IDR Blog
India’s presence at 'Moscow Format' on Afghanistan was imperative
Please wait...
The news about India accepting Russia’s invitation to participate in a multi-nation meeting in Moscow on Afghanistan on November 9 galvanized some Kashmiri politicians in Kashmir to say that if India is opening dialogue with the Taliban then India must open talks with Pakistan over Kashmir. Ironically, these politicians ignored that despite Pakistan’s economic mess, she continues with ceasefire violations, infiltrating terrorists and stoking the fires in Jammu & Kashmir because the very basis of the Pakistani military’s power is enmity with India.
The Russian invite was for the “Moscow Format” meeting on Afghanistan, other invitees being Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the US and the Afghan Taliban. Before the meeting, attended by former Indian diplomats T C A Raghavan and Amar Sinha, the Indian government had clarified that its participation will be restricted to a “non-official level”. The MEA issued a statement saying, “India supports all efforts at peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan that will preserve unity and plurality, and bring security, stability and prosperity to the country. India’s consistent policy has been that such efforts should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghan-controlled and with participation of the Government of Afghanistan. Our participation will be at a non-official level.” India did not attend the first Moscow Format meeting in September 2018.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov opened the Moscow Format on November 9 saying it aims at establishing inclusive inter-Afghan dialogue for advancing national reconciliation. He emphasized the threat posed by Islamic State in Afghanistan, its foreign sponsors and the terrorist group’s effort to make Afghanistan a springboard for expansion into Central Asia. The US only sent an observer for the meeting. The Afghan government did not send any officials, but four members of the Kabul-based High Peace Council (HPC) attended the event, as they had done at similar forums on earlier occasions too. Haji Sher Mohammad Stanekzai, trained at the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun, headed the Taliban delegation. The response from the Taliban – who view the Afghan government as a US puppet and have consistently refused direct talks with them – was on expected lines, saying they will only talk directly with Washington to demand US pullout from Afghanistan.
Logically, inclusion of India and Central Asian Republics (CAR) in talks with the Taliban for Afghan reconciliation had better chances of success right from when the now defunct Quadrilateral Coordination Dialogue (QCG) kicked off. Whether India opened a back-channel dialogue with the Taliban is not known, although Taliban had overtly conveyed during earlier international dialogues on Afghanistan that they always considered India a friend, even above Pakistan and Iran. Presently, chances of an Afghan reconciliation have reduced considerably because the ‘Great Game’ in Afghanistan has become far more complex with the players adopting rigid stances due individual national interests.
For example Russia, which had supported the US invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11, is now supporting the Taliban. The change occurred when the Taliban first invaded parts of Ghazni in 2015, forcing Russia to increase its military presence in Tajikistan. Supporting the Taliban in exchange for them not spilling into CAR was obviously beneficial. The US-Russia estrangement has made the Russian stance more rigid.
Direct talks between US envoys and members of the Taliban political commission took place in Qatar during July 2018, without Afghan government participation. According to a Taliban participant, discussions included proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces – earlier rejected by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani – and, from the US side, to allow military bases in Afghanistan. The US also had direct talks with the Taliban in 2015, without Afghan government participation, reiterating the ‘Afghan Peace Process Roadmap to 2015’ by the HPC, offering Taliban non-elected government positions, including governorships; but there was no progress. Now the Taliban are ready for more talks with the US but are quite clear they want US troops to vacate Afghanistan and don’t believe in the Afghan constitution – implying they want control of Afghanistan and will not lay down arms.
Pakistan is considered central to an Afghan reconciliation but China has been the smartest – supporting, training and arming the Taliban since even before the US invasion of Afghanistan. Therefore, China’s economic ventures in Afghanistan are under no threat.
The US assisted the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS, subsequently fighting both, and yet reusing them when convenient. China similarly armed the Taliban to fight US-NATO forces, even providing military advisers. China is funding a military base and helping to raise and train an Afghan mountain brigade in Badakshan region bordering Tajikistan and the Wakhan Corridor. Pakistan continues to support the Taliban and a considerable number of Pakistani mujahideen and regular troops are fighting inside Afghanistan, as also are Pakistan-based terrorist organizations. Is Pakistan continuing to play the double game considering that the Islamic State expanded westward into Afghanistan from Peshawar in Pakistan?
Exiting Afghanistan will be a major setback to the US since a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan implies Chinese consolidation in Afghanistan and a link-up with Iran, leaning on to the Persian Gulf. The Taliban have been gaining ground supported by China, Pakistan, Russia and Iran and will hardly reconcile to a continued US presence in Afghanistan. Whether the Taliban will agree to a ‘token’ US presence, if given the reins of Afghanistan, is also questionable. The irregular war in Afghanistan may, therefore, continue and even escalate.
India, which has always worked for stability of Afghanistan and is considered a friend by most, except Pakistan and China, needs to weigh its options in the backdrop of developing geopolitical realities.
Please wait...
