• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Stephen Tankel"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

India in Afghanistan: Tackling a Thorny Issue

There is a lot to unpack in terms of how New Delhi and Washington each views Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan.

Link Copied
By Stephen Tankel
Published on Apr 20, 2015
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: War on the Rocks

Last week, I had the privilege to speak with a small group of Indian parliamentarians who were visiting the United States. The subject was U.S. policy in South and Central Asia. After offering remarks we turned to discussion. No surprise – U.S. policy toward Pakistan consumed much of the remainder of the session. A key point of contention was whether the United States was abandoning Afghanistan to Pakistani influence-cum-subjugation. There’s a lot to unpack in terms of how New Delhi and Washington each views Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan. It’s also probably impossible to separate those views from how Washington and New Delhi see one another’s ongoing engagement in Afghanistan.

For most of the decade after 9/11, the United States viewed Indian involvement in Afghanistan through the prism of Pakistani sensitivities. That approach has changed in the last lustrum, perhaps not surprisingly as U.S. perceptions of Pakistan have grown less positive. Today, the U.S. government would arguably like to see India do more, not less in Afghanistan, though both Washington and New Delhi appear to agree that putting Indian boots on the ground is a bad idea. As U.S. forces continue to draw down in Afghanistan, the desire for India to become a net security provider in the region is likely to grow stronger. Yet if New Delhi is not going to put troops in Afghanistan – and right now few people are arguing that it should – then how else might Indian involvement contribute to stability in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal?

A new policy memo by Alyssa Ayres – a former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia and who now resides at the Council on Foreign Relations – offers a cogent and balanced look at how to leverage India’s strengths to contribute to Afghanistan’s stability. Specifically, Ayres wades into some of the thornier issues related to Indian security assistance, which if it increased would surely cause even more anxiety in Rawalpindi. To that, Ayres replies that Indian collaboration in Afghanistan involving no Indian troops on the ground should not be subject to a Pakistani veto. Policymakers will need to balance the compelling case Ayres makes with myriad other concerns as they calculate how best to secure U.S. interests in the region and avoid rising instability. Those tasked with making these decisions, and people who simply want to know more about the options at hand should take note of what Ayres has to say.

This article was originally published in War on the Rocks.

About the Author

Stephen Tankel

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

Tankel was a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, where his research focuses on insurgency, terrorism, and the evolution of nonstate armed groups.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Restoring Trust: U.S.-Pakistan Relations

      Stephen Tankel

  • Q&A
    LeT’s Global Rise

      Stephen Tankel

Stephen Tankel
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Stephen Tankel
Foreign PolicySouth AsiaIndiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    What to Watch When Trump and Xi Meet in Washington

    The real test may come after the leaders leave the room.

      • Sheena Chestnut Greitens
      • Oriana Skylar Mastro's headshot
      • +1

      Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Oriana Skylar Mastro, Yukon Huang, …

  • large boat sitting off a coastline
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Impacts of the Houthis’ Advance Could Extend Well Beyond Saudi Arabia

    The Horn of Africa countries are among those facing a new security calculus.

      • Andrew Leber
      • Dr. Lesley Anne Warner

      Andrew Leber, Lesley Anne Warner

  • Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk
    Commentary
    The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

    The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

      Marc Pierini

  • .S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speaks with Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez during a press conference regarding the oil agreement reached by the US government and Venezuela on September 2, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela.
    Paper
    Recasting American Power in Latin America

    Washington needs to recognize that influence in the Western Hemisphere comes from presence, delivery, and reliability. It also must recognize that while the United States remains the key external actor, it no longer operates in a permissive environment and cannot presume deference from regional players who have other options, namely China.

      Juan S. Gonzalez

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Have U.S.-Belarusian Negotiations Stalled?

    Minsk clearly expected the dialogue with Washington to yield more results, in particular the lifting of EU sanctions and permission to export potash.

      Artyom Shraibman

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.