Will Modi's swearing-in set off a new SAARC-wide precedent? Will he spring a surprise again and attend the new Afghan president's inauguration?

This article was first published by www.rediff.com on 7 July 2014 under the headline, "Will Modi break from the past and swing by Kabul?"


We will know soon. Other things being equal, India can be expected to be represented at the 2 August inauguration of the new president of Afghanistan. It is reliably learnt that Afghanistan has drawn up a list of 40-odd countries and heads of state and/or government that would be invited for the ceremony to be held at the Presidential Palace in Kabul. Incidentally, all SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) members are invited, which has got some asking: Will Mr Modi travel to Kabul given that he himself made the unprecedented move of inviting SAARC leaders to his 26 May swearing-in ceremony?

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was among the SAARC leaders who graced Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony. If Mr Modi, and some or a majority of his SAARC counterparts, indeed make the journey to Kabul for the inauguration of the new Afghan president-elect, then they would have well and truly established an unwritten SAARC-wide convention for the SAARC heads of state and/or government to grace each other's inauguration. Security will be a consideration, as would protocol, but given Mr Modi's penchant for the unconventional, it should not come as a surprise if he indeed decides to attend the ceremony in Kabul. That said, protocol has never come in the way of the time-tested ties between India and Afghanistan. Most recently, Vice President Hamid Ansari was the senior-most foreign dignitary to attend the funeral of Afghanistan's First Vice President Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was a close lieutenant of the late charismatic Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.

However, if the past is any indicator, it could well be that the external affairs minister will represent India at the inauguration of an Afghan president. In UPA-2, a former external affairs minister of India, Mr SM Krishna, represented India at the 19 November 2009 inauguration of Mr Hamid Karzai's second consecutive five-year term as President. (Incidentally, New Delhi had initially planned to nominate Vice President Ansari to attend the inauguration but decided against it because Mr Ansari was required for chairing the proceedings of the winter session of Parliament.) About 800 invitees, including foreign dignitaries, government and military officials and tribal representatives, were present. On the occasion, Mr Krishna had a separate meeting with his American counterpart, Ms Hillary Clinton, and got to exchange pleasantries with his Pakistani counterpart, Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Going further back, former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh dispatched Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, as his personal emissary in a special plane for Mr Karzai's inauguration on 7 December 2004. Mr Chavan was among the representatives from 27-odd foreign delegations who attended the event. The invitees included, among others, the then US Vice-President Dick Cheney and the then Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser Lakhdar Brahimi, the then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and the then Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao.

If Prime Minister Narendra Modi deputes his external affairs minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj, for representing India at the inauguration, her visit to Kabul would come almost immediately after conclusion of her talks in New Delhi with visiting US foreign minister John Kerry. Mr Kerry is expected to visit New Delhi for the annual India-US strategic dialogue, to be held on 31 July. This year it was Washington's turn to host the Indian delegation for the strategic dialogue, which is held alternatively in Washington and New Delhi. However, Mr Modi's ascension as Prime Minister in May prompted Washington to change tack -- and quickly at that -- given Washington's unofficial boycott of Mr Modi for close to a decade. The US imposed a visa ban on Mr Modi in 2005 for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and it remains in place to this day. Washington, accordingly, thought it fit to first send a bipartisan delegation to call on Mr Modi in New Delhi before hosting him at the White House in September this year. John McCain of the opposition Republican Party called on Mr Modi on 3 July. Kerry's aide William Burns will be in New Delhi soon before Kerry himself comes calling on Mr Modi -- something that would not have been possible if Washington had hosted the India-US strategic dialogue.

Dr Abdullah Abdullah and (on the right) Mr Ashraf Ghani

The only on-the-record comment so far has come from Mr AmarSinha, India's ambassador to Afghanistan, who has said that the swearing-in ceremony of the new Afghan President would be attended by India at duly appropriate level. He pre-empted speculation about India's preference (between Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank economist, a former adviser to the Bonn Process and a former finance minster in Mr Karzai's transitional administration, and Dr Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister) for President by saying that "either of the candidates become President they both are good friend of India and will work very closely with them (sic). They look towards India as a true friend[.] Our policy towards Afghanistan transcends political differences and each government work very closely both in India as well as here."

Key dates*:

5 April 2014: First round of Afghan presidential election

14 June 2014: Presidential run-off

7 July 2014: Preliminary result of the presidential run-off

24 July 2014: Final result of the presidential run-off

2 August 2014: Inauguration of the new President-elect of Afghanistan

(* as on 6 July 2014)

REMOVE THE BLINKERS

This article was published by Asia Times Online (www.atimes.com) on 17 October 2013 under the headline: "Singh takes a lonely road on Pakistan". Here is the link to it.


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in
New York on 29 September 2013 (Pictures courtesy: www.pmindia.nic.in)

New Delhi
16 October 2013

The Prime Minister of India met with his Pakistan counterpart on the margins of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 29 September 2013, defying public sentiment and in spite of an overwhelming body of evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in allowing its territory to be used for mounting terrorist attacks against India and Indian interests, at home and abroad alike. The discourse leading up to the meeting was dominated by whether the talks should at all be held in the immediate backdrop of the 26 September 2013 twin terror attacks in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in which Indian soldiers, police personnel and civilians were killed. It was not an isolated incident: In January this year an Indian soldier was beheaded at the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan; in August five more Indian soldiers were killed; and, in between, several more such killings and infiltrations were reported. As it became known later, the Indian Army was engaged in an operation to repulse an attempt from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) to push a tranche of infiltrators across the Line of Control even as the two premiers shook hands and posed for the cameras. It took the army a fortnight to successfully conclude the anti-infiltration operation. If the government dithered on calling Pakistan’s bluff, the army chief made it eminently clear to anyone who would care to listen that it is impossible for terrorists to carry out any activity along the LoC without the knowledge of the Pakistani Army.

By the Indian government’s own admission, the expectations from the New York talks had to be toned down given the terror arm which is still active in the Indian subcontinent. And as it predictably turned out, there was not much to show by way of outcomes except for the two sides deciding to task their respective Directors-General of Military Operations (DGMOs) to meet for suggesting effective means to restore the ceasefire. Even that looks remote now. The two DGMOs last met in 1999 although they speak fairly regularly. The New York meeting could at best be described as a photo-op. If anything, it once again reaffirmed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s, and by extension his government’s, adamantly consistent but questionable position on talks with Pakistan. After the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks, too, he had similarly disregarded public opinion to first meet with the then President of Pakistan at Yekaterinburg in Russia on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, and later with the then Prime Minister of Pakistan at the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit. It was at Sharm-el-Sheikh that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team agreed to a joint statement with Pakistan that said: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue Process and these should not be bracketed”. Also, in another first, Balochistan was allowed to creep into the text of an India - Pakistan joint statement. Pakistan has since conveniently used the bogey of Indian involvement in stirring up trouble in Balochistan as a stock response to India’s assertions of a Pakistani hand in fomenting unrest in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

All of which begs the question: Talks to what end, and at what cost? Is the life of an Indian – be it a soldier or a civilian — so cheap that talks with Pakistan should continue at any cost and in spite of a spate of terrorist attacks, as evidenced most recently in the twin terror attacks in the Samba and Kathua sectors of Jammu and Kashmir? How many more brave Indian soldiers should be killed in cowardly terrorist attacks before the decision-making apparatuses of the government proactively seek out the military’s views? How many more families should lose their loved ones at the hands of the terrorists and their masters outside our borders before the government of the day begins to pay heed to the sentiments of the common man whom it claims to represent? Why are no visible attempts being made to restore the delicate civil-military balance and to uphold the dignity and morale of the soldier? Instead, what we are witnessing today is a government that is playing with fire and it needs to stop now. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid has since clarified that while the two Prime Ministers met in New York the stage has not been reached where the two sides have indicated any dates, timeline or perspective on resuming the dialogue. And with a post-2014 Afghanistan looming large on the horizon it is anyone’s guess as to how much time and effort Pakistan, given its proclivities, will be willing to spare and/or invest in preserving the incremental peace dividends and insulating the bilateral relationship from external influences.



Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of
Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in New York on 29 September 2013. Also seen in the picture
(on the right) are External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, National Security
Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh

What the discerning stakeholders in India today need be understand is that this government’s blind faith in dialogue with Pakistan has not disproved those who have little or no faith in talks under the present circumstances. The history of India – Pakistan bilateral engagement over the past decade and more is replete with an unending series of terrorist attacks interspersed with peace talks, an overwhelming majority of which were held in third countries on the margins of multilateral summits. The New York meeting is but one in a long list of bilateral engagements starting with the 2006 NAM summit at Havana in Cuba, the 2008 Asia –Europe Meeting (ASEM) at Beijing in China, the 2008 United Nations General Assembly session in New York, the 2009 SCO summit at Yekaterinburg in Russia, the 2009 NAM summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the 2010 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit at Thimphu in Bhutan. Add to it former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s visit to New Delhi in 2005 and former Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to Mohali in 2011 for watching cricket or the private visits by Pakistani heads of state/government to Ajmer and you have a veritably uninterrupted dialogue that can be traced further back to Lahore, 1999; Agra, 2001; and Islamabad, 2004. Importantly, these bilateral engagements have survived multiple terrorist attacks and conflicts dating back to Kargil and Kandahar in 1999, Parliament in 2001, Mumbai train bombings of 2006 and the 26/11 terrorist attacks again in Mumbai, in 2008. But what has come of the talks so far? Are we any closer to a breakthrough than we were before? Have terrorist attacks diminished appreciably? Unfortunately, after every terrorist attack the government of the day mouths platitudes and employs boilerplate language such as ‘It cannot be business as usual’ or ‘Patience is not inexhaustible’ only to go back on them at the first available opportunity! This government has tied itself in knots over its Pakistan policy but it has only itself to blame for it. Its inability to think out of the box has exposed its bankruptcy of ideas on how to deal with an increasingly intransigent neighbour. And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal quest for a lasting legacy insofar as Pakistan is concerned has only further compounded an already intractable conundrum.

The government needs to remove its blinkers and begin to appreciate that terrorism and talks cannot go hand in hand. It is imperative that the government shows zero tolerance to terrorism, takes strong steps to prevent terror attacks and imposes costs on the perpetrators of terrorism. Most importantly, the government must heed public opinion. The time has come for the government to start calling Pakistan’s bluff, to act firmly and decisively and if that involves putting a moratorium on future talks with Pakistan at the highest level, “so be it.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has used this specific language before, albeit to a domestic audience in the run up to the India – United States nuclear cooperation agreement in his first term in office when the Left parties parted ways with the UPA; there is no reason why in the instant context Pakistan cannot be told “So be it”; that India will be free to pursue its course of action if Pakistan does not intend to reciprocate peace overtures; and that consequences will follow if it does not give satisfaction to India on what India considers to be its core interests. Saying no to talks now is not the same as saying no to talks ever and it certainly need not necessarily mean or come to represent an escalation of tensions. A range of other equally effective options is available to the government of the day to execute its Pakistan policy and these must be explored. Above all, the government must forge the broadest possible national consensus on the way forward for a détente with Pakistan.

India slow off the block or ..? China likely to bag Israeli rail project

New Delhi

12 February 2012

India is set to potentially lose yet another infrastructure project of interest to it,

to China, due to a combination of diplomatic lethargy and inertia in decision-making.

Recently, the Israeli government approved a railway line linking its Red Sea port of Eilat

and Tel Aviv on the Mediterranean coast. The "Med - Red" railway line linking the

Mediterranean and the Red seas offers an alternative to the Suez Canal for

transcontinental trade between Europe and Asia. Also, it could facilitate exports of gas

from Israel to India and beyond. Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu is bullish on the

project, saying that "it has created very great interest in among the emerging powers,

China and India, and others."

The Israeli transport ministry has indicated a preference for a government-to-government

agreement with China for tapping the professional capability of the Chinese companies

in the construction of railway systems and transport networks.

Already, the Asian Development Bank, which is financing the TAPI (an acronym for

Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India) gas pipeline project, has indicated that

Chinese companies could be roped in to build the trans-national gas pipeline that will

deliver Turkmen gas to India via Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Indian government is not

particularly amused by the prospect of a Chinese involvement in the construction of the

TAPI pipeline.

There is a sliver of hope yet for the Indian state enterprises such as RITES (Rail India

Technical and Economic Services) Limited and IRCON (Indian Railway Construction)

International Limited -- both of which are public sector undertakings under the railway

ministry. One of the options Israel could look at is international tendering, and, if it opts

for it, then Indian agencies stand a chance of becoming involved with the railway project.

The IRCON has completed several landmark infrastructure projects across the globe in

21 countries, including Israel. Similarly, RITES' operational experience spans over 50

countries in Africa, South East Asia, West Asia and South America; most of its foreign

assignments are for national governments.

However, an Indian government source explained away the inertia of decision-making by

saying that the project has come up in conversations only recently, and, there is no

information yet of any likely interest from a PSU or private entity.

Hillary Clinton - SM Krishna strategic dialogue long on intent, short on strategy; US makes it clear to India that it will not dump Pakistan

Indian delegation led by external affairs minister SM Krishna and US delegation headed by Hillary Clinton participating in the second India - US strategic dialogue at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi on Tuesday, 19 July 2011

New Delhi

19 July 2011

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton interspersed her conversations in New Delhi with ifs and buts, conveying to a discerning Indian audience that the US was hedging on its commitments and, in the process, reinforcing a suspicion that the second edition of the India-US strategic dialogue was long on intent but short on strategy.

Ms Clinton's remarks during the course of her talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna on Tuesday, and a joint media event which followed it, were littered with qualifications: The US will support full civil nuclear cooperation with India but the bilateral pact has to be "enforceable and actionable in all regards"; the US stands by the clean Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver to India but the Indian nuclear liability law needs to be aligned with global practices; and, the US government cannot tolerate safe havens for terrorists anywhere but "we do see Pakistan as a key ally" in the war on terror and "we want a long-term relationship with" it.

There was no express commitment from Ms Clinton to either sell or to allow the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India following the NSG decision to bar their sale to non-NPT signatories such as India. There was no mention of it in the joint statement either. All she would venture to say in response to a question posed to her at the media interaction was that Washington supports the September 2008 clean waiver for India and it will push for India's membership of multilateral export control regimes such as the NSG.

Instead, Ms Clinton hastened to remind India of its commitment to ensure a level playing field for US companies seeking to enter the Indian nuclear energy sector. She voiced Washington's desire to see the Indian nuclear liability law tweaked to protect American corporate interests.

"We would encourage engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the liability regime that India adopts by law fully conforms with the international requirements under the convention[.] We are committed to [the nuclear pact.] But we do expect it to be enforceable and actionable in all regards," Ms Clinton noted.

She also reminded New Delhi to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation by the end of 2011. The treaty will allow foreign companies supplying nuclear material and technology to India to tap into a global corpus of funds in order to pay damages in the event of a nuclear accident.

Amplifying Ms Clinton's remarks, the joint statement said that the participation of US nuclear energy firms in India should be on the basis of "mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for electricity generated."

Dwelling on regional issues, Ms Clinton said that Pakistan has "a special obligation to [cooperate] transparently, fully and urgently" in the interest of justice for the victims of the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. She iterated that the US will continue to urge Pakistan to bring the 26/11 terrorists to justice but she qualified it by saying that "there is a limit to what both the United States and India can do".

Ms Clinton said that sale of defence technologies will help the Indian and American militaries to work together on maritime security, combating piracy, and providing relief to the victims of natural disasters. She also pushed for market access, reduction of trade barriers, and US investments in India, indicating that Washington viewed its ties with India in transactional, not strategic, terms.

For India's part, Mr Krishna sought to impress upon the American delegation that it was necessary for the US to factor in Afghanistan's ground realities and work closely with President Hamid Karzai's government so that conditions could be created where terrorists did not make any more advances in Afghanistan.

Mr Krishna said that India and the US had agreed to resume negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. He urged the US to consider a "totalisation agreement" with India for the purpose of avoiding double taxation of income with respect to social security taxes. The agreement is essential for determining whether an Indian national is subject to the US social security or medicare tax or Indian social security taxes.

A bilateral aviation safety agreement and a memorandum of understanding on cyber security were the two tangible outcomes of the India-US dialogue.

Ms Clinton called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and met with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, among others.

India backs Rabbani on Taliban talks; will discuss issue with Clinton next week

External affairs minister SM Krishna of India shaking hands with Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani, chairman of the Afghanistan high peace council, in New Delhi on Thursday

New Delhi

14 July 2011

Burhanuddin Rabbani, who heads a panel which has the Afghanistan government's mandate to negotiate peace with the Taliban, would not mind using the good offices of India for finding a political solution to the strife in his country.

India is an important country in the region and we want its cooperation in peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, Mr Rabbani said on the occasion of his talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna in New Delhi on Thursday.

Mr Rabbani is on a four-day visit to India.

Afghans should not be victims in the hands of others to be used against the Afghan people themselves, Mr Rabbani said without elaborating. He noted that regional countries had a role in promoting peace in Afghanistan.

India was expected to discuss the situation in Afghanistan with US secretary of state Hillary Clinton when she visits New Delhi next week.

Talking to journalists, US charge d'affaires Peter Burleigh said Afghanistan could figure "prominently" in the Clinton-Krishna talks, in which the relations between and among the US, India and Pakistan would be "thoroughly covered".

Burleigh described the Taliban reconciliation talks as a "very important issue" for the US and India alike.

The US was keeping India informed of the substance of the "very preliminary discussions" that have taken place with the Taliban interlocutors.

The diplomat went on to note that the negotiations for "reaching an understanding" with "some Taliban elements" were making "slow process", and the talks could be expected to "continue for months".

"[The US is] continuing to explore [and it] will keep India directly informed and also seek advice," Mr Burleigh said.

The situation in west Asia, north Africa, and east- and south-east Asia, was also likely to be discussed in the second strategic dialogue between Clinton and Krishna on July 19.

Replying to a question about the possible implications of the US losing out on a multi-billion tender for fighter jets for the Indian Air Force, on the defence cooperation with India, Mr Burleigh said "one contract here and there [does not] make or break [the] relationship" and that the US was in it for the long-term.

India to host Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of Afghan high peace council, this week for discussing peace talks with Taliban

New Delhi

11 July 2011

India will discuss Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai's peace overtures to the Taliban when it hosts Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of the Afghan high peace council, this week.

There was no official word from the government, but it was learnt that Mr Rabbani was expected to hold talks with the Indian leadership on Thursday.

Last year, a Jirga (tribal elders' council) had approved President Karzai's initiative to constitute a panel for starting peace talks with the Taliban. Prof Rabbani was chosen to lead the panel.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had met with Prof Rabbani in Kabul during his visit to Afghanistan in May this year. On the occasion Mr Singh had spoken about India's qualified support to the Afghan government's peace talks with the
Taliban.

India would not stand in the way of the talks provided certain red lines were adhered to: the peace process should be Afghan-led and Afghan-driven; the Taliban elements must have renounced violence and severed all links with the hardcore terrorists; and they should accept the constitution of Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meeting Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of

the Afghan high peace council, in Kabul in May 2011

Recently, President Karzai and former US defence secretary Robert Gates confirmed that preliminary contacts had been made with certain Taliban elements. According to reports, contacts had been established with Tayyab Agha, a former personal aide to Mullah Omar, and Motasim Agha Jan, Omar's son-in-law.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has since described it as a necessary but unpleasant attempt to achieve a semblance of stability in Afghanistan. Clinton's British counterpart, William Hague, in turn, has said that the UK played a key role in helping initiate the "distasteful" talks with the Taliban.

The situation in Afghanistan is expected to be one of the key points of discussion in the India - US strategic dialogue, which will be chaired by external affairs minister SM Krishna and Ms Clinton in New Delhi on July 19.

India, Iran discuss trilateral cooperation with Afghanistan; issue of oil payments nowhere near resolution

From left: Nirupama Rao, foreign secretary of India; Mohd Ali Fathollahi, Iran's deputy foreign
minister for Asian and Asia-Pacific affairs; and Ali Akbar Salehi, foreign minister of Iran

New Delhi

6 July 2011

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao discussed trilateral cooperation among India, Iran and Afghanistan in her talks in Tehran, signalling a movement beyond mere articulation of positions to possibly a structured consultation on the situation in Afghanistan.

Ms Rao called on foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi on Tuesday and held talks with deputy foreign minister for Asian and Asia-Pacific affairs Mohd Ali Fathollahi. She met with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's supreme

national security council, on Wednesday.

The situation in the Arab world, anti-piracy cooperation and consular issues were among other issues that Ms Rao discussed in her talks with Mr Fathollahi, who first mooted the trilateral cooperation during his visit to India in August 2010.

Ms Rao's visit to Iran followed that of national security adviser Shivshankar Menon in March, on the eve of the Persian New Year.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has shied away from visiting Iran but an opportunity could present itself in 2012 when Iran hosts the NAM Summit.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's supreme

national security council

Ms Rao's visit comes amid India's continuing search for an amicable solution for crude-oil payments to Iran. Iran has been selling crude to India on credit (the outstandings are over Rs 4,400 crore) since December 2010, when the Reserve Bank of India discontinued the practice of routing payments through a regional clearinghouse called the Asian Clearing Union in view of the US sanctions on Iran.

India switched to the services of the German-Iranian Europaish-Iranische Handelk AG (EIH) bank based in Hamburg but the European Union's sanctions against the bank in May forced Germany to terminate the facility. Petroleum and natural gas minister Jaipal Reddy has said that efforts were being made to ensure uninterrupted oil supplies from Iran. Iran is India's second largest source of imports after Saudi Arabia.

Ms Rao's visit came a year to the day since her July 5, 2010 speech in New Delhi in which she spoke about India pursuing its ties with Iran independent of the US, making accelerated efforts" to complete infrastructure projects, and how India was "justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries" could adversely affect India's energy security.

The bilateral ties have remained in disrepair since 2005 when India voted against Iran in the IAEA.

India is in Afghanistan for the long haul, PM to tell Karzai

New Delhi

11 May 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will travel to Kabul Thursday in what will be his first visit to Afghanistan since August 2005. His visit can be expected to deliver "a lot of tangibles", a government source said, without elaborating.

He will likely tell President Hamid Karzai that India's assistance to Afghanistan's reconstruction and development was not contingent on presence and absence of foreign troops, and that India was in it for the long haul.

The source indicated that India can be expected to stay the course in Afghanistan in the post-Osama bin Laden era, and continue its reconstruction and development programmes in a "low key", "sotto voce" manner.

India would be willing to help the government and people of Afghanistan in every which way possible, in areas ranging from infrastructure, capacity building and skill development to mining and agriculture.

New Delhi believed it was too early to conclude how Osama's killing would affect the course of events in the Af-Pak region because terrorist groups such as the Taliban and the Haqqani network remained "as strong and virulent as ever."

India would be keen to encourage private sector investments and facilitate the participation of its companies. For instance, about 15 firms have expressed interest in the development of the Hajigak iron ore mine.

India would also be willing to step up its training efforts in areas such as policing, information technology, and mining. Kabul was exploring the possibility of sending Afghans to the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad in Jharkhand.

Mr Singh said in a statement on the eve of his departure that he would hold wide-ranging discussions with President Hamid Karzai on ways to advance the bilateral ties and also exchange views on regional developments and the common fight against terrorism.

"We cannot remain unaffected by developments in Afghanistan. We take a long-term view of our partnership with Afghanistan," he said, noting that "if our region has to prosper and move ahead, Afghanistan must succeed in rebuilding itself."

"India's commitment to assisting the people of Afghanistan is enduring and has weathered many storms," Mr Singh said. India's development assistance commitment to Afghanistan is over Rs 4,000 crore, making it the sixth largest donor.

The government source clarified that India was "not propagating an exclusivist approach" or "not making demands" of Afghanistan insofar as its ties with China and Pakistan were concerned.

India respected the "sovereignty" of decision making of Afghanistan, and would welcome contributions by countries in the region, such as China and Pakistan, to the development of Afghanistan, the source added.

India tells US: The "war on terror" cannot end with Osama's killing

New Delhi

4 May 2011

India has reminded the US, flush from its success in liquidating Osama bin Laden, that the war on terror cannot end without the elimination of terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan.

India was categorical that Osama's death was "not an end of what remains an ongoing war" against terrorism. More so because Al Qaeda's affiliates such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) remain formidable and continue to espouse violent ideology.

At the same time, Osama's killing had brought home the cold reality that India was "alone" in its fight against terrorism: That Washington could not be expected to fight Delhi's battles, and that Pakistan's strategic value to the US will likely remain.

Another reality was that while Osama's killing would have brought closure for the 9/11 victims in the US, there could not be any for the 26/11 victims till the terrorist camps in Pakistan or Pakistani-held territory were dismantled.

An official source explained away the difficulties by saying that there will always come moments in the US' relations with Pakistan when certain decisions that will be taken will not be palatable to India.

However, the source was quick to point out that there were reasons for India to be "satisfied" with how its ties with the US had "matured" over the years, and that both sides were collaborating on issues of mutual interest or concern.

For instance, New Delhi would be looking to Washington for its views about whether and how "Operation Geronimo" would affect the balance of power between civilian government and the military in Pakistan.

New Delhi was assessing the impact of Osama's killing on the role of the "larger than life" institutions in Pakistan such as the army and the ISI as it could have a bearing on Pakistan's disposition towards India, and tied to it would be the fate of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Pakistan initiative and the resumed peace process.

Another issue that will engage the attention of India going forward is Afghanistan, as the US prepares to draw down its forces there. New Delhi was against allowing Islamabad a veto over India's role in Afghanistan.

These, and other issues, were expected to come up in the second round of the India-US strategic dialogue, to be held in July, when US secretary of state Hillary Clinton will arrive here for talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna.

India's Af-Pak policy comes under strain

New Delhi

3 May 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's disengagement-is-not-an-option line came under increased strain Tuesday following Pakistan's unhelpful attitude on the issue of bringing the 26/11 perpetrators to justice.

Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, dismissed New Delhi's demand for action against the 26/11 terrorists, reiterated most recently by home minister P Chidambaram on Monday, as "outdated".

"It is a familiar line (and) outdated. It is some part of the old system repeating itself[.] This line of thinking is mired in a mindset that is neither realistic nor productive. Such statements are not very helpful [to the peace process]," Bashir said.

However, indications are that Prime Minister Singh was likely to stay the course in spite of pressure on him to reappraise his Pakistan initiative and to craft an appropriate Afghanistan strategy in the post-Osama bin Laden era.

There was a view in official circles that India must persist with the dialogue, if it does not want to fritter away the gains made in official and unofficial (track-two) talks with Islamabad, and if it wants the 'Mohali spirit' to survive.

The prime ministers of India and Pakistan would get at least two opportunities to re-engage each other, on the margins of the Saarc summit in Maldives in November this year, and on the sidelines of the July 2012 NAM summit in Iran.

A section of the official circles said that it became even imperative that New Delhi brought diplomatic pressure to bear upon Islamabad, given its inability or reluctance to mount covert operations inside Pakistan.

Also, it was pointed out that Prime Minister Singh need only take a cue from his British counterpart, David Cameron, who said that the world must remain engaged with Pakistan if only to strengthen the hands of the civilian government there.

Cameron had accused Pakistan of looking "both ways" on terrorism in July 2010, and his words were only now finding a resonance in Washington and other world capitals following Pakistan's alleged complicity in harbouring Osama bin Laden.