Last Thursday, a large car bomb exploded outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing 17 people and wounding another 76. The attack came just 16 months after another attack on the embassy killed 58 – including the embassy’s defense attaché, a press officer and two Indian guards. Indian and Western intelligence agencies investigating that attack turned up strong evidence that Pakistani intelligence helped plan and carry it out. The Taliban claimed responsibility for Thursday’s bombing and some news accounts reported that suspicion was falling in particular on the militant network run by Jalaluddin Haqqani. Haqqani has been linked to Pakistani intelligence in the past, but it remains to be seen whether investigators will conclude that this bombing also has Islamabad’s fingerprints all over it. The Afghan government wasted no time in blaming Pakistan, but Indian officials seemed to be waiting to see what the investigation would reveal.
The bombing, however, turns a spotlight on India’s role in Afghanistan – and does so at a critical juncture: just as U.S. President Barack Obama is pondering whether to increase troops levels to vanquish the Taliban or to pursue a more modest strategy that focuses only on suppressing Al Qaeda. And behind this dilemma are a host of related but fundamental questions: is the war in Afghanistan winnable? What does winning even mean? Can the war in Afghanistan be separated from problems in neighboring Pakistan? Can a deal be struck with the Taliban? Or can a deal be struck that might enable Pakistan to play a greater role in denying sanctuaries to the Taliban and Al Qaeda? India may have a role to play in answering all of these questions.
India has a long-standing interest in Afghanistan. There are cultural ties going back to the successive waves of Afghan raiders who conquered northern India. In more recent times, India has supported most governments in Kabul, including the regime installed by the Soviets following their 1979 invasion. There are several reasons for this, but an important one is that India sees Afghanistan as a potential friend and ally in its long-standing strategic rivalry with Pakistan. Another is that Afghanistan represents a geopolitically important corridor to energy-rich Central Asia and the Middle East. India supported the Northern Alliance in their war to oust the Taliban and when, after September 11, the Northern Alliance triumphed with NATO help, India became very close to the new government of Hamid Karzai.
India has pledged more than $1.2 billion to help with reconstruction in Afghanistan, making it the country’s fifth-largest donor nation and by far the biggest donor from within the region. The Indian money is mostly tied aid – meaning it has to be spent on Indian companies and contractors. As a result, there are at least 4,000 Indian workers and security personnel in Afghanistan employed on various aid and reconstruction projects. These include everything from erecting Afghanistan’s Parliament building and rigging the power transmission lines that serve Kabul to installing solar-powered street lights in the capital. Indian engineers have also built dams and roads close to the Pakistani border.
India’s involvement in the country is, however, a source of great discomfort in Pakistan, which worries about India trying to encircle it. Islamabad has even accused India and the Karzai government of sponsoring separatists who have been waging a decades-long battle to win greater autonomy for Baluchistan, an oil and gas rich province in southwest Pakistan. Some feel that Pakistan’s paranoia about India’s presence in Afghanistan is a large part of what motivates the Pakistani military and intelligence services to maintain support for the Taliban and resist taking action against them in their safe havens on the Pakistani side of the border. In this view, Islamabad sees the Taliban as a proxy force against India.
What – if anything – should be done about this is a question NATO and US strategists have been wrestling with. The mixed feelings about India’s role in Afghanistan can be seen in a portion of the leaked report that General Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, submitted to President Obama. The one paragraph that mentions India left Indian foreign policy experts scratching their heads:
Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.
The ambivalence expressed here lead some here in India to dub the document “McChrystal Unclear,” according to The Times of India. Did the U.S. believe Indian involvement was positive, helping to prop up the Afghan government, which after all is one of the U.S.’s and NATO’s stated goals? Or did they think Indian assistance was counterproductive because it was giving Pakistan a reason to keep backing the Taliban? And which was more important, in McChrystal’s view, to winning the war – building up Afghan governance and infrastructure, or keeping Islamabad on board? The report doesn’t say.
Of course, the answer probably doesn’t matter. India is likely to do what it feels is in its own strategic interests no matter how the U.S. feels about it. A more interesting question may be what outcome India thinks is achievable in Afghanistan. One would assume, given the zero-sum way in which India tends to view its position vis-à-vis Pakistan, that New Delhi would see the Taliban’s defeat as essential. But Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna provided a surprising assessment to The Wall Street Journal when he was visiting New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly last month:
“India doesn’t believe that war can solve any problem and that applies to Afghanistan also,” Mr. Krishna said. “I think there could be a political settlement. I think we should strive towards that.”
This produced headlines that Krishna had said NATO’s military campaign was futile and that political accommodation should be pursued with the Taliban. In fact, that is what the lead of The Wall Street Journal article said. But the Indian Ministry of External Affairs released a statement saying that Krishna had been misquoted and that, while India favored a political solution, this did not include one with the Taliban. Which is a strange clarification. Since the Taliban – loosely defined – are the ones fighting the government in Afghanistan, who else exactly is this political solution supposed to involve? No, one suspects Krishna has committed a classic gaffe, which, according to the famous Michael Kinsley definition, is what happens when a politician inadvertently speaks the truth.
If India, which has deep knowledge of the region, its culture and its history, thinks the war in Afghanistan is not winnable, the West – which has none of these things — ought to pay attention.
But there is one final big question involving India that continues to vex U.S. strategists as they look at Afghanistan. Should Kashmir be on the table? (Yes, I’ve said it: the dreaded K-word.) There are many who have proposed that the U.S. might be able to help broker a grand bargain that would see settlement of the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in exchange for Islamabad’s guarantee that it would take decisive action against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants who find safe places to operate, sometimes with official sanction, in Pakistan. Even in the absence of an explicit quid-pro-quo, many think that if the India-Pakistan dispute could be solved (and Kashmir is at the heart of that dispute), then Islamabad would feel more secure and would naturally begin to abandon its support for militant groups, since the main reason it supports these groups is to use them as a proxy force against India and or what it sees as Indian influence in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration seemed to be leaning in this direction last year, but New Delhi quickly put the kibosh on the idea. As New Yorker writer George Packer explains in a fascinating recent profile of U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke:
According to several sources, Holbrooke thought that India and Iran, which played essential roles in the regional conflict, should also be part of his portfolio. (Holbrooke denies this.) But…India was taken away by the Indians, who refused to be included in an office set up for fragile states beset with Islamist insurgencies. Obama had mentioned the conflict in Kashmir twice in the weeks after the election, and the government in New Delhi ‘went beserk,’ according to someone familiar with the situation. Holbrooke later turned the setback into a quip: he was going to get through his new job without ever uttering the ‘K-word.’
Later in the piece though it becomes clear that this a major impediment to actually developing a winning strategy for nation-building in Afghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan. As Packer writes, after accompanying Holbrooke to a meeting with Pakistani generals:
..it wasn’t all that clear the generals’ world view had changed. They still allowed the Afghan Taliban to use Pakistan as a sanctuary, apparently in the hope that the insurgents would counteract a growing Indian influence in Afghanistan….In Islamabad, it became clear how few levers Holbrooke had at his disposal. Many of the subjects central to U.S.-Pakistan relations – drones, the Afghan Taliban, Kashmir – were off limits to public discussion…Holbrooke was denied the tools to hammer out a grand bargain for the region: for example, an agreement in which Pakistan stopped offering sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban in exchange for a deal with India over Kashmir. Instead, according to Vali Nasr [one of Holbrooke’s advisors], Holbrooke had to ‘claw his way up by addressing other issues,’ such as the threat to Pakistan from homegrown extremism.
The latest person to espouse a grand bargain on Kashmir as the linchpin to fixing Af-Pak is Turki al-Faisal, a member of Saudi Arabia’s royal family who was the country’s intelligence chief for a quarter century as well as a part ambassador to the U.S. and the U.K. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, he spelled out a seven point action plan for President Obama to achieve progress in Afghanistan. Point five was “fixing Kashmir.”
Of course, all of this assumes that Pakistan actually has an interest in burying the hatchet with India. And that is a big assumption. Some say Pakistan’s military and intelligence services are simply not interested in peace with India, since preparing for war with their neighbor has been their raison d’etre since the birth of Pakistan. And the democratically-elected civilian government in Islamabad simply cannot go against the desires of the military — at least not effectively and not for long. Some even go further and say that Pakistan’s entire national identity is bound up with its opposition to India. Without India as an enemy, this theory goes, Pakistan would cease to exist as a nation.
For my take, I think India’s current presence in Afghanistan ought to be seen as a positive. After all, India is likely to be there long after NATO forces have gone. And I think India has experience in the region that could be useful for both counter-insurgency and nation-building. But — and here is where I part ways with some of my Indian friends — I think that settlement of the Kashmir dispute and a lasting peace between India and Pakistan could be the key to convincing Islamabad to move against the Taliban and other militant groups. And I think it could only help to stabilize Pakistan in the long-term. Pakistan has plenty of other problems, such its feudal structure and lack of land reform, but peace with India would at least eliminate state support for extreme Islamist groups.
I also don’t think India can have it both ways: insist on a presence in Afghanistan because of geopolitics and its rivalry with Pakistan – and yet object when the U.S. sees the exact same thing and wants India included in a regional Indo-Af-Pak strategy.
Jeremy Kahn
Jeremy Kahn is an independent journalist based in New Delhi, India, where he covers everything from politics and foreign affairs to business and the arts. In addition to The Faster Times, his work has recently appeared in Newsweek International, The International Herald Tribune ...
Read more about Jeremy Kahn ->
More on these topics:
Af-Pak, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, General William McChrystal, George Packer, Hamid Karzai, India's role in Afghanistan, India-Pakistan relations, Indian embassy bombing, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Kabul, Kashmir, McChrystal Unclear, Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, S.M. Krishna, Taliban, the Haqqani network, Turki al-Faisal, U.S.-India relations, Vali Nasr
Jackass Journalism says:
And the clown house wooden headed puppet Jeremy continues, "my wife here 'Sara' will back me up with further fictitious comments....'Sara' will pose as a Pakistani and i will be a Chinese supporter!. Sara here thinks Pakistan managed to divide india in half." The puppet and the puppet's wife look at each other and gloat in their deep and newly acquired wisdom on subcontinental and asian issues.
The chinese though look puzzled and are about to point out that Pakistan is actually smaller than the Indian state of Gujarat! Pakistan is a tiny country really. Could be another state of the indian union maybe...
But then they think the better of it and "open their eyes" for the first time and look at the puppet closely... The puppet continues shaking his rickety puppetty head and looks earnest and sincere.
The chinese look at each other, nod satisfactorily and finally approve his visa.
perspective says:
Sad to see that there is no perspective on kashmir and the people that have lived through the last twenty years of the conflict--the kashmiris themselves. I don't know what Jeremy believe the solution to Kashmir is. Not sure if he does either.
It's quite clear that Pakistan is no longer in a position to influence the final outcome by much. Over the last ten years the Pakistani's have come to terms with the fact that the Valley of Kashmir (the only place kashmiri is spoken and under Indian control) will never be part of Pakistan. Likewise, it seems clear that India has no real desire to control the Pakistan controlled areas that have no cultural ties to the Valley of Kashmir. Again, the Valley of Kashmir is the heart of the 'kashmir' conflict and where the people have suffered for all these years.
If basically no land is to be exchanged and both parties have more or less arrived at that conclusion, then the basic premise of the original UN sponsored plebiscite is null and void. However, there is still the issue of the Valley of Kashmir's relationship to India and Indian governance.
The Kashmir Valley has always had semi-autonomy under the Indian constitution. One of the problems of the last 60 years is that between a series of rigged elections and the imposition of harsh central control, that autonomy was subverted. A simple solution for Kashmie, and one that should work well for India, would be to keep Kashmir part of India much in the way that Puerto Rico is part of the US.
Kashmir would be part of a greater India, Kashmiris would be allowed to have more control over local issues, maintain their cultural identity, but Kashmir would not have a major international personality, would not have an Army, and would not challenge the secularism/union of India. Ladakh and Jammu would remain standard states.
Pakistan would have nothing to say if the Indian government arrived at a solution that offered Kashmiris a little self-governance. Pakistan would be able to save face and act as if their involvement provided Kashmiris with some semblance of a sustainable solution. The Indian government would lose almost nothing in this process. Kashmir would no longer be the same drain. It would be seen as a sign of strength that India is able to solve its own problems. Kashmir would be seen as an expansion of Indian influence (in a good way) and Kashmir would have the potential to partake in modern development.
What does everybody think of the idea? Kashmir is India's Puerto Rico!
NYC Bengali says:
Sara's sorry commentary is nothing but an indication of the dangerous level of indoctrination that an average Pakistani is laboring under. Obviously none of her ranting is to be taken seriously but what is still dangerous is the amount of hatred harbored against US, India and Israel and lies which are fed to the average Pakistani population by their government. Their reality around them and their warped world view is built on a web of lies and vicious Pakistani propaganda that is so ingrained that they can’t even tell how outrageously irrational, self contradictory, and devoid of facts their own sad commentary sounds. It is symptomatic of how their whole country lives in complete denial of 1972 East Pakistan genocide, nursing their imaginary collective wound that it was evil Indian scheme that separated Pakistan and Bangladesh. I have known Bangladeshis living in US who thank their God they are no longer part of Pakistan, looking at the sad condition that ails today’s Pakistan. Such is the level of obsession and paranoia about India that Pakistan has practically devoured themselves internally without India even needing to do anything. So blinded they are, that average Pakistanis totally don’t get it, Indian economy is going so well that it would rather not rock the boat and create a tense and unstable situation in its neighborhood that would stall the economic miracle it is experiencing. Why would India want to create any instability in the region? It’s a question even Pakistanis cannot answer. Pakistanis believe India is just as destructively paranoid and suicidal like themselves willing to wipe out Pakistan from the map even if that means killing their economic golden goose. Pakistan has an unmatched ability to deceive itself with it own propaganda lies. Nothing the west or international community telling them that it has less to fear from India then from their own Taliban Army and ISI will convince them otherwise. It would be so true to say that Pakistan is its own worst enemy. Its end is near.
Sara says:
Ah, Pakistan's "end is near" is it? Sigghhh...that's exactly what India wishes, i'm sure, and that's exactly what was said by India when Pakistan gained its freedom over 60 years ago. "Pakistan will not last 6 months"
Well, Pakistan proved India wrong and even though Indians would love to see the end of Pakistan, they should concentrate on their own problems, like the massacre of Christians in Orissa, the treatment of Dalits and not to mention the murderer Modi, who is still ruling Gujrat. Sad really.
Oh, and what was that Varun Gandhi said about Muslims? "I'll chop of their hands." or was it heads? When will India stop hating Pakistan, I wonder?
Pakistan on the other hand, welcome with open arms the Indian Sikhs who arrive in Pakistan, even though India tried hard to stop them coming here and even though we caught Indian RAW agents on our soil, who pay terrorists to kill Pakistanis.
Looks like Arundhati Roy is the only Indian who had the guts to speak the truth about her country.
Oh, and I have Bangladeshi friends too, who just love Pakistan and have nearly the same complaints against India, as Pakistan has. THey also know fully well India's sinister part in 1971, which stemmed from hatred against Pakistan.
So no answer to my questions...Samjhota Express...Karkare....Oh, and another fact, India has stopped water to Pakistan from the River Chenab and destroyed acres and acres of crops. Just another step by India to try and destroy Pakistan. And in case your anti-Pakistan news media didn't infrom you, India has been cutting off water supply to Bangladesh as well. Tsk, tsk, my dear Indians, when will you ever learn to live in peace? Is 60 years of animosity not enough to quench your thirst of hatred against
Pakistan and other neighbours as well?
I sincerely hope that one day we can all be friends. Peace!
Jack says:
After doing some heavy research, I found out many interesting points regarding Pakistan and India. Firstly, when it comes to Kashmir. This conflict has been going on for over 60 years, hence, has no bearing on the current war on terror. Consequently, it should be looked at in a historical manner, not how Pakistan and India are viewed today. Leaving aside current events, when Pakistan was created, and India got independence from the British, some conditions which applied were, geo location, population views etc. The leader of Kashmir went against this and opted to go with India, even though majority of the Muslim population in Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan. So the civilians in Kashmir revolted against India, so India attacked Kashmir with its soldiers, to destroy the uprising. But the Kashmiris managed to free 1/3rd of their land, which is now called Azad (Free) Kashmir. The civilians in now Indian Occupied Kashmir continue to fight the Indian army, who have a terrible HR record, filled with disappearances, rape and tortures. Many times innocent Kashmiris have been killed, and their bodies taken to the now, LOC, and called "terrorists" from Pak, which have turned out to be false.
There was even a hilarious incident of the Indian army using ketchup to show blood and take pictures and portray a fake terrorist encounter.
Shortly before the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, a group of Kashmiris "hijacked" an Indian passenger plane and forced it to land in Lahore, Pakistan. India later used this excuse to block all Pakistani air traffic between West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). It is now established that those hijackers were working for Indian intelligence agencies and the purpose of the "hijack" was to malign Pakistan and thus create an excuse to attack her shortly afterwards.
In March 2000, just when President Clinton of the USA was visiting India, 35 Sikhs in Indian-occupied Kashmir were killed by "foreign militants". Again India immediately accused Pakistan of masterminding this. India even claimed to have hunted down and killed the fictitious Pakistan-sponsored culprits shortly after this gruesome massacre. Too bad that the relatives of the "culprits" spoke up and told the world that their loved ones were no terrorists but innocent Kashmiri civilians who were shot by the Indian army in cold blood to produce "evidence" against Pakistan. Even the Sikh survivors of the massacre told reporters that it indeed was the Indian army, and not the Kashmiri fighters, who were responsible in Chittisinghpura.
Then, in August 2000, about 100 people were gunned down in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Again, India accused Pakistan and the Kashmiri freedom fighters. Prime Minister Vajpayee of India promptly arrived at the scene of the crime and delivered a fiery speech in which he accused and threatened Pakistan. But even during his speech the relatives of the victims kept shouting at him that it was not the freedom fighters but rather the Indian police and paramilitary forces that had killed their loved ones.
On October 01, 2001, over 30 people were killed and many more injured after suicide bombers blew up a car outside Indian-occupied Kashmir's Legislative Assembly. Right away the Indians knew who was to blame: The attack was carried out by an organization fighting Indian occupation of Kashmir. The Indians also provided the name of the suicide bomber and claimed that he hailed from Pakistan. Very conveniently, right after the blast somebody supposedly called and claimed that his organization had indeed carried out the attack.
Now, the Indian script writers who wrote and staged this third-rate drama overlooked the fact that Kashmiri freedom fighters never release personal information about their members. Nor did they consider the fact that suicide bombings have never been used in Kashmir. Also, if the attackers had the intelligence and means to carry out such an attack, then why were they not aware of the fact that Kashmir Legislative Assembly building was being renovated and therefore the meeting was taking place in another location? The only people present in the building were maintenance workers and some junior officials.
As if this was not enough, India decided to throw in another "hijacking" to try to convince the world about Pakistan's involvement in world terrorism. State-run Indian Airlines supposedly received a telephone call right before midnight on Wednesday October 3 that a plane would be seized in mid-flight by terrorists. The Indian propaganda machinery went into overdrive: An Air Alliance flight en route from Bombay to Delhi was "hijacked" by "two men who spoke broken English" and forced to land in Delhi. The hijackers were apparently asking about maps and information about Pakistani airports in Lahore and Karachi. However, when asked by the international media what the "hijackers" were demanding, the Indians answered with a deafening silence.
Pakistan, alarmed by the mischievous designs of the Indian authorities, promptly closed off its airspace and warned that under no circumstances would this Indian plane be allowed to enter Pakistan. According to informed sources in Pakistan, the US realized that the Indian intelligence agencies and government were staging this fake hijack to malign Pakistan. Therefore, Washington warned New Delhi to back off and stop this charade. Realizing that their drama was failing, the Indians panicked and started to spew out one excuse after the other to deceive the world and avoid being made the laughing stock of the world.
Some government officials were saying that this episode had happened due to confusion created by an anonymous prank call to the aviation authorities. Others were trying to convince the world that there really had been a threat to the passengers and crew aboard the "hijacked" plane. Others again were claiming that this was all part of a live exercise to test the abilities of India's anti-terror units! The world, however, did not buy any of these excuses and rejected the pathetic Indian lies. Most vivid was the reaction of a Western journalist at Delhi airport, who said that this latest charade of the Indians was "disgusting and shameful".
By blaming the Kashmiris and Pakistanis for these terrorist attacks India is trying to malign the just and heroic freedom struggle of the Kashmiris. In addition, she is callously playing on the raw emotions in the West after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. By portraying the Kashmiris as terrorists and criminals who do not shy away from bombing and killing civilians, India is hoping that the US and the rest of the world will equate Kashmir's freedom struggle with terrorism and that this will lead to US clamping down on the Kashmiris as well in its war on terrorism. One can only hope that USA and the entire world community can see through India's blatant lies.
Pakistanis in general know India to be an aggressive, cruel and conniving neighbor, prone to act on whims. They have seen many examples of Indian behavior to come to this conclusion. In 1971 India attacked Pakistan and dismembered it. In 1984 India occupied Pakistan's Siachen glacier. In 1998 India detonated several nuclear devices and immediately afterwards threatened Pakistan with nuclear strikes.
The need of the hour is for the world to realize that it cannot afford to let India get away with such behavior any longer. One shudders at the thought of what outrageous stunt India will try to pull on the world in the future. India is in violation of UN resolutions 726 and 995 and uses the excuse of time gone by, not to comply, even though Pakistan is willing to accept them.
Daulat Raj says:
You want to know what is the key to making sure US soldiers don't get hurt because of Afghanistan, Kahn?
Simple.
The US should get out of Afghanistan, lock stock and barrel.
Go back to the USA.
Got it?
Don't talk about Kashmir, which is none of America's business.
The same goes for the UK.
Incidentally, why do you not campaign to hand ISRAEL back to the Arabs? The Indians have a far better claim to Kashmir than Israel to Palestine.
How about it, Kahn? It will make US soldiers safer.
Daulat Raj says:
Heck, it's all much much simpler than I thought......Why didn't I see this before?
If the situation in Afghanistan is all about India and Kashmir, what point is there in the US and the UK being there?
Simply get out.
No need to give India pompous lectures on Kashmir.
There will obviously be no security problems for these inncocent Americans and British from the innocent Pakistanis as a result of leaving Afghanistan. It's all about India, after all.