Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts

My piece for Rediff where I ask whether Modi's swearing-in will set off a new SAARC-wide precedent

Here's the link to my piece for Rediff; published on 7 July 2014:

Rediff.com » News » Will Modi break from the past and swing by Kabul?

Will Modi break from the past and swing by Kabul?

Text size: A A A

July 07, 2014 15:24 IST

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Afghan President Hamid Karzai

To get such articles in your inbox

Will Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in set off a new South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation-wide precedent? And will he spring a surprise again and attend the new Afghan president's inauguration? We will know soon. Other things being equal, India can be expected to be represented at a high level at the August 2 inauguration of the new president of Afghanistan.

It is reliably learnt that Afghanistan has drawn up a list of 40-odd countries whose heads of state and/or government would be invited for the ceremony to be held at the presidential palace in Kabul. Incidentally, all SAARC members are invited, which has got some asking: Will Modi travel to Kabul given that he himself made the unprecedented move of inviting SAARC leaders to his May 26 swearing-in ceremony?

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was among the SAARC leaders who graced Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony. If Modi, and some or a majority of his SAARC counterparts, indeed make the journey to Kabul for the inauguration of the new Afghan president-elect, then they would have well and truly established an unwritten SAARC-wide convention for heads of state and/or government to grace each other's inauguration.

Security will be a consideration, as would protocol, but given Modi's penchant for the unconventional, it should not come as a surprise if he indeed decides to attend the ceremony in Kabul. That said, protocol has never come in the way of the time-tested ties between India and Afghanistan. Most recently, Vice President Hamid Ansari was the senior-most foreign dignitary to attend the funeral of Afghanistan's first vice-president Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was a close lieutenant of the late charismatic Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.

However, if the past is any indicator, it could well be that the external affairs minister will represent India at the inauguration of the Afghan president. A former external affairs minister in the UPA-2 government, S M Krishna, represented India at the November 19, 2009 inauguration of Hamid Karzai's second consecutive five-year term as President.

Incidentally, New Delhi had initially planned to nominate Vice President Ansari to attend the inauguration but decided against it because Ansari was required for chairing the proceedings of the winter session of Parliament) About 800 invitees, including foreign dignitaries, government- and military officials and tribal representatives, were present. On the occasion, Krishna had a separate meeting with his American counterpart, Hillary Clinton, and got to exchange pleasantries with his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Going further back, former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh dispatched Prithviraj Chavan, a minister of state in the Prime Minister’s Office, as his personal emissary for Karzai's inauguration on December 7, 2004. Chavan was among the representatives from 27-odd foreign delegations who attended the event. The invitees included, among others, the then US Vice-President Dick Cheney and the then US Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser Lakhdar Brahimi, the then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and the then Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao.

If Modi deputes his external affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj, for representing India at the inauguration of the new Afghan president next month, her visit to Kabul would come almost immediately after conclusion of her talks in New Delhi with visiting US foreign minister John Kerry. Kerry is expected to visit New Delhi for the annual India-US strategic dialogue, to be held on or about July 31. This year it was Washington's turn to host the Indian delegation for the strategic dialogue, which is held alternatively in Washington and New Delhi.

However, Modi's ascension as prime minister in May prompted Washington to change tack -- and quickly at that -- given its unofficial boycott of Modi for close to a decade. The US imposed a visa ban on Modi in 2005 for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and it remains in place to this day. (Yet, Modi would automatically be eligible for an A-1 (diplomatic) visa as head of government.)

Washington, accordingly, thought it fit to first send a bipartisan delegation to call on Modi in New Delhi before hosting him at the White House in September this year. John McCain of the opposition Republican Party called on Modi on July 3. Kerry's aide William Burns will be in New Delhi soon before Kerry himself comes calling on Modi -- something that would not have been possible if Washington had hosted the India-US strategic dialogue.

The only on-the-record comment so far has come from Amar Sinha, India's ambassador to Afghanistan, who said that the swearing-in ceremony of the new Afghan President would be attended by India at duly appropriate level.

He pre-empted speculation about India's preference (between Ashraf Ghani -- a Pashtun, a former World Bank economist, a former adviser to the Bonn Process and a former finance minster in Karzai's transitional administration; and Dr Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister of mixed Pashtun-Tajik ethnicity) for President by saying that "either of the candidates become president they both are good friend of India and will work very closely with them (sic). They look towards India as a true friend. Our policy towards Afghanistan transcends political differences and each government work very closely both in India as well as here."

Image: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Ramesh Ramachandran is a journalist based in New Delhi.

Will Modi spring a surprise again and attend the new Afghan president's inauguration?

We will know soon. Other things being equal, India can be expected to be represented at the 2 August inauguration of the new president of Afghanistan. It is reliably learnt that Afghanistan has drawn up a list of 40-odd countries and heads of state and/or government that would be invited for the ceremony to be held at the Presidential Palace in Kabul. Incidentally, all SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) members are invited, which has got some asking: Will Mr Modi travel to Kabul given that he himself made the unprecedented move of inviting SAARC leaders to his 26 May swearing-in ceremony?

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was among the SAARC leaders who graced Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony. If Mr Modi, and some or a majority of his SAARC counterparts, indeed make the journey to Kabul for the inauguration of the new Afghan president-elect, then they would have well and truly established an unwritten SAARC-wide convention for the SAARC heads of state and/or government to grace each other's inauguration. Security will be a consideration, as would protocol, but given Mr Modi's penchant for the unconventional, it should not come as a surprise if he indeed decides to attend the ceremony in Kabul. That said, protocol has never come in the way of the time-tested ties between India and Afghanistan. Most recently, Vice President Hamid Ansari was the senior-most foreign dignitary to attend the funeral of Afghanistan's First Vice President Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was a close lieutenant of the late charismatic Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.

However, if the past is any indicator, it could well be that the external affairs minister will represent India at the inauguration of an Afghan president. In UPA-2, a former external affairs minister of India, Mr SM Krishna, represented India at the 19 November 2009 inauguration of Mr Hamid Karzai's second consecutive five-year term as President. (Incidentally, New Delhi had initially planned to nominate Vice President Ansari to attend the inauguration but decided against it because Mr Ansari was required for chairing the proceedings of the winter session of Parliament.) About 800 invitees, including foreign dignitaries, government and military officials and tribal representatives, were present. On the occasion, Mr Krishna had a separate meeting with his American counterpart, Ms Hillary Clinton, and got to exchange pleasantries with his Pakistani counterpart, Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Going further back, former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh dispatched Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, as his personal emissary in a special plane for Mr Karzai's inauguration on 7 December 2004. Mr Chavan was among the representatives from 27-odd foreign delegations who attended the event. The invitees included, among others, the then US Vice-President Dick Cheney and the then Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser Lakhdar Brahimi, the then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and the then Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao.

If Prime Minister Narendra Modi deputes his external affairs minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj, for representing India at the inauguration, her visit to Kabul would come almost immediately after conclusion of her talks in New Delhi with visiting US foreign minister John Kerry. Mr Kerry is expected to visit New Delhi for the annual India-US strategic dialogue, to be held on 31 July. This year it was Washington's turn to host the Indian delegation for the strategic dialogue, which is held alternatively in Washington and New Delhi. However, Mr Modi's ascension as Prime Minister in May prompted Washington to change tack -- and quickly at that -- given Washington's unofficial boycott of Mr Modi for close to a decade. The US imposed a visa ban on Mr Modi in 2005 for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and it remains in place to this day. Washington, accordingly, thought it fit to first send a bipartisan delegation to call on Mr Modi in New Delhi before hosting him at the White House in September this year. John McCain of the opposition Republican Party called on Mr Modi on 3 July. Kerry's aide William Burns will be in New Delhi soon before Kerry himself comes calling on Mr Modi -- something that would not have been possible if Washington had hosted the India-US strategic dialogue.

Dr Abdullah Abdullah and (on the right) Mr Ashraf Ghani

The only on-the-record comment so far has come from Mr AmarSinha, India's ambassador to Afghanistan, who has said that the swearing-in ceremony of the new Afghan President would be attended by India at duly appropriate level. He pre-empted speculation about India's preference (between Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank economist, a former adviser to the Bonn Process and a former finance minster in Mr Karzai's transitional administration, and Dr Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister) for President by saying that "either of the candidates become President they both are good friend of India and will work very closely with them (sic). They look towards India as a true friend[.] Our policy towards Afghanistan transcends political differences and each government work very closely both in India as well as here."

Key dates*:

5 April 2014: First round of Afghan presidential election

14 June 2014: Presidential run-off

7 July 2014: Preliminary result of the presidential run-off

24 July 2014: Final result of the presidential run-off

2 August 2014: Inauguration of the new President-elect of Afghanistan

(* as on 6 July 2014)

Remove the Blinkers: Manmohan Singh takes a lonely road on Pakistan

This article was published by Asia Times Online (www.atimes.com) on 17 October 2013 under the headline: "Singh takes a lonely road on Pakistan". Here is the link to it.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in
New York on 29 September 2013 (Pictures and video courtesy: www.pmindia.nic.in)

New Delhi
16 October 2013

The Prime Minister of India met with his Pakistan counterpart on the margins of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 29 September 2013, defying public sentiment and in spite of an overwhelming body of evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in allowing its territory to be used for mounting terrorist attacks against India and Indian interests, at home and abroad alike. The discourse leading up to the meeting was dominated by whether the talks should at all be held in the immediate backdrop of the 26 September 2013 twin terror attacks in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in which Indian soldiers, police personnel and civilians were killed. It was not an isolated incident: In January this year an Indian soldier was beheaded at the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan; in August five more Indian soldiers were killed; and, in between, several more such killings and infiltrations were reported. As it became known later, the Indian Army was engaged in an operation to repulse an attempt from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) to push a tranche of infiltrators across the Line of Control even as the two premiers shook hands and posed for the cameras. It took the army a fortnight to successfully conclude the anti-infiltration operation. If the government dithered on calling Pakistan’s bluff, the army chief made it eminently clear to anyone who would care to listen that it is impossible for terrorists to carry out any activity along the LoC without the knowledge of the Pakistani Army.

By the Indian government’s own admission, the expectations from the New York talks had to be toned down given the terror arm which is still active in the Indian subcontinent. And as it predictably turned out, there was not much to show by way of outcomes except for the two sides deciding to task their respective Directors-General of Military Operations (DGMOs) to meet for suggesting effective means to restore the ceasefire. Even that looks remote now. The two DGMOs last met in 1999 although they speak fairly regularly. The New York meeting could at best be described as a photo-op. If anything, it once again reaffirmed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s, and by extension his government’s, adamantly consistent but questionable position on talks with Pakistan. After the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks, too, he had similarly disregarded public opinion to first meet with the then President of Pakistan at Yekaterinburg in Russia on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, and later with the then Prime Minister of Pakistan at the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit. It was at Sharm-el-Sheikh that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team agreed to a joint statement with Pakistan that said: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue Process and these should not be bracketed”. Also, in another first, Balochistan was allowed to creep into the text of an India - Pakistan joint statement. Pakistan has since conveniently used the bogey of Indian involvement in stirring up trouble in Balochistan as a stock response to India’s assertions of a Pakistani hand in fomenting unrest in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

All of which begs the question: Talks to what end, and at what cost? Is the life of an Indian – be it a soldier or a civilian — so cheap that talks with Pakistan should continue at any cost and in spite of a spate of terrorist attacks, as evidenced most recently in the twin terror attacks in the Samba and Kathua sectors of Jammu and Kashmir? How many more brave Indian soldiers should be killed in cowardly terrorist attacks before the decision-making apparatuses of the government proactively seek out the military’s views? How many more families should lose their loved ones at the hands of the terrorists and their masters outside our borders before the government of the day begins to pay heed to the sentiments of the common man whom it claims to represent? Why are no visible attempts being made to restore the delicate civil-military balance and to uphold the dignity and morale of the soldier? Instead, what we are witnessing today is a government that is playing with fire and it needs to stop now. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid has since clarified that while the two Prime Ministers met in New York the stage has not been reached where the two sides have indicated any dates, timeline or perspective on resuming the dialogue. And with a post-2014 Afghanistan looming large on the horizon it is anyone’s guess as to how much time and effort Pakistan, given its proclivities, will be willing to spare and/or invest in preserving the incremental peace dividends and insulating the bilateral relationship from external influences.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of
Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in New York on 29 September 2013. Also seen in the picture
(on the right) are External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, National Security
Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh

What the discerning stakeholders in India today need be understand is that this government’s blind faith in dialogue with Pakistan has not disproved those who have little or no faith in talks under the present circumstances. The history of India – Pakistan bilateral engagement over the past decade and more is replete with an unending series of terrorist attacks interspersed with peace talks, an overwhelming majority of which were held in third countries on the margins of multilateral summits. The New York meeting is but one in a long list of bilateral engagements starting with the 2006 NAM summit at Havana in Cuba, the 2008 Asia –Europe Meeting (ASEM) at Beijing in China, the 2008 United Nations General Assembly session in New York, the 2009 SCO summit at Yekaterinburg in Russia, the 2009 NAM summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the 2010 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit at Thimphu in Bhutan. Add to it former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s visit to New Delhi in 2005 and former Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to Mohali in 2011 for watching cricket or the private visits by Pakistani heads of state/government to Ajmer and you have a veritably uninterrupted dialogue that can be traced further back to Lahore, 1999; Agra, 2001; and Islamabad, 2004. Importantly, these bilateral engagements have survived multiple terrorist attacks and conflicts dating back to Kargil and Kandahar in 1999, Parliament in 2001, Mumbai train bombings of 2006 and the 26/11 terrorist attacks again in Mumbai, in 2008. But what has come of the talks so far? Are we any closer to a breakthrough than we were before? Have terrorist attacks diminished appreciably? Unfortunately, after every terrorist attack the government of the day mouths platitudes and employs boilerplate language such as ‘It cannot be business as usual’ or ‘Patience is not inexhaustible’ only to go back on them at the first available opportunity! This government has tied itself in knots over its Pakistan policy but it has only itself to blame for it. Its inability to think out of the box has exposed its bankruptcy of ideas on how to deal with an increasingly intransigent neighbour. And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal quest for a lasting legacy insofar as Pakistan is concerned has only further compounded an already intractable conundrum.

The government needs to remove its blinkers and begin to appreciate that terrorism and talks cannot go hand in hand. It is imperative that the government shows zero tolerance to terrorism, takes strong steps to prevent terror attacks and imposes costs on the perpetrators of terrorism. Most importantly, the government must heed public opinion. The time has come for the government to start calling Pakistan’s bluff, to act firmly and decisively and if that involves putting a moratorium on future talks with Pakistan at the highest level, “so be it.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has used this specific language before, albeit to a domestic audience in the run up to the India – United States nuclear cooperation agreement in his first term in office when the Left parties parted ways with the UPA; there is no reason why in the instant context Pakistan cannot be told “So be it”; that India will be free to pursue its course of action if Pakistan does not intend to reciprocate peace overtures; and that consequences will follow if it does not give satisfaction to India on what India considers to be its core interests. Saying no to talks now is not the same as saying no to talks ever and it certainly need not necessarily mean or come to represent an escalation of tensions. A range of other equally effective options is available to the government of the day to execute its Pakistan policy and these must be explored. Above all, the government must forge the broadest possible national consensus on the way forward for a détente with Pakistan.

RELATED POST:
* Patience needed for Sharif's India goals, published by www.atimes.com on 17 May 2013

Post-2014 Afghanistan: Back to the Future?

New Delhi

28 July 2013

Hamid Karzai, president
of Afghanistan

As Afghanistan prepares for life beyond 2014 its capital Kabul is seeing a steady stream of visitors from far and near, all seeking to reassure and to be reassured themselves that peace and stability will return to the landlocked country torn apart by conflict for the last 33 years. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan on July 27; his country has about 1,500 troops there but the bulk will be pulled out by the end of this year. Security and Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz of Pakistan and British premier David Cameron were there, too, as was the US’s Af-Pak envoy James Dobbins. An Indian delegation comprising officials from the ministries of external affairs and defence travelled to Kabul in the second week of July to follow up on Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to New Delhi in the month of May with a wish list of items he would like the Indian government to share with the Afghan national army and allied security forces as the US completes pulling out its troops by the end of next year.

What should have been a moment of quiet satisfaction, reflective of the enormous goodwill India enjoys among the Afghan people and government alike for funding development projects worth billions of dollars, has turned into an embarrassment of sorts as President Karzai’s wish list has exposed the limits to what India can, and is willing to, do to shore up a post-2014 Afghanistan. It was quick to waitlist Karzai’s inventory of lethal materiel rpt materiel on the ground that there are many moving parts to the Afghan conundrum, namely Pakistan’s attitude towards Afghanistan and India, the Taliban’s own game plan, the moves for a possible reconciliation with the Taliban (as evidenced by the opening of a Taliban office in Qatar) and the extent of Pakistan’s role in it, the ethnic configuration of Afghanistan in the immediate future and last but not the least the eventual successor to Mr Karzai following the elections.

Notwithstanding New Delhi’s contention that while it is there for the long haul it would not want to “become part of the problem”, Kabul maintains that the Afghan national security forces must be equipped with the

A map of Afghanistan (for
illustrative purposes only)

necessary capabilities – including capacity for logistics and equipment maintenance as well as adequate ground and air firepower – to execute independent operations against conventional and unconventional enemies. India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement in October 2011, which dwelled on security, trade, capacity-building and people-to-people contacts. Specifically, India agreed "to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan National Security Forces". Therefore, Kabul’s desire to source hardware with Indian assistance should be viewed in that context. But if the Afghans were disappointed by New Delhi’s circumspection, they did not show it. As Afghan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali put it, “In the post 2014 period, we look forward to working with India .... At the same time, we renew our call on the international community to stay the course in Afghanistan.”

So could Afghanistan descend into chaos after 2014? While jury is still out on that, serving and former Afghan officials are of the considered view that the road to peace in Kabul goes through Islamabad. An Afghan diplomatic source insists that the Taliban leadership continues to receive protection from the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments. Afghan army chief General Sher Mohammad Karimi believes that Pakistan could end the Afghan war "in weeks" because “the Taliban are under their control". A former Afghan intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, in turn, says that some of the Western powers are in such a hurry to cut and run from Afghanistan that they are eager to differentiate between the threats posed by the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda and to downplay the dangers posed by a return of the Taliban (similar to how the chaos after the erstwhile USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan gave rise to the Taliban.) Ironically, this view is in contrast to New Delhi’s which has of late adopted a nuanced position on the issue of reconciliation with the Taliban; at a recent Asean meeting in Brunei External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said India supported Kabul’s efforts to establish a dialogue with all armed opposition groups, “including the Taliban”. For now, Abdali is confident that his country will not go the Iraq way from where the US troops withdrew in December 2011 but which continues to be riven by civil strife, or, resemble the days of the Taliban rule between 1996 and 2001. “Let me assure you against the 2014 myth of Afghanistan falling apart after the withdrawal of NATO forces from our country,” says Abdali. Watch this space!

INDIA WAITLISTS KARZAI'S WISH LIST !

Karzai, Singh discuss roadmap for 2014 and beyond

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan shakes hands with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on Tuesday (Picture courtesy: Prime Minister's Office)

New Delhi
21 May 2013

The situation that will obtain in Afghanistan after the presidential elections in April 2014 and the subsequent withdrawal of international troops from the country before that year ends, not to mention the protection of Indian interests and investments made in the war-ravaged, landlocked country over the years, would have weighed on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s mind as he hosted President Hamid Karzai for talks in New Delhi on Tuesday. That, when taken together with President Karzai’s stated desire to broaden and deepen security ties with India, including, but not limited to, the supply of weapons and other military hardware for the Afghan forces, set this round of talks apart from previous ones. Afghan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali prefaced the Karzai-Singh meeting by asserting that “we would like to go beyond the current trend of co-operation between the two countries in the defence sector. So, we would like to have both lethal and non-lethal assistance to our defence forces in Afghanistan.”

Kabul maintains that the Afghan national security forces must be equipped with the necessary capabilities – including capacity for logistics and equipment maintenance as well as adequate ground and air firepower – to execute independent operations against conventional and unconventional enemies. India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement in October 2011, which dwelled on security, trade, capacity-building and people-to-people contacts. Specifically, India agreed "to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan National Security Forces". Therefore, Kabul’s desire to source hardware with Indian assistance must be viewed in that context.

According to Ashraf Haidari, deputy chief of mission of the Afghan embassy in India who has served as Afghanistan’s deputy assistant national security adviser and deputy chief of mission of the Afghan embassy in the US, “the Taliban leadership continues to receive protection from the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments.” He buttressed his argument by pointing out that “without an external sanctuary, sustainable funding, weapons supplies, and intelligence support in Pakistan, the Taliban would be unable to reconsolidate its control over Afghanistan. Since 2003, the Taliban and its affiliated networks have gradually expanded their influence in the ungoverned southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan, launching daily terrorist attacks that have injured and killed thousands of innocent civilians.”

While India was expected to lend a sympathetic ear to President Karzai, how soon and to what extent will it be able to satisfy Afghanistan on this count will be a function of India's own assessment of the unfolding situation situation in the Af-Pak region. Adding to New Delhi’s anxieties is that there are many moving parts to the Afghan conundrum, namely Pakistan’s attitude towards Afghanistan and India, the Taliban’s own gameplan, the moves for a possible reconciliation with the Taliban and the extent of Pakistan’s role in it, the possibility of a greater Chinese involvement subsequent to the US pullout, the ethnic configuration of Afghanistan in the immediate future and last but not the least the eventual successor to Mr Karzai following the presidential elections to be held in April 2014. That may explain India’s circumspection, as evidenced by the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson’s remarks that while Afghanistan is a “strategically important” neighbour, India will “continue to discuss and respond to specific requests of the Afghan government ... within our own modest means as a developing country”.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan holds talks with
President Pranab Mukherjee (Courtesy: Government of India)

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) were not forthcoming with details on the Karzai-Singh talks. It was left to Rashtrapati Bhavan to articulate India’s views which it did by putting out a press statement quoting President Pranab Mukherjee as telling his Afghan counterpart that India was prepared to increase bilateral contribution to Afghanistan’s institution-building, training and equipment “to the extent [it] can” and that India would stand by Afghanistan during its critical period of transition. Earlier in the day, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid told journalists that India was already assisting Afghanistan with doing capacity-building, non-lethal military hardware, communication and transport equipment. “He (Karzai) may have a wish list and with which he may go to our Prime Minister but these are ongoing... which will all be discussed within the parameters of what our capacity is, what our philosophy is, we would help them as a friend,” Khurshid elaborated.

From President Karzai’s perspective there are three other issues that continue to engage his government’s attention. One is the tensions with Pakistan on the Durand Line, which has been cited by Karzai’s spokesman Aimal Faizi on more than one occasion. The second is the recognition that Afghanistan is vulnerable to transnational security threats, stemming in particular from the narcotics trade and terrorism. The third issue, which is of a more immediate concern to his government, is the lack of coordination among international donors or partners. Although the diversity of nations present in Afghanistan demonstrates international goodwill and consensus for supporting the country, Kabul feels each contributing nation has pursued its own aid strategies, effectively bypassing coordination with each other and the Afghan government. Hence, a lack of strategic coordination across international military and civilian efforts to ensure aid effectiveness has so far crippled the Afghan state and left it with no capacity or resources to deliver basic services to its people.

For landlocked Afghanistan, access to a sea port is particularly vital. This specific need can be met to a certain extent by India’s collaboration with Iran for developing the Chabahar port and linking it to Afghanistan by a network of roads. At the same time, Kabul is acutely aware that its location should help it serve as a regional trade and transit hub for easy movement of goods and natural resources to meet the rising energy demands of India and China. Incidentally, Afghanistan was discussed at some length by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when they met on Monday. India has also been discussing Afghanistan with a host of other countries in the region and beyond, notably Iran, Russia and the US, besides international fora.

It was President Karzai’s 12th visit to India, and the second in the last six months. He paid a courtesy call on President Pranab Mukherjee and addressed industry representatives, too. In his address to the captains of Indian industry, President Karzai called for Indian investments in healthcare, agriculture and telecommunications in Afghanistan. He pointed out that agriculture was a priority sector for Afghanistan as it accounts for 36 per cent of its GDP and supports 85 per cent of the Afghan population. Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul, Afghanistan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali, Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan Gautam Mukhopadhaya and other senior officials were present on the occasion.

Video of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan's meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on Tuesday (Courtesy: Prime Minister's Office)

Hillary Clinton - SM Krishna strategic dialogue long on intent, short on strategy; US makes it clear to India that it will not dump Pakistan

Indian delegation led by external affairs minister SM Krishna and US delegation headed by Hillary Clinton participating in the second India - US strategic dialogue at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi on Tuesday, 19 July 2011

New Delhi

19 July 2011

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton interspersed her conversations in New Delhi with ifs and buts, conveying to a discerning Indian audience that the US was hedging on its commitments and, in the process, reinforcing a suspicion that the second edition of the India-US strategic dialogue was long on intent but short on strategy.

Ms Clinton's remarks during the course of her talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna on Tuesday, and a joint media event which followed it, were littered with qualifications: The US will support full civil nuclear cooperation with India but the bilateral pact has to be "enforceable and actionable in all regards"; the US stands by the clean Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver to India but the Indian nuclear liability law needs to be aligned with global practices; and, the US government cannot tolerate safe havens for terrorists anywhere but "we do see Pakistan as a key ally" in the war on terror and "we want a long-term relationship with" it.

There was no express commitment from Ms Clinton to either sell or to allow the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India following the NSG decision to bar their sale to non-NPT signatories such as India. There was no mention of it in the joint statement either. All she would venture to say in response to a question posed to her at the media interaction was that Washington supports the September 2008 clean waiver for India and it will push for India's membership of multilateral export control regimes such as the NSG.

Instead, Ms Clinton hastened to remind India of its commitment to ensure a level playing field for US companies seeking to enter the Indian nuclear energy sector. She voiced Washington's desire to see the Indian nuclear liability law tweaked to protect American corporate interests.

"We would encourage engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the liability regime that India adopts by law fully conforms with the international requirements under the convention[.] We are committed to [the nuclear pact.] But we do expect it to be enforceable and actionable in all regards," Ms Clinton noted.

She also reminded New Delhi to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation by the end of 2011. The treaty will allow foreign companies supplying nuclear material and technology to India to tap into a global corpus of funds in order to pay damages in the event of a nuclear accident.

Amplifying Ms Clinton's remarks, the joint statement said that the participation of US nuclear energy firms in India should be on the basis of "mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for electricity generated."

Dwelling on regional issues, Ms Clinton said that Pakistan has "a special obligation to [cooperate] transparently, fully and urgently" in the interest of justice for the victims of the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. She iterated that the US will continue to urge Pakistan to bring the 26/11 terrorists to justice but she qualified it by saying that "there is a limit to what both the United States and India can do".

Ms Clinton said that sale of defence technologies will help the Indian and American militaries to work together on maritime security, combating piracy, and providing relief to the victims of natural disasters. She also pushed for market access, reduction of trade barriers, and US investments in India, indicating that Washington viewed its ties with India in transactional, not strategic, terms.

For India's part, Mr Krishna sought to impress upon the American delegation that it was necessary for the US to factor in Afghanistan's ground realities and work closely with President Hamid Karzai's government so that conditions could be created where terrorists did not make any more advances in Afghanistan.

Mr Krishna said that India and the US had agreed to resume negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. He urged the US to consider a "totalisation agreement" with India for the purpose of avoiding double taxation of income with respect to social security taxes. The agreement is essential for determining whether an Indian national is subject to the US social security or medicare tax or Indian social security taxes.

A bilateral aviation safety agreement and a memorandum of understanding on cyber security were the two tangible outcomes of the India-US dialogue.

Ms Clinton called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and met with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, among others. She would be visiting Chennai on Wednesday.

India backs Rabbani on Taliban talks; will discuss issue with Clinton next week

External affairs minister SM Krishna of India shaking hands with Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani, chairman of the Afghanistan high peace council, in New Delhi on Thursday

New Delhi

14 July 2011

Burhanuddin Rabbani, who heads a panel which has the Afghanistan government's mandate to negotiate peace with the Taliban, would not mind using the good offices of India for finding a political solution to the strife in his country.

India is an important country in the region and we want its cooperation in peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, Mr Rabbani said on the occasion of his talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna in New Delhi on Thursday.

Mr Rabbani is on a four-day visit to India.

Afghans should not be victims in the hands of others to be used against the Afghan people themselves, Mr Rabbani said without elaborating. He noted that regional countries had a role in promoting peace in Afghanistan.

India was expected to discuss the situation in Afghanistan with US secretary of state Hillary Clinton when she visits New Delhi next week.

Talking to journalists, US charge d'affaires Peter Burleigh said Afghanistan could figure "prominently" in the Clinton-Krishna talks, in which the relations between and among the US, India and Pakistan would be "thoroughly covered".

Burleigh described the Taliban reconciliation talks as a "very important issue" for the US and India alike.

The US was keeping India informed of the substance of the "very preliminary discussions" that have taken place with the Taliban interlocutors.

The diplomat went on to note that the negotiations for "reaching an understanding" with "some Taliban elements" were making "slow process", and the talks could be expected to "continue for months".

"[The US is] continuing to explore [and it] will keep India directly informed and also seek advice," Mr Burleigh said.

The situation in west Asia, north Africa, and east- and south-east Asia, was also likely to be discussed in the second strategic dialogue between Clinton and Krishna on July 19.

Replying to a question about the possible implications of the US losing out on a multi-billion tender for fighter jets for the Indian Air Force, on the defence cooperation with India, Mr Burleigh said "one contract here and there [does not] make or break [the] relationship" and that the US was in it for the long-term.

India to host Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of Afghanistan high peace council, this week for discussing peace talks with Taliban

New Delhi

11 July 2011

India will discuss Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai's peace overtures to the Taliban when it hosts Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of the Afghan high peace council, this week.

There was no official word from the government, but it was learnt that Mr Rabbani was expected to hold talks with the Indian leadership on Thursday.

Last year, a Jirga (tribal elders' council) had approved President Karzai's initiative to constitute a panel for starting peace talks with the Taliban. Prof Rabbani was chosen to lead the panel.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had met with Prof Rabbani in Kabul during his visit to Afghanistan in May this year. On the occasion Mr Singh had spoken about India's qualified support to the Afghan government's peace talks with the
Taliban.

India would not stand in the way of the talks provided certain red lines were adhered to: the peace process should be Afghan-led and Afghan-driven; the Taliban elements must have renounced violence and severed all links with the hardcore terrorists; and they should accept the constitution of Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meeting Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of

the Afghan high peace council, in Kabul in May 2011

Recently, President Karzai and former US defence secretary Robert Gates confirmed that preliminary contacts had been made with certain Taliban elements. According to reports, contacts had been established with Tayyab Agha, a former personal aide to Mullah Omar, and Motasim Agha Jan, Omar's son-in-law.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has since described it as a necessary but unpleasant attempt to achieve a semblance of stability in Afghanistan. Clinton's British counterpart, William Hague, in turn, has said that the UK played a key role in helping initiate the "distasteful" talks with the Taliban.

The situation in Afghanistan is expected to be one of the key points of discussion in the India - US strategic dialogue, which will be chaired by external affairs minister SM Krishna and Ms Clinton in New Delhi on July 19.

India, Iran discuss trilateral cooperation with Afghanistan; issue of oil payments nowhere near resolution

From left: Nirupama Rao, foreign secretary of India; Mohd Ali Fathollahi, Iran's deputy foreign
minister for Asian and Asia-Pacific affairs; and Ali Akbar Salehi, foreign minister of Iran

New Delhi

6 July 2011

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao discussed trilateral cooperation among India, Iran and Afghanistan in her talks in Tehran, signalling a movement beyond mere articulation of positions to possibly a structured consultation on the situation in Afghanistan.

Ms Rao called on foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi on Tuesday and

held talks with deputy foreign minister for Asian and Asia-Pacific affairs Mohd Ali Fathollahi. She met with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's supreme

national security council, on Wednesday.

The situation in the Arab world, anti-piracy cooperation and consular issues were among other issues that Ms Rao discussed in her talks with Mr Fathollahi, who first mooted the trilateral cooperation during his visit to India in August 2010.

Ms Rao's visit to Iran followed that of national security adviser Shivshankar Menon in March, on the eve of the Persian New Year.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has shied away from visiting Iran but an opportunity could present itself in 2012 when Iran hosts the NAM Summit.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's supreme

national security council

Ms Rao's visit comes amid India's continuing search for an amicable solution for crude-oil payments to Iran. Iran has been selling crude to India on credit (the outstandings are over Rs 4,400 crore) since December 2010, when the Reserve Bank of India discontinued the practice of routing payments through a regional clearinghouse called the Asian Clearing Union in view of the US sanctions on Iran.

India switched to the services of the German-Iranian Europaish-Iranische Handelk AG (EIH) bank based in Hamburg but the European Union's sanctions against the bank in May forced Germany to terminate the facility. Petroleum and natural gas minister Jaipal Reddy has said that efforts were being made to ensure uninterrupted oil supplies from Iran. Iran is India's second largest source of imports after Saudi Arabia.

Ms Rao's visit came a year to the day since her July 5, 2010 speech in New Delhi in which she spoke about India pursuing its ties with Iran independent of the US, making accelerated efforts" to complete infrastructure projects, and how India was "justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries" could adversely affect India's energy security.

The bilateral ties have remained in disrepair since 2005 when India voted against Iran in the IAEA.

India is in Afghanistan for the long haul, PM to tell Karzai

New Delhi

11 May 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will travel to Kabul Thursday in what will be

his first visit to Afghanistan since August 2005. His visit can be expected to deliver "a lot

of tangibles", a government source said, without elaborating.

He will likely tell President Hamid Karzai that India's assistance to Afghanistan's

reconstruction and development was not contingent on presence and absence of foreign

troops, and that India was in it for the long haul.

The source indicated that India can be expected to stay the course in Afghanistan in the

post-Osama bin Laden era, and continue its reconstruction and development

programmes in a "low key", "sotto voce" manner.

India would be willing to help the government and people of Afghanistan in every which

way possible, in areas ranging from infrastructure, capacity building and skill

development to mining and agriculture.

New Delhi believed it was too early to conclude how Osama's killing would affect the

course of events in the Af-Pak region because terrorist groups such as the Taliban and

the Haqqani network remained "as strong and virulent as ever."

India would be keen to encourage private sector investments and facilitate the

participation of its companies. For instance, about 15 firms have expressed interest in

the development of the Hajigak iron ore mine.

India would also be willing to step up its training efforts in areas such as policing,

information technology, and mining. Kabul was exploring the possibility of sending

Afghans to the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad in Jharkhand.

Mr Singh said in a statement on the eve of his departure that he would hold wide-ranging

discussions with President Hamid Karzai on ways to advance the bilateral ties and also

exchange views on regional developments and the common fight against terrorism.

"We cannot remain unaffected by developments in Afghanistan. We take a long-term

view of our partnership with Afghanistan," he said, noting that "if our region has to

prosper and move ahead, Afghanistan must succeed in rebuilding itself."

"India's commitment to assisting the people of Afghanistan is enduring and has

weathered many storms," Mr Singh said. India's development assistance commitment to

Afghanistan is over Rs 4,000 crore, making it the sixth largest donor.

The government source clarified that India was "not propagating an exclusivist

approach" or "not making demands" of Afghanistan insofar as its ties with China and

Pakistan were concerned.

India respected the "sovereignty" of decision making of Afghanistan, and would welcome

contributions by countries in the region, such as China and Pakistan, to the development

of Afghanistan, the source added.