Regime change is not solely the prerogative of the American neo-con elite. It was first put into practice by the British East India Company in 1839 in Afghanistan. They didn’t call it regime change then, simply restoring an exiled king to his throne. William Dalrymple has covered the entire episode and its tragic fallout in Return of a King. Unlike other books on the period between 1839-42, the finely written Return of a King uses multi-lingual sources, not the usual eyewitness accounts or scholarly works from single-language sources. Dalrymple has sourced material from all participants of the tragic First Afghan War—British, Afghan and Indian (including the Punjab Archives in Lahore, Pakistan). It makes for a riveting account. The writing is typically Dalrymple: newsy, informative and interspersed with titillation. Even a supposedly god-fearing place like 19th century Afghanistan provides plenty of that diversion.
The East India Company invaded Afghanistan to reinstate Shuja ul-Mulk as the ruler. He had been greying in Ludhiana, surviving on a Company dole, while Amir Dost Mohammad Khan consolidated his rule in Afghanistan. Conspiracy theorists believed that the capable Amir would ally with the Russians, and both would act on their evil designs on India. Thus, the invasion plot was hatched. Ranged on the Russian side of the Great Game was the fascinating character of Ivan Viktorovitch Vitkevitch, Jan Prosper Witkiewicz in his native Polish. From a Russian prisoner to arguably its greatest player of the Game, Vitkevich was to die tragically at his own hands, an episode handled in a moving passage. In the British corner was the romanticised figure of Alexander Burnes. Ultimately he bested Vitkevitch to ruling in Kabul, but died a tragic death at the hands of those he had naively believed could be manipulated. He remains the centrepiece of British military romance from the First Afghan War. And he is also the chief villain. An interesting contemporary, Charles Masson, observed, ‘I augured very faintly on the success of his mission...either from his manner or from his opinion “that the Afghans were to be treated like children.”’
As British preparations became apparent, Burnes put aside his belief that Dost Mohammad Khan offered the best option for the Company’s imperial interests. And thus was born ‘Army of the Indus’, which wasn’t from the lands of the great river, and didn’t travel much on its rich waters. Instead it had to avoid Ranjit Singh’s Punjab and enter Afghanistan by way of Bolan Pass and the harassing Balochis, described in a brilliantly written chapter, The Mouth Of Hell. After exiting hell it was Kandahar, Ghazni and then Kabul. So the campaign should have ended, but for the ineptitude of the British. Their proposals for ‘reform’ got the goat of Afghan chieftains. In their desire to institute a professional military, they withdrew payments from ‘ghost-payrolling’, little realising that this was the practice in the East—the Indian system of mansabdari. The glue was getting unstuck between Shah Shuja ul-Mulk and his chiefs. And what little of it that remained in Kabul was evaporating under the fornicating excesses of the foreigner. In Afghan eyes, Alexander Burnes of Montrose was the chief fornicator and the first to pay when the fuse was lit. From then on, it was a tale of siege, slaughter, retreat and treachery. The book correctly highlights the treacherous conduct of British officials and their conspiratorial policies.
This book seeks to draw parallels between the First Afghan War and the current NATO-ISAF campaign in Afghanistan. That is where its politics gets hazy. In fact the Iraqi invasion of 2003 offers a better analogy—how evidence was manufactured and the honourables even lied to the world, much like in 1839. Operation Enduring Freedom of 2001 to rid Afghanistan of Taliban/Al Qaeda had a globally justifiable cause. Even if Mullah Omar wore the same cloak allegedly worn by Prophet Mohammed, as did Dost Mohammad Khan, ‘whose resonance was immediately understood by all Afghan,’ the analogy is a weak one. The only similarity being that both were fighting their own, but in the latter case there was a direct Pakistani role, and which continues till today. The first armed Afghan groups were raised and trained by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in 1975, long before any Soviet presence. The book is silent on that, instead blaming the West for what bedevils Afghanistan today. Just as the conduct of Afghans is not so simple, neither is their history. The First Afghan War created some myths which got perpetuated.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The Afghans were not exactly a 'nation', in the Western context. They are different ethnicities living in close proximity, and they don't like people telling them what to do, since they are doing it, and those who may be telling them, are doing other things. The ethnicites are further subdivided into tribes. The Pathans look very similar, but they have tribes, and so did and do, perhaps the Tajiks, and other ethnic groups. This was a safeguard, not against a possible foreign occupation, but for themselves, and they lived in peace. The Communist leader Najibullah, was supposed to be a traitor, perhaps, to all Afghans. How, there can be people who do not belong to any tribe, or ethnicity, in Afghanistan, and can join a leader like Najibullah, is intriguing. It appears, he was not trusted, and he was seen as a traitor. The Shah of Afghanistan should not have left for the U. S.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT