With events moving so fast in Afghanistan, officials and analysts have all been caught napping. The Taliban took their first provincial capital on August 6 and by August 15 they had taken over Kabul.
Why did the Afghan Army, which the Americans had spent billions of dollars on, disappear without a resistance in this period? The UN has said that the Taliban will have to shed its terror links. But will the Taliban do that? What is Pakistan's role now? And what should India's strategy be now?
Guest : Jayant Prasad, former Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan and Nepal, and Director of the Manohar Parikkar Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses.
Host: Amit Baruah, Senior Associate Editor, The Hindu
Edited excerpts from the podcast
Hello and welcome to The Hindu’s “In Focus” podcast with Amit Baruah, your host for today and we will be talking about Afghanistan. Events in that country moved so fast that politicians, officials and analysts have all been caught napping. The Taliban took their first provincial capital on August 6, and by August 15, they had taken over Kabul. The world has seen unprecedented scenes, with hundreds of people desperate to board outgoing aircraft, underlying what the American departure and the arrival of the Taliban means for the people of Afghanistan. India, meanwhile, has moved its ambassador and all Indian staff back to New Delhi. To discuss all this and more, we have with us today, Jayant Prasad, who served as India’s ambassador to Afghanistan from 2008 to 2010.
Why do you think the US spent close to $2 trillion in Afghanistan and then decided to up and leave?
Yes, actually, that shows something about how the American system works. They kept changing the goalposts. They kept changing their objectives. They came with a mission to punish because they said that the Taliban harboured Al Qaeda. But 16 of those who attacked the United States on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian nationals. And the plot was hatched actually in Pakistan. And Americans didn’t realise when they started their attack that the Taliban would collapse so easily. So, within weeks of the Americans bombing the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements went into Pakistan, and kept lying low for four or five years. And then they gradually began to come back into Afghanistan and slowly became ubiquitous all over the country even when Americans had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011. So, the American mission first was a counter-terrorism move, and then it became counter-insurgency. Then, at some stage, it became nation building, after the famous London conference of December 2005 and then they realised by the beginning of 2009 that the whole scheme had failed. So,President Obama decided to ramp up US military presence. But, paradoxically, at the same time, he also announced a drawdown of US forces. And that gave Taliban the first inkling of possible victory over the United States; so all that they had to do was to sit out. So they sat out that whole period of 2011 until 2014, when American forces dwindled, and then they waited for American forces to exit. So America did not have any consistent policy towards Afghanistan. That’s the reason why the Taliban now are in Kabul.
Would you say that the Afghan armed forces really had no larger cause or no government to fight for? Is that what finally led to the crumbling of the Afghan military so quickly?
Absolutely. Because they realised that the Afghan government had not clearly earmarked who the enemy was and the Afghan armed forces saw its own government talking with the enemy. So what were they fighting for? And since May, since [former Afghanistan President Ashraf] Ghani turned down the American request for an interim administration, which would include also the Taliban, but which would have meant that Ghani would have to go. Ghani put forward a counter proposal that he would stay for six months, have a coalition government with the Taliban have a 50-50 representation in the Council of Ministers and the governorships of the 34 provinces. And, he was hoping that he would stay for some more time. And the British chief of General Staff was intermediating, between him and the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff [QamarJaved] Bajwa. Nicholas Carter is his name. And Bajwa came to Kabul and talked to President Ghani with Nick Carter. So all this was going on in the background and was giving a very bad signal. And the new Afghan defence minister,Bismillah Khan, made a statement before leaving Afghanistan two days ago that his hands were tied behind his back. He was the first regular defence minister in Afghanistan in President Ghani’s second term. And below him was the army chief, who was taking orders from the presidency. So there was great confusion in the chain of command.
The US claims that it spent nearly $90 billion in equipping and training the Afghan National Army. So this collapse means that in a sense, would you say we are back to a 1996 kind of situation when the Taliban took control over Afghanistan or is it a new world and the Taliban will also have to adjust to the new ways of the world?
I want to say one more thing about the Afghan security forces and the American training, and the weapons that they provided, the 90 billion that they are said to have spent. The Afghan armed forces had no medical evacuation, no heavy transportation, no heavy guns, no artillery; no tanks. So, the Afghan security forces were equipped with counter-terrorism infantry weapons, they were not like a regular army. And once the Americans left, whatever air support, and intelligence support was available to them earlier, was no longer available, because it was the Americans who provided the heavy lift, the reconnaissance and the intelligence. To answer your main question, a lot is being said about the new Taliban being more moderate. And that it would be possible to do business with them. And, that if not modern they are not medieval in outlook, and that they have no truck with the Al Qaeda, the Daesh, or other terrorist groups -- for example, the LeT[Lashkar-e-Taiba] and HuM [Harkat-ul-Mujahideen] which are of interest to India, the ETIM [East Turkestan Islamic Movement], which is of interest to China, the Islamic Army of Uzbekistan, which is of interest to Afghanistan's northern neighbor, but that the Taliban has new national, inward looking priorities. But, for any lasting peace and reconciliation, even if you do business with the Taliban, it’s not enough to settle between the Taliban and the erstwhile Afghan government. The Afghan reconciliation process needs not just accommodating the Taliban but also accommodating all of Afghanistan's ethnicities. So, unless the Taliban does this – and it will be seen only in the next coming few weeks -- there will be no lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. So, the Taliban will be reasonable in Kabul, all the reports are coming in from the provinces of some retribution. But in Kabul, they are likely to put the their best foot forward. Why? Because they need two things -- they need international recognition. Starting with the neighbors, they wouldn’t care so much about the United States or the NATO countries. But they would like recognition, starting with Pakistan, which is taken for granted. But China, Russia, Iran, the three northern neighbors, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, followed by others. And for that to happen, they have to present a moderate face. And then they need continued development assistance because you said that Afghanistan is a country where the preponderant population has an income of less than $2 a day.
Jayant, you mentioned China and Russia and the recognition that the Taliban needs. I recall that Pakistan formally recognised the Taliban government in October 1997. And then two other countries, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognised the Taliban regime. So this time around, do you think the situation will be different because the signals coming from the Chinese and the Russians are that they intend to have their diplomatic staff stay on in Kabul?
Actually, most of the important neighbors of Afghanistan, who have contiguous territories, were quite happy to see the back of American forces in Afghanistan. As all the American forces will be pulled out, they would be willing to engage with the new Taliban regime, which is promising some kind of accommodation of other interests. So even if the interests of girls and women are not accommodated, the interests of the dominant ethnicities will be.
The United States has gone on record to say that the future of its relationship with Afghanistan depends on whether a Taliban government respects the rights of women and shuns terrorism. Is that likely to happen in your assessment?
In the medium to long term, absolutely not -- so far, aside from three or four firefights between the Daesh and the Taliban in the eastern provinces, in the area of Nangarhar, Paktika and Khost, there has been no reported fight between them, between them and the LeT and or the Al Qaeda. Pakistan's priority will be that once it has a friendly government in place in Kabul, they should have the first say, in whatever Afghanistan does internally, including in the profile of the Indian presence in Afghanistan. We have to wait and watch what happens next. If we find that conditions to operate an embassy and consulates are there, then it is a call that government will have to take in the future.
The External Affairs Ministry spokesman said in a tweet a few hours ago, that in view of the prevailing situation, India has moved our ambassador and staff back home. So how do you think this will be interpreted by the Afghans and the rest of the world?
You know, this is going to be difficult for India, because after the Taliban came in, between 1995 and 1996, and the new Islamic Emirate regime was established, we found some new friends in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance resistance there comprising of the Tajiks, the Uzbeks and the Hazaras. But all of India's historic experience of exchanges with Afghanistan, including Kabuliwallah and Sher Shah Suri, or the Afghan communities that dot the whole of northern India -- from the Punjab to Bihar -- they all came from Pashtoon areas. Thanks to our development cooperation projects in the last two decades, we have a presence in the Pashtoon areas. Not physically. There are no Indians there. But there are Indian projects there. The first Afghan province that fell on August 6,Nimroz, has a vital road, which connects the Iranian border with the Kandahar-Herat highway. Indian projects are all over Afghanistan -- there is the friendship dam or the Salma dam in Herat province. These are going to remain as symbols of India’s presence in Afghanistan. We have to find a way to remain present in Afghanistan, but we can't do it straight away. So after things settle down, then government will have to take a call, but we'll have to play the long game. We'll have to keep our connection with the Afghan people because the United States may have had temporary stakes in Afghanistan, but being in our extended neighborhood, Afghanistan is important to India. And we have a presence in Afghanistan. Our support and solidarity for Afghan people must continue. And we must find ways of giving it expression.
The obvious question that I need to ask you is about Pakistan. We saw Prime Minister Imran Khan, saying that slavery had been shed in Afghanistan. Given its past history of backing the Taliban, and in a sense, creating the Taliban. How do you think Pakistan is going to play the game? And now in Afghanistan, will it be the old game that they played? Or will they will they have some new cards up their sleeve?
You know there is this undue triumphalism in Pakistan, reflected by its Prime Minister. But very soon, the reality will strike because when the Taliban was in power between 1996 and 2001, Pakistan tried its best to settle the Durand Line as a permanent marker of the boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the Taliban then was unwilling and now would be equally unwilling. So, the next thing that Pakistan would want the Taliban regime to do is to crackdown on TTP in the Taliban-dominated areas. For the last, let's say, five years since Operation Zarb-e-Azbwas launched by the Pakistan Army to flush them out of Pakistan. So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of the Afghan Taliban cracking down on the Pakistan Taliban. And so it might be a pyrrhic victory for Pakistan. And they will regret this present triumphalism. After all, if Taliban is good for Afghanistan, why should it not be equally good for Pakistan? That is the question the Taliban would ask. And the TTP would ask.
Right, on this question, you know, Imran Khan also said recently, that the Americans had chosen India as their strategic partner. And it appears that there's been no phone conversation even between the new President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Imran Khan. So, his statement about end of slavery, is this more a case of sour grapes that the Pakistanis feel that the Americans are ignoring them?
That's quite likely. But the Americans, if they have turned their back on Afghanistan, there is no reason at all for them to get involved with Pakistan. The Americans have very marginal use of Pakistan because they are no longer in the need of securing supply lines to Afghanistan. The only hope Pakistan has now, rather its military might still have that hope, is of some kind of an understanding with the Americans have the possible use of Pakistan's military facilities. But Imran Khan, of course, is on record as saying there is no question of it.
I'm going to leave you with a last question. You know, we saw when the Taliban were in power that, you know, terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden, and a whole host of people, you know, got sanctuary in Afghanistan, and they got the kind of space to plan international attacks, including 9/11. So do you believe that if the international community again abandons Afghanistan to the Taliban, we may see a situation where the danger is not just to the people of Afghanistan, or the its neighboring countries, but also perhaps to the West and the rest of the world?
Unfortunately, we have to live with that possibility. Because the most neutral body – the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council -- on the first of July came out with a report, which was circulated to the UNSC members that clearly indicated that there is an Al Qaeda presence even today in Afghanistan, and that's bound to grow. Terrorists from different countries are going to flock to Afghanistan as a safe haven, and the Taliban, which has a fledgling government right now, would hate to begin fights with other fellow travelers and terrorists. So the possibility of other terrorist organizations being harboured in Afghanistan is pretty high to my mind.
