FB   
 
Powered bysps
        Society for Policy Studies
 
 

 
India is right in its cautious pragmatism on Afghanistan
Posted:Oct 2, 2017
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 
By Chayanika Saxena
 
US President Donald Trump unveiled his much-touted Afghan policy on 21 August 2017. Trump announced to adopt a condition-based policy instead of a calendar-driven agenda, a moderate troop surge (4,000 soldiers), putting Pakistan on the spot for hosting the Taliban and urging India to play a larger economic role in conflict stabilization. New Delhi has welcomed Trump’s Afghan policy with cautious optimism as it does not address all of India’s concerns.
 
Trump’s prognosis of the situation in Afghanistan to eliminate Taliban’s cross-border sanctuaries and his plan of “killing terrorists” is accurate; however, a symbolic surge of 4,000 troops is not enough to achieve the stated outcomes. With this half-hearted commitment, the US can achieve tactical gains short of any strategic outcomes that may tilt the balance of power in favour of Washington and its allies.
 
Trump’s announcement of staying in Afghanistan until the situation improves will definitely provide the much-needed breathing space to Ashraf Ghani’s embattled National Unity Government (NUG). The continued stay of American and NATO troops will also provide India with the US security umbrella to strengthen its economic and political cooperation with Kabul. 
 
However, New Delhi will neither step up nor lower down the nature and level of its engagement in Afghanistan on Washington’s behest. India will recalibrate its policy responses in Afghanistan on its own terms and conditions, keeping in view its long-term regional and strategic interests. Unlike Pakistan, which capitulated to the US dictates following the 9/11 attacks, the dynamics of Indian cooperation with US is qualitatively different. Thus, while New Delhi has welcomed Trump’s Afghan policy - and has categorically rejected the idea of putting Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan - it is not very hopeful of any concrete outcomes. His policy clearly lacks a well thought out implementation framework to achieve desirable outcomes.   
 
Since the ouster of Taliban in 2001, India has supported international and regional efforts geared at bringing political stability and economic prosperity to Afghanistan. Indian bilateral efforts that have taken many shapes, ranging from capacity-building programs to infrastructure-related projects, have further displayed its genuine intent and efforts to make Afghanistan a sound post.
 
Moreover, there  is hardly anything new in the strategy; some of its contours match those put in place by President Barack Obama. The lack of a clear definition of what constitutes “victory”  and the temporal imagination of the “end” in his claim “in the end, we will win” is concerning, especially for the hapless Afghan people who could more war in the days to come.
 
Having been marginalized on Afghanistan in the past and with a self-proclaimed ‘economic nationalist’ in power, India could be asked to increase its economic assistance to share the burden of American war in Afghanistan. This is bound to generate reactions across the border. Also, given the supportive statements that have come from China and Russia for Pakistan, India’s apparent tilt towards the US in case would become more evident if it answers the American call for greater assistance. To top that, US’ careful choice of spheres for seeking India’s greater cooperation skirting the military and security domains is demonstrative of American awareness of Pakistani sensitivities.
 
Seeking more ‘economic assistance’ from India in Afghanistan, Trump made no secrets of who is America’s strategic partner in   the South Asian region. During his policy speech at Fort Myer it became more apparent as Trump proceeded to enlist India’s help after tightening the (rhetorical) screws on Pakistan. However, apart from the vindication of its claims about the role of Pakistan in not creating an atmosphere conducive for peace, India was effectively brought into an unsavoury quid pro quo equation. By asking India to contribute more to Afghanistan, not for the sake of contribution but because it trades in billions with the US, was a typical Trumpesque mercantilism. After all, India’s contribution to Afghanistan is the largest in South Asia and fifth largest in the whole world.
 
Since the Bonn negotiations 2001, the US has always accorded India a marginal role unworthy of  its position and standing. Part of the reason for this marginalising stemmed from the geo-political tensions germane to South Asia. Making a Pakistan a ‘frontline state’ in the US’ War on Terror, the latter was sensitive to the suspicion, and possibly retaliation, that India’s greater involvement in Afghanistan would create within the Pakistani establishment.
 
A reason for India’s reluctance to put boots on the ground was that it could unnecessarily become a target of tactical retaliation from non-state actors from the AfPak terror nursery. Some of this part-forced, part-self-enforced distance from the Afghan peace process have been because of India’s opposition to the distinction between good and bad Taliban; India’s absence from major regional initiatives; and downgrading of India’s importance to the now-renounced five-circle policy of Afghanistan’s current President Ashraf Ghani.
 
Indian assistance to Afghanistan centred around four domains – humanitarian assistance, mega infrastructure projects, small and community-based development project as well as education and capacity development –to strengthen the rule of law and effective governance in Afghanistan.  In total, India has spent $ 2 billion in Afghanistan so far and committed another $ 1 billion at the Brussels’ summit last year (2016).
 
For India, which has shown cautious pragmatism on matters concerning Afghanistan so far, it makes much sense to not get carried away by the American rhetorical posturing against Pakistan and jump into a situation which might become difficult to manage. 
 
(The author is pursuing her masters in International Relations from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. She can be reached at CHAYANIK001@e.ntu.edu.sg)
 
 
 
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 

Disclaimer: South Asia Monitor does not accept responsibility for the views or ideology expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, which appears on its site. What it does accept is responsibility for giving it a chance to appear and enter the public discourse.
Comments (Total Comments 0) Post Comments Post Comment
Review
 
 
 
 
spotlight image Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Housing and Urban Affairs, Hardeep Singh Puri, is a former top diplomat who retired as India's Permanent Representative at the United Nations. In his new political avatar, as an important minister in the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Puri told INDIA REVIEW & ANALYSIS that
 
read-more
Chief of General Staff, United Kingdom, Gen Sir Nicholas Carter’s, visit to India in mid-February was covered by Defence Ministry releasing five photographs and not a word on his engagements/itinerary, writes Anil Bhat
 
read-more
Campus placement season is here and the news is that graduates from the top campuses in India, especially the IITs, have received six figure pay packets and job offers in the US. However, looking beyond the top 200 engineering schools in India, pay packets are not looking too promising. The reason is the emergence of new engineering sc
 
read-more
The largest military exercises in Southeast Asia concluded on February 23 in Thailand, after 11 days of drills, social and humanitarian projects and traditional jungle training. A total of 11,075 soldiers from 29 countries participated in the Cobra Gold 2018 training, held in eastern Thailand, reports Efe news.
 
read-more
Maldives President Abdulla Yameen “conveyed that mediation was not wanted at this stage” when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke to him last week, Guterres's spokesperson Stephane Dujrric confirmed Thursday, writes Arul Louis
 
read-more
Srinivasan leaves his office in Bengaluru where the lights and air-conditioners are switched off when sensors planted inside notice that he is leaving. He is prompted on his e-watch as to how much time it would take for the elevator to arrive on his floor, based on movement-recognition, writes Rajendra Shende
 
read-more

The Indian government is undertaking a project to enhance and install infrastructures related to trade and customs along its northeastern frontier, that include trading points with Bhutan.

 
read-more

Society for Policy Studies in association with India Habitat Centre held a lecture in the “China's Belt and Road Initiative: Nature, Implications and India's Response”

 
read-more
Column-image

What is history? How does a land become a homeland? How are cultural identities formed? The Making of Early Kashmir explores these questions in relation to the birth of Kashmir and the discursive and material practices that shaped it up to the ...

 
Column-image

A group of teenagers in a Karachi high school puts on a production of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible— and one goes missing. The incident sets off ripples through their already fraught education in lust and witches, and over the years ...

 
Column-image

Title: Do We Not Bleed?: Reflections of a 21-st Century Pakistani; Author: Mehr Tarar; Publisher: Aleph Book Company; Pages: 240; Price: Rs 599

 
Column-image

From antiquity, the Muslim faith has been plagued by the portrayal of Muslim men regularly misusing this perceived “right” to divorce their wives instantly by simply uttering “talaq” thrice.

 
Column-image

'Another South Asia!' edited by Dev Nath Pathak makes a critical engagement with the questions about South Asia: What is South Asia? How can one pin down the idea of regionalism in South Asia wherein inter-state relations are often char...