Frederic Grare
{
"authors": [
"Frederic Grare"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"Afghanistan"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Can India Be a Game Changer in Afghanistan?
At best, India can be a useful ally to the Afghan government. It cannot—and does not pretend to— be a substitute for the United States.
Source: East Asia Forum
In an interview on 3 May 2017, former president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai strongly attacked US policy in Afghanistan and, once again, asked India to do more in his country. In particular he requested India help to ‘enable the Afghan army to defend the country’ against ‘extremism and the violation of Afghanistan’s sovereignty from across the Durand Line’, referring to Afghanistan’s longstanding border dispute with Pakistan.
Karzai requested India do this based ‘on its own view of the region’ and for ‘its own interest’. Karzai was clearly asking for more hardware for the Afghan army and, in the process, also attacking the two entities he constantly fought during his own presidency. One was Pakistan, for the support it provided to the Taliban and its violations of Afghanistan’s sovereignty, and the other was the United States for its political and strategic inconsistency in the country’s affairs. Karzai was suggesting that India should, in essence, be a substitute for the United States, based on the assumption that the Afghan government could hold its own if it does receive sufficient support.
But Karzai’s suggestions lack any grounding in reality.
India cannot sustain a massive military presence in Afghanistan. It has only been able to operate in Afghanistan post 2001 because of the stability provided by US military presence. As the number of US troops on the ground diminished, so too did India’s ability to weigh in meaningfully, even on the economy of Afghanistan. While India did contribute to the training and (modestly) to equipment for the Afghan forces this cannot compete with Pakistan’s comparative geographical advantage.
Despite its uneasiness, India has been left with no other option but to support the Afghan government. This is still preferable to the chaos that would result if the Afghan government collapsed. The political crisis of August 2016, which saw a confrontation between Ashraf Ghani and his Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah, made the dysfunctional character of the so called ‘National Unity Government’ obvious to India but New Delhi has no serious alternative.
The diplomatic context in which India is operating today is also complex. Because of the uncertainty regarding the future US posture, all of Afghanistan’s neighbours are hedging their bets. Pakistan is seen as the regional problem as the country’s military is accused of aiding the Taliban but the growing presence of the so-called Islamic State (IS) in Afghanistan seems to be a game changer as it gives Pakistan the opportunity to rally its neighbours around its own line.
China’s willingness to assert its presence on the shores of the Indian Ocean is also causing havoc. While China tends to moderate Pakistan’s most extreme behavior, it is reluctant to intervene in Afghanistan for security matters so it delegates the management of the Afghan crisis to Pakistan, which in turn assists Pakistan’s position. On top of this, Russia — traditionally a partner of India but increasingly tight with China — seems to be getting closer to Pakistan. This move is part of Russia’s broader strategy of putting pressure on India and also because Russia is looking to use some of Pakistan’s arguments regarding the distinction between good and bad Taliban and the possibility to use the former against ISIS.
So can India be a game changer in Afghanistan?
India can certainly help the Afghan forces increase the Taliban’s military costs but it can’t really reverse the overall dynamic of the conflict. Similarly, while India is providing necessary support for Afghanistan’s economy, the return on this investment is increasingly doubtful. And politically, India can have a moderating influence on the main actors of the current Afghan government but is in no position to promote a government of its liking or even guarantee the present administration’s sustainability.
At best, India can be a useful ally to the Afghan government. It cannot — and does not pretend to — be a substitute for the United States. Its best chance for influencing Afghanistan’s trajectory lies in a close partnership with Washington in which the United States provides the military support necessary to ensure the survival of the Afghan government and eventually brings the insurgency to the negotiating table. But in the broader picture, New Delhi’s margins of manoeuvre are slowly but surely diminishing. Karzai needs to take realities into account when he next makes political calculations.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Frédéric Grare was a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his research focuses on Indo-Pacific dynamics, the search for a security architecture, and South Asia Security issues.
- France, the Other Indo-Pacific PowerArticle
- What Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election Means for Foreign PolicyArticle
Frederic Grare
Recent Work
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
- Russia Is Approaching a Political CrossroadsCommentary
Two divergent trends—Putin’s hardline vision of how to prosecute the war in Ukraine, and a growing desire for change in Russia—could tear the regime apart.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- What Should We Take From Andrey Melnichenko’s Essay in the Economist?Commentary
Andrey Melnichenko’s essay offers no answer to the fundamental question of how, under any kind of negotiated settlement, Europe can protect itself from the Russian ressentiment that is inevitable in all scenarios except for an outright victory for Putin.
Leonid Bershidsky
- Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the KremlinCommentary
Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.
Konstantin Skorkin
- Lukashenko’s Concessions to Kyiv Reflect Russia’s WeaknessCommentary
The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.
Artyom Shraibman
- Could Ukraine Succeed in Torpedoing Putin’s Approval Ratings?Commentary
It is not a phenomenon unique to Russia that the public of a country at war (even the aggressor) enduring airstrikes will not overturn its government but rather show solidarity with it and blame its woes on the enemy.
Vladislav Gorin