• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • 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

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?

    Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.

      Maksim Samorukov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital Ambitions

    Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.

      Aruzhan Meirkhanova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum

    Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.

      Vladimir Solovyov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.