well said!!

India doesn't share border with Afghanistan but guess who is in between. Pakistan. And it is such a friendly country that it wont allow the Talibani suicide bombers to come to Kashmir. So India shouldn't worry about Afghanistan. Am I right farhansk?
And as you say Pakistan needs to be listened to. I think thats right too. They should ask for lot of funds to fight Taliban. Obviously it wont fund terrorists, it has never done so. right?
Sorry I didnt get your Bhutan example.

The point is: good Taliban - bad Taliban FARHANSK. I fully understand Islamabad's concerns, afterall, just like in America, all politics is local. However, you know very well Pakistan occupies about a 1/3 of Kashmir (and claims the rest), and the proxies they've used there against India. Under the assumption that most reports now indicate the Taliban in Pakistan, and such terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba are connected to Qaeda, I think Delhi makes a valid point.

on Foreign Policy a month ago knows that FP is NOT a propaganda outlet for India.

Because ending the conflict in Afghanistan depends on securing Kabul, and securing Kabul depends on weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan. As the Taliban in Afghanistan is closely tied with both al Qaeda (who have in there fluid ways shifted their base of operations to Pakistan via a porous border) and the Pakistani Taliban, this becomes not a national conflict, but a regional one.

Complicating matters and affecting stability in the region is the Indo-Pak war over Kashmir. It's it's 60-ish years since the partitioning, India has fought 3 wars against Pakistan, so relations are at best strained.

You are right to note that focus should be primarily in stabilizing Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is not an insular problem. Far from it, and its stability requires stability in the entire region.

On a side note, I do believe that the heroin trade problem on the Iranian border of Afghanistan was a major oversight by the author. The damaging affect of an increasing drug problem on the population during a conflict when the objective is winning hearts and minds should also be addressed in any holistic discussion of Afghanistan.

Although the Bhutan analogy is absurd yet if Pakistan and Bhutan agree for such a scheme, India shouldn't have a problem.
Coming to the military involvement, I agree that it was not necessary at a point. But now when ISI, the Hakkani group are bombing Indian embassies and targeting the Indians involved in rebuilding Afghanistan, dont you think it will be difficult to keep out for long.
Again to give Indian side of the opinion on Kashmir; Its a general feeling that Pakistan stopped intervention in Kashmir because it was facing Taliban uprising (Taliban were just 100kms from Islamabad if I remember correctly) and as the situation improves Pakistan will again use terrorism as part of its Kashmir policy. Also the terrorist activities in Kashmir have gone down but one cant say the same for whole of India eg Mumbai.
A really nice gesture of sincerity from Pakistan would be to arrest Hafiz Saeed and speed up the trial of those involved in Mumbai terror attacks. But still no signs.

When Bhutan decides to house an international terrorist that attacked Pakistan or any other country, then the analogy is apt. Until then, the author's use of Bhutan is a misdirection.

BTW, Afghanistan is FAR from a sovereign nation in reality. Is it any wonder that Karzai's nickname is the apt "Mayor of Kabul"? ?You tell me of any entity that has been able to successfully control of all of Afghanistan?

What India wants is simple: denying Pakistan the so called strategic depth and that Afghanistan should not become a haven for anti-India terrorists. Unlike you, India has no dream of ruling over Kabul. Had it not being for the 'visionaries' in GHQ Pindi dreaming of a subservient Afghanistan, India probably wouldn't have got so involved there.

Exactly how many terrorists trained in Afghanistan have attacked India? EVER?

Pakistan is a big enough country, it doesn't need Afghan territory to sponsor terrorism. LeT or any of the score of Kashmiri terrorists that have murdered innocent Indians never trained in, nor did they come from, Afghanistan.

And what came first, the Pakistani 'strategic depth' outlook? Or the Indian threat necessitating such an outlook in the first place? Who knows? I'm with most of the commentators here. I think it's mostly mutual paranoia rather than any REAL threat.

So be that as it may, I'd hope the recently announced summit yields negotiations parallel to those that just took place in London. The proxies need to negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement, as do the puppet masters.

To give you one example, the Indian Airlines plane hijacking in 1999 in Kandahar is a good example of how Afghan territory was used against India. Many in Rawalpindi will disagree that Pakistan does not need strategic depth in Afghanistan; because, 'strategic depth' was first coined by Pak army in the 1980's and Afghanistan was made the scapegoat. Needless to say, the Taliban govt in Afghanistan was influenced from Rawalpindi for a decade after the Soviets withdrew.

The cross-border terrorists in Kashmir trying to wage jihad, ironically, are less likely to be Kashmiris. Instead they turn out to be Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Pakistani Punjabis, Arabs etc. This furthers the need for India to make sure its borders are safe from the threat that emanates from the Af-Pak region.

Why India is pouring money in Afghanistan? Because India prefers not to have terrorist camps, an opium economy and gun running culture in Afghanistan. I believe that is what many Afghans want for themselves in their country. India also want to increase trade and commerce in that region and desires to keep its borders safe.

Sadly, nothing of the above has ever figured in the minds of policy makers sitting in Rawalpindi. Paranoia perhaps? Islamabad insists to have a govt of its liking in Kabul which it can control remotely. Fair enough! But, so far, Pakistan, unlike India, has never built roads, hospitals, schools, power stations or trained Afghan doctors, teachers, nurses, bureaucrats, police etc in Afghanistan. Quite a display of neighborly relations and Islamic brotherhood, I'd say. No wonder, the recent poll suggest an approval rating of India among Afghans as high as 72% as opposed to a mere 2% for Pakistan.

How has Afghanistan's opium or gun-running impacted India? And safe borders are all fine and dandy, but India doesn't have any border with Afghanistan.

It makes complete sense, the constructive approach that India has taken with its Afghan neighbors. That's commendable. But let's not be naive here. Short of India placing troops in Afghanistan, which would be a COMPLETE regional nightmare, building highly publicized pet projects was the only other viable option to cajole Afghans away from a Pakistan leaning outlook.

Of course that's the worry in Pakistan. Not that you're building fruitful ties with Afghans, but that you're softening them up for eventual military relations and arms sales. All after spreading the "Pakistan is the root cause of all your ills" narrative through sweet-talk.

But no one of the Pro Pakistan side asks the simple question: what else is India supposed to do? Do we honestly expect them to sit out completely while the major defining conflict of this decade and the next are being played out in its back yard? No matter what India did, aside from sitting out, the Pakistanis would have an objection to.

Your argument is anachronistic and redundant to put it mildly. Terrorism follows no boundaries. The jihadis fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan also kill civilians and soldiers in India, especially near India's borders. They thrive in a gun running culture and in an opium economy. In such circumstances, it does not matter if India - or the US or the UK - shares borders with Afghanistan or not.

Afghans have a negative perception of Pakistan which is based on their experience; dating back before India restored its ties with them after fallout of Taliban in Kabul. Perhaps, Pakistan, particularly its military, should introspect instead of pointing fingers. Afghanistan is also part of SAFTA - the free trade block of the countries in the region. India, clearly, has stake in the trade, security and development of Afghanistan; like it has with Sri Lanka or Maldives among others. India's role in Afghanistan in the coming years may change but it's unlikely that it will just sit out and watch from the sidelines. Pakistan should ally with India instead of blocking it.

Coincidentally, there are more people in India than anywhere in the world, bar China. In that sense, India has more people doing XYZ than any other place. Choose XYZ freely.

The thing to note here, is that the figures are available, and for the most part accurate. There is something to be said about that. Most statisticians prefer to discount statistics from non-democratic nations because the real figures are kept confidential in those administrations.

Also, Khalid, why the negative attitude? Your life, your employment prospects, your business prospects would be so much better if Indians and Pakistanis figured out that they are being played against each other, and spent time and effort on trade and building business ties instead of war. The hatred, my friend, is in a large part manufactured. It serves the general population of neither side.

I can tell you that prior to 26/11 the general attitude in India towards Pakistanis was: okay we have problems, but we can work this out.

here here

"Ohh and Indian posters , Pakistan suffers a bombing a week , maybe two bombings a week, It has also had THREE Mumbai style attacks since Mumbai itself. how about actually giving them a break and understanding how much they are suffering as well."

Your people, your internal problem. Other nations can only address bilateral/international problems with Pakistan.

"And one more for Indian posters - solve Kashmir, get that 50 years old problem somewhere near resolution and you won't have a cause celebre for the Jihadis to worry about."

solve Pakistan's "Kashmir runs in our blood" obsession , get that 60 years old problem somewhere near resolution and you won't have a cause celebre for the Jihadis AND the very imposing Indian Military to worry about.

Direct_Hex,

When you say:

"And one more for Indian posters - solve Kashmir, get that 50 years old problem somewhere near resolution and you won't have a cause celebre for the Jihadis to worry about."

this is akin to asking physicists at Los Alemos to get with the program and solve that 60 year old cold fusion problem, and that would solve all of America's oil dependency problems.

Easier said than done, my friend. The region you speak of is strategically impossible to give up from the Indian side. It will be suicidal from a military perspective. From the Pakistani side it is for all practical purposes a source of fuel to the blare the sirens of war when the need arises, and thereby keep the military in power, nothing more nothing less.

it is because it is in a struggle between those who either want democracy or want to maintain secular power through an iron fist and those religious extremists that seek to create the chaos. The ISI and the army are also split along those lines. In other words, no surprise that Pakistan is in the mess that it is in. The question is, why support (i.e. prop) Pakistan at the expense of other, more friendly and stable nations?

If people sat down and talked about it it might be different. You have nukes, no one in their right mind is ever going to threaten India. Nukes should be an excuse to de-militarise not the other way round.

If people sat down and talked about it it might be different. You have nukes, no one in their right mind is ever going to threaten India. Nukes should be an excuse to de-militarise not the other way round.

Direct_Hex,

I see that you've figured it all out in two steps. Have you considered replacing Mr. Holbrooke and saving the region and the world? Perhaps you should.

In my humble view, however, I'd like to disagree with your analysis. Kashmir is the symptom not the problem in the region. We've seen how the argument of the 'root-cause theory' has fallen flat on the face in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. Kashmir is no different. If Kashmir is miraculously solved, I assure, the military-jihadi complex in Pakistan will raise some new source of discontent to keep itself in business.

I'd also like to add that the Kashmir problem has three components - India, Pakistan and Kashmiris. Turns out it takes more than one hand to wreck a tripartite agreement and India is not the spoiler. Far from it. In the absence of unified political voice in Kashmir and the musical chair played out between the govt and the military in Pakistan, India has no stable partners who can walk the talk. Consequently, Kashmir stands where it is for six decades.

There are situation you can control as a political elite, there are situation you can't. The trick is to know when to deal with something and when not to.

The fact that Brits managed to screw up the world due to their imaginative border drawing is some thing that we are all aware of and all suffer from and it should not be an excuse for the Paksitanis to complain about the current state of their own irredentist nutters and the same goes for the Indian elite.

Kashmir is a solvable issue. Just like Northern Ireland finally became one when the British realised they had to talk their way out of it and the Irish decided that they want to do the same. As soon as that point was reached the two sides had to come round to the table and make a concession. You now have the point where senior Sinn Fien members are condemning the killing of police officers because they are invested in the idea of peace. The majority of people that would have supported a violent struggle have turned away from it.

This means that these issue don't go away, they fester and eventually they poison the whole body politic, as Israel and Palestine keep proving every decade. It may take extreme amounts of political bravery but it must be done.

For India, its going to a win win. Once you have a deal on Kashmir, it will change the way Pakistan has to conduct itself and will actually makes your borders safer.

Direct_Hex,

I see that you've figured it all out in two steps. Have you considered replacing Mr. Holbrooke and saving the region and the world? Perhaps you should.

In my humble view, however, I'd like to disagree with your analysis. Kashmir is the symptom not the problem in the region. We've seen how the argument of the 'root-cause theory' has fallen flat on the face in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. Kashmir is no different. If Kashmir is miraculously solved, I assure, the military-jihadi complex in Pakistan will raise some new source of discontent to keep itself in business.

I'd also like to add that the Kashmir problem has three components - India, Pakistan and Kashmiris. Turns out it takes more than one hand to wreck a tripartite agreement and India is not the spoiler. Far from it. In the absence of unified political voice in Kashmir and the musical chair played out between the govt and the military in Pakistan, India has no stable partners who can walk the talk. Consequently, Kashmir stands where it is for six decades.

Really, Holbroke isn't all that he's cracked up to be. Anyone who knows the real deal over his previous missions knows what kind of screw ups he glides over in his diplomatic career cf Bosnia.

In fact those people in the Indian Lobby in washington who thin that they've done a really clever thing by letting him into the region are going to regret it at some stage.

Parity has nothing to do with it. If you think a) Sinn fien had parity or b) any interest in negotiating with the brits to achieve a power-sharing agreement, never mind reading history of The troubles you haven't even seen the movie Michael Collins.

ISI may be venal, corrupt and myopic, but they aren't stupid. Once they see the writing of on the wall they will come to the table , if only to keep themselves in a job - cros reference Martin McGuiness

That doesn't mean they have any interest in negotiating. This again is the same group that chooses to house AQ Khan despite international pressure to bring him to justice. It has sponsored Dawood Ibrahim, another international fugitive. If you believe that bin Laden is hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, then you must agree that he could not have hid this long without some ISI support. The ISI is emboldened to do all of this because of the limited nukes they have and from support from the US and China at the expense of India.

It is this idea of parity between India and Pakistan that has propped up a corroded and corrupt government to the point of allowing it to export terrorism throughout the region.

I'm glad to see you don't want to negotiate with sociopaths. Does that mean some one is actually going to ban Shiv Sena ate some point? I'm sure lots of Indian minorities who are rightly proud of their country would love to see that happen.

I don't like Shiv Sena, I also don't like the Maoists. But I would not call for the banning of either from the political process no matter how extreme their views are.

BTW, is it any surprise that you equate a far-right Indian political party with insignificant influence to a corrupt intelligence service that has spread terrorism and murder throughout the region (and possibly beyond) and has de facto control over a nation? Comparing Shiv Sena to the ISI is just ridiculous.

I'm sure the minorities burned out of their houses really make that distinction