'There could soon be an Indian Taliban'

[Gabbar]

'There could soon be an Indian Taliban'

Ahmed Rashid, one of the world's foremost experts on the Taliban [Images], has predicted that with the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there could very well be an Indian Taliban in the near future.
Rashid exhorted India and Pakistan to resurrect their dialogue and cooperate in fighting terrorism and extremism together because if Pakistan fails to counter the sustained onslaught of the Taliban, New Delhi [Images] could be faced with a Taliban government as its neighbour.

"If you think infiltration into Kashmir is bad now, wait until the Taliban become your neighbour. Then you will see real infiltration not only into Kashmir, but into India proper."

Rashid, who was speaking at the Woman's National Democratic Club in Washington, DC, in a discussion and book-signing of his most recent book Descent into Chaos: US Policy and the Failure of National Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, under the aegis of the Asia Society, said, "In 2001, we expected after the US attack (in the aftermath of 9/11) that the Taliban, Al Qaeda [Images], would be on the ropes, if not wiped out."

"Today, we have the Taliban as a role model for an entire region. We have not only the Afghan Taliban, today, we have the Pakistani Taliban, Central Asian, and very soon you may have the Indian Taliban. You may have the Taliban stretching into the Caucasus and even into the Middle East," he told the gathering.

Rashid, who first wrote the seminal book on the Taliban, reiterated that "it's become a role model for extremism, it is backed financially by Al Qaeda, and it's extremely dangerous. It is now controlling something like a quarter of Afghanistan and large tracts of northern Pakistan and they are coming now down into Punjab and Pakistan is faced with a very, very serious threat."

The Pakistani military, he added, "unfortunately, even today, remains in a state of denial about the threat that it faces in the country. It remains in a state of denial over the Taliban who are encroaching in Pakistan with even more power and tactics. It remains in denial about the other extremist groups who've been active in other parts of Pakistan -- in the south and the center of the country. It also remains in denial of the desperate means that the military needs to be re-aligning itself on a much more modern counter-insurgency strategy that it has so far applied in its action with the Taliban."

Rashid said the situation in Pakistan "is very dire," and that currently "there is a fragmentation in the leadership. There is no demonstrated leadership, either being shown by the politicians or being shown by the army right now."

With regard to the Obama [Images] administration's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly its regional approach, the Pakistani author and journalist argued, "The problem is all of the six neighbours have bilateral problems with each other and you cannot get them to agree on stabilising Afghanistan, unless you initiate a diplomatic process to get them to talk to each other about their bilateral issues."

Rashid said it was a no-brainer that "the biggest problem here is India and Pakistan," both of whom "are unfortunately now involved in a deep rivalry in Afghanistan."

"I call Kabul the new Kashmir in a way," he said, and noted that "Pakistan believes that the Indian presence in Afghanistan is undermining the western border of Pakistan and that the Afghan government is too close to India. There is a litany of complaints here. And, this is all being affected by the Americans, by the US military and the Indian-Afghan alliance is part of a US plan to help destabilise Pakistan."

Rashid said, "This is the kind of conspiracy theory which is very prevalent in the military, the bureaucracy, in government circles, within the elite in Pakistan."

"I certainly don't agree with that and Afghanistan is today a sovereign State and it has a right to have relations with every country in the world and no other country can dictate that you can't have relations with so and so and so and so."

But, Rashid asserted, that "at the same time, the Indians need to be much more flexible than they have been."

He acknowledged that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] "has been very patient so far with the kind of strings of bomb blasts that had happened in India even before Mumbai [Images]. Mumbai was perhaps the icing on the cake and perhaps with elections looming, the Congress government couldn't really take it anymore."

"Anyway, the net result has been a total breakdown in relations, but I really think, a start should be made in trying to get India and Pakistan to discuss Afghanistan and to put an end to this covert war that both sides are mounting from Afghanistan or in Afghanistan, and the bad blood that exists between both countries and are threatened by the Taliban."

Rashid warned that if India doesn't let Pakistan "off the hook here," and doesn't help Pakistan out in this regard, India would be faced with two threats in the near future. India would be "faced with an Indian Taliban. We already have Indian Islamic extremist groups working in India, and secondly, if Pakistan slides even further, India will be sharing a border with the Taliban. You will not be sharing a border with the Pakistan state. You will be sharing a border with a Pakistan northwest frontier province that has fallen to the Taliban and even parts of Punjab fallen to the Taliban and then what are you going to do?"

"There is a real need for India to assess its national security needs and to understand that it is threatened by this," Rashid said. "It may be, for someone living in Kolkata or someone living in Madras, it may be an existential threat. But, it is very real and the kind of mayhem that was wracked in Mumbai recently is an example of what some of these groups are capable of doing."

'There could soon be an Indian Taliban'

 

[sadiqams]

india already has its 'taliban' in the form of the moaists rebellion.

 

[mudassar86]

i have raised in dubai uae and i have been living to many indians there but one thing i got to know is that in india there are 27 provinces and 8 federal adminstrated areas i might be mistaking in it but what real is that 7 provinces in some what manner has separatis movement in them why is that the biggest democracy of the world should not have this type of record. they call india the new power house but india has dispute with pakistan with bangladesh with china and along srilanka which has now been a resolved so in south asia who is the bone of contention is it india itself or the south asia it self. the taliban factor why did america supported these men at time of soviet were they not terrorist at that time. were they not taliban at that time the difference is that at that time the gun was towards soviet and now it is towards america. but one thing i would like to say american goverment recently admitted that one-third of the arms given to afghan army is lost means they have no record they are over there for peace or for an civil war using american arms and system

 

[muse]

The Pakistani military, he added, "unfortunately, even today, remains in a state of denial about the threat that it faces in the country. It remains in a state of denial over the Taliban who are encroaching in Pakistan with even more power and tactics. It remains in denial about the other extremist groups who've been active in other parts of Pakistan -- in the south and the center of the country. It also remains in denial of the desperate means that the military needs to be re-aligning itself on a much more modern counter-insurgency strategy that it has so far applied in its action with the Taliban."

Rashid said the situation in Pakistan "is very dire," and that currently "there is a fragmentation in the leadership. There is no demonstrated leadership, either being shown by the politicians or being shown by the army right now."

This statement pretty much reflects our own assessment here on the forum

The heart of the piece of course is to call on India to get real -- Musharraf has stated several times that there already exists a package around which India and Pakistan can deal on kashmir and move on to real business (read energy, read central Asia) - Indian friends are not persuaded, yet.

 

[zubair723]

Its becoming clear that TALIBAN strategy is to create as many fronts as possible. And INDIAN TALIBAN even a NON-MUSLIM INDIAN TALIBAN is a very near reality.

 

[muse]

Islamist were unleashed on Pakistan, as soon as it was understood that Pakistani policy makers were convinced that this reorientation had to be effected:

Strategic reorientation

Monday, July 13, 2009
Talat Masood

There comes a time in the history of nations when leaders have to take fundamental decisions to change course. History is replete with such examples. Deng Xiaoping decided to shift focus from ideological Puritanism of the Maoist era to developing national economy and giving it the highest priority. He had no qualms in abandoning the deep seated doctrines of communist system and borrowing the model of capitalist economies and adapting it to local conditions. To achieve this goal, foreign policy of peaceful coexistence with neighbours was crafted and close economic and trade relations with US and the West were developed. This paradigm change ushered in unprecedented prosperity and China progressed more in the last 30 than in the previous 1,000 years. India’s landmark decision, taken under the able stewardship of Dr Manmohan Singh in 1989 as finance minister, to move away from a highly centralised socialist economy to a free market transformed the face of India. This coupled with its strategic partnership with US and a proactive foreign policy including a cooperative relationship with China has facilitated India’s rapid economic growth. In both these cases leadership focused on the centrality of economic growth as a key factor and rightly expected it would strengthen other elements of national power. Indeed through this pragmatic strategic shift leaders of two countries populated by over a billion people each were able to achieve national cohesion and internal stability. We have another example of late President De Gaulle, who realising the extreme debilitating affects of protracted Algerian war took the courageous decision to withdraw from Algeria. France since then has not looked back.

Pakistan today is facing one of its greatest challenge and literally standing on a precipice. It is battling against multiple major insurgencies and struggling to cope with wide spread violence that has taken deep roots in society. And to keep its distressed economy afloat it is shackled to the IMF. There is no doubt external circumstances have contributed to where we are, but we cannot absolve ourselves for the erroneous policies pursued, especially in the last four decades. It is crucial that civilian and military leadership undertakes a major review of our strategic posture.

Given the crisis prone relationship between India and Pakistan and the Indian force deployment and postures Pakistan had to position the bulk of its forces to face India. Pakistan’s relatively narrow geophysical shape is such that our major cities and communication lines are too close to the border and vulnerable. But all this has to be reviewed in the present context. First, it would be madness on the part of India to attack Pakistan. History also bears out that it is Pakistan that initiated the 1948, 1965 and Kargil adventure. Second, India cannot ignore Pakistan’s nuclear capability and the consequences of initiating a conflict. Third, India is committed to its economic development and has global ambitions and would not like to be distracted in a military conflict. Fourth, it is in the interest of the international community that India and Pakistan normalise their relationship.

In any case Pakistan’s immediate threat is internal and the external threat of India can be far better neutralised and in all likelihood diminish once we are internally more stable and democratically strengthened.

Moreover, urgency in tackling the internal threat stems from several factors. First, if the US and NATO forces are unable to subdue the Taliban in Afghanistan or if they make a political compromise of sorts then it will give a big boost to Taliban on our side. This brings the point that time is not on our side.

Army for obvious reasons is avoiding fighting on multiple fronts and for this reason had not engaged operationally Mullah Nazir and Gul Bahadur. And probably would have preferred a status quo with them, but the ambush laid by insurgents in Mullah Gul Bahadur’s area of influence forced the Army to respond. Nonetheless focus has to remain on Baitullah Mehsud and defeating or neutralising him is crucial as other Taliban leaders would be hedging their positions depending on how the fortunes of counterinsurgency operations swing in this area. Success in South Waziristan thus acquires added significance. The tactical advantage that the Army enjoyed in Swat is not available in South Waziristan. Swat is landlocked and the Army was able to close in from all sides- Buner, Shangla, Dir and Malakand and squeeze the militants. South Waziristan borders Afghanistan and North Waziristan and on both sides there are tribes that are willing to support the insurgency and share a common ideology.

The threat from Taliban is total. Taliban are a threat to the economy, politics, Constitution and indeed to our way of life. More significantly, Taliban are a threat to the world, including that to China and the Muslim world.

As regards controlling the jihadi outfits of LeT and LJ and others are concerned these are now not only militant organisations but also a significant part of our social structure. They in guise of other names are operating in Kashmir earthquake relief camps, in IDPs and spread across the country performing social services. Needless to mention, that there are many supporters of theirs in media and other branches of civil society and government.

In this environment strategic redirection would be a Herculean undertaking and require a minimum generational effort. It has to be a well thought out process having a national consensus. Military power alone will not be able to prevail. Apart from the military operations the government will have to have a comprehensive plan to address the basic causes that have given rise to militancy. For achieving enduring solutions high priority has to given to governance, that includes maximum attention on education, health, improving economy, providing justice and security and reducing inequalities.

In the months to come Pakistan faces fateful choices. We will need all the prudence and inner strength to carve our future otherwise militant and extremist forces will shape it for us.

The writer is a lieutenant-general. Email: talat@comsats.net.pk

 

[muse]

India-Pakistan rivalry



Sunday, July 19, 2009
Dr Farrukh Saleem

India and Pakistan are in a state of active hostility — if not war or at least two proxy wars. At least six of the Pakistan army’s nine corps are on the border with India. Of the six, I Corps and II Corps are heavy armour strike corps. At least seven of the Indian army’s 13 corps are on the border with Pakistan. Of the seven, X Corps and II Corps are powerful strike corps (strike corps is an offensive formation). Additionally, all of India’s holding crops that are directly facing Pakistan also have significant offensive capabilities. In effect, 66 per cent of the Pakistan army’s holding and strike formations are directly facing India. In effect, more than 53 per cent of the Indian army’s holding and strike formations are directly facing Pakistan.

Pakistan maintains — and sustains — critical assets in the northeast that have managed to pin down India’s XV Corps, IX Corps, XVI Corps, XIV Corps, XI Corps, X Corps and II Corps. India’s 4 Armoured Brigade, 340 Mechanised Brigade, 11 and 12 Infantry Divisions, Jaisalmer Air Force Base, Utarlai Air Force Base and Bhuj Air Force Base maintain a threatening-offensive posture. India is actively supporting anti-Pakistan Baloch elements as well as anti-Pakistan Taliban factions. India is bent upon projecting power into Afghanistan thus encircling Pakistan. And, India – post-Operation Parakram — has been investing into a "Cold Start War Doctrine" involving joint operations by the Indian army, air force and navy; eight integrated battle groups with armour, artillery, infantry and combat air support.

For FY 2009, India’s defence spending will rise by close to 50 per cent to a colossal $32.7 billion (according to Jane’s Information Group). India is planning its biggest-ever arms purchases; $11 billion fighter jets, T-90S tanks, Scorpion submarines, Phalcon airborne warning and control system, multi-barrel rocket-launchers and an aircraft carrier. At $32.7 billion India’s defence spending translates into 2.7 per cent of GDP.

For FY 2009, Pakistan’s official defence spending is set at $4.3 billion while unofficial estimates go as high as $7.8 billion. If Pakistan were to match India’s rise we would have to spend more than five per cent of our GDP on defence. For the record, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Iraq, Somalia and Sudan are all — or have been — in a state of civil war. For the record, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia use to spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Soviet Union is no more. Czechoslovakia is no more.

The US and the Soviet Union fought a 50-year Cold War during which the Soviet Union stockpiled some 13,000 active nuclear warheads. In 1991, the US won without even firing a shot. The Soviet Union raced a race that it couldn’t win. The Soviet Union split into 15.

Over the past century, economic development has been all about intense trading. Pakistan has two population centres; central Punjab and Karachi. Central Punjab is a thousand kilometres from the nearest port. Between Karachi and central Punjab is a desert in the east and on west is an area that does not — and cannot — support population concentrations. To develop economically, we must trade. Trade we must. And, the only population concentration to trade with is on our east.

Time — and money — is on India’s side. Composite dialogue among civilians means little — if anything at all. What is needed is a strategic dialogue. How can India be persuaded to pull back its offensive formations? In return for what? How can we use our America leverage in our longer-term interest? We cannot win an arms’ race with India. We ought to race a race that we can win. We can continue to race a race that we are bound to lose. Or, begin a new race that we may be able to win — or at least not lose.



The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com


Should readers find farrukhs ideas compeling, please write to him, engage

 

[TOPGUN]

Oh yes i can see this coming for sure!

 

[bandit]

Oh yes i can see this coming for sure!

This Indian taliban is a hypothetical scenario....none of precursors for its existence are present....compare it to the pakistani taliban...it grew out of the radicalization of the society under Zia and then the glorification of jihad against the soviets and took decades...nothing like this exists in the Indian society....picking up a gun for any purpose is still not viewed favorably either by the Government or the common man.
Neways I'd like to listen to your logic behind that one liner.

 

[Nemesis]

The possibility of this happening is next to nil. Indian muslims arent radicalized to such an extent that they could be brainwashed by these bunch of jokers. This kind of thing can only happen when the minority population feels alienated. Despite what might have happened in the past, Indian muslims are not alienated from the mainstream.

.it grew out of the radicalization of the society under Zia and then the glorification of jihad against the soviets and took decades...nothing like this exists in the Indian society..

Exactly

 

[TOPGUN]

This Indian taliban is a hypothetical scenario....none of precursors for its existence are present....compare it to the pakistani taliban...it grew out of the radicalization of the society under Zia and then the glorification of jihad against the soviets and took decades...nothing like this exists in the Indian society....picking up a gun for any purpose is still not viewed favorably either by the Government or the common man.
Neways I'd like to listen to your logic behind that one liner.

I agree and disagree ! but if not a indian taliban i asurre you from the way things seem in the region these bastards are coming to you next reality is such my friend i hope all these bastards die soon

 

[AstanoshKhan]

^^^ means, they will take over Pakistan first and then will get into India. Right?

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Naxalites are the only entities that can be compared to Taliban, excluding the religious flavor of it. And they arise from poverty & lack of education etc. Some dimwits pushing thru with their sensationalist agenda just to gain more mileage are hardly a comparison with Taliban. It is delusional to think that some wave of Hindu forces will sweep across India, when neither the Government nor the people endorse their views.

 

[Razzaq]

Yes it's reality, an indian taliban group will appear soon.

 

[bandit]

I agree and disagree ! but if not a indian taliban i asurre you from the way things seem in the region these bastards are coming to you next reality is such my friend i hope all these bastards die soon

The taliban arent Indian if they come from another region.

i asurre you from the way things seem in the region these bastards are coming to you next :

For that the Pakistani taliban have a big hurdle in the form of IA and the LoC to cross, doing that in the no:s required for any meaningful insurgency is not possible so that probability is negated as well.

The society is the biggest factor in any eventuality, Indian society is not ready to be radicalized by religious zealots.