India in Afghanistan

[jayron]

Who told you India is anti-Pashtuns? India is pro-peaceful and neutral Afghanistan, Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns included. India only supported the NA because Pakistan was supporting the Taliban.

India is anti-Pashtun because they supported the Communist parties in Afghanistan as well as Tajiks, and they supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Pashtuns have always been anti-communism, which is why they got the support of the US against the Soviets. You also seem to forget that India had a huge Communist influence, and still has the huge communist issues (even though they are banished now) in the form of the Maoists. India used to have Communist parties, and it still has some communist parties today without even including the Maoists.

Hello Mr.India expert! Can you show me a single article proving India supported Soviet occupation of Afganistan? India had a neutral stance regarding this issue. But Pakistan ruined the nation by creating the monster called Taliban. For all we know the Soviets would have been less savage than the Taliban.

India having communist parties has nothing to do with Afganistan.

 

[53fd]

Hello Mr.India expert! Can you show me a single article proving India supported Soviet occupation of Afganistan? India had a neutral stance regarding this issue. But Pakistan ruined the nation by creating the monster called Taliban. For all we know the Soviets would have been less savage than the Taliban.

India having communist parties has nothing to do with Afganistan.


Here is the link of India supporting the pro-Communist non-Pashtuns (in the form of Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras etc) against the Pashtuns who hated Communism:

American Cold War response to Soviet occupation provided enough incentives for Pakistan to expand its strategic hold in Afghanistan. Pakistan used Pashtuns and other frontier people who were influenced by Wahabi obscurantism to strengthen Afghan insurgents fighting the Soviet forces supporting the pro-Communist regime in Kabul. It is noteworthy that the Afghan regime in this period had enjoyed India's full support; so in a way Pakistan was indirectly whittling down Indian influence in what it considered as its strategic backyard. When Soviets vacated Pakistan helped the Taliban to occupy this strategic space in the emerging power struggle in Afghanistan after the collapse of the pro-Communist regime there.
Indian supported the Northern Alliance (predominantly Uzbek and Tajik militias) which fought the Taliban (composed of mostly of Pakistanis and Pashtuns).But India did not provide any troops though it probably provided arms.

The link: Indian Intervention in Afghanistan- A Reality Check:

(The author is an Indian)

Afghanistan's first non-Pashtun Communist president Dr. Najibullah was aided by India, and came into power in 1987. India, a close ally of Najibullah, strongly condemned the public execution of Najibullah and began to extensively support non-Pashtun Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance in an attempt to contain the rise of the Taliban (Pashtun)

 

[Ahmad]

Here is the link of India supporting the pro-Communist non-Pashtuns (in the form of Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras etc) against the Pashtuns who hated Communism:

American Cold War response to Soviet occupation provided enough incentives for Pakistan to expand its strategic hold in Afghanistan. Pakistan used Pashtuns and other frontier people who were influenced by Wahabi obscurantism to strengthen Afghan insurgents fighting the Soviet forces supporting the pro-Communist regime in Kabul. It is noteworthy that the Afghan regime in this period had enjoyed India's full support; so in a way Pakistan was indirectly whittling down Indian influence in what it considered as its strategic backyard. When Soviets vacated Pakistan helped the Taliban to occupy this strategic space in the emerging power struggle in Afghanistan after the collapse of the pro-Communist regime there.
Indian supported the Northern Alliance (predominantly Uzbek and Tajik militias) which fought the Taliban (composed of mostly of Pakistanis and Pashtuns).But India did not provide any troops though it probably provided arms.

The link: Indian Intervention in Afghanistan- A Reality Check:

(The author is an Indian)

Afghanistan's first non-Pashtun Communist president Dr. Najibullah was aided by India, and came into power in 1987. India, a close ally of Najibullah, strongly condemned the public execution of Najibullah and began to extensively support non-Pashtun Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance in an attempt to contain the rise of the Taliban (Pashtun)

my friend, why dont you do a good research before posting. If i dont know things about pakistani issues, i try to keep quiet. people complain that americans are being influenced by their right wing media and dont know the realities, but as i see, our pakistani brothers are just like americans when it come to afghanistan, they believe what they are told by their media(mostly urdo i think). and who told you that the tajiks were pro communism? didnt you know that the tajiks were a solid frontline force against the soviets and fighting them? the tajik areas were mostly those areas which was not conquarable by the soviets. did you forget the big anti soviet tajik names such as Ismail Khan, A shah Masoud, Zabihullah, Rabani, A.S.Farid, and many many other leaders? For your information, the big leaders of communists were pashtoons, Hafizullah Amin, Taraki, Babrak(persianized pushton), Najib was also pashtoon from Ahmadzai tribe, who told you he was not pashtoon? and he was not the first president either.

Americans supported the mujahideen through pakistan and the shia factions were supprted by Iran. Tajiks were part of the block that got support from americans through pakistan. The same so called northern alliance was once being supported by pakistan. The very first time tajiks came to the side of india was when pakistan armed gulbudin and then the taliban, prior to that, tajik partries never had any contact with india. for your information i need to tell that tajiks might have political difference with pakistan for the last 15-20 years, but pashtons of afghanistan have alot more serious problem with paksitan and that is the issue of territory. from the article you posted yourself i need to copy/paste something else to you:

1. India has always had strong relations with successive governments in Afghanistan except for the short period when Taliban was controlling the nation. Thanks to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's leadership, during freedom struggle Congress had the support of Pashtuns who populate both sides of Pak-Af border. In fact Pashtuns led by Khan Sahib had boycotted the referendum on partition. So Pakistan got NWFP by default.

 

[53fd]

Firstly, I gave you a credible link from an Indian author, and you never provided any source, just your angry sentiments.


If i dont know things about pakistani issues, i try to keep quiet... they believe what they are told by their media(mostly urdo i think).

It's Urdu, not urdo. So you don't know what you're talking about, yet you're still talking.

and who told you that the tajiks were pro communism?

You want other proof that the Tajiks were pro-communism? Tajikistan was a former republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That says enough. You want more proof? The outbreak of civil war between pro-Communists and Islamic-democrats, in 1992 forced many Uzbeks and Russians to leave the country. Russian troops are still stationed along Tajikistan's southern border with Afghanistan. They have two cities named Leninabad and Stalinabad.


did you forget the big anti soviet tajik names such as Ismail Khan, A shah Masoud, Zabihullah, Rabani, A.S.Farid, and many many other leaders?

I never said Tajiks were pro-Soviets. I said they were pro-communism, and they got help from Indian Communist parties in their fight against the Taliban. This happened in 1992 AFTER the Soviets were defeated. I did not talk about the Soviet war, so your point is completely moot.

The Mujahideen, which consisted of mostly Taliban and some Northern Alliance fighters fought the Soviets. After the Soviets were defeated, the Taliban and Northern Alliance fought against each other. The Northern Alliance (Uzbeks, Tajiks) with the help of India's communist parties, fought against the Islamist Taliban in the civil war in 1992. Open the link below for your proofs.

Tajikistan Travel Notes: Tajikistan Travel Guide @ TravelNotes.org

 

[Ahmad]

Firstly, I gave you a credible link from an Indian author, and you never provided any source, just your angry sentiments.

and since when the indian authors became cridible to you?

It's Urdu, not urdo. So you don't know what you're talking about, yet you're still talking.

spelling error, and you will probably see tons of them in my posts.

You want other proof that the Tajiks were pro-communism? Tajikistan was a former republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That says enough. You want more proof? The outbreak of civil war between pro-Communists and Islamic-democrats, in 1992 forced many Uzbeks and Russians to leave the country. Russian troops are still stationed along Tajikistan's southern border with Afghanistan. They have two cities named Leninabad and Stalinabad.

Make up your mind buddy!! are you talking about Afghanistan or Tajikistan? Dont forget that Tajikistan and other central asian republics didnt willingly join the russians, they were forced. and if i am not wrong, the names of leninabad and staligrad have been changed now.

I never said all Tajiks were pro-Communism and pro-Soviets. The Mujahideen, which consisted of mostly Taliban and some Northern Alliance fighters fought the Soviets. There were Tajiks and Uzbeks that supported the Soviet Union during the war, but there were others who fought against the Soviets along with the Taliban.

The taliban didnt exist during the soviet time, some of them might have been in those days, but the movement was predominatley made up of the young madrasah students who came from pakistan. For your information, not some of the tajiks, but overwhelmeingly majority of them fought against the rusians, yes there were some tajiks who supported the russians and there were pashtoons as well that supported the russians, i gave you their top leaders' names as well.

After the Soviets were defeated, the Taliban and Northern Alliance fought against each other. The Northern Alliance (Uzbeks, Tajiks) with the help of India's communist parties, fought against the Islamist Taliban in the civil war in 1992. Open the link below for your proofs.

After the soviets left afghanistan they left the gov of pashtoon najibullah in place to fight the mujahideen, after few years the mujahideen took control of the whole country becasue teh soviet union broke up and Najibullah lost its backer, the mujahideen factions mainly Jamiat, hizb, junbish, etehad, wahdat fought each other to death, then the taliban emerged that was teh time that all of the above came together to fight the taliban and was given the name of NA which is a wrong name anyway, keep in mind that the NA had the backing of several prominant pashtoon commondars as well. The tajiks only established contacts with india once pakistan supported hikmatyar and taliban against them.

 

[53fd]

Hello Mr.India expert! Can you show me a single article proving India supported Soviet occupation of Afganistan? India had a neutral stance regarding this issue. But Pakistan ruined the nation by creating the monster called Taliban. For all we know the Soviets would have been less savage than the Taliban.

India having communist parties has nothing to do with Afganistan.

Contrary to the Indian propaganda taught to you, Pakistan has been the biggest supporter of the Afghan people. Despite Afghanistan trying to "liberate" Pakistan's NWFP to form Pakhtunistan, Pakistan has treated Afghanis well. The Pashtuns in Pakistan refused to support the efforts of Afghan Pashtuns to form Pakhtunistan, and chose to stay with Pakistan.

It gave over 3 million Afghan refugees a home to stay in. There are over 5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan today that refuse to go back because they know they won't be able to live normally in Afghanistan. Pakistan helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets, while a "friend" like India just stayed "neutral" on the issue.

Pakistan has more Pashtuns than Afghanistan does, and Pashtuns are the majority ethnicity in Afghanistan. Contrary to common belief that Pakistan only has the support of the Taliban (who btw are Pashtuns and the majority population, unlike the Northern Alliance), Pakistan also established deep connections with Ahmed Shah Masood, the leader of the Northern Alliance; when they fought together to defeat the Soviets. Remember, India did not even support the Northern Alliance at that time, and was "NEUTRAL". It only started supporting the Northern Alliance when they fought against the Taliban after Soviet Union was defeated.

Contrary to common belief, Pakistan enjoys support from, and has close links with the Pashtun tribal leaders as well against the NATO armies.

 

[Ahmad]

@bilalhaider, what do you think about this part of the article written by that indian author?

1. India has always had strong relations with successive governments in Afghanistan except for the short period when Taliban was controlling the nation. Thanks to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's leadership, during freedom struggle Congress had the support of Pashtuns who populate both sides of Pak-Af border. In fact Pashtuns led by Khan Sahib had boycotted the referendum on partition. So Pakistan got NWFP by default.

 

[Ahmad]

Contrary to the Indian propaganda taught to you, Pakistan has been the biggest supporter of the Afghan people.

My friend, there is not such a thing like support or being kind, everybody does things for their own benefit. i need to make clear that what i said was with regards to GoP not its public.

Despite Afghanistan trying to "liberate" Pakistan's NWFP to form Pakhtunistan

Dont say afghanistan, say pashtoons of afghanistan as we tajiks have nothing to do with NWFP, it is your soil and we have no claim on it.

The Pashtuns in Pakistan refused to support the efforts of Afghan Pashtuns to form Pakhtunistan, and chose to stay with Pakistan.

dont mix up pakistani and afghanistan's pashtons, they are nationals of 2 different countries.

Pakistan helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets, while a "friend" like India just stayed "neutral" on the issue.

You did it with american dollar and arms for your own good. if you didnt benefit from it, you'dnt have done it.

Pakistan has more Pashtuns than Afghanistan does, and Pashtuns are the majority ethnicity in Afghanistan

they are not majority, but largest ethnic group.

Contrary to common belief, Pakistan enjoys support from, and has close links with the Pashtun tribal leaders as well against the NATO armies

we will see what the pashtoons of afghanistan do with paksitan once they are free of fighting the nato, especially in this time that the country is sadly suffering from ethnic problems, any deepening ethnic issue in afghansitan is not to the interest of pakistan, it is better for pakistan to engage with afghanistan as a county and nation rather than adopting ethnic based policies.

 

[53fd]

@ Ahmed:

Actually, Pakistan has given the Tribal FATA areas of Pakistan full autonomy to do whatever they want. They refused to impose Pakistani laws there so they could appease the tribal areas, and have kept an open border with Afghanistan so that Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pakistan could intermingle freely. They refused to intervene in their matters. Despite all this, Afghanistan was ungrateful and wanted to conspire against Pakistan to form "Pakhtunistan". Luckily, the Pakistani Pashtuns remained loyal to Pakistan despite Afghanistan's clever ploys to separate NWFP from Pakistan. In a way, I'm happy that Pakistan is treating Afghanistan like its playground, although I feel sad for the people there too: you tried to mess with Pakistan, and now you're just getting a dose of your own medicine. Over 5 million illegal Afghan refugees in Pakistan today refuse to go back to Afghanistan because they know they get treated better in Pakistan, and Pakistan is not forcing them to leave. Despite Afghanistan's evil intentions, Pakistan has always supported the Afghani people.

 

[Ahmad]

buddy, since you brought the ethnic issues in the middle i have to talk to you in that manner.

Despite all this, Afghanistan was ungrateful and wanted to conspire against Pakistan to form "Pakhtunistan". Luckily, the Pakistani Pashtuns remained loyal to Pakistan despite Afghanistan's clever ploys to separate NWFP from Pakistan

Dont say Afghanistan, say pashtoons of AFghanistan, Pashton gov of Afghanistan during zahir shah, dawood didnt recognize your independence, Pashton Najib, Pashtoon Taraki, Pashtoon Amin were against pakistan, why dont you get it? or you want to delibarately not to touch that part?

 

[53fd]

we will see what the pashtoons of afghanistan do with paksitan once they are free of fighting the nato, especially in this time that the country is sadly suffering from ethnic problems, any deepening ethnic issue in afghansitan is not to the interest of pakistan, it is better for pakistan to engage with afghanistan as a county and nation rather than adopting ethnic based policies.

Afghani Pashtuns will not do anything, because of a number of reasons:

1) They share the same heritage as Pakistani Pashtuns (Pakistani Pashtuns are their brothers), and Pakistani Pashtuns love Pakistan.

2) They are poor and underdeveloped.

3) Taliban (Pashtun) is a tool/toy of the ISI. Which is why Afghanistan has been Pakistan's playground.

4) Pakistani Pashtuns outnumber the Afghani Pashtuns, and are fierce supporters of Pakistan.

5) Most of the Afghan troops are addicted to poppy, and even the Americans and NATO forces have problems in trying to "keep them on mission/track". Pakistan's army is one of the best in the world.

6) Afghanistan is a fragmented country, where networks and tribal areas "own"/hold different areas. For example: the Logar province is in the hold of the Haqqani network, the Kunar Province is in the hold of the Hekmetyar network, and these are different factions. Afghans have no sense to loyalty, they are easily bribed and they'll do anything for money.

And btw, Pashtuns constitute of over 40% of Afghanistan's total population, which does make them the largest ethnicity in terms of population in Afghanistan.

 

[EjazR]

Afghanistan's first non-Pashtun Communist president Dr. Najibullah was aided by India, and came into power in 1987. India, a close ally of Najibullah, strongly condemned the public execution of Najibullah and began to extensively support non-Pashtun Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance in an attempt to contain the rise of the Taliban (Pashtun)

And with that statement, you have utterly exposed your ignorance about Afghan history. I am surprised no one picked this up yet.

Dr. Najibullah was a Ahmedzai Ghilzai Pashtun. And he was the last leader that could have saved Afghanistan from the chaos and turmoil that warlords and extremist groups based in FATA pushed the country into. His unIslamic torture and execution was condemned not only by India, but the entire muslim world including Saudi Arabia as well as the top leadership of the Taliban admitted that such an execution was UnIslamic.

He enacted a new constitution, gave freedom of expression, decalred Afghanistan an Islamic republic, allowed multi-party systems to function. And the Soviets were providing $3billion a year in aid to this last visionary Pashtun leader of pre-Taliban Afghanistan which would dwarf any aid provided by India. And even post Najibullah, the main backers of NA was Iran and the Central Asian Republics who played a massive role. Indian role was hardly anything when compared to Iran for example that was airlifting weapons all the way to Mazar-i-Sharif.

So do read up on Afghan history by grabbing a good book rather than just going to websites.

 

[53fd]

Dr. Najibullah was the last leader that could have saved Afghanistan from the chaos and turmoil that warlords and extremist groups based in FATA pushed the country into. He enacted a new constitution, gave freedom of expression, decalred Afghanistan an Islamic republic, allowed multi-party systems to function.

As support of Najibullah's regime became more of an economic burden and an embarrassment to a fast-changing Soviet leadership, the superpowers negotiated an agreement to cut off arms to both sides of the conflict in 1991, thus sealing the fate of Afghanistan's president. Najibullah's political skills proved no match for discontent in the capital as supplies of arms, food, and money dwindled. Though he attempted to negotiate with the leaders of the rebel mujahedin, his political opponents were in no mood to compromise with a figure who purportedly engineered the torture and execution of tens of thousands of their comrades, stamping to death many of them personally, according to reports of former political prisoners.

For more information on the period and the man, see J. Bruce Amstuz's, Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation (1986); Raja Anwar's, The Tragedy of Afghanistan (1988); Amin Saikal and William Maley's, (editors), The Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989); and Artyom Borovik's, The Hidden War (1990).

Mohammad Najibullah: Biography from Answers.com

And there goes your whole argument, so I suggest you read history as well. I have never said Iran is innocent, in fact they have played a hugely detrimental role in Afghanistan. India support for communism and the communist leader has however, done just as badly for Afghanistan.

 

[53fd]

@ EjazR

In hindsight, the Soviets were seeking to expand south and had been supporting the Communist government of Dr. Mohammed Najibullah who in April 1978 seized power in a Coup d’état.

However, the Kabul-born leader garnered fierce opposition from many warlords and Afghan rebels (such as Ahmad Shah Massoud), who opposed Communism.

With his government on shaky ground, Najibullah wanted the Soviets to intervene and button-up his government in the wake of US-backed Islamist resistance fighters.



So basically, he gave the Soviets a free pass to invade the country and kill millions of innocent Afghanis, only to save his communist regime from the rebels, while India remained neutral during the whole issue. It was the Mujahadeen that saved the Afghanis from the Soviets when they got a free pass from Najibullah. And communism has caused so much pain in the world, yet Najibullah wanted the Afghanis to go down that same path. That does not sound like a great, visionary leader to me. Seems like he was bribed to stay in power, and didn't mind the killing of millions of Afghanis by the Soviets.

So son, learn something about history before coming back here.

http://www.suite101.com/content/afghanistan-and-the-soviet-union-a187948

 

[EjazR]

@bilalhaider

You still seem to be using webites for info and that too ones like "answers.com". What about calling Najibullah a non-Pashtoon? Are you willing to correct that?

Did you know how Najibullah was killed? Please research on that as well. And that the entire Muslim world condemned his torture and killing. Including Ahmed Shah Masood and the top Taliban leadership.


And you completely ignored the context I mentioned Najibullah was the last hope. He was willing to resign from his post. His government was Communist only in name and was willing to negotiate with any of the mujaheddin factions to bring peace to Afghanistan. After his death, the Taliban and the warlord fighting completely ruined Afghan society. Even now you will find Afghans who consider him Shaheed .

And if you really want to go back into the history of what the Soviets did. Then Pakistan, CIA and the Saudis didn't play any small role either in devastating Afghanistan. Pakistan right from the 70s allowed CIA to train dissidents and launch fighters from the tribal regions in Pakistan which then resulted in the Soviets invading and then the war that followed resulted in deaths and destruction of lives of millions of Afghans and the repercussions are being felt around the world including in Pakistan since then. Not to mention the radicalization and empowerment of deviant extremists forms of Islamic groups.


And obviously you still didn't get Ahmad's point that its the Afghan Pashtoons who are unwilling to recognize the Durrand line. The 100 year lease with British India finished in 1993, and all Pashtoon rulers of Afghanistan including the Taliban have refused to recognize the Durrand line.


And on India being neutral, when the Soviet invasion happened, Morarji Desai was PM and he was against it. He even condemned the invasion on Soviet soil in a press conference. It was only when Indira Gandhi came back to power that India had to temper its stand. That's what happens to countries that have to depend on other powers like India had to depend on the Soviets.