The Indian role in Afghanistan (new title)

[Dayuhan]

The same as it was in the earlier phase of the Taliban.

So I gather... but what exactly was it then, and what exactly is it now? Vague reference to unspecific threats are unhelpful: what exactly do Indian strategists fear would happen to India if the US withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban took over again?

From the article you cited:

Although actively discouraging India from assuming a higher profile in Afghanistan, for fear of offending Pakistan, the United States has failed to persuade Pakistan into taking Indian concerns regarding terrorism from Pakistani soil more seriously. So long as Afghan territory is not being used to launch attacks onto U.S. soil, the United States may have no vital interest in
determining who actually governs in Afghanistan, but it is important to India. If Washington were to abandon the goals of establishing a functioning Afghan state and seeing a moderate Pakistan emerge, that would put greater pressure on Indian security.

I understand the concern over terrorism emanating from Pakistan, but what has that to do with Afghanistan? How would Pakistan-based terrorists pose a greater threat if Afghanistan were under Taliban control? Would that threat be severe and immediate enough to justify the enormous expense, and the potential for war with Pakistan, implicit in an Indian attempt to deny Afghanistan to the Taliban?

I'm not sure "the goals of establishing a functioning Afghan state and seeing a moderate Pakistan emerge" really mean much, since neither the US nor India has the capacity to achieve those goals.

One cannot for sure state that India will succeed where the USSR and USA failed.

But one thing is for sure, the Indian approach will not be like on the lines of the missionaries of yore which the US and the USSR adopted of trying to 'bring civilisation to the savages'!

Can't discuss success and failure until you know what the goal is. What would be the purpose of an Indian operation in Afghanistan, other than denying Pakistani or Taliban control. We know what India doesn't want, but what would they try to install in its place?

Example of Indian manner of approach.

India is Afghanistan's fifth-largest bilateral donor and is involved in an array of projects in the country. It is constructing roads and setting up power transmission lines, sinking tube wells and building schools, hospitals and public toilets. It is constructing the Afghan parliament building and is engaged in repair and construction of the Salma dam project in Herat province. It has gifted Afghanistan with buses and is providing food assistance. It has trained civil servants and police and is extending scholarships to Afghan students to study in India.

It is important that one gives assistance based on what the Afghans want and not what Think Tanks abroad feel what should be done for Afghanistan.

Using aid projects and scholarships as bribes is actually a very American approach. It's not universally successful.

Further, India has an advantage that the Americans and the Russians did not have. There are and were many Indians in Afghanistan and there are and were many Afghans in India. Therefore, the interactivity would be smoother.

If y'all want to take the job over, I say go for it. Not like there's anything in it for us. I suspect you might find it less congenial and more complicated than you seem to expect!

Before entering Afghanistan, India would surely enter into agreements with other interested powers and countries since it would not make sense to be the sole knight in shining armour!

No country will go into Afghanistan except to advance their own interests... would those interests be compatible with India's? Would their approaches be compatible with India"s? You know what they say about too many cooks spoiling the soup... and I don't think too many powers would want to be involved in Afghanistan in any event. It's not the sort of place people want to get involved, and there's not much there that anyone wants.

India can handle jihadis, but the nub is can the West take on another 9/11?

The main target of jihadis will not be India, it will always be the US and the West more so, after the knocking of their larger than life icon, OBL.

Of course, but that's of limited relevance to Afghanistan. The US presence in Afghanistan is a recruiting tool and a propaganda weapon for the jihadis, and really doesn't constrain them that much. Another 9/11 is as likely to be planned in Yemen or the Netherlands as on the Af/Pak frontier.

Any discussion of potential "day after" involvement by India in Afghanistan would have to involve specific assessment of the following, all of which were markedly absent from the discussion linked to:

1. What would be the goal? What end state would India seek to achieve in Afghanistan, and by what means and with what probability of success?

2. What would be the costs and risks? Given that supply of forces in Afghanistan would require use of Pakistani airspace (yeah, right) or a very complex arrangement with the Iranians, whose goals may be quite different from India's, there's a lot of potential for trouble, up to and including the possibility of war with Pakistan.

3. What would be the benefits? Exactly what would India gain, and exactly what threat would be averted?

The IPI was about to fructify thanks to the effort of the then Petroleum Minister, Mani Shakar Aiyer, who has a very independent way of looking at issues and is also left wing.

He was removed under US pressure (it was believed then and now confirmed by Wikileaks) and replaced by a pro very US chap, Murli Deora and so the IPI is in the doldrums, and TAPI is in the news (Apr 2010 meeting).

Also from the article you cited:

sections of the Indian government have suggested that India’s participation in the gas pipeline deal might not be strategically advantageous to India, given the very low quantity (30 million standard cubic meters per day) of gas involved. Moreover, it appears that the Iranian gas is not the lowest-priced option for India today.

This also struck me, in the same piece:

The Indian strategic community has never been in favor of the pipeline proposal anyway, as in their opinion, it gives Pakistan too much leverage over India’s energy security.

That concern would of course also apply to TAPI... given the state of relations between India and Pakistan there would have to be significant risk to India in embracing any pipeline project that would have to pass through Pakistan, and given the instability and potential for security problems in both Iran and Afghanistan, neither would be a desirable source or conduit for energy supplies.

The article also has a good discussion of how Indian-Iranian relations are constrained not only by American dislike for Iran, but with India's rapidly evolving ties with the GCC, which are very real (as opposed to the rather hypothetical nature of discussions of projects involving Iran and Afghanistan) and involve very large energy and investment deals. he GCC and the Iranians are of course not the best of friends.