Article
C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah
{
"authors": [
"C. Raja Mohan"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"South Asia",
"India",
"Afghanistan",
"Pakistan"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Talk Time
Washington and London seem desperate for talks with the Taliban and any deal that would let them declare victory and get out of Afghanistan.
Published on Feb 6, 2013
Source: Indian Express
As the Obama administration debates the speed of its military withdrawal from Afghanistan between now and 2014, there is mounting pressure on all parties to find negotiated solutions.
Meeting in London earlier this week, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively, set themselves the ambitious target of achieving peace in just six months.
After nearly four decades of war in Afghanistan, six months would seem a tad too short to build peace. Sceptics might say that Karzai and Zardari were probably saying it for the benefit of their host, British Prime Minister David Cameron. A joint statement issued after their trilateral summit held in Cameron's country home outside London said that the leaders "committed themselves to take all necessary measures to achieve the goal of a peaceful settlement over the next six months." The party that is critical for the peace process, the Taliban, was not present at the London talks.Even if the joint statement meant what it said, Zardari has no say over those who really control the Taliban — the Pakistan army and the ISI. And the Taliban has repeatedly reaffirmed that it has no intention to talk to Karzai or his representative.
The joint statement also supported "the opening of an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Taliban and the High Peace Council as part of an Afghan-led peace process."
It is not clear if the statement marks a resolution of the differences between Karzai and the West on the terms of the talks with the Taliban. Until recently, Karzai had insisted that the main purpose of the Doha office should be talks with the Afghan government.
He is rightly concerned that Doha will be used for the legitimisation of the Taliban and holding talks with them behind Kabul's back. Washington and London seem desperate for talks with the Taliban and any deal that would let them declare victory and get out of Afghanistan.
Military Training
While few in India would take seriously the good neighbourly talk between Karzai and Zardari in London, Delhi might want to pay closer attention to the recent visit to Pakistan by General Bismillah Khan Ahmadi, the Afghan defence minister.
Ahmadi's consultations with the Pakistan army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, lends some credence to the London joint statement underlining the commitment of Karzai and Zardari to start negotiating a strategic partnership agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
An official statement issued in Rawalpindi after Kayani's talks with Ahmadi said the two leaders focused on "enhancing mutual defence cooperation and measures that the Afghan National Army and Pakistan Army intend to initiate for an enduring training relationship."
Rawalpindi has long been pressing Kabul to send its forces for training in Pakistan and has deeply resented the military relationship between India and Afghanistan. Pakistani officials also pointed out that Ahmadi is a non-Pashtun and a Tajik by origin.
The engagement with Ahmadi, the officials said, underlines the Pakistan army's determined effort to reach out to the non-Pashtun minorities that have long viewed Rawalpindi's support to the Taliban with great hostility. The message, credible or not, from Rawalpindi is that Pakistan is no longer taking sides in the Afghan conflict that it wants "peaceful, stable, united Afghanistan."
Other Taliban
As Pakistan consolidates its primacy in the Afghan conflict resolution, it is also exploring a peace deal with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) that has emerged as the biggest security threat to the nation.
Last week, the TTP has laid down its terms for the talks. Among them are the release of some its top leaders held by Pakistan's security forces and the naming of three opposition leaders — former PM Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and Munawar Hasan of the Jamaat-e-Islami — as guarantors for the talks.
Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik did not respond to these demands but said the government is ready to talk to the TTP. The army and many political parties have become weary of the prolonged conflict with the TTP and are eager to see an end. Many in Pakistan suspect that the TTP is not serious and fear that a weak government might be tempted to appease them.
About the Author
C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.
- Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New DelhiCommentary
- +1
Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …
Recent Work
Political ReformSecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaIndiaAfghanistanPakistan
Carnegie India 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 India
- India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic ChoicesArticle
This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.
Vrinda Sahai
- What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?Article
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari
- India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?Commentary
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari
- The PSLV Setback: Restoring India’s WorkhorseCommentary
On January 12, 2026, India's "workhorse," the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, experienced a consecutive mission failure for the first time in its history. This commentary explores the implications of this incident on India’s space sector and how India can effectively address issues stemming from the incident.
Tejas Bharadwaj
- AI Adoption Journey for Population ScaleCommentary
Connecting real-world AI use cases across sectors such as health, education, agriculture, and livelihoods can help policymakers, innovators, and institutions align around a shared goal. This article looks at a framework ensuring that AI works for everyone.
Shalini Kapoor, Tanvi Lall
