|
|
My Word
India Shouldn’t Wait for
US
Talk to Taliban!
by Rajinder Puri
The war in Afghanistan seems
never-ending. Civilians die every day. With each civilian death Taliban
gains legitimacy. With each civilian death the Afghan public shifts
loyalty from NATO to Taliban. The International Council on Security and
Development (ICOS) has been monitoring the Taliban growth in Afghanistan
since 2007. It tracked daily reports of incidents which indicated
Taliban presence. Presence was defined by at least one if not more
insurgent attacks every week. The findings were that 80 percent of
Afghanistan has a permanent Taliban presence and 97 percent a
substantial presence.
The West is out of its depth in dealing with Af-Pak. India is best
placed to resolve the issue.
India has common regional interests with
Pakistan even if Islamabad refuses to acknowledge it. India has
traditional friendly ties with Afghanistan. India along with her
neighbors will eventually pay the price of a delayed Afghanistan
settlement. On June 7, 2009 I wrote in these columns: “A peace proposal
should be prepared and announced even before fighting ends and the
Taliban agree to talk. The terms of the peace formula might well
facilitate an earlier end to fighting.” Every day it becomes clearer
that peace proposals cannot endlessly await the end of hostilities. It
becomes clearer that the war needs a peace proposal for its early
cessation.
What might that peace proposal be which India should push forward in
Afghanistan?
For a start perish the thought that Afghanistan can immediately
leap-frog to a western style democracy. Let the West nurse that daft
idea. Afghan society is tribal and medieval. The first requirement is
for the people of Afghanistan to feel that they are ruling themselves
without outside interference. Establishing self-governance, not
democracy, should be the prime goal. Once self-governance is achieved,
democracy through interaction with the outside world by trade, aid and
business can follow. This presupposes that the traditional social norms
of Afghan tribal society should be allowed to function. These will
adjust to a modern era gradually through the volition of the Afghan
people themselves.
By which formula might the multi-ethnic tribes of Afghanistan establish
self-governance? Traditionally the majority Pashtuns have ruled
Afghanistan. But after the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan
restiveness of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras has defied stability.
President Hamid Karzai is attempting to retain Pashtun supremacy by
making deals with the warlords of different ethnic tribes. His main
opponent Abdullah Abdullah who is half Pashtun and half Tajik wants to
create a federal Afghanistan. Actually the two approaches are
complementary. For success there would have to be some power sharing
between tribal leaders and the respective warlords of the various
tribes. Therefore, whatever the final result of the Afghanistan
election, a national consensus to govern the nation would be highly
desirable. President Karazai has claimed that if elected he will call a
meeting of Loya Jirga, the Grand Council of all the tribal
leaders which is constitutionally the highest decision making body in
Afghanistan, to invite all the militants and ask them to lay down arms.
This is an excellent idea that would be more achievable if it were
accompanied by the offer of granting federal governance to the different
ethnic regions in the country.
India should promote this idea. It should talk directly to the main
contenders in the Afghanistan Presidential election. India should also
approach the Pakistan leader Fazlur Rehman who has influence with the
Pakistan based Taliban. Rehman visited India not too long ago and called
on the Deoband leaders because he subscribes to their ideology. The
problem of course is Pakistani intransigence. To tackle that India also
has leverage.
Last Wednesday President Zardari told London’s The Financial Times: “Afghanistan
and Pakistan are different countries and cannot be lumped together for
any reason.” He said that Pakistan has functioning institutions
while Afghanistan is shattered by decades of ethnic conflict. One smells
panic in his response. What kind of institutions are at work in the
Federally Administered tribal belt of Pakistan? As for ethnic divisions,
Zardari should reflect on whether the Pashtuns in the NWFP are
ethnically closer to their tribal brothers in Afghanistan or to the
Punjabis and Sindhis of Pakistan. Zardari’s nervousness is
understandable. The unimplemented Durand Line
Treaty which lapsed in 1993 and by which Pakistan’s tribal belt was to
be returned to Afghanistan hangs like the Damocles sword over his head.
So what leverage can India exercise to play a constructive role with
both Pakistan and Afghanistan? If our government has courage and vision
it can play the Kashmir Card. I repeat: It is only in the context of a
South Asian community with common defense and common market that a
Kashmir peace settlement which does not disturb existing international
borders can be found. Likewise, only in the context of a South Asian
community can an Afghanistan-Pakistan peace formula that does not
disturb international borders be found.
India will lose nothing by putting forward this proposal. If accepted in
principle it could be implemented only after terrorism is eliminated.
Its acceptance in principle could conceivably go a long way in eroding
public support for terrorism inside both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our
government should learn to think boldly and out of the box. The West
cannot help us. We can help ourselves and the West.
September 12, 2009
Top |
My Word
|
|