What's new

How long can India ignore the Taliban

Forget it India. Afghan Taliban have always supported Jihad in Indian Occupied Kashmir. They might not be anti-india, but they will never side with india over the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

And for those of you indians who think you can battle the Afghan Taliban, all I can say is :rofl: Is the Indian Army more powerful than the U.S. army :rofl:

indian army is not as powerful as U.S army but also our army is not the one which will go to Afghanistan. those afgan taliban are only somewhat effective in Afghanistan itself.
 
Agree fully with the bolded part , its all real -politik .

But dont see how Mullah Omar will even consider a dialogue with India , much influenced as he is by the ISI . Afghanistan is a land of tribes and many are anti-Taleban . Eg the hazaras . If a complete U.S withdrawal is the ultimate result --which seems quite unlikely. India should use all its assets and resources to ensure the Taleban do not get to dominate Afghanistan , like pre 2001 and a balance of power is maintained somehow.

Maybe something can be worked out with Russia and Iran . We already have a Tajikistan base and as per last reports we are sharing it with Russia .

Wouldn't mind if Russia became our full-fledged strategic partner in Central Asia.

As long as the Taleban is kept at bay, since ideologically, there is a negligible chance of them ever being swayed by India instead of Pakistan.


India and Taliban are like Oil and Water and the two shall never mix well. Period.
 
Forget it India. Afghan Taliban have always supported Jihad in Indian Occupied Kashmir. They might not be anti-india, but they will never side with india over the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

And for those of you indians who think you can battle the Afghan Taliban, all I can say is :rofl: Is the Indian Army more powerful than the U.S. army :rofl:

Man I tell you something, just try to understand with open mind. US not only lost in Afghan, but also they lost in Vietnam, Iraq including in too many African countries in Africa where US is fighting with the local militants with help of other UN’s member countries also and these wars are tougher for US than that of Iraq, Afghan or Vietnam. But, they won in Libya within months because of support of local groups and here, tell me even one example when a rogue Afghan military personnel opened fire on Indian army training them while there is almost every 2nd 3rd month a news that a rogue Afghan army opened fire on the NATO troops training them.

I mean, even Pakistan would win over Taliban, very high prossibility, if they declare Taliban their national enemy but Pakistani rulers never did that for what Western rulers have been urging for “do more” till now. Similarly, NATO just couldn’t be able to face the militants in Kashmir and in north eastern states of India while Indian military is now being withdrawn from these states, they are no more required there.

And about siding Afghan Taliban in between India and Pakistan, how many Indian movies you have seen till now? Afghans are just not inferior people like how Pakistanis think for them. Have you seen a super hit movie 'Khuda Gawah' of superstar Amitabh Bachchan came in late 80s, before start of conflicts in Indian Kashmir? Wait for just 3 -4 visits of Afghani Taliban rulers to India and let them get proper recognition in Delhi and see how these ‘great’/ ‘brave’/ ‘high moral back ground’/ ‘proud’ Afghani Taliban will start treating Pakistani rulers. Afghanistan is a very beautiful country, big land and small population, which has registered very high growth rate also during last over 10 years. they are well capable to perform better than many other regional economies. And I repeat, “conflicts are likely only among the neighbours/ relatives fighting for personnel interests within family/ or among the different stakeholders demanding more from each other.” The way friendship between India and Iran is a win win situation/ in any case, Afghanistan may also well emerge as a friend of India.
 
How long can India ignore the Taliban

It is time for India to open a dialogue track with the Quetta Shoora of the Taliban, which increasingly chafes at restraints and controls imposed upon it by Pakistan
by Ajai Shukla Business Standard, 14th June 11

After a decade of deft manoeuvring in Afghanistan with its successful aid policy, New Delhi has taken its eye off the ball. While Washington tries hard to nudge Mullah Omar into sharing power in Afghanistan – a political watershed in a decade-long war – our mandarins have chosen to pooh-pooh the process. Taking cover behind the Mullah Akhtar Mansour fiasco – when a “senior Taliban leader” was flown by the Royal Air Force from Pakistan to Kabul last November for peace talks, but turned out to be a money-seeking impostor – Indian officials dismiss any thought of opening their own track to the Taliban with the toss-off: “Who knows who we would end up talking to?”
But, as I discovered during a recent visit to Kabul, the dialogue with the Taliban is being seriously pursued and it is captivating everyone who matters: the insurgents, the Afghan polity and government, the Americans, the United Nations and practically every Afghan who has time left over from scrabbling together a livelihood
Lutfullah Mashal from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s key intelligence agency, told me that American negotiators have met Mullah Omar’s representatives, including Syed Taib Agha, a Taliban ambassador-at-large.
Besides Agha, the dialogue has also featured Qudratullah Jamal, formerly Mullah Omar’s minister for information and culture. Admittedly, Mullah Omar himself has remained invisible, but that is not necessarily suspicious; negotiating is something that Omar disdains. As Mashal says, “Nobody has seen Mullah Omar, nobody has talked to him, but his trusted people are talking.”
This dialogue, however, has created discord between Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shoora and Pakistan. Taliban sources lament that Pakistani pressure is forcing Omar to engage with the Americans. Without that, he would be little disposed to talk, being increasingly confident of outlasting the coalition forces in Afghanistan. Given the Quetta Shoora’s single-point agenda of forcing foreign forces out of Afghanistan, negotiating with the Americans is a humiliating climb-down. But Islamabad, with its feet held to the fire by Washington, has bluntly told Omar that dialogue is essential, if only to stave off US pressure. But this is a serious loss of face for the Taliban and confuses its rank and file.
Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban’s representative to Pakistan until Islamabad handed him over to Washington for an extended stay in Guantanamo Bay, is among those who best understand the Taliban’s complex relationship with Pakistan. Zaeef points to the growing contradiction between the Taliban’s uncompromising rejection of foreign occupation on the one hand; and on the other, Islamabad’s weak-kneed acceptance of American drone attacks and Special Forces operations on its territory. Pakistan has also arrested, and handed over to America, dozens of senior Taliban leaders over the last decade. A proud Pashtun like Omar resents being coerced into dialogue by what he considers a duplicitous and craven government.
Says another Talib: “We are angrier today at Pakistan than America. Pakistan is playing a double game, telling the Muslims that we are looking after your interests … but actually they are working for America. Thousands of Taliban are in jails in Pakistan even today.”
AfPak watchers know that Taliban-Pakistan relations were hardly smooth when Omar called the shots in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Now, however, uneasy coexistence is giving way to deep bitterness within the Taliban.
This widening fault line provides South Block an opportunity to transform its traditional power calculus in the AfPak region, which unquestioningly lumps Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shoora with the ISI-military combine. There seems little recognition of Mullah Omar’s impending collision with Islamabad; nor that “the Taliban” that the ISI mobilises against Indians in Afghanistan belong to the Haqqani network, which Pakistan maintains far more lovingly than the Quetta Shoora. Divide and rule is standard ISI practice; during the anti-Soviet jihad, it had presided over seven Afghan mujahideen factions, playing one against the other. Today, the ISI effectively maintains two Afghan Taliban by keeping the Haqqani network functionally and financially autonomous from the Quetta Shoora. But, despite the fear that the Haqqani network generates with its suicide strikes and Al Qaeda linkages, Mullah Omar remains the spiritual and symbolic leader of the Taliban, the Amir-ul-Momineen (Commander of the Faithful). With his uncomplicated agenda (freeing Afghanistan of foreigners); his straightforward methods (gun-toting insurgency rather than suicide bombings); and his growing disenchantment with Pakistan, he represents a real opportunity for an Indian overture.
But ideology invariably trumps realism within the Indian establishment; anyone who deals with the ISI is surely the enemy! Abdul Hakim Mujahid, a former senior Talib official, now deputy head of the High Peace Council, provides the obvious context. “The Taliban are in the battlefield against the world’s greatest power, which heads of a coalition of 48 countries. They will take the support of anyone who could support them … Pakistan; the Indian government; or the Iranian or Chinese government. This is the nature of the battlefield.”
New Delhi’s dialogue with Mullah Omar will not be easy. Omar knows that India supported the hated Afghan communists; then the Soviet Union invaders; then the mujahideen factions that battled the Taliban; and then the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Furthermore, the fissures between Pakistan and the Taliban may not turn out wide enough to exploit. But as South Block prepares for a post-2014 AfPak, it would be a strategic blunder to not even have tried to open communications with a major player in the Great Game.


many Indians here are just kids and other nationals here are also less competent on the current political activities of world. just to tell you, right now India is on the target of the terrorism being organized by MI6/CIA in India. India and Pakistan came on the position of war in late 2008 while we finally found the main handler of Mumbai attack was a CIA's double agent, David Headily. Maoist killed 20 military personal in India in April 2012 and within weeks, 10 french nationals were deported for having link with those Moist. Italian marines intentionally killed our two fishermen to create political disputes between India and West. India is on the target from West by all means, terrorist attacks, funding Maoists, including how US have infused heavy money to buy our every system of India by buying corrupt politicians/officials of our country :sniper:. US is as cruel to drop bomb bombs on the residential areas of Afghan in chase of just 1-2 Taliban fighters, and similarly they are with other developing countries like India.........

on the other hand, Taliban is now no more as backward as they were in 80s and 90s. now Taliban representatives are very fluent in english and put their stand with full political attitude. even if Taliban comes in power in Afghan, they will hardly impose Sharia Laws in Afghan, nothing else will be changed there. as, even if Al Qaeda still exists in Afghan then its NATO who failed there while fighting in Afghan by all means, including dropping bombs on the civilians in hunt of just 1-2? India doesnt believe anymore that Taliban rule will now infuse militants in Kashmir as it happened in 90s, as they are simply not as backward as they were in 80s and 90s. but the Afghan ruled by NATO's men will give a military base to NATO there which will keep our allies like Iran and other Central Asian nations on gun point which we dont want :sniper:. India wants a trade route to Central Asia and ready to pay for transit fee and only Taliban is the power there who may help us get our interests done. :agree:

at the same time we are more worried for the way US's men are buying our corrupt political/ government's officials which has threatened our sovereignty. they first have hands in different bomb blasts in India in 2008 till Mumbai Attack through IM, as, even if attackers of Mumbai attack were hired from Pakistan, their handler was David Headley who was found a double agent of CIA/MI6. and at the same time they have imposed a question on the State of India, how long will it stand as it is if one day US will have bought its all the top officers/politicians? :angry: do they want to use India as an arm of Christianity against Islam as Taliban does have good support from the civilians of Muslim nations? :undecided:

we want someone who may engage US/West as much that we may get enough time for the progress of our nation. we now want Taliban, and we dont want NATO's men like H Karzai in Afghan anymore. also, Taliban may do our few works in Australia which is located in Asia, as, if we may drop just 20,000 Talibanis there by our military ships, they may control over there................. India now wants Taliban :meeting:
 
Taliban 'poised to retake Afghanistan' after NATO pullout

KABUL: A secret U.S. military report says that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control over Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw from the country, The Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Lt Col Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), confirmed the document's existence but said it was not a strategic assessment of operations.

"The classified document in question is a compilation of Taliban detainee opinions. It's not an analysis, nor is it meant to be considered an analysis," he said.

Nevertheless, it could be interpreted as a damning assessment of the war, now dragging into its eleventh year and aimed at blocking a Taliban return to power, or possibly an admission of defeat.

It could also reinforce the view of Taliban hardliners that the group should not negotiate peace with the United States and President Hamid Karzai's unpopular government while in a position of strength.

The document cited by Britain's The Times said that Pakistan's powerful security agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was assisting the Taliban in directing attacks against foreign forces, a charge often denied by Islamabad.

The allegations drew a strong response from Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit. "This is frivolous, to put it mildly," he said. "We are committed to non-interference in Afghanistan."

The Times said the "highly classified" report was put together by the U.S. military at Bagram air base in Afghanistan for top NATO officers last month. The BBC also carried a report on the leaked document.

Large swathes of Afghanistan have already been handed back to Afghan security forces, with the last foreign combat troops due to leave by the end of 2014.

But many Afghans doubt their army, security forces or police will be able to take firm control of one of the world's most unstable countries once foreign combat troops leave.

The U.S. embassy in Kabul declined to comment on the report. The accusations will likely further strain ties between Western powers and Islamabad, which has long denied backing militant groups seeking to topple the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar was visiting Kabul on Wednesday on a mission to repair strained diplomatic ties with Afghanistan's government and to meet Karzai to discuss possible peace talks with the Taliban.


TURBULENT HISTORY

Pakistan is currently reviewing ties with the United States which have suffered a series of setbacks since a unilateral U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil in May last year humiliated Pakistan's powerful generals.

A Nov. 26 cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers deepened the crisis.

Pakistan is seen as critical to U.S. efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, a feat one foreign power after another has failed to accomplish over the country's turbulent history.

Islamabad has resisted U.S. pressure to go after insurgent groups like the Taliban and the Haqqani network, and argues Washington's approach overlooks complex realities on the ground.

"They (the Taliban) don't need any backing. Everybody knows that after 10 years, they (NATO) have not been able to control a single province in Afghanistan because of the wrong policies they have been following," Pakistani Senator Tariq Azim, a member of the Senate's Defence Committee, told Reuters.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said: "We have long been concerned about ties between elements of the ISI and some extremist networks."

Little said U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "has also been clear that he believes that the safe havens in Pakistan remain a serious problem and need to be addressed by Pakistani authorities".

The document's findings were based on interrogations of more than 4,000 Taliban and al Qaeda detainees, the Times said, adding that it identified only few individual insurgents.

A State Department spokesman and Britain's Foreign Office both declined comment on the report.

Despite the presence of about 100,000 foreign troops, violence in Afghanistan is at its worst since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in 2001, according to the United Nations.

The Taliban announced this month they would open a political office in the Qatari capital Doha to support possible peace talks with the United States.

But there has also been talk of efforts to hold separate talks in Saudi Arabia because Karzai fears his government could be sidelined by U.S. talks with the Taliban.

The report could boost the Taliban's confidence and make its leaders less willing to make concessions on key U.S. demands for a ceasefire and for the insurgency to renounce violence and break all ties to al Qaeda.

Hoping to gain credibility with a population still haunted by memories of the Taliban's harsh rule from 1996-2001, the group has tried to improve its image as its fighters battle NATO and Afghan forces.

The Times said the document suggested the Taliban were gaining in popularity partly because the austere Islamist movement was becoming more tolerant.

"It remains to be seen whether a revitalised, more progressive Taliban will endure if they continue to gain power and popularity," it quoted the report as saying.

"Regardless, at least within the Taliban, the refurbished image is already having a positive effect on morale.

Taliban 'poised to retake Afghanistan' after NATO pullout - Page2 - The Economic Times
 
JSOC is itching to go into Quetta and kill Omar and his commanders. When it happens, there wont be many people left to negotiate with.
 
ok lets get thing clear...
no militant group supports jihad in kashmir..or you would have seen sucide bomb blasts or home made bombs atleast, especially the taliban dont..!!!

also india can do a favour by decreasing troops on barder and tus allowing pak army to deploy more troops on western boarders
 
ok lets get thing clear...
no militant group supports jihad in kashmir..or you would have seen sucide bomb blasts or home made bombs atleast, especially the taliban dont..!!!

also india can do a favour by decreasing troops on barder and tus allowing pak army to deploy more troops on western boarders

this i have also said many times. that is, leave Siachen matter on side for a while and make an agreement with Pakistan to reduce military number by at least 50% by next 3-4 years. as, why would Pakistan keep 450,000 active military personnel on Indian border and India in response keep 600,000 troops on the same border for no reason? these number must be reduced by upto 50% and more money would be spent to have credible arms and safety for the military personnel who play with their life for security of their home people. in comparison, Australia type big country has only 50,000 active military personnel while Pakistan 650,000 and India 1,400,000 :hitwall:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Australia

i would also propose to reduce number of aircrafts targeting Pakistan by upto 50% by next 3-4 years. as, why would $36bn defense budget of India would be spent to target $6bn defence budget of Pakistan for just no reason? I would advice India to spend more on navy to counter the threat this sub-continent may face from rest of the world. India now needs a stronger navy and less army personnel. we now need more high tech aircrafts to face external threats and we would remove old arms which these two neighbors keep on each others but they lack sufficient number of high tech arms to fight with rest of the world :hitwall:
 
this i have also said many times. that is, leave Siachen matter on side for a while and make an agreement with Pakistan to reduce military number by at least 50% by next 3-4 years. as, why would Pakistan keep 450,000 active military personnel on Indian border and India in response keep 600,000 troops on the same border for no reason? these number must be reduced by upto 50% and more money would be spent to have credible arms and safety for the military personnel who play with their life for security of their home people. in comparison, Australia type big country has only 50,000 active military personnel while Pakistan 650,000 and India 1,400,000 :hitwall:
Military Strength of Australia

i would also propose to reduce number of aircrafts targeting Pakistan by upto 50% by next 3-4 years. as, why would $36bn defense budget of India would be spent to target $6bn defence budget of Pakistan for just no reason? I would advice India to spend more on navy to counter the threat this sub-continent may face from rest of the world. India now needs a stronger navy and less army personnel. we now need more high tech aircrafts to face external threats and we would remove old arms which these two neighbors keep on each others but they lack sufficient number of high tech arms to fight with rest of the world :hitwall:

you got it upside down..pakistanis literally beg the indian to reduce the troops but they always refuse..
and history shows us as well as attitude that if we do it unilaterally they will make some territorial advancements!!
as they did it in siachen!!

frankly dont u read news..how many times we ask to withdraw bilaterally and they refuse!!!!!

P.S
india did attacked in 71 for no reason or benefit..
any sane analyst will say the moment they have chance. they will take northern areas from pakistan.............
 
you got it upside down..pakistanis literally beg the indian to reduce the troops but they always refuse..
and history shows us as well as attitude that if we do it unilaterally they will make some territorial advancements!!
as they did it in siachen!!

frankly dont u read news..how many times we ask to withdraw bilaterally and they refuse!!!!!

P.S
india did attacked in 71 for no reason or benefit..
any sane analyst will say the moment they have chance. they will take northern areas from pakistan.............

WTF!! what do you want us to do about the BD refugees that were entering India. Secondly we have already seen what you guys did with kargil, even after the Simla agreement which was signed in 72. You guys were the one who attacked us after 71 and lost kargil and then wonder why India doesn't trust you. Why would India scale down its troops and let Pakistan have a chance in taking it.
 
Out of India and Pakistan...some one is destined to be doomed in this rivallary game...Just praying god...It should not happen...
 
Forget it India. Afghan Taliban have always supported Jihad in Indian Occupied Kashmir. They might not be anti-india, but they will never side with india over the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

And for those of you indians who think you can battle the Afghan Taliban, all I can say is :rofl: Is the Indian Army more powerful than the U.S. army :rofl:

So basically , Pakistan army will always be at war with Taliban , because Pakistan army is less powerful than the US army.
 
WTF!! what do you want us to do about the BD refugees that were entering India. Secondly we have already seen what you guys did with kargil, even after the Simla agreement which was signed in 72. You guys were the one who attacked us after 71 and lost kargil and then wonder why India doesn't trust you. Why would India scale down its troops and let Pakistan have a chance in taking it.
so few refuges will make u a attack country..werid..
why dont attack bangladesh now..arent refuges there now..?

So basically , Pakistan army will always be at war with Taliban , because Pakistan army is less powerful than the US army.
nope..once US wthdraws they will go to afgn for there fighting
 
WTF!! what do you want us to do about the BD refugees that were entering India. Secondly we have already seen what you guys did with kargil, even after the Simla agreement which was signed in 72. You guys were the one who attacked us after 71 and lost kargil and then wonder why India doesn't trust you. Why would India scale down its troops and let Pakistan have a chance in taking it.

look, here we want to discuss, why would India have 600,000 active military on Pakistan border and Pakistan in response 450,000? leave Siachen matter on side for next 5-6 years, but first you would try to find out the reason behind this much gathering of military personnel on Indo-Pak border? you got bad experience on Kargil and you are worried that Siachen can also be occupied if you leave it, there is a point. but why can't you reduce the number on Siachen at least by 50% if Pakistan is now willing to even withdraw its all the troops from there? :undecided:

I mean, in place of 126, you would by 200 Rafale of F4 version, with 74 for IAC-1 and IAC-2 also, as it is one of the top gun of world and after having its full production line, it will be cheaper to buy also. but whats the reason of paying salary/training/arms etc for 300,000 addition troops on Pakistan border if Pakistan may get ready to withdraw atleast half of their 450,000 active troops deployed on Indo-Pak border? I mean, if you spend $20bil on Army only, out of total $36bil defense budget, to maintain 1.4mil active troops and if you may save even $3bil yearly by reducing its number by 300,000 on Pak border then you will have $1bn every year to buy 10 Rafael more every year from 2015 onward, you will have $500mil more to spend for having 50,000 more marines in your Navy which will double the number of marines you have, you will have $1bn more in your pocket every year to buy one Akula-2 type nuclear submarine every year, and $500mil more to have to buy one more frigate/destroyer every year :meeting:

you have to get to know that you are spending additional $3bil on Pakistan border for just no reason, if Pakistan may also get agreed to help you by reducing their number by 50%. if both India and Pakistan may reduce their army personnel number by 50% till 2015, then first Pakistan will be able to save upto $2bil every year and at the same time for India, it will then translate in having 50,000 additional Naval military personnel in Indian Navy, 10 more Rafale F4 type aircraft in addition to the current contract from 2015 onward for IAC-1 and IAC-2, with one more Akula-2 type submarine and one frigate or destroyer more every year in your navy. this will then translate Indian Navy into a true Blue Water Navy by 2025 with 3 aircraft carriers, 30 new submarines, 30+30 new frigates and destroyers, if we add already planned modernization of Indian Navy also :cheers:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom