New Delhi: Amid reports that the Taliban's chief negotiator Sher Muhammad Abbas Stanikzai, criticised India’s role in Afghanistan as 'negative', and certain tweets attributed to Taliban spokesman claiming 'friendship between the group and New Delhi is not possible till the Kashmir issue is resolved' created a storm, a senior Indian official has expressed confidence that there has been no change in stance and Taliban is not interested in the Kashmir dispute.
In an exclusive conversation with Senior Journalist Smita Sharma, former Ambassador to Kabul and current member of NSAB (National Security Advisory Board) Amar Sinha said, "I do not think Taliban has ever said that they are interested in Kashmir or the dispute. There are attempts by certain sections in Pakistan to link these two issues. They want to link it for a simple reason because that is how they feel they could get Americans to come in because the Afghan part of the equation is very important for the US. For Pakistan, both parts of equations very important and they would like a certain equivalence or linkage."
India is among the key regional stakeholders supporting a national peace and reconciliation process in war torn Afghanistan. The spokesperson of the Taliban political office based in Doha had later tweeted to disown the controversial tweet underlining that the Islamic emirate does not interfere in the domestic issue of other neighbouring countries.
"Taliban has said it not only two days ago but even when Article 370 was changed. Pakistani Foreign Minister had said that this was going to affect the pace negotiations in Doha. Then too Taliban spokesman had immediately come out and said that these two issues are not connected at all. Article 370 is something that is internal to India, we respect that and we see no connection between the Kashmir issue and Taliban. Last week we saw this great hype on social media of certain Taliban statements about how they will snatch away Kashmir and all. But I think that was mischievous and both Taliban spokespersons Stanikzai and Suhail Shaheen had to come out and clarify it. That should rest that controversy which is needless," stressed Amar Sinha.
Sinha was among the two retired diplomats who represented New Delhi in a 'non-official' capacity in the Moscow talks sharing room with Taliban representatives along with others in a first for India in 2018. In the past 18 years, India refused to engage with the Taliban directly advocating an Afghan-led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled peace process. Asked about US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad recent Delhi Visit where he advocated that India must talk to Taliban and play a larger role in the Afghan political process, Sinha said India is willing to engage with all factions including the Taliban but they have to prove their intentions first.
"India will engage with all factions in Afghanistan. It is very clear. It is in our immediate neighbourhood. Every political force should be willing to engage. But let Taliban at least prove it has turned into a political force, it has eschewed violence and stopped killing Afghans," said Amar Sinha.
"I am not a believer that India in its own neighbourhood needs to be joining bandwagons. I think it should be having its own policies and should remain confident enough to shape outcomes in our region. Otherwise our talk of being regional and emerging power is seriously undermined by this kind of outlook that we necessarily have to join narratives created by others in our own region," added the former envoy.
However, he indicated that India is involved in back-channel negotiations and it is incorrect to say that New Delhi is only watching developments in Kabul from afar.
"To say we are not doing anything will not be a correct read. A lot of things with negotiations and reconciliation are not necessarily done in public. But behind scenes am sure our embassy, ambassador and other officials are active. They are counselling at least the Afghan government," replied Sinha.
"I am not part of it (Back Channel Talks) but am sure the Government of India does not sit on its back all the time. There are lots of things that are happening. Some things are best done quietly, especially beginning with your old friends. Our problem is that we (India) have too many friends there. So we cannot take sides, cannot pick one over the other. So you quietly have to convey your concerns, requests to them and progress with the best way forward," he further remarked.
Asked about reports of closure of Indian consulates in Jalalabad and Herat amid the COVID-19 crisis, Amar Sinha said that it is likely a temporary closure because of the pandemic. "Herat and Jalalabad because of their locations I can understand they were in fear of this virus. Herat badly affected and one of the first places it started after getting imported from Iran. So the reasons that I know are that these are related to Covid and these could be temporary measures. We will wait and watch. To get assistance to people in Jalalabad and Herat when they are there and lockdown is imposed, would be difficult. So it could simply be a medical precaution," he said.
Smita Sharma spoke to Amar Sinha about India’s concerns surrounding the US- Taliban peace agreement, Intra-Afghan talks, if Taliban coming to power will not mean a return of the 1996 situation, India’s mistrust in context of the IC-814 hijacking and more.
Q. How fragile is the US-Taliban peace deal that was signed in Doha in February amid fanfare? Is it already on the verge of collapse?
Amar Sinha - It was not a peace deal really. It is an agreement between the US government and Taliban which says that it is an agreement to bring peace to Afghanistan. Peace is the end result of the intra Afghan talks. That agreement of 29th February talks about the withdrawal of US troops. It provides certain timelines and also commitments in terms of the number of prisoners to be released, when should it begin, what are the exact dates when the US should remove the sanctions to ease restrictions on traveling Taliban etc. It has run into trouble because, to begin with, the timelines are very ambitious. It was clashing with the formation of the government and the announcement of election results in Afghanistan. Both of these processes were running parallel. The date for commencement of Intra Afghan talks was 10th of March while President Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah were sworn in only on 9th of March. There were two separate swearing in ceremonies of two Presidents. Thankfully that has been resolved now. It is a very very important step of the Afghan political elite to at least have come to a common platform where they can now seriously engage the Taliban in Intra Afghan talks.
Q. How much at risk are the democratic gains that Afghanistan made in the past decade and more in context of the US-Taliban agreement?
Ans. If it unfolds the way it is written down, I don’t think we should have any issues. That agreement really enjoins the Taliban to come back as a political mainstream party to engage with the Afghan government and society. If that is implemented in good faith by the Taliban, I think it will lead to some good results and outcomes. Everyone wants the violence to end, most of all the Afghan people. It also gives certain commitments on Taliban cutting links with terror groups, importantly once they come back to Kabul, more than terror groups they will have to also cut links with the sponsors of terrorism. They have been a beneficiary of it for the last 18 years.
Q. The Taliban have ignored what U.S. officials describe as an understanding that they would reduce violence by up to 80 per cent in the prelude to negotiations over a power-sharing agreement. Fighting was reported in 20 of the country’s 34 provinces over the past 24-48 hours. President Ghani has been forced to change position from active defence to offensive. Where does the cycle lead now?
Ans. Agreement unfortunately from our perspective did not impose any condition to cut down violence against Afghans and Afghan security personnel. All it said was there would be a reduction of violence for 7 days. The commitment is that the Taliban will not attack Americans and its allies. There was no commitment on the Afghan government or stopping violence in provinces. We did see a spike, though the Taliban has not announced its spring offensive. But without even announcing that spring offensive which they do each March or April, the level of violence has seen spike ups...There are reports which suggest that the Taliban would like to capture at least a couple of provincial capitals before they enter the Intra-Afghan talks. Because they want to be negotiating from a position of greater strength. As it is I think so much of legitimacy given to the Taliban has emboldened them more than perhaps they needed to be before coming to talks. But that is their military strategy as of now.
Q. The series of attacks on Sikh minorities, maternity hospital to at least 17 intelligence posts in Kunduz...US Special envoy says it is Islamic State Khorasan, President Ghani says it is Taliban...What does India think?
Ans. The fact is that all these terror groups are interlinked. It is very difficult to distinguish one from the other. They share their resources, men, tactics, ideology, everything. To get back to a position of differentiating between good and bad terrorists is not a right policy. These attacks have a particular meaning. They are basically underlining the urgency, playing on the psychology of war-weary Afghans and putting the Afghan government under pressure that unless you submit to every condition that we have asked for before we start the intra-Afghan talks lot of innocent civilian lives will be lost . It is very convenient that the other groups which have come up in the last couple of years started taking credit for these attacks which the Taliban would have found very difficult to justify. These are games being played and we should not necessarily judge which group is doing it. Fact is continuing violence in Afghanistan has a certain history, background and Afghans know that. Am sure Mr Khalilzad also knows it. But right now it is expedient to exonerate Taliban of every such responsibility because Taliban is being presented as something that has changed, is now a political force and not a force for violence which is yet to be proven on the ground.
Q. India has drawn a red line for the longest. You were one of the two ambassadors who after a change in approach represented India non-officially in the same room with Taliban in Moscow. Army Chief Bipin Rawat during the Raisina Dialogue last year said that India must ‘jump on the bandwagon’ of talks with the Taliban. Where is the scope for India engaging with the Taliban directly?
Ans. India will engage with all factions in Afghanistan. It is very clear. It is in our immediate neighbourhood. Every political force we should be willing to engage. But let Taliban at least proved it has turned into a political force, it has eschewed violence and stopped killing Afghans. What others have said I have heard those statements. I am not a believer that India in its own neighbourhood needs to be joining bandwagons. I think it should be having its own policies and should remain confident enough to shape outcomes in our region. Otherwise, our talk of being regional and emerging power is seriously undermined by this kind of outlook that we necessarily have to join narratives created by others in our own region.
On going to Moscow in a non official capacity, it was the first time that Taliban had engaged with regional countries. Russia also went ahead. Intra-Afghan talk was historic first which democratised entire negotiations. Before that entire negotiation that led to the US-Taliban agreement was basically a bilateral discussion between the US government and the Taliban. Except for the hosts Qatar there was no one in the room unless someone from ISI was masquerading as the Taliban, not even NATO or Afghanistan which are the main parties were there. So there was no question of India joining the Doha process.
Today we are in a much better position and there is an opportunity for India to play a greater constructive role. That flows from the fact of our neutrality, for having had a consistent policy of supporting the democratic and republican Afghanistan, having links with the entire spectrum of political leadership. So the message that we have to send out is that it is time that all Afghans including the Taliban need to sit together to bring an end to this war which has been killing each other. The only test I would want to put to Taliban if they really want to distance themselves from terrorism because they have publicly stated that ISIS is their enemy - well ISIS is killing Afghans, it is an enemy of the Americans and the Afghan state, so why can’t Taliban which says it controls 30 per cent of territory join Afghan forces in fighting the ISIS?
That will be clear test that they are really behaving like a nationalist force which is trying to also do something to protect its own citizens rather than just killing them.
Q. Does India really have luxury of time to sit and watch developments?
Ans. There is a desperate DC with pending troop pull out ahead of US presidential elections in November. Zalmay Khalilzad during his recent hurried Delhi trip advocated that India speak to Taliban directly soon. No body can force the pace of intra-Afghan talks. If you look at the US-Taliban agreement itself, while there are timelines for US withdrawal, there is no timeline for Intra Afghan talks to end. So to say that we do not have the luxury of time is not really correct. Ultimately it is for the Afghan people to decide when they will reconcile, whether they are willing to forget and forgive each other, come back in the fold. That is also for the Taliban. Taliban I guess would pace itself in a way that it derives maximum benefit through it. To say we are not doing anything will not be a correct read. A lot of things with negotiations and reconciliation are not necessarily done in public. But behind scenes am sure our embassy, ambassador and other officials are active. They are counselling at least the Afghan government. Mr Khalilzad came here basically so that India uses its influence in resolving this political deadlock in Kabul. Am sure Back-Channels would have worked because we did see some results. It could have been because of American insistence, counselling from Iran, from India. Everyone was telling the two sides that it is absolutely essential that they get together and the presidential election should not be seen as a winner take it all situation. Because that would leave Kabul’s leadership in a very disunited situation.
Q. So are the back channels on?
Ans. I am not part of it but am sure government of India does not sit on its back all the time. There are lots of things that are happening. Some things are best done quietly especially beginning with your old friends. Our problem is that we (India) have too many friends there. So we cannot take sides, cannot pick one over the other. So you quietly have to convey your concerns, requests to them and progress with the best way forward.
Q. There are a lot of old memories and scars like the IC-814 hijacking?
Ans. I was talking to some former Taliban members when I was in Kabul. This hijacking has become a very iconic thing for the Taliban. But Taliban has a completely different perspective. They say we were not the hijackers, it was the Pakistanis who hijacked the plane. It was done in Nepal and not even in Kabul. They say that they actually did a humanitarian gesture for India because that aircraft was not being allowed to land anywhere in the world, it was running out of fuel, and then at the request of the Indian Ambassador in Islamabad through their envoy sent a message to Mullah Omar that Kandahar Air was open at night and the plane landed. Our grouse begins there that when the prisoners were released, why did the Taliban not capture them and give it back to us. Most of the people that I have spoken to who were with the Taliban regime then say that Ambassador you yourself say that the Taliban regime was controlled from outside and we did not control every aspect of it. So we did the best we could to help India, save civilian lives and what happened with those kidnappers and people you released they blame us. They have a totally different perspective on IC-814.
Q. We have seen divided opinions on the issue of urgency of India getting into the room with the Taliban is concerned. Also debate around if there has been a change of heart for Taliban on Kashmir?
Ans. I do not think Taliban has ever said that they are interested in Kashmir or the dispute. There are attempts by certain sections in Pakistan to link these two issues. They want to link it for a simple reason because that is how they feel they could get Americans to come in because Afghan part of the equation is very important for US. For Pakistan both part of equations very important and they would like a certain equivalence or linkage. Taliban has said it not only two days ago but even when Article 370 was changed. Pakistani Foreign Minister had said that this was going to affect the peace negotiations in Doha. Then too Taliban spokesman had immediately come out and said that these two issues are not connected at all. Article 370 is something that is internal to India, we respect that and we see no connection between the Kashmir issue and Taliban. Last week we saw this great hype on social media of certain Taliban statements about how they will snatch away Kashmir and all. But I think that was mischievous and both Taliban spokespersons Stanikzai and Shaheen had to come out and clarify it. That should rest that controversy which is needless. There are sections who would like to do that but the Taliban or Afghans do not have the ill will for India which Pakistan would like them to have.
Q. You have said in the past that the Taliban’s policies are too heavily governed by Pakistan and until those ties are loosened, it will be pointless for India to make a move. Is India looking at Afghanistan from the prism of Rawalpindi?
Ans. Not at all. It would be wrong to look at Afghanistan from the Pakistani prism. You have to look at Afghanistan from the perspective of your own neighbourhood and SAARC and whatever is left of it. Fact is that SAARC minus one is functional and working. So we should not look at Pakistan which has a role to play, unfortunately, a negative role till now. We have to do everything to neutralise that. Our approach to Afghanistan is primarily focused on humanitarian assistance, rebuilding of infrastructure so that it actually leads to peace and prosperity in our neighbourhood. We do feel that peace is indivisible and will lead to peace in our own region. Pakistan sees this as one equation, and they want to leverage one for the other. But that is all something that should be rejected.
Q. But New Delhi’s hesitations about not playing a more active role in Afghan political reconciliation, are they justified based on constantly looking at this Rawalpindi-Kabul equation?
Ans. Pakistan has followed one policy for 18 years at a tremendous cost to itself both in terms of human losses, a financial mess. For good or bad they have followed a certain path. Today they feel they are very close to the finishing line. Issue is will they let go of the Taliban and let them reconcile in Afghanistan and actually run a country independently as a sovereign country. Once Taliban comes back to Kabul, proves to be a nationalist force focused on Afghanistan, deals with rest of the world as a sovereign nation, India should have absolutely no hesitation and continue with its policy. Taliban have also welcomed India’s development partnership in the last 18 years. There have been no attacks against any of our projects we have been doing there except for some attacks when Delaram-Zaranj road was being built. Parliament, Salma dam etcetera has never been attacked which we should take note of.
Q. And kidnappings of Indians?
Ans. Kidnappings have happened but they also have a lot of local and economic factors which sought of instigate these incidents
Q. Was India reading the tea leaves right when it decided to shut down two of its consulates in Afghanistan recently citing Covid 19 challenges?
Ans. I have read this only in newspapers and magazines recently. Herat and Jalalabad because of their locations I can understand they were in fear of this virus. Herat badly affected and one of the first places it started after getting imported from Iran. So the reasons that I know are that these are related to Covid and these could be temporary measures. We will wait and watch. To get assistance to people in Jalalabad and Herat when they are there and lockdown is imposed, would be difficult. So it could simply be a medical precaution.
Q. What assurances do you have from negotiations in Kabul to Doha, that if the Taliban were to return to power, it would not be a late 90s situation again? What are India’s biggest fears about security situation spill over at this point?
Ans. Our worst fear really should be that the Taliban has not changed at all and it wants to go back to a 1996 situation. Then the Afghan society will get deeply split and will go back to old times of serious fighting and a civil war. That is the worst-case scenario. Our understanding is that if you go by the Taliban saying in public or even through their interlocutors that they have changed, they are not willing to share power, these are still untested. They will have to come back first into the negotiations with whatever sides and body is now being created. Then come out with a blueprint. Certain leaks have taken place about Taliban’s wish list and how it wants to see the country. They have denied it. But if one has to go by that then obviously there is not much change. Some of the key issues they have not been clear and forthcoming on-about rights of women, democracy, the role of Afghan security forces. Other things that concern the international community they have made the right noises on cutting links with terror roots, end to violence, all that is very assuring. I just hope they are not playing the international community and they are not speaking with forked tongues.
