India sinking deeper into Afghan quagmire
Momin Iftikhar

AFGHAN are a xenophobic nation who, as abundantly displayed by history, detest foreign military presence on the Afghan soil. All great powers intent upon playing the great game on this ‘round about of history’ have learnt at great cost and pain the perils of violating the conventional wisdom. Afghan have the strategic stamina and the collective will power to outlast any aggressor since the time immemorial and they are sensitive to any ‘friend’s coveted desire to take them for a ride in the name of a helping hand. Indians, it seems, are just beginning to learn the perils of violating this time honored Afghan custom.
The meticulously planned attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul that killed forty and injured 140 people can be termed as a significant backlash by the Afghan people against India’s deepening intrusion into the country’s affairs. Promising to be a watershed, the suicide strike bears far reaching significance on Afghan situation and its reverberations shall jolt the region for considerable time to come. The suicide attacker’s target was obvious; he had come to eliminate the Indian defence attaché (DA), Brigadier Ravi Datta Mehta. The DA was about to pass through the gate of the sprawling complex housing the Indian embassy when the explosive laden vehicle rammed into his car. An Indian Foreign Service Diplomat, V Venkateswara Rao, who was queuing up for entering the embassy was also killed and thrown by the blast to the roof of the embassy building, where his body was found hours later. Two soldiers of the Indo – Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Ajay Pathania and Roop Singh were also killed by the explosion. It was the first incident of its kind in which Indian diplomats were targeted and killed on a foreign land.
Pakistan has learnt to live with unfounded Indian accusations whenever terror strikes India or Indians and the Kabul incident was no different. While the response from the Indian Government was tempered with restraint, the Indian media and officials wasted little time in pointing the accusatory finger at Pakistan. A battery of Indian writers gave a free vent to their suspicions on the ‘neighboring country and its intelligence agency’. How can the Indian media and her officialdom be so certain of Pakistan’s involvement without an iota of evidence is an aspect that has always confounded the observers. Afghan government’s spokesman showed even lesser restraint in unleashing a propaganda tirade at Pakistan, obviously to please the Indian government and indicating to the depth of Indian penetration in the official echelons of Kabul. The refusal of the US state department to endorse the Indian and Afghan claims of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack on Indian Embassy must have taken the winds out of the sails of a vicious propaganda campaign. Why did the vehicle borne suicide bomber strike the Indian Embassy and was the attack imminent and hence avoidable, are cardinal issues which need to be addressed. Some aspects, having a bearing on the issue are as follows.
First, the fact that the Indian defence attaché was specifically targeted gives credence to the hypothesis that the attackers were sending a grisly message to the rising Indian military profile in Afghanistan – a cautionary shot across the bow. India behind the façade of reconstruction effort in Afghanistan is inducting boots on the ground and enhancing the military cum intelligence profile under the garb of diplomatic cover. Indian BRO, a military organization responsible for building roads in the border region of India is spearheading these efforts. Its primary project is the construction of the Zaranj – Delaram Road, a stretch of 218 – kilometers road on the Iran Afghan Border. But in effect it has assumed the status of a cover for India for her espionage activities in Afghanistan. Under the cover of providing protection to BRO, the Indians have inducted a battalion size force of ITBP; a military presence that is viewed with much suspicion in Afghanistan.
Second, Indians are seen in Afghanistan as the major prop for the much detested Karzai Government which is working in close liaison with the Northern Alliance elements, most of whom are well known Indian protégées. That is the reason that there is much hatred against India in the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan, who view India’s rising military profile in Afghanistan with concern. The recent week long visit by Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak to India during which the Indian Government prevailed upon him to let India conduct counter insurgency training for Afghan soldiers besides accepting responsibility for maintaining Afghanistan’s Soviet era helicopter gun ships, has been viewed with suspicion by the Afghans. The presence of Indian military advisors guiding the counter insurgency effort will bring India a step closer to combat with Taleban. Such camaraderie at the cost of Pashtun interests doesn’t endear India to the local population. The fact that India openly collaborated with Iran and Russia to sustain Northern Alliance hang on to their toehold in Afghanistan to thwart the Taleban offensive in 2000-2001 is something that is still very much fresh in the memory of local population.
Third, Afghan are a deeply religious and conservative people who find the cultural onslaught by the Bollywood culture hard to stomach. The influx of Indian movies and saturation of airwaves with Indian soap operas have alienated the conservative segments of Afghan population. The result is that the Afghan Government has been constrained to take six Indian serials off air under public pressure. A strong opinion has developed that under the garb of cultural projection of India, Afghan morals and way of life are being subverted.
The events of September Eleven have provided India with a windfall opportunity to enhance her profile and presence in Afghanistan. Taleban were not popular among majority of the Afghan people for their regressive thinking and inflexible attitude and when they were ousted there was hope that a genuinely representative government would tackle the problems caused by ethnic divisions and destruction caused by the decades of relentless war. The rise of Northern Alliance elements in Afghanistan under the nominal figurehead leadership of Karzai has placed India in a fortuitous situation to consider her options and pave way for pursuing ambitions in the Central Asian region. Her military ambitions in the Region are enticing her to acquire a larger role in the affairs of Afghanistan. The recent attack on the Indian Embassy is an apt reminder of the perils in following such a dangerous course.

Exorcising General’s ghost
Hassan Abbas

FOLLOWING its recent free elections, Pakistan is rebounding politically. But the euphoria that came with the end of the Musharraf era is wearing off, as the new government faces stark choices. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy is not new to this 60-year-old state, but ethnic cleavages, weak institutions, and religious extremism in the North are perennially destabilising. And, while the new government settles in and establishes its priorities, the West, especially the United States, must reassess the impact of its past dealings with Pakistan.
Pakistan’s new prime minister, Yousaf Gilani, is a seasoned politician and, more importantly, has Sufi family roots, which is a good omen because of the Sufi tradition of tolerance. Gilani unequivocally declared in his inaugural address that fighting terrorism is a top priority, and his first decision was to release from house arrest judges deposed by Musharraf. The respite from the horrendous spate of suicide bombings since the new government assumed power is similarly heartening. But the honeymoon period is coming to an end. Already, in Gilani’s hometown of Multan, rioters attacked government offices and banks to protest electricity disruptions. A couple of well-known opposition politicians, a chief minister and a federal cabinet minister of the previous pro-Musharraf government, were publicly thrashed, raising doubts about government control over law and order in the country.
So far, Musharraf has accepted his diminishing stature quietly — though he has few other options. The new political leadership, both inside and outside the parliament, has been carefully avoiding a head-on collision with the president. Interestingly, in the midst of the political transition, Musharraf embarked on a week-long visit to China to lobby for construction of an oil and gas pipeline between China and the Arabian Gulf that would be routed through Pakistan. The deeper question raised by this proposal is whether Musharraf meant to convey a message to the US that Pakistan’s priorities were shifting.
The revival of democratic politics in Pakistan will undoubtedly affect Pakistan-US relations. Pakistan’s military links with America appear to remain on a sound footing, so the strategic alliance with the US is likely to continue, perhaps with some nuanced differences over how to fight the “war on terror.” But Pakistani politicians are bound to be influenced by domestic public opinion, which is generally critical of the US policies. Nevertheless, long-term US interests in the region will be better served if Pakistan’s democratic forces successfully establish themselves. A proposal in the US Senate to increase development and education aid to Pakistan could help in winning the hearts and minds.
Meanwhile, President George W. Bush has said that “if another September 11-style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan and not Afghanistan.” Whether this American intelligence assessment is based on credible information is unknown. American election-year politics may also be behind this assertion. But it is significant that Bush decided to voice this view during Pakistan’s political transition. Pakistan must take this view seriously, regardless of Bush’s motivations. The new government should quickly devise a policy to deal with terrorism. Recent months have seen dozens of suicide bombings and other terrorist activities — the price of Pakistan’s own past blunders, as well as those of the West. Afghanistan is a prime example, as is the failure to settle the Kashmir imbroglio with India. Both failures have strengthened domestic terrorist groups.
Pakistan’s government appears to be preparing to talk to some of the extremists in the tribal areas, introduce political reforms, and redouble development efforts. But reference to “talks” makes the West uncomfortable. American officials have likened this strategy to negotiating with terrorists, and point to a previous round of negotiations that did nothing to stop violence in the tribal areas. But the new leadership wants to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorists and religious conservatives and disillusioned Pashtun youth within Pakistan. After all, the victory of the secular Awami National Party (ANP) in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province is a strong indication that people there have rejected religious political forces and violence.
This window of opportunity can be expanded through dialogue and reconciliation with those who are ready to disavow extremism and militancy. The new Pakistani government needs to explain this to the West in order to keep its support. The US, meanwhile, should end direct military strikes in the area, even if these are conducted with the knowledge and cooperation of Pakistan’s military. Force has never worked with the Pashtun tribes, and there is no evidence that this has changed. There are real signs that the new government is considered a credible partner in the tribal areas. It needs to be given time to find a way out of the endless cycle of violence. Hassan Abbas, a Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, is author of Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror. This article has been distributed by Project Syndicate.

—Khaleej Times


American Muslims & Sen. Obama
Nazir Khaja

FROM the beginning of the campaign when Sen. Obama started to talk about “Change”, repeatedly promising to his supporters a paradigm shift from the Beltway way of doing things, or “politics as usual” he brought hope to many. Everyone put his faith in the senators` promise of being a catalyst for change. There is no black America or white America; there is one America, he said. It is to the senator’s credit that within a short time he was able to convince the skeptics in the black community who had difficulty believing that he was truly from within the “black community” and not some outsider. Similarly he also convinced a great many whites to overcome their prejudice and fear of electing a black person. This all seemed promising, a proud moment to see America overcome its prejudice and accept a black man as president. Everyone started to believe that they “all were on the same bus” with the senator and so did the American Muslim community. The American Muslim community has been trying hard all these years to get properly assimilated within America. Unfortunately 9/11 has dealt a serious blow to their effort.
America is in the grip of fear and in the name of security more and more Americans are being made to surrender their individual rights and liberties. Muslims are additionally burdened by being under constant suspicion and surveillance. Despite the difficulties they face at this critical time, they have abiding faith in this country’s values and principles that Sen. Obama so eloquently invokes in speech after speech. The words of hope, healing and change from the senator were encouraging for them in these difficult times.
Almost everyone concedes that being politically correct is an essential part of winning elections in this country. That the influence of special interest groups who are heavy donors to the campaign plays a major role in shaping the ideas and rhetoric of the candidate is also well recognized and also accepted sadly. American Muslims realize this as much as others. Yet along with others who have bought into the senator’s message of change and renewal the expectation has been that Obama will break the mold and show the kind of leadership he has been talking about throughout. Much to the disappointment of the Muslim community, the interaction of the Obama campaign and the senator himself with issues related to Islam and Muslims leads one to draw a different conclusion.
It appears to the Muslims that there is clearly a dissonance between the senator’s words and his actions pertaining to his campaign’s handling of issues that relate to the Muslims community. Either he is poorly informed or he prefers being politically correct or in fact both. Going back to the beginning of his campaign when the issue of the senator being a “closet Muslim” was raised by those who wanted to discredit him, his response appropriately was to reaffirm his Christian faith on public airways. This left the Muslim community thinking as to why he could not point out to his inquisitors that even if he was a Muslim, why was it such an offense in a nation, which upholds religious freedom and equality. If the senator were accused of being a Jew, would he be responding in the same manner? The stand-offishness toward the Muslims continued. He arrived at the AIPAC convention and expectedly like the other candidates strongly endorsed American support and commitment to Israel. Only he did one better. He declared that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.

—Arab News