Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by A.V., Mar 14, 2009.
india and its presence in afganistan all discussions here.
Leave the issues to its people and The USA
I think if one is smart ,then he will do things after thinking twice,the Afganistan has stucked into troubles,and nobody besides its people can rescue it,it doesn't need any one who interferes its internal issues named as helping the country,if the USA wants to get involved into it,then India as a ally can go with the USA ,but just pretend to do something,nobody in Afganistan will be graceful to the people who have schemes.I think let it blossom on its own is the best choice,if the UN is kind-hearted,then give them more donation.That's enough.
Im of the opinion that A-stan serves us a big strategic value. It keeps Pakistan on the boil from two sides. India should station its troops out there even if they are doing nothing but playing Budkushi. Just the mere presence of Indian troops in A-stan will give Pak sleepless nights. They as it is have a problem with the number of consulates we operate there as well as the Tajik Airbase that IAF operates with MiG 29s.
I second you on that, Yusuf. I think that increased Indian military presence in Afghanistan would be a two-sided advantage. Since Indian military is known for not interfering with the local culture and that Afghans share a lot of common cultural material with us, we would not have so much of a trouble as the US military in adjusting to Afghan conditions. This of course would be done with Afghan government's permission.
I am sure that after the Zaranj-Delaram highway and other such projects, Afghans would be confident that Indians have no intentions of imperialism and also we could train their military into an advanced, sensible and capable military force, able to withstand any terrorist attacks thrown at them. Since war is not new to Afghanistan, beneficial military training to their troops would be a definite welcome by their government.
The other benefit would be that we can maintain a bird's eye view on the developments taking place in our western neighbor's military charts. With the near collapse of Pakistan's ruling elite, there is no saying as to how far Taliban or any other terrorist element is from their nuclear and ballistic arsenal. I think all the Asian countries must wake up to realise this threat before it gets out of control.
Currently, There are only 2 countries in Asia that have the capability to eradicate terrorism if working together and they are us and China. If we both can come to a common ground on Pakistan's issue from the perspective of combating terrorists and leaving civilians out of this, I am sure that there could be a lot of positive developments that would take place in the region as the probability of increased long term peace would be in sight.
yang India is going more than a ally of USA into Afghanistan if you look at Indian history we have the same history and they are more or less the same people, India has been a bigger benefactor to Afghanistan than any one else in the world. If you go further back in history there was no Afganistan it was part of the Indian continent.
IMO as long as India is in Afghanistan (i.e. Pakistan's strategic backyard) they are going to keep making loud noises about it and using the excuse to support their favourite warlords (read Taliban).
This is slowly but surely dawning on the US.
I wonder where things will go from here - will they discretely ask India to move out, or will they continue to ignore Pakistan's complaints? At the moment, they are opting for the latter.
The US needs someone to take it's burden and India doesn't need a second invitation to get in there. It may stretch us a bit to station our troops there, but then its worth the effort to keep our beloved neighbor on the edge all the time.
the question though is how are we going to supply those hypothetical troops?
It is not a problem to have a military presence in Afghanistan.
In fact, it would be in India's interest to do so since Afghanistan has had very cordial relations with India except during the Taliban/ Mujahideen rule, when it was a Pakistani surrogate.
However, the main issue is - how will India logistically support the force. While the facility to use the airbase in CAR is always there, yet to support a huge military presence by air is exorbitantly expensive and which India can ill afford.
The only feasible route is thorough the Chabahar port in Iran, which India has helped build and then to Afghanistan through the Chabahar-Melak-Zaranj-Dilaram road.
For this to happen, Iran has to be brought on board in this war against the Taliban.
Sir, Why should we go and post our troops now?...Instead we can bring both America and Iran both into the bed. Iran can allow the NATO to resupply through the port and the Highway that we built. We still dont know what is taking place between the P5, Germany and Iran. If the talks are a success and a deal is reached we can also supply the NATO troops from there thus reducing the crediblity and use of Pakistan. The Taliban will be pissed of with Iran and launch an attack on them thus pulling Iran into the war.
Would the US/NATO allow too much Indian influence in Afghanistan in their efforts to establish a sovereign, non-reliant government ?
Stabilization of South Asia is one of the major components of Mr. Obama's policies, and our encirclement of Pakistan will not quite be stabilizing.
IMO too, its a great option to make friends with the Afghans, but I see too many hurdles in the way.
That India has immense expertise in Counter Insurgency or anti terrorist or High Altitude operations and which is unmatched by the western nations is a known fact. That is why, they train at our Schools of Instructions on these subjects.
The US and ISAF are at their tethers ends.
Further, if India takes over a major share of the operations, it save them body bags and hence appear good domestically.
Thus, involving India is a win win for them!
Having stabilised Afghanistan, they will say thank you to India and India sent on her way!
Therefore, before India even thinks of going into Afghanistan, the ground rules at the end of the tunnel must be laid down in black and white and we should not go into Afghanistan merely to save the western body bags.
Pakistan is close to anarchy. It is a major worry for the US because if the Taliban and the fundamentalists take over a major part of Pakistan or make the elected govt moribund, then the worries and woes for the western world will be much greater than if Pakistan feels uncomfortable with India on both flanks!
Catch 22 for all concerned!
And Zardari's constant cribbing at every international platform, will not help to serve India's intentions of encirclement of Pakistan.
P.S. What are JMTs ? Jedi mind tricks ?
I for one has always believed that we need to have our soldiers stationed in south-west afghanistan and take care of the highway which leads from iran to turkmenistan for that takes care of our energy supply needs from CAR, as also if any such deployment has to happen then that keeps pakistan on its toes as then they wont just have their eastern border to worry about.
but there is a draw back that one sits on right from the beginning and that is the casualties that will happen there. Getting a body of a soldier from j&k or NE is one thing but to get a body of the soldier from foreign land and a war that will be seen as a making by the US and not our own war and where there is no UN mandate is an altogether a different thing and in this age of electronic media where all these media groups are ever ready to hype up the slightest of the happenings will not let go this opportunity as a by gone and then there will be the pressure of the opposition political parties who are as always waiting for any such happening to occur and then go to their constituent and shed crocodile tears and then this whole thing could catch up to hysterical levels.
For the political party which heads any such government that allows such a deployment over seas will be under pressure from all corners and then there will be the coalition partners who could go to the extent of even withdrawing the support to any such govt. the political loss will be too much which will reflect directly on the diplomacy which will wane out sooner than later and there could come a time where the govt of the day is forced either willingly or unwillingly to pull back our troops and all this at the end of the day could be a huge embarrassment.
Do you think with all this as a possible outcome, we should go ahead with any such deployment, and all this looks like a very possible out come.
yes your right Lethal Astan has been of Vital Stratatgic value to India as far as History can go and has Played a Vital Role In India's Stratagic Geo political Calculations from times of the Yore now is now is now diffrent and India Has Shown a Total example of Intiative by courting Astan for our ally
I don't think India should interfere in Afg.
Right now the PA are fighting taliban, but there are elements in PA who support the taliban. If we send our troops to Afg, the PA, will feel threatened. It will put them on the edge. However, if they feel that our presence in Afg pose a serious security threat to them, the PA, who have always adopted a "India's enemy is my friend" view will support the taliban agianst indian troops.
aside from loss of our soldiers' lives, it will further deteriorate the situation in Afghanistan. Pak might also step up support to groups like LeT to try put pressure on India to withdraw from Afg. A situation like that could bring India and Pak closer to war.
I think we should not interfere. Pak is getting more messed up by the day. The pak people are divided, with some supporting taliban and others against the taliban. Our presence in Afg will unite them. We dont want that.
It will be important for India that which regime is going to come to the power in the coming elections of Afghanistan. Will it be a government with Pashto majority or a government with multi-ethnic composition (Pashtos, Tajiks, Hazaras etc)?. Will it be a pro-US/India regime or a pro-Pakistani regime?. This will have a lot of implications to the Indian presence in Afghanistan.
From the economic and strategic point of view, India’s presence is surely a requirement as has been enunciated by you.
However, the problems are:
1. The US has to take the call as to which is more important to their interest:
a. Upset Pakistan by inducting India and hence encouraging Pakistan to close down the only land route for US supplies to Afghanistan.
b. Have India on board with the large contingent that was mentioned in a forum (1, 20,000) to take the pressure off the US and ISAF.
2. The route to CAR is through Chabahar Port of Iran. Will Iran allow the use of its port to assist its arch enemy, the US, even if it means assisting India?
3. Will Iran be amenable to India, now that we are not taking their gas? Why should they allow a rival (CAR) to gain by selling its oil to India and lose out themselves since India is not buying Iran’s oil and gas?
4. Will India operate under the US Flag?
I have always welcomed the idea of Indian troops in Afghanistan. It will give Pak sleepless nights and will be completely overstretched to the point of breakdown. We have our airbase in Tajikistan which has already drawn protests from Pakistan.
If India and US agree to provide a garb of working independently then Iran might not object to the use of Chhabar and the road to Afghanistan from there. Besides, the noises coming out from US show a more conciliatory approach towards Iran as the US itself has had enough of its trucks burnt by the Taliban while the Pakistanis sleep over it and it now wants an alternative.
US endorses Indian role in Afghanistan - US - World - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: The United States has endorsed India's regional primacy, including the role it is playing in Afghanistan, against strenuous objections from Pakistan.
In the process, Washington also rubbished Islamabad's allegations that New Delhi was using Kabul to destabilize Pakistan, saying once again that Pakistan needs to worry about its own terrorists rather than Indian presence in Afghanistan.
Key American pronouncements in this regard came during an interview by US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af-Pak) Richard Holbrooke to a Pakistani television network, whose host asked him about India's locus standi vis-à-vis Afghanistan when "it does not have a common border or a Pashtun population."
"Of course...India will have a role. It is the second biggest country in the world! What India does matters to the world!" Holbrooke exclaimed.
When the host followed up by asking Holbrooke about what Pakistan claims are subversive actions carried out by over-staffed (by spies) Indian consulates in Afghanistan bordering Pakistan, Holbrooke simply laughed at the idea.
"Pakistan has told me India has hundreds of people in (the consulate) at Kandahar," he chortled. "I asked people...asked Americans and the UN...how big is the Indian consulate in Kandahar...and they said six to eight people."
"Pakistan does not have to worry about Indians in Afghanistan. It has to worry about miscreants in western Pakistan," Holbrooke advised.
The allegation that India is supporting separatist elements in Balochistan has become a part of the new Pakistani narrative. Some Pakistanis see a grand conspiracy involving New Delhi, Washington, and even Israel to divide Pakistan and divest it of its "nuclear assets." No less a person than Pakistan's interior secretary Rehman Malik offered "proof" of Indian involvement in Balochistan to Pakistani law-makers recently.
While even the liberal Pakistani media has scoffed at the idea of India's involvement in Balochistan, it has been advanced by some American experts in Washington who are seen as sympathetic to Islamabad. Christine Fair, an analyst with Rand Corporation, recently suggested darkly that New Delhi was not entirely above board, saying Indian personnel were doing more than just distributing visas at its consulates bordering Pakistan's western border.
But Holbrooke, who would have access to definitive intelligence, showed little patience for such conspiracy theories that appear aimed at manipulating domestic public opinion in Pakistan against India. He said there is "no evidence at all, that Indians are supporting miscreants" in Pakistan along its border with Afghanistan.
Further defending New Delhi's role in Afghanistan, Holbrooke said the United States did not tell India what to do in that country. India had given $ 1 billion to Afghanistan and "the assistance is very public." India had built Afghanistan’s parliament building, "a very useful road in the south west" linking Iran, trained agriculture experts and given scholarships.
"All of that is open. What India is doing is part of the international efforts. I don't think it should be of concern to Pakistan," Holbrooke said. It is the first time that any administration official has so bluntly told Pakistan that it was way out of league and out of line in objecting to India's presence in Afghanistan, with which New Delhi claims historical and millennial ties, and a contiguity that predates Islam. It appeared to be part of the many "painful, specific" conversations that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said US officials were having with Pakistan to explain its place in the scheme of things.
Holbrooke also avoided the interviewer's effort to draw him into a discussion on Kashmir, saying "my job is only Afghanistan and Pakistan...and when I go to India it is only to consult them and keep them abreast and to let them know what is happening."
He joked that the media was constantly trying to get him "to say the K-word and I try not to say it."
Separate names with a comma.