think will be its official stand??
 
.
2.) You don't understand Indian point we just want a trade route through Iran-Afghanistan.

So don't start old crap of India wants to encircle pakistan from Afghanistan.


Well, I will not go in details because muse is more than capable to answer you. However, I will like to state one thing here--You don't understand Pakistan's point! Solve Kashmir issue first than we will give you trade route. BECAUSE until unless Kashmir issue is resolved, differences between us will be there.

You guys will fall hard. What will we lose? We already have the trade route!!!! You do not have it!!!!
Thats your national interest and quite be.

But Lets see tom we dont get that trade route and our mechanism fails, Kashmir will still be unresolved.

Loss is still not for India, I know no profit either.
 
.
Indushek


Your question is predicated on what in my opinion is an incorrect assumption --

As we discussed earlier, a Wahabist state in in no one's interest - certainly not Pakistans' -- what Pakistan want is to be able ot pass through Afghanistan - it's about trade and about being free of this Saudi Wahabi war on Shi'ism.

If you ask my opinion, there are for Pakistan two enemies in Afghanistan, one Saudi Wahabi and the other is the US -- the indian, at least to my thinking is a bit player.

A free Afghanistan is a plus for India, Pakistan and Iran but a negative for the arbi and his vassals/proxy - in to this mess steps the American in the hope of muscling into the business of china - and see because it's not from the region and because it is in large measure blood thirsty -- now I realize that some are not prepared to think of the US in such a characterization, but I am convinced that the US has such hatred for Islam and Muslims that such a characterization is generous -- so that, instead of building lives of dignity, our energies will be drained fending of these modern day Bezerkers and when the US thinks it has bled the Chinese and the rest of us, they will go home.
 
.
Thats your national interest and quite be.

But Lets see tom we dont get that trade route and our mechanism fails, Kashmir will still be unresolved.

Loss is still not for India, I know no profit either.

There is a loss--We will still trade with Central Asian states and you won't get the trade route.
 
.
Indushek


Your question is predicated on what in my opinion is an incorrect assumption --

As we discussed earlier, a Wahabist state in in no one's interest - certainly not Pakistans' -- what Pakistan want is to be able ot pass through Afghanistan - it's about trade and about being free of this Saudi Wahabi war on Shi'ism.

If you ask my opinion, there are for Pakistan two enemies in Afghanistan, one Saudi Wahabi and the other is the US -- the indian, at least to my thinking is a bit player.

A free Afghanistan is a plus for India, Pakistan and Iran but a negative for the arbi and his vassals/proxy - in to this mess steps the American in the hope of muscling into the business of china - and see because it's not from the region and because it is in large measure blood thirsty -- now I realize that some are not prepared to think of the US in such a characterization, but I am convinced that the US has such hatred for Islam and Muslims that such a characterization is generous -- so that, instead of building lives of dignity, our energies will be drained fending of these modern day Bezerkers and when the US thinks it has bled the Chinese and the rest of us, they will go home.


But muse we are discussing the possibility of division of Afghanistan and its aftermath for our two countries. So the assumption part being wrong is incorrect.

On this wahabi ideology i am with u 100% percent, however if the division does happen there is no going back for America as it will be entrenched in this region safely.

Regarding American objectives its more like it wants to crush anybody who will stand up to them. This is my personal opinion sir, however i would like to know what are the reasons that has made up ur mind that America hates muslims and Islam??
 
.
there is no going back for America as it will be entrenched in this region safely.


Well, it depends on how much blood it's electorate is will to tolerate, how much of that bleeding can be made "real" for it.


i would like to know what are the reasons that has made up ur mind that America hates muslims and Islam??

Just look at US now going on 10 years after 9/11, a event which should have made it clear to the US that it cannot afford to continue to have the kinds of relations it has with Muslim majority states -- See, Indushek, it cannot be a coincidence, not for so long, that the US does not have meaningful relations with not even one, not even one Muslim majority country -- and see, the reason for this is how it views the world, Islam and Muslims inside the US - it simply cannot make peace with this reality and while it does not make policy with the intent of killing Muslims, it does welcome the opportunity to do so, even it does arise - in other words, it has become Enemy Seeking and Enemy making - it does not matter where, Somalia, Yemen, etc.., the Us is engaged in all kinds of dirty war business - the net result is the radicalization of even more individuals and the perpetuation of a circle of violence that has become now a article of faith in US politics -- I mean can you even imagine US politics and foreign policy without War of/on Terror?
 
.
Well, it depends on how much blood it's electorate is will to tolerate, how much of that bleeding can be made "real" for it.




Just look at US now going on 10 years after 9/11, a event which should have made it clear to the US that it cannot afford to continue to have the kinds of relations it has with Muslim majority states -- See, Indushek, it cannot be a coincidence, not for so long, that the US does not have meaningful relations with not even one, not even one Muslim majority country -- and see, the reason for this is how it views the world, Islam and Muslims inside the US - it simply cannot make peace with this reality and while it does not make policy with the intent of killing Muslims, it does welcome the opportunity to do so, even it does arise - in other words, it has become Enemy Seeking and Enemy making - it does not matter where, Somalia, Yemen, etc.., the Us is engaged in all kinds of dirty war business - the net result is the radicalization of even more individuals and the perpetuation of a circle of violence that has become now a article of faith in US politics -- I mean can you even imagine US politics and foreign policy without War of/on Terror?

Well on this front i have to agree with you, most of its policies are always bringing headache and trouble which is an understatement to say to the other party involved.

And about it poking its nose in every nook and corner of this globe is visible to even the blind!!!!!! The resulting image of its aggressive and selfish designs which u have exposed is absolutely correct. I don't know if ever the American public could introspect and retrospect its governments role on the world stage and the fallout. Seriously i mean even after the Iraq fiasco nothing has changed.

When Obama was elected i truly believed a change was around the corner, but sadly the corner is elusive even today. I sometimes wonder what is the humanity coming to, omg i think i am getting too emotional.
 
.
Don't get me wrong, but even when it means no harm, the people around the world have stopped believing that they mean no harm - it's an awful and very, very dangerous situation, and in Afghanistan, it's clear to me that it's all uphill for them - and most of this is their own doing -- I have a piece about parliamentary elections and how Karzai has positioned himself to use local government structures that the US, primarily, has financed, below is a piece that reflects other trends :


Afghan vote a foregone conclusion
By Aunohita Mojumdar

KABUL - As Afghans go to the polls to elect a new parliament, the result is already a foregone conclusion. Far from handing power to one political party, voters will return 249 individuals who must act as a de facto and fragmented opposition with little hope of setting out viable alternatives to the government's agenda.

In the country's party-less system, political allegiances are ever shifting - changing from policy to policy - and groups of MPs have often used their spoiler ability to extract concessions rather than shape administrative agendas. Realizing that the only leverage is their ability to block the government, MPs have come together to oppose sections of the budget, appointments to high office, including the cabinet, and critical legislation that the government wants to pass.

The legislative body has been a thorn in Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's side. He will be looking for the September 18 polls to help consolidate his power after reports that prominent opposition leaders have been co-opted by the government in recent months, analysts say.

''While pre-election politicking […] has generated a prominent (and very public chasm) between the Wolesi Jirga [lower house of parliament] and the Karzai administration, under the surface exist connections between MPs and the executive that threaten to strip the parliament of any monitoring or oversight capacity
that it currently has,'' Anna Larson wrote in a report by the Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU).

Major government initiatives - such as the move towards negotiations with the Taliban or the cross-border peace jirga - have completely bypassed parliament for a "wider" consultation with the people, inherently implying its non-representative nature.

Former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, a key member of the Northern Alliance, which includes Karzai challenger Abdullah Abdullah, have made peace with Karzai. Though Abdullah was sharply critical of the peace jirga held in June, Rabbani agreed to chair it, taking the steam out of opposition to the event. In the week preceding the election, another Northern Alliance member, the current speaker of the lower house of parliament, Younus Qanooni, was forced to deny he had struck a deal with Karzai in return for continuing in the post. Qanooni is a sharp political operator whose skills have honed parliament’s oppositional tactics.

Several key players may be considering their political options since no one is quite sure what the elections will throw up. Insecurity, fraud, and doubts over Afghan voters' eagerness and ability to exercise their right to vote, all present a range of unpredictables.


The country's Independent Election Commission, which has distributed 17.5 million voter registration cards for Saturday's ballot, puts the voting population at about 12.5 million, while the UN says the eligible voters number 10.5 million, based on past voting. Added to that uncertainty is that 15% of voters have been potentially disenfranchised by the pre-polling decision not to open more than 1,000 polling stations which cannot be secured due to the ongoing conflict.

The difficulty of arriving at anything more than a guesstimate of the voting population is not merely statistical trivia but at the heart of the challenge of mounting elections in a complex situation. There is no method of cross-checking a voter registration card against a voter roll to eliminate fraud. This makes it impossible to gauge the real voter turnout, so there is no available measure of participation in the democratic exercise.

Unlike most elections, where the candidate tries to meet as much of the electorate as possible, for many of Afghanistan's prospective parliamentarians, campaigning has meant their going into hiding or leaving their constituencies to safeguard themselves from kidnapping and attacks by anti-election elements. Yet enthusiasm for the election is high, with more than 2,500 candidates seeking seats including tailors, newscasters, singers and businessmen.

A new crop of influential militia commanders has also entered the fray,
according to Noah Coburn, writing for the AREU. Having chosen not to run in 2005, they have now seen the ''clear financial benefits of securing a seat and feeling reassured by a continued culture of impunity,'' Coburn said.

According to reports, some candidates have sought support from insurgents or even asked them to target their opponents. Direct violence between one candidate against a rival has also been reported.

Equally problematic is the issue of how free and fair the contest will be, a year after the 2009 presidential elections that were characterized by widespread fraud. Last year, ballot boxes in many areas were stuffed, while areas of high insecurity saw "ghost" polling stations that did not open or see any voters yet returned full ballot boxes.

Electoral fraud was not limited to ballot-box stuffing. The counting stage provided many steps that could be compromised. These included tamper-proof bags to transport votes that were tampered, tally sheets that did not tally, and triggers to alert to suspicious voting patterns that failed to be triggered during counting, according to Martine van Bijlert of the Afghan Analysts Network, who has dissected incidents of fraud in a recent report.

There is a high likelihood of fraud repeating itself due to a lack of any punitive measures put in place following last year's elections. The maximum penalty imposed was the blacklisting of some election officials, so the cost of attempted fraud in the current ballot is extremely low.

The crowning absurdity of the Afghan elections however is the voting system. Neither the preferential list system, nor the single-non transferable vote, it combines the worst of both, preventing political consolidation. The result is a fragmented and weak polity. Supporters of the system say Afghanistan first needs stability, while critics say the fragmented polity is one of the causes of continuing instability as it prevents the growth of a healthy democracy.

Either way, the final result is not political groups, agendas, manifestos or visions for Afghanistan's future within the parliament, but a collection of 249 individuals unbound by allegiance to any group.


Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 19 years.
 
.
Don't get me wrong, but even when it means no harm, the people around the world have stopped believing that they mean no harm - it's an awful and very, very dangerous situation, and in Afghanistan, it's clear to me that it's all uphill for them - and most of this is their own doing -- I have a piece about parliamentary elections and how Karzai has positioned himself to use local government structures that the US, primarily, has financed, below is a piece that reflects other trends :


Well Muse this is disturbing but i have to say shamelessly something similar happens in my country too. I am in no position to question the Afghans as i don't have a moral high ground in this regard. Morally bankrupt politicians and people here are having similar problems but due to a hard working middle class this country is moving forward.

Regarding American policies my friend i am telling u i am completely 100% agreeing with u. They have bought only misery to this world wherever they have gone.
 
.
If the editorial from the Hindu is a signal, then it seems a section of Indian intelligensia is beginning to fall in line with the US in discrediting Karzai and his Parliamentary elections -- Now this is curious, the US wants to be King maker in Afghanistan,but what would India gain from switching horses near the end of the race?


Editorial from todays Hindu
Meaningless elections

It is remarkable that an estimated 3.6 million people braved threats from the Taliban to vote in the September 17 elections to the Afghan parliament. More so is that the election could be held at all. Officials of Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission are already calling it a “success.”

But it would be delusional to assume that as a result Afghanistan is now a more stable place. NATO counted 500 incidents of violence on voting day, and at least 23 people, among them four candidates, were killed in the run-up to the election. In many places, the candidates were afraid to step out of their homes to campaign.

More than 1,000 polling booths, out of nearly 6,835, could not open because of security concerns. To top it all, allegations of ballot-stuffing, fake voter-cards, not-so-indelible ink, and other electoral fraud are rife.

As for the voter turnout this time, it was the lowest for any of the four elections held since 2001. As well as an indicator of the steadily deteriorating security situation, the number is a stark illustration of people's weakening faith in the ability of the system to provide governance. In contrast, seven million people voted in 2004 in the first presidential election, as many as 6.5 million voters queued up for the parliamentary elections a year later, and even as late as last year, 4.6 million exercised their franchise in the presidential election.

Contested as they will be, the results could take weeks to be announced. If the allegations of fraud are proved, it can only further undermine President Hamid Karzai's position, already weakened after his controversial re-election last year. Even if the elections are pronounced free and fair, installing a new parliament in Afghanistan is akin to giving band-aid to a patient suffering from multiple organ failure. The 249-member Wolesi jirga, as the parliament is called, does not have teeth and can hardly demand accountability from the President or his cabinet or even lower officials on issues such as governance-deficit and widespread corruption. The political party system is almost non-existent. Those who contested the elections are mostly warlords or ethnic leaders seen by the people not as their representatives but as members of a political elite fattening themselves on Western patronage. The election has just served to highlight that such a self-serving system would only increase the hold of the Taliban and make it more difficult for Afghans to retrieve their country from the mess that the United States has made of it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom