so at least one member agrees.
We very openly funded the Northern Alliance. Hell, Masood was airlifted to the Indian Hospital in Tajikistan. Though, we kept quiet because of the threat of Pakistani reprisals on Indian soil.
I have never been to Afghan, nor had I ever spoken with an Afghan. So, it can be safe to assume that I do not know a single Afghan personally. The only sources shaping my views on this issue are mostly official media, some random bestseller books from war-intelligence veterans (dubious sources), internet & few personal accounts of batch-mates/juniors (from school/college days), who are actively serving there or flying there off-&-on via IGIA.
Isn't that a fact ? Pashtun's are the biggest, most effectively dominant & vocal constituency in Afghan & Taliban draw their cadre from them. Why wouldn't the Pashtuns support & cheer for their coreligionist Pak brethren over us.
Now, do we even need to talk about that ? I do not find anything in these statements that can be contested.
There have been several incidents recently that corroborate what he is saying. Sikhs there have to live under constant threat of abduction/extortion/conversion, being blown to pieces etc. even after paying all the protection money & respects that non-muslims have to pay under all Islamic regimes. The religion of peace mandates this "hafta", as one of its fundamental tenet.
That's one hell of a problem then. Which fraction do we support and which not?
@pmaitra,
We support any and all factions opposed to Taliban and Pakistan.
@pmaitra,
I see that I have been unable to make my point, at all. But, higher probability is: you read my post selectively
On DFI, we all DO respect each other's views & the right to differ, but it's just not about that.
I am trying to take a broad perspective into account with some high-level awareness of the strategic landscape in Afghan milieu, that also takes the region's history, geo-political reality & multitude of conflicting factors at play, into cognizance.
I am not talking of a few "bad apples" or "some radicalized misguided youths" & "some isolated media reports".
Afghan is not a "nation-state" in the real sense; at least, not yet. It is an artificial entity created out of power tussles & eventual fragile settlements between post-medieval empires of "Russia", Ottomon Turk, Persians & the British. The line that divided it from Pak is a mock-worthy "anomaly", for Pakthoons are more densely populated on Pak side of the border, than on the Afghan side. Hence, Af-stan is at perpetual unease with itself & its inhabitants, which are impossible-to-reconcile nationalities.
There is so much more to it but in a nutshell, there are several inherent contradictions in its flawed existence that create the perpetual unease the Af-stan finds itself in.
We need to assess Af-stan issue with all the objectivity it deserves for it is too intricate an issue & one needs to muster all the cold, rational slyness one can manage to wade through this cauldron. No amount of one-to-one contacts between individuals/institutions could ever trump over cold "Machiavellian-ism" & proven "Game-theories" which determine how the relations between nations would play-out.
Neither "Fraternal bonhomie" nor "hysterical xenophobia" could be allowed to score over the age-old realpolitik adopted by the wily practitioners & mandarins of statecraft.
Ok, enough of that, now. Let me try to keep this simple & straight rather than jargon-ize it, anymore.
One basic tenet of Pakhtoon-wali: Tooth for a tooth & Eye for an Eye.
Now, one pearl of wisdom from Mr. M.K.Gandhi: Eye for an Eye would make the world go BLIND.
Now, you can establish the connection. This is what their society has turned into- BLIND, rhetorically speaking. They have been practicing this Pakhtoon-wali code of conduct since over a millennia. Their rivalries, enmities, ceaseless hostilities & retributions go on from one generation to another seamlessly, without any reprieve & the violence is only going to intensify given the interminable flow of "petro-dollars" & the recent calamitous influence of "Wahabism". Moreover, the melee over control of "unbelievably profitable opium-trade" & the control over strategic passes & valleys, would ensure that the inexorable bloods-spilling would show no respite. So, one can safely conclude that:
As long as there's oil in Arab wells & there are Heroin-takers in the West, all our efforts to stabilize Af-stan going to be dud.
All money we pour in there, is money down the drain. It's not an investment but a futile expense. Committing boots on the ground (in large numbers) or investing substantial capital/transferring arms would be the ultimate folly. We would never be able to stabilize Af-stan, no matter how hard we try & no matter how hard it is for some people to acknowledge this harsh reality.
The longest span of continued stability & relative calm in Af-stan was from early 20th century to 1973: during Zahir Shah's clan reign. Post 1973-coup, it has been the same ever since.
Some people tend to view the Afghan mess solely from a religious fundamentalism/extremist point of view. Nothing can farther from the truth. The Af-stan have been at each other's throat (and practically, at everybody's throat) since eons. The reasons behind this sustained attribute are: geographic location, terrain, bloodied history (the manner in which Brahmanism & Buddhism were subdued, then exterminated, only to be replaced by a sinister cult i.e. propagators of Ummah Caliphate throughout Eurasia, have a role to play), & brawl over control of "Opium trade".
Inherently, Af-stan is a warrior-nomad culture since eternities. The derived temperament & preferred lifestyle of so-called-autonomy (basically, heeding to no law & freedom to resort to their familial extortion trade) has been their bane since centuries & it is destined to remain so in future. Reason: Pakhtoon-wali as a code is non-negotiable & it is basically one cataclysmic cult/institution that no civilized tribe would ever beget, acquiesce or resort to.
If UN/NATO/UN wants us to take up their unfinished business in Af-stan, have them pay us. Adequately. Handsomely. Filthily. Nothing lesser would do. Appropriate price should be extracted for finishing up someone else's dirty-business.
Well, speaking of myself, I do not have to exclusively rely on official media reports solely, for I have ears to first-hand sources (who are both participants as well as witnesses, simultaneously, in the Afghan muddle). But still, I do not tend to brush away all media reports or expert analysis under carpet just because they could be some random incidents or unsubstantiated & exaggerated rumor. Doing it would be ignoring the obvious, failure to delineate the trend, missing in seeing the bigger picture & catering to my bias. Further, each report could be digested/ejected based on its own merit & after being subject to proper scrutiny & one's discernment.
All in all, my recommendation is this. We ought to maintain just the exact balance of "proximity vs. aloofness" from the Af-stan mess. Neither get too entangled in there, nor be impassive to the developments unfolding in that region. Be nimble enough to associate with & cultivate relationships with anyone as long as our mutual interests are getting fulfilled, rather than completely betting on/leaning on one particular clan/cult/regime/nationality.
The objectives of our multi-pronged in Afghanistan should be four-fold:
1) Securing access to Central Asian energy (oil/gas) reserves.
2) Weeding out Pak-ISI influence over the clans/valleys & passes there, thus denying Pak of its much coveted strategic depth.
3) Extracting mineral wealth & being able to ship it to desired destinations at an acceptable cost.
4) Never loosing track of above 3 objectives. :thumb:
On a parting note, one last remark: Wise is the one who learns from other's mistake. Ordinary is the one who learns from his own mistakes & foolish is one who repeats his own mistakes.
We can choose to be wise by learning from experience of British, Russian & US/NATO operations in that mess or we can choose to first burn our fingers like we did through IPKF in Sri Lanka & then wondering "What went Wrong" ?
Let me try to clarify a bit. There are a large number of Indians who follow Deobandi Islam (who hasn't heard of Saharanpur) & they are quite vocal (in issuing fatwas against all & sundry), aren't they?
Through Iran, Af-stan is the next potential gateway into Central Asia through the land routes (& way cheaper), for supply of oil/gas to India through existing/operational (& proposed as well as under-construction) pipelines operating throughout Central Asia (meandering around Russia, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc.). Exactly, the same pipelines/routes that China is leveraging to ensure its oil security through land routes.
I agree. We need to support anyone & everyone who can aid in uprooting the influence of Pakistan/Saudi combine in that region. Be it Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum's faction (if he is still alive), or disgruntled factions (if any) from Pashtuns, Balooch, or even opportunists like Gulbuddin Hekmaytar etc., whose loyalty is always available for rent. There is no dearth of insurgent-leaders like him in Af-stan.
Been there. Done that..............By US.
What is Fatwa ?
Your points are a bit disjointed but by and large I agree with your conclusion.
There is going to be no pipeline to India via Pakistan, atleast none which we can rely upon.
I was talking about extending the links from Chabahar & Afghanistan deeper into Central Asia.
I mean, our efforts should be paid for by someone.Bankrolled by someone. Financed by someone. Our exchequer need not be drained for this purpose. We should fleece whosoever has a stake in Af-stan stablity or whose agenda converges with us.
The order Taliban brought was the order one finds in a graveyard. I really would not like to recount the horrors of Taliban era. But, the fact that they served as a beacon of Islamic-empire's revival for the insurgent groups like LeT & JeM, definitely bothers. The boldness & motivation of these groups knew no bound during the Taliban-rule.
Bringing order to Af-stan should not be our top priority. I would prefer to have these guys finish each other off to the extent that they do not remain in position to pose a threat & or, aid our rivals in the region. The more pre-occupied Taliban are (in internal skirmishes), better for us, so they do not focus outside. And, we should continue to support the weaker faction. That is, the figure-head central govt./North Alliance, or whosoever is capable + willing to co-operate with us.
US tried that post 9/11. Failed because the efforts were piecemeal, half-hearted.
But as I said we are already doing that. In any case Iran is unreliable.
We are a 2 trillion dollar economy, and we can spare a couple of billion to ensure regional and our own safety.
Under Taliban, Afghanistan society was the most stable in close to last 4 decades.
That is the aim. But ultimately Taliban was able to establish their dominance because of their ability to bring order. Look at Hezbollah for eg.
That is not how you operate in these parts. US supported "Taliban" right up till Soviet left, then disengaged, and then a few years later has poured in a trillion dollars trying to fight 'em.
1. You counter Taliban Ideology with another narrative. Iran is already radicalising the Shia, some form of pan-Afghan nationalism is foistering. Taliban today is supported by a section of Pashtuns mostly. And then we have ethnic subnationalism.
Exactly, & our safety lies in first addressing the immediate threats looming on our borders. We are woefully short on most counts (Topic for another thread).
). On a per-capita-income basis, India ranked 141st by nominal GDP and 130th by GDP (PPP) in 2012, according to the IMF Source: Wiki I don't see the need to recount the plight of nearly 60 crore Indians (mostly, rural & urban poor + lower middle class). Then, there is a substantial percentage of folks in India who have to scrape through a day with less than 1 dollar.Western perspective..I do not subscribe to it. Recall, Kandhar episode + the spurt in terror attacks in J&K during that period. LeT, JeM are all insurgents fighting in Kashmir took inspiration from the establish of Islamic Emirate of Af-stan & were at their vicious best in their resistance against our security forces. Taliban have to be subdued, no matter what.
Have a look at this. Bharat Rakshak "¢ View topic - "Becoming the Kabila": An Alternate Strategy For Afghanistan
Long haul & commitment are "nice to have" advantages in creating a strong appeal to the consciousness of Afghan's & players in the game. But more than any of that, it is the "desired impact" we create there, is what is going to count, when negotiations happen. We have played it ok, so far. Little loss of life & capital. Any more engagement have to be funded by relevant stakeholders with converging agenda, for reasons I mentioned above.
Completely agree. My first card would be pan-Af-Pak Pakhtoon nationalism, uniting Pakhtoons across the border with a common united homeland, reducing Pak & Afghan to its size. To hell with Durand line that holds no sanctity in anyone's eyes. It would lot more safer for other ethnicities there, that way.
Yes, but why did they failed to stymie that flow ? Domestic political compulsions, corporate interest groups & there were some more factors that only Wikileaks :thumb: can reveal.
You have absolutely misunderstood and twisted the point.@Singh:
Exactly, & our safety lies in first addressing the immediate threats looming on our borders. We are woefully short on most counts (Topic for another thread).
Superpower US with all the possible levers in its armory (geo-political, diplomatic, monetary & muscle clout) had to spend a trillion dollars in Afghan quagmire, but nothing tangible/sustainable came out of it. Are we really expecting a few billion dollars would change the game there?
Or, are we assuming that major Afghan factions (who really matter) are so wise, generous & sorted out that Indian magnanimity & morally superior position, would win them in our fold & a few billion dollars can really do the trick in the Afghan sinkhole? We are talking of nation-building in a country where everything is blown to pieces within no time, on one pretext or the other.
There is a thing called "fiscal jurisprudence" whose meaning seems to be have been lost on us, so there are things like "current account deficit", "fiscal deficit", "balance of payments" that we keep hearing/reading in media. & that is not without any reason. Our growth rates are nearing its lowest in 2 decades & "stagflation" is the hallmark of our economic landscape. Defence budget has been decreased in real terms, for the first time in last 13 years, despite the immediate threats looming on our borders, with which there is no reconciliation in sight.
Now, lets have a peek at what lies beneath our 2-trillion dollar economy of just 1.2 billion people (& rising relentlessly
Education"¦. Health"¦..Immediate Defence(Chin-Pak nexus)"¦Border management"¦internal security challenges"¦"¦"¦ infrastructure"¦.Right to Food, Education & what not"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦ & then, the Afghan quicksand ?
There used to be a notion of "Priority". We can have our picks from the above areas, where the few billion dollars should go?
Further, it would be moral bankruptcy if Indian lives or Indian exchequer had to bear the brunt of Afghan development. We are not the only countries who are going to be benefitted by our efforts there. But above all, we are not the ones who created the problem in the first place & by whose misguided policies, Afghan is in such a mess.
Make no mistake (quoting the mad Bush Jr.), we are doing someone else's DIRTY BUSINESS. As they say in our neighborhoods. "Raita wo failayen aur saaf hum kare"? They are supposed to pay us in doing that, for they are the perpetrators there & are going to be beneficiaries of outcome (from our efforts). They have sponsored the insurgency & extremism there. They would also bankroll our development efforts there because it is in their interest to do so (prevent Afghan from reverting to a being a safe-haven for extremists). They are more capable than us (fiscally) & it's our obligation, in our own interest, to get them on-board.
LeT and JeM have been operating in Kashmir(in various guises) since before Taliban was created. This is not the Western Perspective.
I don't think you understood, I don't care about why the Americans failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am concerned with Indian strategy in Afghanistan.
We have our own agenda.
We need to support all stakeholders opposed to Taliban. BTW even the Taliban refused to recognize the Durand Line.
Good thing for us. We can be unorthodox to ensure the flow is stymied.
Not at all, Sir. There is no confusion whatsoever (I know my thing
). It is all about priorities, resourcefulness & smart play. As I have been reiterating all long, this is my perspective: Hope so, but whatever name you give it: nation-building, capacity-building, infrastructure development, democratic institutional-strengthening, friendly assistance, eventually, we need to spend more than a couple of billions of dollars. And its anybody's guess, how things are going to unfold for us once get more active there. Most nations have started with military interventions in there, but some got their nose bloodied, some turned broke & some had to concede ground to return to a situation that was even worse.
Your statement that :
is primarily a Western perspective. As I have already said, there order & calm they brought was the one that one sees in graveyards & cremation grounds. Not acceptable.
Who is not aware of this ? I wrote & I quote: Recall, Kandhar episode + the spurt in terror attacks in J&K during that period. LeT, JeM are all insurgents fighting in Kashmir took inspiration from the establish of Islamic Emirate of Af-stan & were at their vicious best in their resistance against our security forces.
No, not directly connected. But the same gun-running & drug-money nexus fuels both. Add to that: common Wahabi indoctrination, etc.
When was that denied? The fact is, they were emboldened, spirited, motivated & more capable then (during the period that Taliban ruled Afghan, for reasons I shared above) than they are today. So, I do not need Taliban to bring any more order & calm in Af-stan. It has repercussions in India & elsewhere, due to their bolstering effect on all Islamic insurgent groups.
I do. But here's something: Wise is the one who learns from other's mistake. Ordinary is the one who learns from his own mistakes & foolish is one who repeats his own mistakes.
Yes, that's right. US have no viable options. They have to play to Pak's gallery, since it is the Pak Army that has leverage on Taliban. We have obvious geographical limitations wr.t. Afghanistan. They find us less capable than Pak to handle situation there, which is a fact. No amount of institution-building & winning hearts-n-minds would score over good ol' raw muscle power, that Pak Army possesses in form of Taliban.
If we can spawn/foment a pan-Pakhtoon nationhood identity, Pak's influence can be contained & Pak nation would be cut to size. But this calls for some sort of limited/indirect engagement with Taliban. Anyway, understanding the enemy closely in order to reduce him helps. Pan-Pakhtoon nationhood is the ideal & ultimate diversionary tactics that could be created to ensure that all violence is either directed towards Pak (via-TTP etc.) or contained within a limited region, securing the non-Pakhtoon nationalities in Afghan (one of our main objectives).
Nobody has a clue how to do it. Political will is absent, as well.
How is spending a couple of billion dollars in Afghanistan being fiscally and strategically imprudent ?Not at all, Sir. There is no confusion whatsoever (I know my thing
Our safety lies in first addressing the immediate threats (Chin-Pak nexus) looming on our borders. We are woefully short on most counts. Regional safety & subduing Taliban comes later. So, regarding subduing Taliban, it is as simple as that:
Imperative ? Yes.
Highest priority: No. We have more immediate concerns.
Here's my take why we should not spend (actually, don't have to spend) much in that quagmire apart from the facts related to our national priorities, fiscal jurisprudence, subsidy-burdened exchequer, & that fact that a few billion dollars is a trickle in Afghan sinkhole:
1) We are not the only countries who are going to be benefited by our efforts there.
2) But above all, we are not the ones who created the problem in the first place & by whose misguided policies, Afghan is in such a mess.
3) We are doing someone else's DIRTY BUSINESS. As they say in our neighborhoods. "Raita wo failayen aur saaf hum kare"?
4) They are supposed to pay us in doing that, for they are the perpetrators there & are going to be beneficiaries of outcome (from our efforts). They have sponsored the insurgency & extremism there.
5) They would also bankroll our development efforts there because it is in their interest to do so (prevent Afghan from reverting to a being a safe-haven for extremists).
6) They are more capable than us (fiscally) & it's our obligation, in our own interest, to get them on-board.
You don't understand. if India wants to be a global top dog, it should atleast be a regional bulldog.
Dostum was a right prick, still is.
You are not even mistaking correlation with causation. Kashmir in the early 90s was a shithole. Taliban were nowhere in the picture then.
Again you are confusing issues
Ok, so we will not spend a trillion dollars, send troops to Afghanistan, and give aid to Pakistan.
Ok
Yes.
Agreed.
Yes, & it is capable of turning into a terrorist haven again. It troubles many CIS nations, Iran, Russia & US/EU as well. So, others are stakeholders as well. And not to forget, they are the original instigators/perpetrators, as well Now, most of these nations can pay. They have to be brought on-board. Requires diplomatic skills.
We can become a regional bulldog by getting the job done. It does not matter how. Draining our exchequer & putting our lives at stake is not a pre-condition in achieving that. That's what resourcefulness & smart-played statecraft is all about. We can be at the forefront of such effort, but a solid alliance backing us is mandatory.
I said & I quote, the order & calm Taliban brought was the one that one sees in graveyards & cremation grounds. Not done. Not acceptable to anyone here. Anyone who does not belong to Pak/Saudi camp, is preferred there. Taliban is not an option. We need to ensure that become irrelevant & relegated to the shadows, eventually. Pan-Pakhtoon nationalism could be one possible tool to accomplish that.
Without going all academic, I would share a simple, known fact. Kashmir in the early 90s was a shithole because the Mujaheddin were on the loose (not pre-occupied enough) post-Soviet withdrawal. And, it was not ISI Special Services Group Commadoes, who stormed IA convoys, fortifications & executed terror attacks. Many of them were Mujaheddin of diverse origins. This is public knowledge. We are talking of the period between 1993-August 2001. Taliban was very much there then. And, by 1996, they were calling the shots.
========================
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open letter to a delhi boy | Members Corner | 167 | |
| A | World's biggest bus depot opens in New Delhi | Members Corner | 16 | |
|
Earthquake in Delhi, 21 March 2023 | Subcontinent & Central Asia | 45 | |
|
2023 G20 Summit, New Delhi, India | Foreign Relations | 464 |
