Sumit Ganguly and Paul Kapur: The Unrecognized Benefits of India’s Role in Afghanistan

Sumit GangulyPaul KapurStabilizing Afghanistan has emerged as one of the Obama administration’s top priorities. The president has expended significant effort to forge a new Afghan strategy, even firing the general in charge of the campaign in search of a fresh approach. Most discussions of the conflict focus on four actors: the insurgents, the Afghan government, the United States, and Pakistan. In fact, however, there is another important player in Afghanistan that receives much less attention: India.

India has historic ties with Afghanistan and a long-standing relationship with its current leaders. Indian interests in Afghanistan largely converge with those of the United States and the international community. And India has invested considerable resources in helping to develop Afghanistan in the wake of civil war and Taliban rule. Thus India could potentially play an important future role in helping to stabilize the country.

Such a role would not be without risk.

Greater Indian involvement in Afghanistan could threaten Pakistan, thereby building support for the Taliban within the Pakistani military and security services. A greater role for Indian in Afghanistan might raise alarm in Islamabad, diverting Pakistani resources away from Afghanistan toward the border with India and increasing the likelihood of outright Indo-Pakistani conflict. Some basic diplomatic and military steps, however, would reduce these dangers and could help India to emerge as an important part of future efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

Indo-Afghan Ties
The Indo-Afghan relationship goes back centuries. Long before the advent of British colonial power, the region that is now present-day India had extensive cultural and trade links with Afghanistan. The British launched several expeditionary efforts into the country from India, usually with disastrous consequences. In 1893, a formal border between Afghanistan and India, known as the Durand line, was drawn. British colonial rule in South Asia lasted for another 60 years. When it came to a close in 1947, the nascent state of Pakistan came to abut Afghanistan in the east. In the aftermath of Britain’s departure from the subcontinent, the Afghans repudiated this border, causing considerable tension with now-neighboring Pakistan. New Delhi, for its part, established close ties with Afghanistan’s King Zahir Shah after independence, and maintained these links until the king’s overthrow in 1973.

Even after Zahir Shah’s ouster and the emergence of a communist regime, India managed to keep close ties with subsequent Afghan governments. The Soviet Union’s 1979 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan surprised and displeased New Delhi. But the Indians proved unable to cooperate with Pakistan on a solution to the problem. In addition, India was concerned by substantial United States military and economic assistance that began flowing to Pakistan—initially, $3.2 billion from 1981 to 1986. New Delhi also cared little for the Islamist mujahedeen groups that Pakistan was supporting to battle the Soviets. Finally, India did not wish to jeopardize its easy access to advanced Soviet weaponry. India therefore avoided any public censure of the U.S.S.R.’s occupation. Instead it chose to work with successive Soviet puppet regimes in Afghanistan. It also subsequently supported Ahmed Shah Massoud’s Northern Alliance because of its hostility towards the Pakistan-supported mujahedeen groups.

India’s ties to Afghanistan were sundered when the Taliban seized power in 1996. The Taliban victory, which owed much to Pakistani support, enabled Islamabad to achieve an important goal: the establishment of a pliant regime in Afghanistan, which would give Pakistan “strategic depth” against India. New Delhi abandoned its embassy and withdrew its diplomatic personnel from Afghanistan. It did not, however, relinquish its ties to the Northern Alliance, and provided Massoud’s forces with a range of military and logistical backing.

After September 11, 2001, India quietly supported the American-led effort to dismantle the Taliban regime. New Delhi was also pleased by U.S. efforts to promote the presidential bid of Hamid Karzai, who had lived and studied in India.

After the Taliban’s fall, India moved quickly to reestablish its presence in Afghanistan. It re-opened its embassy in Kabul and its consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad, and established two new consulates in Herat and Mazhar-e-Sharif. It also became deeply involved in Afghan development, spending approximately $750 million, and pledging a total of $1.6 billion, to help rebuild the country—making India Afghanistan’s sixth-largest bilateral aid donor. Specific projects include efforts to rebuild the Afghan national airline, Ariana; construct telecommunications, power transmission, and road networks; improve sanitation; build a new Afghan parliament; and include Afghanistan in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

A Possible Backlash?
New Delhi believes that its extensive involvement in Afghanistan will help to stabilize the country, thereby reducing the likelihood of a Taliban resurgence, limiting Pakistan’s regional influence, and facilitating Indian ties with the energy-rich states of Central Asia. India’s wish for a stable, Taliban-free Afghanistan, and a demonstrated willingness to invest significant resources in developing the country, align closely with the interests of the United States and the international community. Indeed, a larger role for India could be an important component of the new strategy that the Obama administration is attempting to devise for Afghanistan.

A larger Indian presence in Afghanistan poses a significant problem, however; it could threaten Pakistan.

Bluntly put, the Pakistanis do not share India’s (or the international community’s) interest in preventing a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. To the contrary, Islamabad believes that the Taliban would provide it with a friendly regime in Kabul and facilitate its efforts to create strategic depth. The Pakistanis also fear that a greater Indian presence in Afghanistan would result in encirclement, with Indian forces and intelligence assets stationed on both its western and eastern frontiers. This could result not only in a significantly increased conventional military threat, but also in greater Indian espionage and covert action capabilities. This is a significant concern for Islamabad, particularly given ongoing separatist movements in the Pakistani provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, which Islamabad believes are receiving support from Indian intelligence services. Finally, the Pakistanis would expect increased regional economic competition as India establishes ties with the Central Asian states.

The United States and the international community have been deeply concerned that Pakistani support for stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, and for the associated war on terror, has been half-hearted at best. If India’s role in Afghanistan grows, the Pakistanis could be even less helpful.

For example, elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services already sympathetic to the Taliban could augment their support for the insurgents both in Afghanistan and in the northwest regions of Pakistan. The Pakistani government could also respond to encirclement concerns by diverting military resources away from the Afghanistan border and the Northwest Frontier Province toward the border with India. This would better enable Pakistan to deal with any Indian attack, but would even further reduce the effectiveness of Pakistani efforts to battle the jihadis.

Given these fears and perceived threats, heightened tensions increase the likelihood of outright Indo-Pakistani conflict. Such an outcome would be especially worrisome given India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear status.

A Way Ahead
How, then, to pursue more robust Indian engagement in Afghanistan? India will have to assuage some of Pakistan’s misgivings, even if they appear unreasonable from New Delhi’s standpoint.

Work towards a solution in Kashmir, so long the flashpoint of conflict between these two nations, could be the best hope for confidence-building. Contrary to much American commentary, however, substantial security concessions (such as the reduction of Indian forces) cannot be made in Kashmir. Not even India’s now-secure Congress government can afford such measures in the aftermath of the recent Pakistan-linked terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Popular sentiments, across the political spectrum, simply remain too raw.

India can, however, take diplomatic steps in Kashmir. For example, New Delhi can express support in principle for the Kashmiri peace process, and work to revive it when possible. India can also take some general military steps that may reassure Islamabad. For instance, it can refrain from pressuring Pakistan by keeping its force deployments and military exercises well back from the Indo-Pakistani border. This would better enable the Pakistanis to focus attention on their northwest, while worrying less about developments in the east.

But such measures could be costly for the Indians at the domestic political level. Any perceived concession to Pakistan would subject the government to public outrage from India’s right-wing politicians.

Ironically, though, the cost of such moves could prove useful if the government is willing to weather some internal political heat, it would demonstrate the degree of New Delhi’s seriousness and help to reassure Pakistan as to the sincerity of Indian intentions. This, in turn, could help to make an enhanced Indian presence in Afghanistan at least somewhat more palatable for the Pakistanis.

Of course, such steps will not wholly eliminate risk and difficulty from an increased Indian role in Afghanistan. But given the enormous importance and challenges of the Afghan campaign, and the significant convergence of Indian and U.S. interests in the country, such an approach would be well worth trying.

Sumit Ganguly is the director of research at the Center on American and Global Security at Indiana University, Bloomington, and an adjunct senior fellow at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles.

Paul Kapur is an associate professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and an affiliate at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.

Comments are closed.