A single paragraph in General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked assessment of the war in Afghanistan has generated much interest, particularly in Pakistan.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it says. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
He did not say anything that anybody did not already know. Pakistan has long been wary of India’s growing influence in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and is seen as reluctant to turn against the Afghan Taliban and other insurgent groups as long as it believes it might need them to counter India. The fact that he said it all suggested a renewed focus on the relationship between India and Pakistan, whose confrontation to the east spilled long ago into rivalry over Afghanistan to the west.
Pakistan’s Daily Times said in an editorial the rivalry between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan highlighted the need for peace talks between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, which have fought three full-scale wars since independence in 1947, two of them over Kashmir.
“One must be clear in one’s mind that in many ways the mess in Afghanistan is actually a spillover of the Indo-Pak conflict in the region of South Asia,” it said. “Pakistan’s policy of “strategic depth”, which reached a climax with the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Kandahar in 1999, was in reaction to the unresolved dispute over Kashmir which created the “threat of India” that Pakistan felt “from the east”. Even today, as Pakistan struggles against the Taliban, 80 percent of its army is stationed on the Indian border.
Dawn newspaper said McChrystal’s words on India were ”perhaps as significant as any other in the report”. The Americans appeared to have finally understood, it said, that the war in Afghanistan could not be won without help from Pakistan. “But that means gaining Pakistan’s full cooperation, which in turn means alleviating the national security establishment’s concerns vis-à-vis India.”
However, as discussed in this analysis, India is in little mood to move rapidly towards peace talks with Pakistan until it takes greater action against militants it blames for last year’s attack on Mumbai, although the two countries have been taking incremental steps towards repairing relations. Many argue that the powerful Pakistan Army would be unlikely to turn against militant groups it once cultivated to fight India in Kashmir, without a comprehensive peace settlement with India. (For an understanding of how complicated all this is, read this book reviewby Pakistani strategic analyst Ayesha Siddiqa.)
So, to win the war in Afghanistan, the United States needs help from Pakistan, which Pakistan in turn is reluctant to provide so long as it believes it is threatened by India to both the west and east. From Washington’s point of view, it needs to nudge Islamabad and New Delhi towards the negotiating table, by leaning on Pakistan to act against militant groups and putting pressure on India to resume peace talks.
Here is another catch. Although the relationship between the United States and India blossomed under former President George W. Bush, there is far less warmth in New Delhi towards the Obama administration. The relationship started on the wrong foot with India concerned about increasing U.S. economic dependence on its rival China.
Now India and the United States are at loggerheads over President Barack Obama’s nuclear non-proliferation drive. India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That row, in turn, complicates efforts by Washington to persuade India to talk to Pakistan.
(Reuters file photos: Obama with Karzai and Biden; a British soldier in Afghanistan; hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar)
Trackback
139 comments so far
Previous | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | … 1 | Next
Hi, in answer to your questions:
1. It appears that after mumbai that Pakistan and India have backed themselves into corners based on their positions on Saeed. If pakistan doesn’t move on terrorists and Saeed what other concessions could they give, to induce India into broader talks.
As discussed in this article
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/1 0/05/pakistan-and-india-looking-beyond-t he-rhetoric-redux/
and in this editorial in The Hindu:
The important question is to watch what happens in the trial of Lakhvi and the other six men - it’s due to resume, I think, on Oct. 13
2. The US seems to want India and Pakistan to start talks. Specifically what type pressure could they exert on each nation individually to start talks.
Pakistan has already called for the resumption of talks. Any pressure from the United States on India would be indirect - India has asked Washington to help convince Pakistan to crack down harder on groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Those groups are mentioned in the Kerry Lugar bill among the conditions attached for military aid.
I haven’t been able to find a final version of the Kerry-Lugar bill in the Senate website, but All Things Pakistan has what it says is the final draft:
http://pakistaniat.com/2009/10/07/full-t ext-kerry-lugar-bill/
3. Mcchraystal seems to praise India for its aid to afghanistan and views it with potential caution due to pakistani sensitivities. What type of role does the US deem acceptable for India in afghanistan, and how does it view the Indian consulates?
I don’t know the answer on that. But it’s a good question.
4. Since Americans also died in mumbai, I was wondering what the US position on Saeed is. Do they subscribe to the view that there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute him, or that he is being protected by powerful elements in pakistan.
I’ve spoken to American analysts who say there should be pressure to act against Hafiz Saeed. That said they have not made any specific comment on the nature of the evidence, which is for a Pakistani court to decide. I’ve also spoken to analysts who acknowledge the difficulties of moving against Lashkar, including in this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEd ge/idUSTRE55K0TO20090622?sp=true
5. Do you think the US will stand firm on the conditions in the Kerry Luger bill, or will they rewrite it to accomodate pakistani concerns?
As far as I understand it, it can’t be rewritten.
6. Mcchrystal wants more troops for afghanistan, but there are significant numbers of fighters coming and going from pakistan. How is this strategy supposed to work if the US and pakistanis can’t/won’t reach haqqani, Mullah Omar, and Hekmatyer?
According to the people I have spoken to, you can still do population centric counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. The question of what to do about fighters based in Pakistan is, as you know, subject to a very long discussion in Washington.
7. Can the pakistani government survive if it attempts to prosecute Saeed, or will it be viewed as caving to India.
I’m not sure I can answer that without giving it a bit more time for thought.
8. What do India and pakistan each lose individually by not talking. If a cold peace emerges, trade is kept at the same level (or marginally increases), people to people contact is maintained as is, and other non essential government cooperation is maintained.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has argued that by not talking, India is reduced to passing messages through a third party - ie relying on the Americans, and to a lesser extent, the British. Some would also argue that a refusal to talk may even raise the risk of more attacks since the two countries would be unable to raise trust levels enough to share intelligence.
According to the analysts I’ve spoken to, for Pakistan it makes life trickier for the civilian government and leaves the army nervous about Indian intentions.
9. In the comments section on one of your articles you indicated that the Indian media was making to big of a deal about the fact that Saeed dined with the 10th corp commander.
“That TV report makes it all sound so simple, when we all know it is not. This is not to make a comment on Hafiz Saeed. But at the same time, watching that video, do people actually believe that’s the way it is?”
I was wondering if you could expand on the first and last sentences in the quote.
I think I answered that in an earlier blog. My comment referred not to the video but to the voiceover which seemed to give only one side of the story, in a very complicated situation.
10. If Obama chooses to reorient strategy to primarily focus on Al-qieda how will he proceed. Since Al-qieda is mainly in pakistan now, will the US expand drone strikes and rely on pakistani forces for ground operations (in pakistan), or will we openly see US forces and special forces engage in hunt/kill (counterterrorism) operations in pakistan.
I have no clear idea on what Obama will decide to do. But there have been reams of speculation written about this by Washington pundits.
Myra
- Posted by Myra MacDonaldMyra,
After reading many of your articles I have a series of questions I hope that you and others can weigh in on, thank you.
1. It appears that after mumbai that Pakistan and India have backed themselves into corners based on their positions on Saeed. The statement at the NAM conference seemed like a way to reach out but was shot down by the opposition in India. If pakistan doesn’t move on terrorists and Saeed what other concessions could they give, to induce India into broader talks.
2. The US seems to want India and Pakistan to start talks. Specifically what type pressure could they exert on each nation individually to start talks.
3. Mcchraystal seems to praise India for its aid to afghanistan and views it with potential caution due to pakistani sensitivities. What type of role does the US deem acceptable for India in afghanistan, and how does it view the Indian consulates?
4. Since Americans also died in mumbai, I was wondering what the US position on Saeed is. Do they subscribe to the view that there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute him, or that he is being protected by powerful elements in pakistan.
5. Do you think the US will stand firm on the conditions in the Kerry Luger bill, or will they rewrite it to accomodate pakistani concerns?
6. Mcchrystal wants more troops for afghanistan, but there are significant numbers of fighters coming and going from pakistan. How is this strategy supposed to work if the US and pakistanis can’t/won’t reach haqqani, Mullah Omar, and Hekmatyer?
7. Can the pakistani government survive if it attempts to prosecute Saeed, or will it be viewed as caving to India.
8. What do India and pakistan each lose individually by not talking. If a cold peace emerges, trade is kept at the same level (or marginally increases), people to people contact is maintained as is, and other non essential government cooperation is maintained.
9. In the comments section on one of your articles you indicated that the Indian media was making to big of a deal about the fact that Saeed dined with the 10th corp commander.
“That TV report makes it all sound so simple, when we all know it is not. This is not to make a comment on Hafiz Saeed. But at the same time, watching that video, do people actually believe that’s the way it is?”
I was wondering if you could expand on the first and last sentences in the quote.
10. If Obama chooses to reorient strategy to primarily focus on Al-qieda how will he proceed. Since Al-qieda is mainly in pakistan now, will the US expand drone strikes and rely on pakistani forces for ground operations (in pakistan), or will we openly see US forces and special forces engage in hunt/kill (counterterrorism) operations in pakistan.
Thanks,
- Posted by namelessNameless
Pay attention to what Praveen Togodia VHP leader says at @17:00 onwards, i haven’t been to India but now i have a better idea of anti-Pakistan sentiment originating source.
- Posted by Umair
When did Praveen Togodia send terrorists to attack civilians in Hotels, Train stations or Parliament buildings in Pakistan? How many times?
How many madrassas Praveen Togodia runs and what kinds of trainings do people get in his madrassas?
How many Interpol/UN/US arrest warrents and ban orders pending against Praveen Togodia or his madrasssas?
How many times Praveen Togodia closed previous madrassa and opened a new one to conceal his hideous activities?
If you can answer above questions, you will find the difference between an Indian politician and a Pakistani terrorist?
- Posted by AndyUmair:
Nice documentary by Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zian Mian.
@Pay attention to what Praveen Togodia VHP leader says at @17:00 onwards, i haven’t been to India but now i have a better idea of anti-Pakistan sentiment originating source.
— Indian sentiment is against Pakistan govt, not Pakistani people.
Praveen Togodia is a fool because only fools will dream of occupying Rawalpindi or elsewhere in Pakistan. I see no motivation even BJP is not working on his agenda—remember Vajpayee/BJP—Kashmir deal/Backchannel. But even assuming your point, Togodia’s mass appeal is less than the number of Indians criticizing Pakistan. So what’s the source of the remaining vast majority (like me for example) for criticizing Pakistan? The answer is Pakistan sponsored terrorism that has killed Indians since last 20yrs.
Now, could you also come out and address the Indian reason for the anti-India hate in Pakistanis and comment on 3 points in my post to Myra October 2nd, 2009 10:34 pm GMT. I will appreciate if you do without jingoism.
I noticed this in the video:
@11:28: One guy wants to fly the Pakistani flag at the red fort.
@11:52: In Islamabad, lots of people fantasize that “Kashmir will become Pakistan.” It seems plebiscite has already happened. The same statement is in Azad Kashmir constitution. Only those who “Kashmir will become Pakistan.” are permitted to be part of the Kashmir govt.
@21:40: A text book in Pakistan says that Hindu can never be a well wisher of Muslim.—Did you study that?———-In India no student is taught this about other religions.
- Posted by rajeevMyra/Dara:
@“They are far more concerned about the economy and don’t really care if the prime minister decides to talk to Pakistan or not.” Myra
Well I am out of Delhi, living in a second/third tier city and please believe me when I say, ‘yes, we are more worried about the economy but we certainly do care about how the PM handles Pakistan, specially at this juncture.’
-posted by Dara:
Myra: So does it mean that economic recession and loss of jobs in US makes Iran, North Korea, OBL, Al-Qaida any less important? My amswer is NO and that means Obama got one more job to do (fix ecomnomy). In Detroit where the unemployment is in double digits, do people give a damn to Afghanistan/Pakistan, but tomorrow when they do get the jobs they will start asking Obama about what he is doing about Af-Pak. In India it is PM Singh’s job to address all the issues.
- Posted by rajeevJudging India by what Praveen Togodia says is like judging the US by what the Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan says or like judging Pakistan by the ramblings of the former Baitullah Mehsud. Let’s leave such ridiculous characters out of civilized dialogue.
Umair,
If you are truly interested in peace with India, you and other Pakistanis need to get past the fringe elements and give weight to the statements and aspirations of the vast majority of moderate Indians. Giving weight to statements by fringe leaders in India only makes Pakistanis look paranoid, delusional and on occassion comically so. Would you suggest that the Indians should judge every Pakistani according to what Hafiz Saeed says?
- Posted by Keith“They are far more concerned about the economy and don’t really care if the prime minister decides to talk to Pakistan or not.” Myra
Well I am out of Delhi, living in a second/third tier city and please believe me when I say, ‘yes, we are more worried about the economy but we certainly do care about how the PM handles Pakistan, specially at this juncture.’
In fact I am off for a few days to a small coastal village, given the opportunity, I will try to understand what people there think about this.
- Posted by DaraMyra,
“One would assume that both countries are responsible, and that is the whole point of negotiations”
I don’t think anyone here says no to dialogue and negotiations.
In fact the Coll testimony referred to by you actually supports this view when he says that US policy in the region should be directed towards “…. and most critically of all, to persuade the Pakistani military and intelligence services that it is in Pakistan’s national interest to pursue normalization and economic integration with India and to abandon its support for proxy Islamist groups such as the Afghan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and others.”
What India is saying right now right now is please show us some effort being directed towards this end. Otherwise, no amount of dialogue is going to be effective or lasting.
- Posted by Dara—–>That means Pakistan will remain on offensive.
Difficult job preaching common sense to Indian friends.
- Posted by Umair
===============
:=|
HAS pakistan ever been NOT on the offensive???
You don’t want to look, see and think where it has taken you!
India has survived and come out the winner in response to your “on offensive”.
Many parts if not most parts of India if you ask an average Indian on the street who is Praveen Togadia, the chances are high he wouldn’t know. Praveen Togadia is fringe in India, the euivalents of Togadia run the army, ISI and government in pakistan.
I don’t expect you to see this truth since you want to be “on the offensive” all the time.
- Posted by Raj“Pay attention to what Praveen Togodia VHP leader says at @17:00 onwards, i haven’t been to India but now i have a better idea of anti-Pakistan sentiment originating source. Difficult job preaching common sense to Indian friends”
- Posted by Umair
Thanks for the video link. I respect Dr. Hoodbhoy & Dr. Hameed Nayyar & feel they are amongst a few voices of reason in Pakistan.
Talking bout the video, I really wonder whether you, yourself ever read/see the articles/videos that you post here.
Did you see the anti-India hate mongering by Mullahs, jihadis, adults & children on the streets of Pakistan? Did you hear the acknowledgment that Pakistan invaded Indian territory in all wars fought & how your army projected them as victories, although they weren’t?
Did you hear the reference Dr. Nayyar gave from a Pakistani school text book which said that a Hindu can never wish well for a muslim?
Did you hear Ms. Rehman talk about how the Pakistani army keeps alive the fake perception of ‘Indian threat’ through it’s propaganda machinery?
This video is from 2004 & a lot has changed since then in both India & Pakistan. India has out rightly rejected right wing communal fundamentalism & the BJP lost 2 elections since then (the last one, decisively). On the other hand, Pakistan has become more radical than it ever was. You point out at the VHP fellow in the video. I don’t know who he is & I guarantee that 99% of Indians don’t know anything about that nut job either. People like him have an extremely minor following in India & are shunned by a vast majority of Indians whereas a delusional & moronic hate-monger like a Zaid Hamid is considered as a national hero by a majority of Pakistanis.
I agree that India still has many many problems to solve; at the communal level & at the socio-economic level but it is definitely moving in the right direction whereas Pakistan is definitely not & that’s the basic difference between the 2 at this time.
- Posted by MortalMortal: The article in Dawn “On screen, out of touch” by Nadeem F. Paracha tells the story of popular media of Pakistan.
http://nadeemfparacha.wordpress.com/2009 /06/18/on-screen-out-of-touch/
- Posted by rajeev
@rajeev: Thanks
@Myra: You should check out Rajeev’s link as well.
- Posted by MortalMyra:
@ 6) On different perceptions of history.
This is a subject for a whole different post but every country has a different view of history
Myra: I agree it is hard to agree on common history but the crux of the discussion is that Pakistani people’s “threat perception” is based upon distorted history taught to them in school and lies told to them by Pakistani Army.
To say “every country has a different view of history” will be disagreeing with Pakistani scholars A. H. Nayyar and Ahmad Salim, Ex-Pak Air Marshal Nur Khan— who led PAF in 1965 war—and ex Ex-Pak Air Marshal Asghar Khan—-all of them say that Pakistanis have been taught distorted history and told lies that India invaded Pakistan. This is the background of why Pakistanis are such suckers for PA/ISI lies that India invaded Pakistan in the past and continue to be a threat to Pakistan.
Here are the links, which I am sure you are aware of:
1. Pakistani scholars A. H. Nayyar and Ahmad Salim prepared a report about history being taught in Pakistan schools. The report is named “The Subtle Subversion: The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan.” They have spent a lot of time and energy and arrive at a conclusion that Pakistani students have been taught a distorted/deleted history—the falsehoods and there needs to be a serious change in the curriculum. This includes India-specific distortions.
http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/S tate%20of%20Curr&TextBooks.pdf
2. Ex-Pak Air Marshal Nur Khan who led PAF in 1965 war against India says:
“The 1965 war was based on a lie in which Ayub Khan and his generals misled the nation that India rather than Pakistan had provoked the war and that “we were the victims of Indian aggression”,
http://www.pakistaniaviationforum.com/in dex.php?showtopic=378&mode=linear
3. Ex-Pak Air Marshal Asghar Khan says:
“The fact is that in the last 60 years of our existence, India has not started hostilities against Pakistan unless provoked to do so, or until we created conditions, as we did in 1971 in East Pakistan, for India to interfere militarily….”
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/colu mnists/16-ardeshir-cowasjee-wise-words-f rom-an-old-warrior-hs-04
Let us call spade and spade. Myra, if these caring Pakistanis are saying that why not you?
- Posted by rajeevCrossing the Lines: Kashmir, Pakistan, India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LLnuglrW 34
Pay attention to what Praveen Togodia VHP leader says at @17:00 onwards, i haven’t been to India but now i have a better idea of anti-Pakistan sentiment originating source.
It is bad if the threat perception in Pakistan have increased after Mumbai attacks. That means Pakistan will remain on offensive.
Difficult job preaching common sense to Indian friends.
- Posted by UmairLots of questions, but here as some brief answers:
1)How would I respond if militant groups in France were attacking Britain?
There are many answers to that question but the obvious one would be to say: Can you invade France? If the answer is ‘no’, you would then need to take a very cold dispassionate look at what it would take to persuade the majority of French people, and French institutions, to turn against those militant groups.
2) Why has Kashmir become such a big issue now?
Kashmir is a historical problem; the more recent rivalry has been over Afghanistan, especially since the Soviet invasion, with blowback into Kashmir:
Steve Coll makes the point about Afghanistan here:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db90 0SID/SNAA-7WF7DC?OpenDocument
3) Is India alone responsible for solving the Kashmir problem or is it Pakistan’s responsibilty too?
One would assume that both countries are responsible, and that is the whole point of negotiations
4)Where is the discrepancy on the media coverage?
Over the outrage at the Sharm statement. Ask people outside of Delhi and they will often say they don’t care - that doesn’t mean they trust Pakistan - but they are far more concerned about the economy and don’t really care if the prime minister decides to talk to Pakistan or not.
5) When are you giving Northern Ireland to the Irish? Well if the people of Northern Ireland wanted to be part of Ireland and voted in a referendum to do so, I’d be quite happy - but that’s a misleading analogy as I’m sure many people who comment on this blog would argue
6) On different perceptions of history.
This is a subject for a whole different post but every country has a different view of history.
Many people in India think Britain deliberately divided the subcontinent to permanently weaken India; in Pakistan they think Britain deprived it of Kashmir to permanently weaken Pakistan & that Mountbatten favoured Nehru over Jinnah for personal reasons; in Britain people think it left India because it was crippled and bankrupted by World War Two.
You can argue about this at length - and many do - both about the history of partition as well as what happened before and after. But I’m not convinced there is room to reach a common view of history without a peaceful settlement that would allow so much people-to-people contact that everyone would start revising their views. But you can’t get a peaceful settlement with such different views of history, which creates a Catch 22.
7) Is it not good that Pakistan’s threat perception may have increased post-Mumbai?
Don’t know. You can equally argue that it would make Pakistan even more reluctant to turn against militant groups if it believed it might need to use them as a first line of defence against India. So it’s another Catch 22. I made this point here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Afgha nistan-Pakistan/idUSTRE55K0TO20090621?sp =true
Are you sure? Why assume this?
Myra
- Posted by Myra MacDonaldMortal:
The article in Dawn “On screen, out of touch” by Nadeem F. Paracha tells the story of popular media of Pakistan.
http://nadeemfparacha.wordpress.com/2009 /06/18/on-screen-out-of-touch/
- Posted by rajeevmyra, when are you giving northern ireland to the irish ? how does this question sound to you ?
- Posted by vivekworld knows pakistan is major root cause of terror. world is allowing pakistan to bully others and legitimize its militant activities. if you don’t tell pakistan with a some tough words they will keep being themselves. juggling one terror after another. blaming india and stuff. it is not india needs to talk peace but pakistan need to lay down their illegal activities. now that they declared india’s nuclear test was a blow up. what non proliferation they are talking about ? india doesnt have any dangerous nuclear weapons. we had some dummies until our scientist exposed it.
- Posted by vivekWhat was the man doing as he cycled near the aeroplane? Who’s the guy looking at Obama with contempt as Karzai wears a worn out look probably bored by Obama speech? The soldier is doing something which is like making indian hand made chewing tobacco. Do these picture really convey the real story that everyone in world is now fed up with AfPak, one of sources of perennial misery in world? When did talk resolve perennial misery of world also needs to be ascertained? I did some googling, but nothing came up. This problem and problems for Israel exist due to secularism practiced by westerners. If both problems can go away by talking then UN should construct a new auditorium with retiring room for talkers so that they leave with agreements in hands. Till that time, they should debate it out continuously in presence of learned judge, United States of America + Great Britain.
- Posted by Rohit“his is not to suggest that a deal on Kashmir could magically solve Afghanistan overnight. But among the questions people are asking: Can you stabilise Afghanistan without stabilising Pakistan? And can you stabilise Pakistan without a settlement with India?” Myra
For those who have tried and continue to push Kashmir into every problem besetting Pakistan and now even Afghanistan, would someone please enlighten me on some facts.
India Pakistan is a 60 year old problem area, Afghanistan just a few years. How come Pakistan suddenly showed instability only a few years ago even though it has a 60 year old problem with India? So isn’t this the old ‘link everything to Kashmir’ Pakistan card it has always played and its supporters have dutifully sympathised. Pakistan destabilised because it reared a monster which is now devouring it.
“With Pakistan now signalling that it is willing to pick up where Musharraf’s envoy Tariq Aziz left off, does it serve India’s interest to snub it?”
Myra, India has stated time and again, which so many pretend not to hear….start action against terorism emanating from Pakistani soil and we will walk the extra mile. For discussions sake, suppose India gives up even this stand, what in return will Pakistan bring to the table?
As for Pakistanis seeing an India threat. Will someone please tell me how many lives have been lost due to murderers and thugs trained in Pakistan attacking India and how many have the Pakistanis lost to Indian hoodlums?
Finally is India alone responsible for solving the Kashmir problem or is it Pakistan’s responsibilty too?
- Posted by Dara