New Delhi made a leap of faith with regard to the controversial issue of reconciliation with the Taliban. Implicit in this is the awareness that Pakistan enjoys a close relationship with the Taliban.
The year was 1992. Chaotic days in April, as one Sunday morning Benon Sevan, United Nations Secretary-General's special envoy, came to the High Commission in Islamabad straight from a conference with the then Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, seeking political asylum for Afghan President Najibullah in India as part of a deal for the orderly transition of power in Kabul to the mujahideen who had surrounded the Afghan capital. I spoke to the then Foreign Secretary, J.N. Dixit, on open line in Malayalam and sought instructions, which came within the hour: Narasimha Rao ordered that Najib would be our state guest. Najib never made it to Delhi and my subsequent meetings with him used to be in the U.N. compound in Kabul where he was interned till his murder in 1996.
The communist government of Najibullah was overthrown by the mujahideen. A government under Burhanuddin Rabbani got installed in Kabul by June in terms of the Islamabad accord mediated by Mr. Sharif. Mr. Sharif took the mujahideen leaders to Saudi Arabia to pray before they were sent across to Kabul to govern. Pakistani influence on the Kabul government was deemed paramount. Our Mission in Kabul was vandalised and we wound up diplomatic presence. Hardly a few weeks passed; sometime in late August, soon after I was reassigned to South Block, we received a curious “feeler” from Mr. Rabbani's government. Would New Delhi allow a refuelling halt for the presidential aircraft proceeding to Jakarta, ferrying the Afghan delegation to the Non-Aligned summit, on September 1? We figured out that the mujahideen leadership was looking for an alibi to establish contact. Indeed, we warmly hosted Mr. Rabbani and a planeload of mujahideen commanders, including some frightening names vowed to eternal enmity toward India. Thus began a new chapter in the chronicle of India's relations with Afghanistan.
In fleshing out the new thinking fraught with dangers, Rao put down thoughtful markers so that South Block could choreograph a durable policy architecture. One, we should deal with all mujahideen groups without fear or favour and contact should be established with anyone and everyone willing to meet us despite the militancy of their Islamism. Two, we would deal with whosoever was in power in Kabul and focus would be on cultivating a friendly government that was sensitive to India's vital interests and core concerns. Three, dealings would be strictly with the government in Kabul, no matter its proximity with Pakistan or its security agencies. Four, we would neither arm any Afghan group nor ostracise any — not even the Wahhabi group of Ittehad headed by Rasul Sayyaf to which Jalaluddin Haqqani owed allegiance at that time. Five, we would focus on people-to-people relationship, tap into the reservoir of goodwill toward India and meaningfully contribute to Afghanistan's economic welfare within our capabilities and resources (which were limited at that time).
This policy continued till the Taliban captured power in 1996. In essence, what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh achieved during his visit to Kabul last week was to reset India's Afghan policy to its pristine moorings. Dr. Singh did this with great diplomatic aplomb and intellectual sophistication and it has come not a day too soon. There is always the possibility that he has again outstripped the opinion-makers in our country. Some uncharitable criticism can already be heard. Therefore, we need to ponder over what Dr. Singh achieved.
Most important, Delhi has made a leap of faith with regard to the controversial issue of reconciliation with the Taliban. In essence, Delhi feels that if reconciliation is the collective Afghan wish, India would go along with it. India would, however, wish that the peace process is “Afghan-led.” Dr. Singh declared support for Afghan President Hamid Karzai's reconciliation programme. This, in my view, is an eminently realistic position. It brings the Indian stance in line with the mainstream Afghan thinking. In any case, it was an aberration that a civilisation like India with such insight into the shades of political Islam had a mental bloc about the Taliban. No country today questions the wisdom of reconciling with the Taliban.
Implicit in this “leap of faith” is the awareness that Pakistan enjoys a close relationship with the Taliban. This brings us to a template that is going to be very crucial. The government has done extraordinarily well in doing all that is possible to dispel the cloud of suspicion in the Pakistani mind about India's intentions in Afghanistan — that our two countries needn't be locked in a zero-sum game. Our hope is that there could be a new calmness in the Pakistani eye as it scans the horizon and surveys India's activities. This approach must be counted as singularly imaginative on the part of the Indian policymaker. It is audacious, since there is no illusion that Pakistani policies in Afghanistan may still move on the same hackneyed, extravagantly wasteful and futile track of the past quarter century and more.
Of course, Pakistan would have lingering suspicions; and India's security worries, too, are profound. And it is going to be a long way down the line before India and Pakistan can actually think of cooperating in the stabilisation of Afghanistan. But the incremental removal of the “Afghan contradiction” from the cauldron of India-Pakistan differences itself would have a positive impact on the climate in which India-Pakistan dialogue is currently proceeding. Second, it will make a little bit lighter the burden of working out an enduring Afghan settlement.
Neither Dr. Singh nor Mr. Karzai showed the least bit of interest in rhetoric or grandstanding vis-à-vis Pakistan. Delhi knows Mr. Karzai can't do without Pakistan to steer the peace process forward but that doesn't discourage it from cooperating with him. On his part, Mr. Karzai underscores the willingness to be mindful of India's legitimate interests and concerns. It has been agreed that the key policymakers at the level of national security advisors will work together. Both Dr. Singh and Mr. Karzai seem to hope that in the downstream of the killing of Osama bin Laden, there could be a new awareness among regional powers, especially Pakistan, about the dangerous ramifications of terrorism. Dr. Singh called for a thorough probe into bin Laden's scandalous stay in the cantonment town of Abbottabad, but he also drew a distinction between India's approach to tackling terrorism and America's methods. This must be counted as one of his most significant remarks made from Afghan soil. Its resonance for regional security cannot be overlooked.
Dr. Singh conclusively buried the notions regarding Indian military involvement in Afghanistan. This may trigger despondency among our chest-thumping hard line pundits but Afghanistan is a classic situation where fools rush in, while angels fear to tread. Below the threshold of military involvement, India can help stabilise the Afghan situation. The primary benchmark ought to be the needs and demands of the Kabul government for “capacity-building.” India's offer to provide training for Afghan police officers is a big initiative, as in a post-settlement scenario, the police force is going to play an even more important role in enhancing security than the standing army.
Dr. Singh's decision to have an overnight stay in Kabul was imbued with the political symbolism that India has the grit to follow-up on its commitments. It would have gone down well in the local perceptions of India as a benign neighbour and steadfast ally who cares deeply for the sufferings of the Afghan people. Equally, his address to the Afghan parliament was a reiteration of the bonds with the Afghan nation that transcend the ebb and flow of current history and politics. The announcement of a $500-million aid package is a timely gesture to reiterate India's abiding interest in the stability and progress of that country on the path of development.
The only missing link in Dr. Singh's visit is that Delhi hasn't spoken a word about Afghanistan's “neutrality.” The big question remains unanswered: is Delhi for or against a long-term western troop presence in Afghanistan? This question will loom large in the coming months. The consensus opinion in the region is against foreign military presence. But the United States is working toward winding down the tempo of the war so that a troop drawdown is possible, while envisaging a long-term military presence. The pattern is the same as in Iraq where Washington is making desperate efforts to extract from the Baghdad government a framework agreement that allows U.S. troops to somehow remain in Mesopotamia beyond end-2011. Mr. Karzai is also coming under U.S. pressure. In the Hindu Kush, woven into this question is the U.S.'s regional policies toward China, Iran, Pakistan and Russia — what passes under the rubric of the “new great game.” It will be extremely unwise for India to be impervious to the tide of regional consensus. Let the native genius of the region guide the moving finger of history.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
Keywords: India, Afghanistan, Manmohan Singh, Hamid Karzai, bilateral relations, Indo-Afghanistan ties, U.S., Pakistan, Taliban
Comments:
UPA is a failure in Foreign Policy among most of the things,especially,in the near neighbourhood.Does not speak well of the Globalist MM Singh controlled by the Rothshcilds,IMF and the World Bank.
MS may be well ahead of the opinion-makers in his country, as the author says, and I will be surprised if there is any well-defined or articulate response to this endeavor from any political, religious or economic quarter. This ingredient in India's foreign policy is subjective, if not unknown and confusing to the same opinion-makers, like the way 'Kabuli' peas are admired and resented at the same time at the dining table.
India and Indians all over the world owe a great deal of gratitude to this man, our Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh. He is working so hard not for himself but for the betterment of millions of people across this region.His approach towards peace and kindness in the face of terrorism brings hope to all downtrodden people.We thank and salute you for the service to this country and moreover to the humanity.
Dr Manmohan Singh has shown great statesmanship both in relation to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US/ NATO presence in Afghanistan is more about coveting the resources of Central Asia for its corporations and to threaten the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, than any fundamentalist Islam threat. The policy of the regional countries must be to drive the US /NATO from Afghanistan completely. The fly in the ointment in achieving this noble aim is the Pakistani military which controls the Pakistani state and in its `India phobic' mode may well enter into a `strategic' relationship which the US is wanting from it. This will enable the US presence to continue to the detriment of the region.
Mr. M K Bhadrakumar's praise of Rao and Singh government's approach towards Afghanistan succinctly summarizes the systematic undermining of interests of the people and culture of the Indian subcontinent by fearful, intellectually weak and incompetent "leaders" of recent Congress governments.
The history of Afghanistan since 1992 serves as a indictment of the terrible appeasement policies apparently initiated by the then Prime Minister Rao. The people of Afghanistan have suffered atrocities and inhumane existence for decades. The lack of will by Indian leaders to confront the Mujahideen, the Taliban governments and their sponsors clearly contributed to the unchecked consolidation of power by these ragtag groups of criminals until the events of 2001 and subsequent intervention by the great people of America.
Similarly, Prime Minister Singh's apparent capitulation of the interests of India on his recent visit to Afghanistan will result in disastrous consequences for the people of the sub-contentinent. The "native genius" of the region, that M. K. Bhadrakumar mentions, is one of unflinching courage and deeply humanitarian values based on profound principles. Expression of this genius lies in fearlessly confronting oppressors, colonists and purveyors of the "new great game". India today is the natural leader of the subcontinent and responsible for upholding the noble traditions of the people of the sub-continent. Abdication of this responsibility by Dr. Singh is grossly negligent. Singh's attempts to "dispel the cloud of suspicion in Pakistani mind" by surrendering is an exercise in futility as that entity is a neo-colony devoted entirely to advancement of the policies of its beneficiaries. When the full impact on the people of the sub-continent of Dr. Singh's appeasement is assessed, his actions are frankly a dereliction of duty.
Crisp, well thought out and thoroughly objective.Kudos!
Too premature to judge what could be the possible implications of PM's Afghan policy. Fundamentally, we have acknowledged that given the lack of access and gumption to play any role other than development assistance and infrastructural support there is nothing more that we can do. Issue is what will be the benefit?
We also need to consider Karzai's own position within Afghanistan, recent interviews by Abdullha's are telling and discussions with Afghan interlocutors point to a huge trust deficit in Karzai's leadership.
Finally, we need to accept our limited leverages in Afghanistan and by extension Central Asia? Is this an acceptable scenario even considered from the point of view of bilateral relations with Pakistan?
The writer talks about "native genius of the region" ? What farce?
Does that native wisdom include Pakistan and the ideology of statehood based on religion, that created Pakistan and then Taliban, LeT, JeM, Al-Qaeda?
This article has again showed the depth and richness of The Hindu.
I appreciate the author for an informative and nicely worded article ..
An insightful article by Mr. Bhadrakumar. But I think the reconciliation with Taliban is a lost cause. People living in 12th century cannot understand the concerns of liberlised economies and free societies.
The Prime Minister, who is an economist himself, should first solve the greatest problem the people of this country, especially the poor and lower middle class, are facing, namely the ever increasing prices of essential commodities, before setting out on international diplomacy in a region which has not seen peace for ages. A section of the media and some strategic thinkers may support what Dr.Singh does in Afghanistan, but the people of this country will want him to first address their immediate problems here in India. By the way how far has Dr.Singh's "dialogue with Pakistan" policy taken us along the road to peace with Pakistan?
Mr Bhadrakumar's comment "..Afghanistan is a place where fools rush in and angels fear to tread..." is bang on in India's context. We have no business to be in that God forsaken land at this time. Unfortunately, the UPA outfit surrendered its foreign policy to USA from the time it took office in New Delhi and our involvement in Afghanistan has been done under instructions from Washington because it helps the latter's Central Asia policy. Instead of donating 2 billion dollars worth of aid to the Afghans, Manmohan Singh would have earned the gratitude of his own people had he given this amount to our oil companies to help them tide over their losses and in the bargain perhaps hold the price rise in our fuel items. But then, who is bothered about the aam admi?
The suggestion made in this article seems to be totally absurd to me , especially given the current context.Pakistan is in no mood to let india interfere in the geopolitical space of afghanistan.It,in no way wants to work hand in hand with India in resolving conflicts in afghanistan, rather it wants to keep India at bay while aspiring to excercise its full control in afghan matters.To envisage Pakistan working collaboratively with India in Afghan soil in being naive and unrealistic.
Indian aid so far to the War Torn Afghan has been well received. Even if we are not able to get so close to Afghan political forum, the Indian diplomatic pressure on Afghan leadership will help us to avoid problems during confrontation with Taliban.
Its a great move by government of India. We really expect this kind of foreign policy. It is impossible to sideline Taliban in the reconstruction of Afghanistan or else they will remain in civil war for long. And longer the internal strife, longer will be the unstability in the Hindukush region. The best way to make Afghanistan as India's good ally for long term is make their people India's friend. Increase people to people contact, get involve in the development of human resource of Afghanistan, engage their people through cultural tie-ups, academic tie-ups etc. Provide great oppurtunities to them in India and develop their educational and cultural infrastructure with our expertise. And above all engage one of the most influential lobby of any country, that influences most of the policies of any country whether intenational or domestic,the buisnessmen lobby. Mostly,Human beings always bend towards things that is profitable and peaceful. India could really be both to Afghanistan.
Dr Singh could be moving in the right direction from India's foreign policy, only time will tell. At the time Dr. Singh has to and must also bring back RAW's covert operations in Afghanistan & Pakistan that were immaturely and without thought ended by one of India's so called prime ministers in 1997. India is not a war mongering nation, however her neighbours are war mongering. India must learn to protect herself and her citizens both externally and internally. If India is not willing to hit back like USA or Israel then we must protect better than both.
Totally insincere intellectual jargon. It is apparent that the writer is sympathetic towards congress government. But the primary disservice of the author is not even that. It is the failure to report the improper standing by India and the failure to call out a misuse of taxpayers money. To suggest that it is possible to co-exist with Taliban, which does not represent Islam in any way, betrays either an immature understanding of the politics and history of the region or a focus on appeasement of fundamentalists within India. Then I take issue with granting this huge amount, from Indian perspective, to a nation, where in all likelihood that money will find its way to elements that are threats to national and international security. All this while significant fraction of Indian population leaves in absolute poverty.
"Is Delhi for or against a long-term western troop presence in Afghanistan? This question will loom large in the coming months." What India "thinks",does NOT matter to Uncle Sam, who creates conflicts so that he can enter like the 'camel in the tent'. South Korea has asked the USA to 'leave',many times but to no avail.Ditto Japan,Iraq etc. The US Globalists,enter a nation to stay put and NOT to LEAVE.
Very well written. Gives a perspective of the thought process of our foreign service babus.I personally feel the current approach is the best, and i hope that this can be the path that India will take as a mature and peaceful leader of the sub continent. Enough of the aggressive chest thumping attitude some propose, i'd rather have that attitude internally for tackling our ills and a gentle, understanding approach with our neighbours.On a seperate note articles like these are what makes me read 'The Hindu'... keep it up.
Being unable or unwilling to back oneself and enforce ones policies in the neighbourhood is what led to diminishing Indian influence in Afghanistan for nearly two decades. The benevolent and 'pristine nature' of India's activities and policies towards the mujahideen and we'll talk to whoever comes to power in Afghanistan without trying to ensure that OUR geo-political needs are met have led to a total lack of influence at best. At worst, it has led to severe security repurcussions not to mention, letting a whole set of people to live under the Taliban for years who caused the worst sort of suffering possible. Current PM reverting to such a policy is leading us to the same path. Rather than enabling Mr Karzai, however corrupt he is, to gain greater influence in Afghanistan, we're parroting the same lines from two DECADES ago! Two decades of Kandahar hijacking, setting up terror training camps by the Pakistanis and a steady supply of terrorists to be infiltrted into Kashmir. Blunder after blunder and we still follow the same policy. No wonder we're in such a sad state given blind diplomats and policy makers !
It is important to recognize that Bhadrakumar continues to push the failed policies of the years gone by. Pakistani army's hatred of India has very little to do with trust and a lot to do with its need to maintain power. This is now obvious to everybody, including a large number of civilians in Pakistan, but Bhadrakumar remains blissfully unaware. Yet another pillar of Bhadrakumar's thinking is anti-Americanism. He does not hesitate to condemn American interference and imperialism. Yet he is willing to tolerate and even support Pakistani imperialism in Afghanistan, even if it is accomplished through proxies in the most brutal possible manner. The PM has done right in Afghanistan because he is pursuing Indian interests. If those interests require us to tolerate Taliban presence within the Afghan establishment - so be it. All the other reasons adduced by Bhadrakumar, including the one that it will help dispel suspicion in the Pakistani mind, are false.
What a waste of time and money this diplomatic exercise that MS is undertaking in Afghanistan. There will most probably never be complete peace in the Afgh-Pak region. The taxpayers money that MS is wasting on the Afghan development will be eventually usurped by the extremists, also the development created by the Indians will be destroyed by the Taliban in the future. Please Mr Manmohan Singh, spend on the development of your own country which is still a 3rd world country and needs these vital resources for its own infrastructure and organisation and poverty. The $2 billion given to Afghanistan should be spent on your own people.
India should first make provide proper furniture, toilets to its rural schools, Then help other other countries.'Thanakku Pin danam' in Tamizh.
I have been in Afghanistan for a year, teaching in the university, invited by an international NGO. The visit of of MS and the supports of India have really impressed many Afghan students. Indeed,Afghan people love Indians very much. India helps them a lot in many ways and I, as an Indian and being a prof here could experience the amount of respect and care in great length. Let there be a good tie between these two countries and the promises of MS may inspire many Afghans and Indians int the near future.