Asia Sentinel
Already subscribed? Login here
| India's Great Game in Afghanistan |
|
|
| Written by Our Correspondent | |
| Thursday, 16 June 2011 | |
India's growing influence in Afghanistan, an apparent gambit to outflank its traditional adversary, Pakistan, is increasingly irritating Islamabad. There is reason for caution. Indian diplomatic facilities twice in the past four years have been attacked, taking scores of lives in attacks many Indians believed to have emanated from Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, the notorious ISI.
India, in the words of C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown University, "has been able to steadily re-establish its presence in Afghanistan while free-riding under the US and NATO security umbrella" since it re-established the embassy it had closed with the Taliban takeover of the country.
The Indian presence is growing in Afghanistan, among other reasons, because "virtually every Islamist militant group operating in and against India (e.g., HUJI, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen/Harkat-ul-Ansar, among others) trained in Afghanistan with varying connections to the Taliban and by extension al Qaeda," Fair wrote in a paper titled Under the Shrinking U.S. Security Umbrella: India's End Game in Afghanistan.
As the US grows steadily more disenchanted with a 10-year war that has produced few tactical and virtually no strategic dividends, its inevitable departure is expected to create a vacuum that would leave India facing thousands of battle-hardened Islamic militants under Pakistan's patronage who could – and Indian planners must assume would – be deployed against them in Kashmir and perhaps further Mumbai-style raids against major cities or key targets in the country.
India's efforts to embed a long-term benign presence in Afghanistan have centered on large scale aid projects. In May 2011 New Delhi pledged an additional US$500 million in aid to Afghanistan, a significant addition to the US$1.5 billion it has provided over the past decade. Indian aid funds have financed roads, hydroelectric power stations, hospitals, training for hundreds of medical students at Indian colleges and even a 5,000-tonne fruit storage facility in Kandahar.
This display of soft power bolsters New Delhi's efforts to steer a fine line in Afghanistan between promoting its image as a responsible regional power broker while threatening Pakistan on its western flank. In addition to providing or pledging aid, India has been offering limited military training support and - more recently - seeking to align New Delhi with Washington's declared priorities in stabilizing the country.
Gavin Greenwood, a political risk analyst with the Hong Kong-based Allan &Associates security and crisis management consultancy, notes that any Indian activity in Afghanistan is interpreted – often correctly – in Pakistan as an attempt to open a new front on that country's western frontier.
Indeed, given the permanent high levels of tensions in Kashmir and the role of Pakistan-based terrorist groups in attacking targets within India including the devastating attack on luxury hotels in Mumbai that killed 164 persons in November 2008, it would be remarkable if New Delhi didn't seek to apply pressure on Islamabad – both for strategic gains and to avenge such atrocities as the November 2008 Mumbai attack.
The Mumbai attack was preceded by the suicide bombing of India's embassy in Kabul in July 2008 that killed more than 40 people, include five members of the mission's staff. No group has taken responsibility for the attack, though many Indians believe the bombing was organized by elements within the ISI to warn Delhi against deeper involvement in the Afghan conflict. In October 2009 the second attack, close to the Indian embassy in Kabul, killed nearly 60 people. The Taliban claimed responsibility for this attack, but once again the view from India, Greenwood says, was that the attack was a further warning against increasing involvement in the country.
India unsurprisingly has not heeded such threats and continues to support the Karzai government. In fact, India has been at it a considerable amount of time in Afghanistan. Fair points out that there is "considerable opacity" in describing India's history with the Northern Alliance headed by the late Ahmad Shah Masood, the then-main bulwark against the Taliban. Masood was murdered by Al Qaeda suicide bombers in 2001 on the eve of the destruction of the New York trade towers on Sept. 11, 2011.
India, Fair notes, supplied the Northern Alliance with high-altitude warfare equipment and sent "advisers" to provide operational guidance to northern alliance fighters. Indian helicopter technicians kept decrepit Soviet-made helicopters flying as a part of the Northern Alliance's resistance to the Taliban.
All of this has predictably fuelled fears in Pakistan over India's strategy and intentions regarding its western border. Given how such concerns may be converted into more direct action, it has to be assumed that security around the already heavily defended Indian Embassy in Kabul has been further tightened in recent days.
India's interests in seeking influence in Afghanistan in order to apply pressure on Pakistan's western border – perhaps as leverage against Islamabad's conduct in Kashmir – merely add more layers of complexity to Washington's efforts to balance primary US concerns in the region. The US's relationship with Pakistan has steadily grown more acrimonious, markedly so since US Navy Seals ‘invaded' Pakistan's airspace in their raid to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in the garrison town of Abbottabad in early May.
As an example of widespread resentment felt in Pakistan over the US action in Abbottabad, it was reported this week that the ISI has arrested five informants alleged to have assisted US forces and intelligence services in planning the raid on bin Laden's compound. Regardless how much such actions represent political theatre on the part of the Pakistan military, whose leadership is acutely aware they are as effectively ‘owned' by the US as the Egyptian army and have as little room for manouvre against Washington's ‘stablisation' agenda, there is limit to how far this core institution can be pushed.
From Washington's often-narrow perspective, now increasingly focused on extracting its forces from Afghanistan to meet domestic political timetables, the question is how much Washington is prepared to get involved in the intractable conflict between Islamabad and Delhi by moving – or even appearing to move - closer to India.
The answer is likely to be further obfuscation of the issues in return for vague and aspirational statements intended to ease the way of US diplomats and senior military officers picking their way through ancient enmities, compromises and snares that line the path out of this otherwise endless conflict the 19th century Russians referred to as ‘the tournament of shadows.'
Comments (8)
  written by Afghan Patriot, June 17, 2011
In 1839, the British Empire sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.
In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession. When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India - it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. This vote occurred on September 30, 1947, and is a fact. In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repel the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades. Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it fears can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created. When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there. Cont....
written by Afghan Patriot, June 17, 2011
.... Part 2
After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Bin Laden's AlQaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11. When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China. Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries - first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart. (cont'd) At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land. Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights owing to it from sovereignty, and wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them. Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it. The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states - Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab - would be far better than continuing to Cont. .....
written by Afghan Patriot, June 17, 2011
... Part 3
support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It was not a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country - indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another - they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism. Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation - but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom. If only the preachers at the Economist could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them. The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world. End
written by Nadeem, June 18, 2011
How can you let such one sided drivel pass through the editorial process? This article does not mention the biggest interferers in the internal affairs of Afghanistan while trying to magnify the role of India in Afghanistan way beyond its significance.
Ever since the inception of Pakistan, the peaceful people of Afghanistan have being trying to maintain an independent identity against continuous Pakistani attempts to install a client Govt. in our country. We have sought alliances with other countries to protect ourselves from Pakistani interference. Such interference while serving Paki interests has brought nothing but misery, poverty and mayhem to our people and country. Taliban were neither Islamic nor did they represent the ordinary people of Afghanistan. Allowing Pakistan to once again install a client regime in Afghanistan does not serve the Afghan people. It will just result in the population being brutalized. Regimes which are nurtured by outside powers and kept in power by continuous military support from outside powers against the wishes of the population do not serve the people of the country. They only serve their masters whose support they need to stay in power. Until this day Pakistan continues to protect, nurture, train and arm the Taliban. Not only that, the Government of Pakistan even sends Pakistanis to fight along with the Taliban. The people of Afghanistan just want to be left alone to run their country on democratic principles. They desire a government voted into office by the people of Afghanistan and answerable to the people of Afghanistan. They want to live independently and with dignity. How could the learned editors not see such blatant bias in this article? In past 30 years US, Pakistan and the Soviet Union have been biggest meddlers in Afghan internal affairs. Soviet Union ended 20 years back. The US and Pakistan continue to meddle until today. And only to the detriment of the interest of ordinary Afghans. India’s role in Afghan internal affairs is minuscule compared to what the US and Pakistan are doing. And unlike the US and Pakistan, the money spent by India is not bring death, destructing or mayhem to Afghans. The people of Afghanistan need help. We with other countries would do the same. Help us to develop our country. Help us to elect a democratic Govt. Help us to develop an honest administration. Please do not sent arms. Please do not arm us to kill each other. Please do not try to install client regimes in our country.
written by rahul, June 18, 2011
don't mess with afghanistan and its people. Stop spreading rumors about 'intentions' and 'influence' and 'foreign policies'. You think afghans are some dumbpuppets that anyone can use them against Pakistan ?
How self-obsessed can pakistani media be ? One can argue to death over pakistan, india and US and what not but I believe that at the end of day a man wants bread for his family, thats all.So stop all this propoganda and help bring that country back to democracy. Its about time !
written by Mohsin, June 18, 2011
What a load of rubbish. Carrying out propaganda on behalf of Pakistani military and disguising it as a researched article. The author has no knowledge about the history of Afghanistan, its people and the region. It also shows the stupidity of the Editors of this publication to let such a poorly researched, biased article appear on their website. The articles fails to identify and name the main foreign players viz. the US and Pakistan, who are interfering in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Nor does it mention the consequences of this meddling on the life of ordinary Afghans.
It takes note of Indian involvement in Afghanistan completely out of context and highlights it. As if India is one of the predominant player in Afghan politics.
Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
LATEST BLOGS
The Start-up Scene in Hong Kong
2013-03-26
International Sauvignon Blanc Day, May 17 - The Wandering Palate's favourite Savvy's
2013-05-17
Paul Day - Sculptor
2013-05-04
Malaysia's Rigged Electoral SystemPhilip Bowring
•
A win for the opposition is nearly impossibleFull Story |
| Other Articles |
Mockingindian
Donate to Asia Sentinel
Pashtuns are one people, and pretending that "evil India" has created bad blood between Pashtuns and Islamabad is just more of the same fantasy that has gotten Pakistan into so much trouble. Islamabad should stop hanging onto Pashtun territory illegally seized by the British, and the problem will be over, and there'll be no more need to lay false blame on India.