My enemy’s enemy

Author - Avinash Paliwal

Publisher - HarperCollins, Rs 699

KUMAR CHELLAPPAN examines India-Afghanistan relationship in light of Avinash Paliwal’s new book, My Enemy's Enemy

Ancient India sans modern gadgets like the Internet, satellite phones or I-pads had the best diplomats. Arthasasthra, the teachings of Kautilya (who was known more by the popular name Chanakya) was a compilation of the art of diplomacy, governance, statesmanship and administration. Modern India does not follow the guidelines of Kautilya and hence it is forced to pay a high price. Ramayana, one of the great Indian epics, authored by Sage Valmiki, is also a compendium of diplomacy and statesmanship. There are lot of things to learn from how Lord Rama, the main protagonist, succeeded in forging friendship with kings of other provinces and managed to defeat the unassailable Ravana, the demon king of Sri Lanka. All his friends were in a for a surprise when the Lord anointed Vibhishana, the younger brother of the slain Ravana, as the ruler of Sri Lanka after the great war.

Lord Rama could have annexed the island nation and merged it with his own kingdom. But he chose Vibhishana to succeed Ravana. People of Sri Lanka were moved by this action of the Lord, who instead of appointing one of his loyalists chose Vibhishana, a native of the island nation itself. Through this noble gesture the Lord ensured that the ruler and the citizens of Sri Lanka were always indebted to him as well his subjects. Vibhishana did not let Lord Rama down. It turned out to be that the descendants of Lord Rama himself played the spoilsport in turning India-Sri Lanka ties sour.

India is a nation besieged with problems and irritants by most of its neighbours. Bhutan may be the only neighbouring State which does not have any major issues with India. Many believe that Pakistan and China have been working together to destroy and demolish India. Countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Male are all constantly at loggerheads with India. Why it is like this? How did Pakistan, China and Bangladesh manage to ‘encroach’ into Indian territories through ‘silent operations’?

Is it the incapability of our politicians and diplomats? China annexed Aksai Chin ( 37,244 sq km of Indian area), which is equivalent to the size of Kerala ( 38,863 sq km) in the 1962 war and since then the strategic region is being portrayed as a part of China. India is yet to see diplomats of the calibre of Henry Kissinger or Condoleezza Rice who simply bulldozed any kind of opposition from any sources to get the US what it wanted. It is time India followed the policy pursued by the USA to check the Soviet influence in the 1950s and 1960s. The country had an unofficial secretary of state for unfriendly countries!. Allen Dulles, the then CIA chief used to be described as the secretary of state for unfriendly countries while his brother John Foster Dulles was the official Secretary of State during Eisenhower’s tenure.

But, India is a unique country and its problems too are unique. When the Centre has to formulate a policy on Sri Lanka, it has to take into account the sentiments of the people of Tamil Nadu because of the large percentage of Tamil population in the island nation. Many a times the government has to do a tight rope walking to keep all stakeholders in good humour. The limitations of our diplomats and foreign policy experts can be understood by reading “My Enemy’s Enemy — India In Afghanistan From the Soviet Invasion to the US Withdrawal” authored by Avinash Paliwal. This young scholar should be congratulated for the effort he has taken to interview hundreds of experts (both famous as well as unsung ones) who had played significant roles in shaping India’s Afghan policy. The book will surely serve as a background material for those who are interested in studying the Afghanistan conundrum.

Paliwal refers to “Kabuliwallah”, the short story authored by Rabindranath Tagore to drive home the significance of India’s ties with Afghanistan. But all Afghanis are not like Rahmud, the protagonist in Tagore’s story.

Why Afghanistan is important to India is the 100 odd kilometres of the common boundary which had existed between the two countries before the partition of 1947. Immediately after the partition, the Pakistan Army masquerading as tribals invaded Kashmir and usurped the region of the State which had a common boundary with Afghanistan.

“At the time of partition, the State (Kashmir) had important international boundaries. To the east was Tibet, to the north-east lay the Sinkiang province, of China, and to the north-east was Afghanistan. A tongue of Afghanistan territory, Wakhan, is north of Gilgit, and is west of the main route from Gilgit to Kashgar over the Mintaka Pass. A few miles beyond lies Russian Turkestan,” writes VP Menon in his acclaimed work “Integration of Indian States” (Orient Longman, 1956, page 392).

This is the crux of the matter. Had Kashmir in its entirety been with India, the country would have got a direct access to Central Asian republics rich in oil, natural gas and other resources. A direct link between India and these republics would have changed the geo-political landscape of the sub-continent, Asia and even the World. These land-locked republics would have got direct access through India to the Indian Ocean and the fall out would have been unbelievable.

It was to prevent this development that the British drew the Durand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Radcliffe Line between India and Pakistan. One has to fully comprehend the geographical and political maps of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan before venturing out to find out an amicable solution for a peaceful and mutually beneficial co-existence of these countries “At the time of partition, the State (Kashmir) had important international boundaries. To the east was Tibet, to the north-east lay the Sinkiang province, of China, and to the north-east was Afghanistan. A tongue of Afghanistan territory, Wakhan, is north of Gilgit, and is west of the main route from Gilgit to Kashgar over the Mintaka Pass. A few miles beyond lies Russian Turkestan,” writes VP Menon in his acclaimed work “Integration of Indian States” (Orient Longman, 1956, page 392).

In modern times, it is believed by some that Afghanistan has not really been a friend to India and had always sided with Pakistan vis-à-vis Kashmir. The news coming out of the deliberations of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) is sufficient to prove the stance of Afghanistan. The author claims that in India there are two groups , conciliators and partisans, who are engaged in a tug of war over the kind of approach India should have with Afghanistan. The conciliators want India to have good relations with whoever is in power in Afghanistan. They want India to engage with Taliban and even with Pro-Pakistan groups in that country. The partisans are of the view that India should establish good ties with all anti-Pakistan groups and also strive hard to weaken the pro-Pakistani sections in Afghanistan.“Partisans and conciliators cut across the bureaucratic, diplomatic, and political spectrum of India.” writes the author. He has also quoted King Zahir Shah giving an assurance to the then President Ayub Khan, “I as a King give you an assurance, I as a Muslim give you an assurance, I as an Afghan give you an assurance, that we are with you and we will never betray you”.

The helplessness of the modern Indian State in dealing with Afghanistan came out in the open in December 1999 when flight no 814 of the Indian Airlines was hijacked from Kathmandu to Kandahar. Even as the then Indian government led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was engaged in a mission to get the passengers safely released from the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, New Delhi saw a high pitch drama. All TV news channels beamed the live pictures of a CPI(M) leader leading a procession to the official residence of the Prime Minister demanding the immediate release of the hostages as if the Government of India alone was responsible for the hijacking! This aggravated the situation and the Government had to fall in line to the demands put forward by the hijackers. The subversion came from within.

There are forces in India itself who try to subvert any move by the government to normalise relations with neighbouring countries. The best effort by a Prime Minister in sorting out India’s issues with Pakistan came from Narendra Modi who paid a surprise and unscheduled visit to Pakistan on his way back from Afghanistan in December 2015. Though the bonhomie was short lived as Pakistani sponsored terrorists attacked the Pathankot camp of the IAF within days of Modi’s visit to Lahore, it became clear to the outside world that there are groups in the sub continent itself which do not like eternal peace in the region.

Even as I was struggling with the book My Enemy’s Enemy, a news item that appeared in The Pioneer dated December 4, 2017, made interesting reading. Vineeta Pandey, my colleague, has written an exclusive report “India Simplifying Foreign Policy for Commoners”, which states that ministry of external affairs is incorporating the common man into the formulation of the country’s foreign policy. That’s a fantastic piece of information because India’s foreign policy would come out from the drawing rooms of the elite section of the society to the domain of the common man.

The latest news is that the present government in Afghanistan is willing to cooperate with the Taliban. Modernity and civilization are terms alien to Taliban. And it feels like we are back to square one. But one can only hope that this goes well.

The views expressed are the reviewer’s own.

Of enemies twice removed