Making space in Afghanistan to hide terror training activities to undermine India is probably the most plausible explanation. The Pakistani's have played a long game with insurgencies and have an institutional expertise that is incomparable. Another reason I believe is loss aversion. It's the one strategy that they believed worked for them pre 9/11 and they are loathe to give it up. Many Pakistani generals and spies got fabulously wealthy managing/fomenting the Afghan crisis and they are not about to give that up. Of interest will be heroin shipments from Afghanistan from now on with a Pak backed Taliban ruling construct.
It goes back to 1971. Pakistan's military made huge errors of judgment. Formed amidst Sino-Soviet military tensions, the Indo-Soviet mutual defence axis (Indian troops using Soviet arms) easily rolled over the Eastern wing.
Consequently, communist takeover of Afghanistan later in the '70s was viewed with enormous paranoia by Pakistan's military.
Since my mother’s family lived in Afghanistan before settling in India, I’ve developed some understanding about the country and have a little understanding of the history of the nation. In that respect I’d say the analysis of the pak interest goes beyond your analysis.
Though your analysis is good but it is not complete.
Shallow analysis based on hunches and cobbling together media hype. Sonali needs to appreciate that the Pashtuns straddle both Afghanistan and Pakistan and their insurgency affects both those countries just the same
Shallow analysis based on hunches and cobbling together media hype. Sonali needs to appreciate that the Pashtuns straddle both Afghanistan and Pakistan and their insurgency affects both those countries just the same
I don't agree with the writer's analysis of probabilities. There is a fundamental point missing. To think Talibans are subservient to Pakistan is totally wrong. They are very much independent and they have their own agenda. India and Pakistan didn't gain independence from the colonial ruler British through armed struggle, powers were transferred to these countries post II WW as the British were unable to continue its colonial rule any further due to miserable situation they were in. They just handed over the power to the people they educated and groomed in line with their own thinking. So, basically these were no independance but transfer of power to their trusted servants. Concept of India is a phenomenon of merely hundred and fifty years which is actually colonial British India after amalgamation of Punjab at the latest taken from the Sikhs. Never in the history of this subcontinent any ruler whether be Maratha, Rajput, Bengal and rulers from south identified them as Indian. Even early Muslim sultanate identified their kingdom as Delhi sultanate. The longest lasting dynasty in the east, the Ohoms are from China (Yunan). Even the Mugols never ruled whole of the subcontinent though at some stage claimed to be rulers of Hind, which is actually Hindi speaking northern India. Aurangazeb expanded the most, but couldn't conquer the south where there were several independent kingdoms. Even 2nd Chandra Gupta Bikromaditya had control of lesser area than Aurangazeb when many Independent kingdoms in the south thrived. In historical perspective 74 years are nothing. Both Pakistan and India are artificiality created states where there are no similarities amongst their people, no common language which all understand. Even official language is borrowed from British. System of government and judiciary are the rotten system of the British of Victorian era. It's true there was no USA 200 yrs back, but they forged the unity through equality in sharing power and economic developments. In India and Pakistan nothing of that sort can be expected as they couldn't come out yet of the shackle of colonial system and mental slavery of the British and their ally USA. There is no chance they could shake of the inherited Victorian era colonial systems and introduce systems compatible for an independent nation. They will always have insurgencies here and there because many ethnicities do not beleive they are part of these nations. In contrast, Afghanistan was never occupied by any power for long and they have their own systems of governance, bureaucracy and judiciary which are simple not cumbersome like India and Pakistan. Considering their geopolitical advantage and the mineral resources they have, they will come out far better than India and Pakistan once they settle down and overcome the present crisis. Present Taliban looks to be pragmatic and so long they can balance the rivalry of vulchers around them will have unexpected progress. Wish them best of luck. Thanks.
Comments here run the whole spectrum of possible villains and motivations. My 2 cents: (a) A good article,. (b) I differ regarding Pak having a goal of "accessing minerals etc for their tycoons". The trouble with Pak is precisely that it is so heavily dominated by Army and America that their own tycoons are not given a degree of feedom. In conrast , S Korea , even under a military dictator , Park Chung Hee , in the 60s , did tag along with US and even sent soldiers to fight alongside 'em in Vietnam in 1965-1973. But Park made sure that business contracts were maximised by Korean businesses that were then just emerging. Hyundai got a contract for construction , as simple as that , in the beginning. Park practically ordered Hyundai to make a bid to buoild a ship, in which this would be their first such venture. It worked. Look, where Hyundai is now. US did have an interest in developing a rival to Japan in manufacturing. The point is that Koreans exploited the opportunity in its fulness. Very different was Gen. Zia Ul Haq's doings when he joined US to play mischief against the Soviet-backed govt in Afghanista.n. There was absolutely no need to draw in "Islamic fighters" from all over Arab countries to fight there. No-one has to teach an Afghan how to hold a gun. And even the Khost tunnel complex was a contract given to Osama Bin Laden even as there were plenty of Kutchi Memons in Karachi , better fit to undertake such businesses. Zia missed an opportunity to create a class of Big Businesses , for which the enterprising trader community was very much there as in India. True, Zia's priority was to proceed with Nuclear bomb-making and getting the US to wink and help in this. But he would have had huge leverage since , after the Iranian revolution of 1979, Pak was the only route for the US to meddle in Afghanistan. So, economic goals have been absent and evidence the limited vision of Pak army. I wish they had such goals earlier , what , belatedly, Gen Bajwa is voicing now. (b) Major objective of Pak has been to attain parity with India and also to score an equaliser for our getting 90000 POWs to surrender to us in 1971. Those POWs remained in India till 1974 and Pak army morale was pretty low then,. Kissinger and Nixon were livid with Indira for having done this to a US ally. Kissinger worked to restore the morale of Pak army from 1971 onward right through the seventies. Pak did succeed in scoring an equaliser by detonating a nuclear device. I wonder if India can simply declare to them "yes, you are equal to us ". After all, all Member-Countries of the UNO are all equal, except for the priveleged Permanent Members of the Security Council. "Strategic Depth" in Afghanistan is only another way of achieving "parity" with India. Let us concede them "parity" and use their territory for trade with Central Asia and beyond.
It still beats me that Trump and Biden chose to exit rather than manage indefinitely - a'la presence in S. Korea for 70Y and ~700 military bases worldwide. Most probable cause, I can speculate, is to drive the U.S. domestic political narratives. Trump wanted to have a win under the belt of getting U.S. troops back home, Biden found it difficult to reverse it.
He could've chosen to lean on the U.N. peacekeeping force etc., but he was in a hurry to have a win to showcase in the 2022 house elections. They're only focused on managing domestic narratives; the rest be on their own. And this hurried U.S. exit might be just a sweet fruit that fell in Pak-Iran-Russ-China's lap.
So why was Pak fighting via proxies? Maybe just out of habit, to milk the U.S., and/or couldn't control the monster they nurtured.
Well articulated. It is important to stand in other shoes to see any threat to us. As far as Kashmir is concerned it is fait accompli and going forward it will become truly integral part of India when statehood is restored. Pak can worry about POK but can't think about J&K. US aid so far to pakistan was only for eliminating al qaeda and when that was over it was no longer necessary. If at all they want to sell their weapons to India it is again India's call which will buy only if it exclusive for us and since pak is having their weapons india will be less interested. Now Afghanistan need continued economic aid from world and it can isolate from world . If US is not interested then it would be china helping them with its objectives also achieved. The recent violences against Chinese expats is a worrying development. It only shows pak is indulging in that to have a grip in Afghanistan. It is for china to think about this alliance china-pak-afghanistan.
stupidity at its best, I started reading this article. Looked at the table, the first objective for Pakistan in Afghanistan is that Pakistan wants oil pipeline from Iran through Afghanistan. A writer who does not even know basic geography of the region, Pakistan is direct neighbor of Iran and IPI (Iran Pakistan Oil pipeline) is not supposed to go through even close to Afghani Border, it will come through Iran and then Balochistan, this is what happens when idiots become foreign relations experts. Kudos to the rest of the article, I know where you are writing from , republic tv Godi media fed propaganda lies
It may also be from a sense of self-preservation. An American presence in Afghanistan might have eventually led to a greater conflict in the region involving Afghanistan's other neighbours, putting an economic toll on Pakistan. depending on the flavour of the American presidency, Pakistan may itself have become the fancy of (say) a pro-India American president. Also, such scenarios aside, in the long term, Pakistan would have to make peace with Afghanistan's neighbours, many of whom would have been unlikely to see an ally of USA in a positive light.
Long term growth of Pakistan's economy depends on how vibrant the economies of its neighbours (and other countries in central and west Asia) are and how much trade they do via and with Pakistan. Arguably, an Americanized Afghanistan would have less trade with Pakistan than a Pakistanish Afghanistan would.
A few years ago, they did bear an ominous warning to Modi that Americans betray. Maybe they are once bitten twice shy.
Maybe bin Laden's ideology has survived and Pakistan is beholden to its hordes of adherents in madrassas. This is unlikely, however, because it would imply that Pakistan is effectively a functioning democracy.
Bull's Eye! And Gwadar is not to be forgotten. It will become a key for China and a 'lizard in the mouth' for Pakistan. Pakistan is doomed to remain under Chinese clutch forever.
I disagree. China and Pakistan have pushed for Taliban for creating BRI on Afganistan. If US was there, BRI could not have been created in Afganistan.
Secondly, it is to check indian influence as rightly pointed out and to make Chabahar port unusable for India.
From POV China , they needed to have a friendly government in Kabul as they need Afganistan to restrict uighur separatists from getting money as well as other terrorists attacking CPEC ( 2 attacks so far ). America obliged it by leaving Taliban. Russia also wanted to curtail US influence in the region.
With this move, india has lost a valuable location in Afganistan and is boxed in its own range of influence. China will not be sending terrorists to Kashmir nor arm the Kashmiris. They will work on creating trade corridors.
i agree the table and its contents. pakistan really thinks this way. wonder what happened to modi and his shenanigans to use strategy that could counter pakis and increase leverage with respect to indians strategic interests. but then you are asking for too much with modi regime. this is regime which china has foisted on india. its now very well known that modi is chinas stooge to counter indias economic rise.
From perspective of Pakistan, it would have been to include few questions from Pakistan NSA
Making space in Afghanistan to hide terror training activities to undermine India is probably the most plausible explanation. The Pakistani's have played a long game with insurgencies and have an institutional expertise that is incomparable. Another reason I believe is loss aversion. It's the one strategy that they believed worked for them pre 9/11 and they are loathe to give it up. Many Pakistani generals and spies got fabulously wealthy managing/fomenting the Afghan crisis and they are not about to give that up. Of interest will be heroin shipments from Afghanistan from now on with a Pak backed Taliban ruling construct.
It goes back to 1971. Pakistan's military made huge errors of judgment. Formed amidst Sino-Soviet military tensions, the Indo-Soviet mutual defence axis (Indian troops using Soviet arms) easily rolled over the Eastern wing.
Consequently, communist takeover of Afghanistan later in the '70s was viewed with enormous paranoia by Pakistan's military.
Since my mother’s family lived in Afghanistan before settling in India, I’ve developed some understanding about the country and have a little understanding of the history of the nation. In that respect I’d say the analysis of the pak interest goes beyond your analysis.
Though your analysis is good but it is not complete.
Maybe it’s worth a mental revisit & rewrite.
Just my two pence
Shallow analysis based on hunches and cobbling together media hype. Sonali needs to appreciate that the Pashtuns straddle both Afghanistan and Pakistan and their insurgency affects both those countries just the same
Shallow analysis based on hunches and cobbling together media hype. Sonali needs to appreciate that the Pashtuns straddle both Afghanistan and Pakistan and their insurgency affects both those countries just the same
Brilliant. It’s a strategic choice.
I don't agree with the writer's analysis of probabilities. There is a fundamental point missing. To think Talibans are subservient to Pakistan is totally wrong. They are very much independent and they have their own agenda. India and Pakistan didn't gain independence from the colonial ruler British through armed struggle, powers were transferred to these countries post II WW as the British were unable to continue its colonial rule any further due to miserable situation they were in. They just handed over the power to the people they educated and groomed in line with their own thinking. So, basically these were no independance but transfer of power to their trusted servants. Concept of India is a phenomenon of merely hundred and fifty years which is actually colonial British India after amalgamation of Punjab at the latest taken from the Sikhs. Never in the history of this subcontinent any ruler whether be Maratha, Rajput, Bengal and rulers from south identified them as Indian. Even early Muslim sultanate identified their kingdom as Delhi sultanate. The longest lasting dynasty in the east, the Ohoms are from China (Yunan). Even the Mugols never ruled whole of the subcontinent though at some stage claimed to be rulers of Hind, which is actually Hindi speaking northern India. Aurangazeb expanded the most, but couldn't conquer the south where there were several independent kingdoms. Even 2nd Chandra Gupta Bikromaditya had control of lesser area than Aurangazeb when many Independent kingdoms in the south thrived. In historical perspective 74 years are nothing. Both Pakistan and India are artificiality created states where there are no similarities amongst their people, no common language which all understand. Even official language is borrowed from British. System of government and judiciary are the rotten system of the British of Victorian era. It's true there was no USA 200 yrs back, but they forged the unity through equality in sharing power and economic developments. In India and Pakistan nothing of that sort can be expected as they couldn't come out yet of the shackle of colonial system and mental slavery of the British and their ally USA. There is no chance they could shake of the inherited Victorian era colonial systems and introduce systems compatible for an independent nation. They will always have insurgencies here and there because many ethnicities do not beleive they are part of these nations. In contrast, Afghanistan was never occupied by any power for long and they have their own systems of governance, bureaucracy and judiciary which are simple not cumbersome like India and Pakistan. Considering their geopolitical advantage and the mineral resources they have, they will come out far better than India and Pakistan once they settle down and overcome the present crisis. Present Taliban looks to be pragmatic and so long they can balance the rivalry of vulchers around them will have unexpected progress. Wish them best of luck. Thanks.
Comments here run the whole spectrum of possible villains and motivations. My 2 cents: (a) A good article,. (b) I differ regarding Pak having a goal of "accessing minerals etc for their tycoons". The trouble with Pak is precisely that it is so heavily dominated by Army and America that their own tycoons are not given a degree of feedom. In conrast , S Korea , even under a military dictator , Park Chung Hee , in the 60s , did tag along with US and even sent soldiers to fight alongside 'em in Vietnam in 1965-1973. But Park made sure that business contracts were maximised by Korean businesses that were then just emerging. Hyundai got a contract for construction , as simple as that , in the beginning. Park practically ordered Hyundai to make a bid to buoild a ship, in which this would be their first such venture. It worked. Look, where Hyundai is now. US did have an interest in developing a rival to Japan in manufacturing. The point is that Koreans exploited the opportunity in its fulness. Very different was Gen. Zia Ul Haq's doings when he joined US to play mischief against the Soviet-backed govt in Afghanista.n. There was absolutely no need to draw in "Islamic fighters" from all over Arab countries to fight there. No-one has to teach an Afghan how to hold a gun. And even the Khost tunnel complex was a contract given to Osama Bin Laden even as there were plenty of Kutchi Memons in Karachi , better fit to undertake such businesses. Zia missed an opportunity to create a class of Big Businesses , for which the enterprising trader community was very much there as in India. True, Zia's priority was to proceed with Nuclear bomb-making and getting the US to wink and help in this. But he would have had huge leverage since , after the Iranian revolution of 1979, Pak was the only route for the US to meddle in Afghanistan. So, economic goals have been absent and evidence the limited vision of Pak army. I wish they had such goals earlier , what , belatedly, Gen Bajwa is voicing now. (b) Major objective of Pak has been to attain parity with India and also to score an equaliser for our getting 90000 POWs to surrender to us in 1971. Those POWs remained in India till 1974 and Pak army morale was pretty low then,. Kissinger and Nixon were livid with Indira for having done this to a US ally. Kissinger worked to restore the morale of Pak army from 1971 onward right through the seventies. Pak did succeed in scoring an equaliser by detonating a nuclear device. I wonder if India can simply declare to them "yes, you are equal to us ". After all, all Member-Countries of the UNO are all equal, except for the priveleged Permanent Members of the Security Council. "Strategic Depth" in Afghanistan is only another way of achieving "parity" with India. Let us concede them "parity" and use their territory for trade with Central Asia and beyond.
It still beats me that Trump and Biden chose to exit rather than manage indefinitely - a'la presence in S. Korea for 70Y and ~700 military bases worldwide. Most probable cause, I can speculate, is to drive the U.S. domestic political narratives. Trump wanted to have a win under the belt of getting U.S. troops back home, Biden found it difficult to reverse it.
He could've chosen to lean on the U.N. peacekeeping force etc., but he was in a hurry to have a win to showcase in the 2022 house elections. They're only focused on managing domestic narratives; the rest be on their own. And this hurried U.S. exit might be just a sweet fruit that fell in Pak-Iran-Russ-China's lap.
So why was Pak fighting via proxies? Maybe just out of habit, to milk the U.S., and/or couldn't control the monster they nurtured.
Well articulated. It is important to stand in other shoes to see any threat to us. As far as Kashmir is concerned it is fait accompli and going forward it will become truly integral part of India when statehood is restored. Pak can worry about POK but can't think about J&K. US aid so far to pakistan was only for eliminating al qaeda and when that was over it was no longer necessary. If at all they want to sell their weapons to India it is again India's call which will buy only if it exclusive for us and since pak is having their weapons india will be less interested. Now Afghanistan need continued economic aid from world and it can isolate from world . If US is not interested then it would be china helping them with its objectives also achieved. The recent violences against Chinese expats is a worrying development. It only shows pak is indulging in that to have a grip in Afghanistan. It is for china to think about this alliance china-pak-afghanistan.
stupidity at its best, I started reading this article. Looked at the table, the first objective for Pakistan in Afghanistan is that Pakistan wants oil pipeline from Iran through Afghanistan. A writer who does not even know basic geography of the region, Pakistan is direct neighbor of Iran and IPI (Iran Pakistan Oil pipeline) is not supposed to go through even close to Afghani Border, it will come through Iran and then Balochistan, this is what happens when idiots become foreign relations experts. Kudos to the rest of the article, I know where you are writing from , republic tv Godi media fed propaganda lies
hypothetically speaking:
It may also be from a sense of self-preservation. An American presence in Afghanistan might have eventually led to a greater conflict in the region involving Afghanistan's other neighbours, putting an economic toll on Pakistan. depending on the flavour of the American presidency, Pakistan may itself have become the fancy of (say) a pro-India American president. Also, such scenarios aside, in the long term, Pakistan would have to make peace with Afghanistan's neighbours, many of whom would have been unlikely to see an ally of USA in a positive light.
Long term growth of Pakistan's economy depends on how vibrant the economies of its neighbours (and other countries in central and west Asia) are and how much trade they do via and with Pakistan. Arguably, an Americanized Afghanistan would have less trade with Pakistan than a Pakistanish Afghanistan would.
A few years ago, they did bear an ominous warning to Modi that Americans betray. Maybe they are once bitten twice shy.
Maybe bin Laden's ideology has survived and Pakistan is beholden to its hordes of adherents in madrassas. This is unlikely, however, because it would imply that Pakistan is effectively a functioning democracy.
Bull's Eye! And Gwadar is not to be forgotten. It will become a key for China and a 'lizard in the mouth' for Pakistan. Pakistan is doomed to remain under Chinese clutch forever.
I disagree. China and Pakistan have pushed for Taliban for creating BRI on Afganistan. If US was there, BRI could not have been created in Afganistan.
Secondly, it is to check indian influence as rightly pointed out and to make Chabahar port unusable for India.
From POV China , they needed to have a friendly government in Kabul as they need Afganistan to restrict uighur separatists from getting money as well as other terrorists attacking CPEC ( 2 attacks so far ). America obliged it by leaving Taliban. Russia also wanted to curtail US influence in the region.
With this move, india has lost a valuable location in Afganistan and is boxed in its own range of influence. China will not be sending terrorists to Kashmir nor arm the Kashmiris. They will work on creating trade corridors.
i agree the table and its contents. pakistan really thinks this way. wonder what happened to modi and his shenanigans to use strategy that could counter pakis and increase leverage with respect to indians strategic interests. but then you are asking for too much with modi regime. this is regime which china has foisted on india. its now very well known that modi is chinas stooge to counter indias economic rise.
India will loss more if Power of Delhi US not taken by Bengali.