The US decision to draw down its troop levels by 2014 and change the nature of its mission from actively combating the Taliban and its associates to training local forces (and as yet unspecified activities) will have far-reaching security, political and economic consequences. While the Taliban’s capacity to gain and hold territory has been substantially eroded, its capability, and that of its associates such as the Haqqanis, to conduct lethal terrorist attacks and thereby destabilise the fledgling and fragile Afghan state is most potent. The Taliban influence in Pashtoon populations all across Afghanistan, including in provinces close to Kabul, is also strong.
The Americans insist they will not abandon Afghanistan as they did after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. That they will remain in some measure is clear, but a lack of clarity on the shape and form of their future presence is in itself a major cause of anxiety. Commitments of financial and equipment assistance for the Afghan security forces are expected to be made by the NATO countries at their summit next month in Chicago. However, the issue of American bases and questions relating to the rules of engagement of their forces post-2014 are unlikely to be settled till the US presidential election is over. Even if all this is achieved, there will be a question mark as to whether a reduced American presence after 2014 will be effective in preventing Afghanistan from again sliding into a period of violent turbulence and conflagration which will undo the current processes, howsoever imperfect they may be. Indeed, after the latest attacks in Kabul, popular confidence will inevitably ebb.
Hamid Karzai has been president of Afghanistan for over a decade. He has one of the most difficult jobs in the world. He has proved to be a master at political manipulation and manoeuvre, which has enabled him to always remain a step ahead of his opponents. An old mujahideen commander who was a one-time ally of Karzai acknowledged to me that the president was a good politician but added that “Karzai does not play good politics”. Karzai will complete his second term in 2014. The constitution does permit a third term. Such is the lack of trust within the political class that no one takes his assertion that he will go in 2014 at face value. Last week, Karzai said publicly that he was considering bringing the elections forward to 2013 so that they are not held at a time when the American forces’ drawdown is taking place. Many political leaders I met in Kabul dismissed it as a trial balloon; some saw it as a clear indication of Karzai’s desire to stay on in office.
The political opposition to Karzai is forming around two broad fronts. Both are led by leaders of the erstwhile Northern Alliance and are largely non-Pashtoon but they are reaching out to the Pashtoons and there are indications they may succeed in some measure. Karzai had succeeded in splitting the non-Pashtoons in the past, but the possibility that the Taliban may come back after 2014 is bringing the two fronts together. Notwithstanding the performance of the Afghan security forces in handling the recent attacks in Kabul, non-Pashtoons harbour doubts on their effectiveness and even unity.
The economic impact of the American drawdown will be severe. It would drastically reduce the flow of funds on account of lower American troop levels. Donor funding will also be affected. As it is, a flight of capital is taking place. Economic distress will increase reliance on the production of narcotics. Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of illegal opium. This is a principal problem vitiating all aspects of Afghan national life, but it is also an issue which is avoided by all actors, domestic and foreign.
If in 2002 Pakistan’s policy was in tatters and its positioned compromised, it is today back at the centrestage of the Afghan issue. It is not liked in Kabul but feared. It has constantly signalled to all that real stability cannot return to Afghanistan unless its interests are addressed. The Americans cannot extricate themselves from Afghanistan without Pakistani help, because Pakistan sustains the Taliban and ruthlessly keeps it on a tight leash.
India is perceived as a trusted friend which has responded to Afghan needs in the areas of infrastructure development and capacity building according to the Afghan agenda. The Zarang-Dilaram road, Pul-i-Khumri power transmission line, the supply of buses, assistance to schools and hospitals and the training of Afghans has all been deeply appreciated. India’s democracy inspires many; hence the request that India should construct the Afghan Parliament building. Its construction is under way. Significantly, India is the first country with which Afghanistan has signed a strategic partnership agreement and there are expectations that India will play an active role in the security sector.
There has been a remarkable degree of consistency in our policy towards Afghanistan. Successive governments have recognised its strategic importance and acted well to promote them. As the American drawdown takes place, our policy-makers will need to focus on the transition and the post-2014 period. New challenges are emerging; some old ones remain. Pakistan wishes to continue to deny India a meaningful role in Afghanistan, while the Americans do not want India-Pakistan rivalry to destabilise the country post-2014. Karzai, too, is careful not to offend Pakistan over the Indian presence in the country.
Dr Manmohan Singh dreams of an economically integrated India and its western neighbourhood with unimpeded peoples, trade and energy flows. Inshaallah, this will be the future. Meanwhile, the India-Afghanistan bilateral relationship should be the priority with additional attention given to its security and defence aspects. India’s Afghanistan policy should not be decided by present trends in India-Pakistan relations or US sensitivities.
Karzai’s Popalzai ancestor Ahmad Shah Abdali is revered in Afghanistan. He is credited with laying the foundations of present-day Afghanistan. Karzai still has a small and rapidly closing window of opportunity to create a new, modern and inclusive Afghan state. Can he display the courage and wisdom of his ancestor? Or will his presidency be looked upon as the lost years?
(The writer is a former ambassador to Afghanistan.)
Opium and Taliban Are Forever (Apr 30) was full of platitudes with little analytical thinking. In many ways, it’s out of touch with reality. As for India, the Afghans will like us till our troops set foot there to prop up some government or the other.
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.
There is a Persian saying, could well have been crafted with Afghanistan in mind, that one goes to a party of one's own volition but can leave only with the host's permission. Post 2014, the West will weary of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. If India and Pakistan are to make peace, Afghanistan should be high up on the agenda. No point in getting into a futile, competitive spiral over a troubled nation.
This is a fairly ridiculous article, full of conventionally propagated propaganda without a single piece of analytical thinking. In many ways it's out of touch with reality. As even the Empire's own forces admit, the Taliban are gaining ground, and are now in occupation of a much larger portion of Afghan territory; the so-called government of Afghanistan can now no longer even control Kabul. The alleged "aid" to Afghanistan, the end of which the ex-ambassador so bemoans, has gone only to build the opulent villas of Kabul's hyper-corrupt; any article on Afghanistan which mentions this "aid" freely admits that. As for India, the Afghans will like India until the first Indian forces land in country to prop up whichever puppet regime is in power at the time. After that, the fate of every other invader of that land will be India's as well.
As for the comment about what the unelected, so-called, "prime minister" of India dreams about, his "dreams" have signally failed even to protect himself from being held in virtually universal contempt. What he may or may not "dream" about is irrelevant.
In 2001, <i>Outlook</i> was among the magazines which published self-indulgent cover stories of Northern Alliance tanks rolling into Kabul. Once those discredited warlords and mafiosi retreat north again, and the Taliban take over the capital, will <i>Outlook</i> have the intellectual honesty to put up a cover story on that?
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