India’s Af-Pak policy: Risks and Opportunities

Dec 15, 2015, South Asia Monitor/ Indian Defence Review 

By Divya Kumar Soti

 

The Ufa Joint Statement issued by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan had envisaged a preliminary framework to address the issues of terrorism, ceasefire violations and to find out “ways and means” to expedite the 26/11 trial underway in Pakistan. At least some progress was to be made on these issues before India got ready to reopen the long-suspended composite dialogue. And then there was a red line repeatedly drawn by New Delhi that when Pakistan’s representatives visit New Delhi for bilateral talks, they should not meet the Hurriyat separatists.

 

But when the two National Security Advisors finally met in Bangkok on December 7, they discussed much more than terrorism, though their conclusions or what Pakistan promised to deliver on the issue of terrorism was not made public. There is still uncertainty over whether Pakistan has finally agreed to abide by the Hurriyat red line or Bangkok was chosen as the meeting venue to avoid discomfiture to both sides. At least Pakistan has not committed to the Hurriyat red line in public, and in the last few months Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has written letters to Hurriyat leaders promising support. Clarity on this point would have been beneficial from the Indian viewpoint given the fact that Pakistan’s representatives are likely to reciprocate External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Islamabad in the coming days, as opening of the composite dialogue has been announced by both sides.

 

It is also not clear how India has been able to capitalize upon Nawaz Sharif’s recent statement of “unconditional talks” with India given the fact that the NSAs discussed many things, including Jammu & Kashmir and not just terrorism, and the composite dialogue has been reopened -- which inadvertently leads to the connotation that Nawaz Sharif was basically declining to agree to the Indian position of “Let’s talk terror first”.

 

Ufa was a milestone for the fact that for the first time Pakistan was made to agree in writing to a framework which required it to first address Indian concerns over terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil before any meaningful composite dialogue can happen.

 

But now the Narendra Modi government seems to have concluded that either it is not feasible to enforce the Ufa framework or it is not in the larger national interest, given the larger regional geopolitical scenario to try to rigorously enforce that strict framework as that may inevitably mean no engagement with Pakistan.

 

There are understandably many reasons for this conclusion: Firstly, Prime Minister Modi has to visit Pakistan next year for the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit. SAARC’s progress has always been dismal and India-Pakistan tensions have been a key reason for that. And this time there are India-Nepal tensions too. It is no coincidence that New Delhi has also started some proactive efforts to cool down the Nepal situation.

 

Secondly, Pakistan has got at east two shots in the arm during the latest US visits of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief General Raheel Sharif.  The Barack Obama-Nawaz Sharif Joint Statement bestowed upon Pakistan the accolade of “regional strategic stabilizer”. General Raheel Sharif during his self-invited visit to the US was pampered by the Obama administration, and it took care not to nudge the Pakistan’s military boss on anything. Despite figuring out Pakistan’s evident double games in the past as well as its glaring inabilities and unwillingness to stabilize the democratic regime in Afghanistan, US policy makers have not been able to figure out any new approach to the Afghan conundrum except repeating the pandering rituals before the real rulers of Pakistan, who also happen to be the real trouble makers in Afghanistan. This exceptional but seemingly unending US perplexity gives elbow room to Pakistan to do what it aims to do in the region by keeping Kabul and Washington on the tenterhooks through its proxies and affecting change in Indian policies towards it by capitalizing upon the US “reliance” on it for wishful stabilization of Afghanistan. In the coming days, the new fallout of all this may be that Pakistan will find it more easy to leverage its nuisance value at SAARC.

 

This leaves the Modi government with no option but to work on a hyphenated Af-Pak policy, given the fact that Af-Pak is now setting up the dynamics of China-US equations more than ever before. Before India opened up composite dialogue with Pakistan in the backdrop of the Heart of Asia summit to contemplate upon the future of Afghanistan, it also started to make operational the bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan, which in the coming days will involve transfer of sophisticated lethal weapon systems to the Afghan military which is now fighting not just Taliban but also the local Daesh (IS).

 

The Unending Endgame

 

The Murree process in which the Obama and Ashraf Ghani administrations invested a lot of hope due to guarantees from Beijing collapsed within days as news of Mullah Omar’s killing in 2013 by the Mansour faction broke, and three leaders at the helm of Taliban’s political office in Qatar staged a revolt. The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) tried to restore the balance of power within the Taliban by introducing Sirajuddin Haqqani as second-in-command, but now there are multiple reports of Mullah Mansour being injured in internecine fighting to take revenge for the killing of a key dissident commander by his men. This latest internecine fighting erupted within days of Prime Minister Sharif’s announcement to re-launch efforts to broker peace between Kabul and Taliban. But the irony that haunts credibility of Pakistan is that when Taliban happens to be strong, ISI tries to have the whole cake in Afghanistan through Talibani terror campaign and tries to deliver it to the talks table when there is internecine fighting.

 

What is worse in all this is that Pakistan does not ensure even a lull in big attacks by the main faction led by Mansour and Haqqanis, though it happens to be in full control as it proclaims its peaceful intentions about Afghanistan. During Heart of Asia summit, where Pakistan again promised to deliver this main Taliban faction to the talks table, it attacked Kandahar airport killing many civilians. So rattled was the security establishment in Kabul over this Pakistani double game that the Afghan Intelligence Chief Rahmatullah Nabil went public criticizing President Ghani’s rapprochement with Pakistan, before resigning from his post. 

 

Given the churning within Taliban, there are lots of chances the ISI will try to do damage control within Taliban by affecting closer synchronization with the Haqqani network and introducing more disciplined groups like Jamaat ud Dawah into Afghanistan. For instance, last month, 41 boys from Pakistani tribal areas were killed fighting for the JuD and Al Badr in Afghanistan. This month the Afghan government officials in Nangarh province alleged that local Islamic State militants are getting order from Pakistan. This increased dependence of ISI on groups like JuD increases the terror threat to India in Afghanistan as well as back home. 

 

At this point, India should encourage the Ghani administration to open channels with Taliban leaders based in Gulf nations and Iran who want an Afghan-owned peace process. India may find support in these efforts from Gulf countries who are not happy with Pakistan over its refusal to participate in the Yemen conflict. While Gulf monarchies and Iran are on opposite sides in the Yemen conflict, both sides have allowed Taliban factions to operate from their territories. Further, as Iran and Russia are coming closer than ever before, both have interest in checking the growth of Islamist groups in north and west Afghanistan. India should explore all these avenues to the maximum. While the Mansur faction is still the largest, in view of increasing infighting even if a few key leaders can be won over by Kabul that will have a great symbolic effect.

 

So far, Pakistan has failed to deliver peace in Afghanistan. It will not do anything to strengthen the elected Afghan government which is now struggling against the dual threat of Taliban and Islamic State. This legitimizes India increasing its role in Afghanistan -- from being a reconstruction partner to a long-term nodal sustainer of democratic regime as the West cannot perpetuate its military presence for all time to come. In immediate terms, this is further justified by the fact that India has opened composite dialogue with Pakistan despite no progress on terror related issues to help promote larger regional stability.

 

From a bilateral viewpoint, squandering away gains of Ufa is a big price for India. The sustainability and final outcome of the new composite dialogue with Pakistan are as uncertain as those of previous ones. However, if India can capitalize upon opportunities in the larger Af-Pak scenario, it will still be a gainer in the long term.

 

Indian makes a smart move in Central Asia (South Asia Monitor: Apr 23, 2015)

Good ‪#‎economic‬ relations with ‪#‎Turkmenistan‬ allows India to tap into Central Asia’s rich natural resources where it can also act as a major balancing factor between competing powers like ‪#‎Russia‬, ‪#‎China‬ and ‪#‎US‬.  Iran is the only secure and stable gateway for India to trade with Central Asia, and Turkmenistan has the potential to form the next link in the strategic chain. Read More

Afghan peace process: Marred by short-sightedness (South Asia Monitor: March 12, 2015)

"The new peace process conceived by President Ashraf Ghani ultimately aims at reaching a power sharing deal with the Afghan Taliban. This latest peace process is as superficial as the previous ones because it does not demand an ideological course correction from Taliban. The Afghan Taliban remains committed to ultra-radical version of Deobandi Islam and had championed a barbaric medieval theocratic state in Afghanistan during its days in power where public flogging, stoning, beheadings and iconoclasm were perpetrated by the state machinery. Today the Islamic State is repeating just that in Iraq and Syria."

"The importance of such an ideological declaration is evident from the experience of Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. Though the Muslim Brotherhood had renounced the use of violent means to achieve political ends as early as 1949 and was a key participant in the Tahrir Square agitation against the Hosni Mubarak regime, when it came to power after participating in the 2012 presidential elections it was soon found trying to impose an Islamist Constitution and its members were found to be indulging in attacks on Christians and other minorities. Leading Middle East expert Yasmine El Rashidi described this as an “Islamist Coup”. Soon Egypt’s powerful military had to intervene to save the country from plunging into utter chaos. All this happened because despite giving up violence and participating in the electoral process, the Muslim Brotherhood remained ideologically committed to the cause of establishing a theocratic Islamist State." Read Full Article Here

Islamic State arrives in Pakistan: Implications for South Asia (South Asia Monitor: Dec 14, 2014)

Article discusses Islamic State's alliances with groups like Jundullah (Pakistan), prospects of more jehadists swearing allegiance to Islamic State, challenges IS alliances pose on tactical level and evolving threat to India and Iran. Read full article here

South Asia Monitor: India needs to up its stakes in Central Asia

India needs to have Special Forces presence in Central Asia and there is a need to expand Central Asian Strategic Corridors to ensure a stable Afghanistan. Read More Here

Iraq burns again: Unravelling of secret colonial pacts (South Asia Monitor:Jun 30, 2014)

I wrote in South Asia Monitor analyzing falling apart of Sykes-Picot plan of 1916 and rise of Sunni Caliphate in Iraq and Syria and what it means for Middle-East, South Asia, North Africa and Europe. Interestingly, the present shape of Kurd and IS holdings conform to Project for New Middle-East Map published by US Armed Forces Journal in 2006. Read More:

 South Asia Monitor: http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=sl&nid=8436
 Eurasia Review:  http://www.eurasiareview.com/30062014-iraq-burns-unravelling-secret-colonial-pacts-analysis/

Battle of Samarra: Crucial Milestone in Shia-Sunni Conflict

As heavy fighting razes in and around Iraqi historical city of Samarra, we are gauging at an event which may prove to be a turning point in historical Shia-Sunni conflict and can carry its intensity to limits unknown to the modern world. The city houses one of the most important Shia pilgrimage site with which ISIL wants to do something of the kind Taliban did with Bamiyan Buddha.

Some reports from Arab TV channels say that ISIL fighters are already inside Samarra and controlling major portion of city. Samara's theological importance to Shias is huge. Samarra's Al-Askari mosque houses shrines of 10th and 11th Imams. It is also the place where last Shia Imam went into occultation and as per theological beliefs will return at appointed time (the belief is similar to that of Seventh Day Adventists about Jesus Christ). Al-Qaeda has targeted the mosque two times in 2006 and 2007 which had led to major ethnic clashes across Iraq. But falling of Samarra to Sunni Islamists is another thing. Anticipating the ISIL intentions in advance,three days back, Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr had called upon Shia fighters to rush to Samarra and Karbala to save the shrines. Now, highest ranking Shia cleric in Iraq has also called upon his followers to take up arms against Sunni Islmists and save the nation.

Western Media continues to report that thousands of Shia voulnteer fighters are moving towards Samarra and Iranain Quds forces are also inside Iran. We may see Muqtatad al-Sadr's Mahdi Army soming to life again in next few days which had given Americans very hard time in past. In another important development, Saudi Daily Al Watan reported that Iran has asked Hezbollah to sent its fighters to Syria so that Iraqi Shia fighters may return home to take on Sunni Islamists.

Iran's President Rouhani has spent lot of political capital on peace process with Americans. He cannot afford to be soft on Iraqi situation and Tehran would got to any limit to save the situation in Iraq. Attacks on Shias have been increasing on Iran's eastern border with Pakistan. With Taliban all set to get stronger in Afghanistan after US withdrawal, Tehran seems to be in no mood to get hemmed in between Sunni extremists from both sides. Moreover, Iran also has to sustain the Assad regime in Syria and importance of that mission has increased in light of current situation in Iraq.

A Twist in the Middle-East Tale

By talking over phone President Obama and Iran’s newly elected President Rouhani may have started to spell the new equations which have the potential of simplifying the extremely complicated geo-politics of middle-east. This historic rapprochement between West and the Iran will have long-term soothing effect on highly volatile situation in post-Arab spring era.

An acrimonious relationship with Iran makes US devote much of its energy in Middle-East to futile activities which do not help any of its long-term strategic goals nor do in any way contribute to global security scenario. George Bush’s inclusion of Iran to “axis of evil” phraseology only complicated and delayed US war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and thereafter Iraq in 2003, a hemmed Iran naturally found itself vulnerable. Washington’s hostile attitude further worsened the situation and allowed radicals in Iran to rise to power.

Iran had a stake in toppling of Taliban regime in Afghanistan which was extremely hostile to Iranian interests. When Taliban came to power in Kabul in 1996, it made all attempts to curtail Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Large scale selective killings of Shias were organized by the Taliban government. Iranian consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif was attacked and ten Iranian diplomats were killed. Iran had to amass 300,000 troops on its border with Afghanistan threatening to punish the Taliban regime.

However, Bush’s axis of evil rhetoric forced Iran to covertly help the Taliban after post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan by US so as to keep US military engaged and stretched. Similar things also transpired in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was Iran’s sworn enemy but after fall of Saddam regime Iran had to initially work at cross-purposes to US to keep US forces at bay. Things stabilized in Iraq only after Washington realized that a head on approach against Iranian clients will not be helpful. Ultimately Iranian covert co-operation in quelling the violence allowed US to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan which is scheduled next year will bring back things to per-9/11 era. There will be no substantial US military presence either in Iraq or Afghanistan. On the other hand, Iran will be faced with a resurgent Al- Qaeda on its west in Iraq which aims to push that nation into civil war and a hostile Taliban which will try to destabilize Afghanistan staking claims to power in Kabul to its East. All this has serious implications for Iranian interests in the region.

A glimpse of approaching turbulence is already visible. Pakistan’s tribal areas witnessed some of the most ghastly attacks mounted on Shias ever. At the same time, a terrorist group named Jundullah founded by Abdul Malik Rigi, who was a former Taliban commander and operates from Pakistani territory sprung into action after many years and killed sixteen Iranian border guards. In Iraq, Al-Qaeda’s activities are recording an exponential increase.

After UN sponsored chemical weapons deal with Assad regime, Iranian and US priorities are changing fast bringing them into cohesion. Going forward Washington will be increasingly focused on checking resurgence of Al-Qaeda and allied groups in the Islamic world. Similarly, these groups are emerging as greater threats to Iranian interests in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan than the West.