India's Strategic Loss In Afghanistan: A Geopolitical Shift

India's loss in Afghanistan can be attributed to a variety of factors, including strategic paralysis, incoherent policies, and a lack of coherent Afghanistan policy. India's reticence to become involved in Afghanistan's security and its vacillating Afghanistan policy have had repercussions in the region. India's inaction in the face of provocations, such as terrorist attacks on Indian embassies and consulates, has also been cited as a factor. The rise of the Taliban and the withdrawal of US troops have further complicated the situation, with India now facing the loss of a fellow democracy and a potential increase in militant activity from neighbouring Pakistan.

Lack of Coherent Afghanistan Policy

The U.S. government has struggled to develop a coherent strategy for its $145 billion reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. The U.S. has been "overwhelmed" in rebuilding a country that had already been battered by Soviet occupation, civil war, and the Taliban rule. The U.S. also didn't account for the challenges posed by insecurity, neither tailored efforts to the Afghan context nor understood the impact of programmes in sectors of health, education, rule of law, women's rights, infrastructure and security assistance, the report adds.

The U.S. has been criticised for its lack of a coherent strategy in Afghanistan, with the following issues identified:

• Shifting objectives that were not commensurate with the allocated resources.
• Imbalance of ends, ways, and means — the initial end of defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban expanded to include state-building and social engineering.
• Lack of commitment to a long-term strategy — the U.S. was distracted by the Iraq war, and failed to provide adequate resources to build a stable and secure Afghanistan.
• Poor implementation of the strategy to achieve objectives — the U.S. lacked a clear, cohesive, adequately resourced, long-term, post-Taliban strategy.
• Overconfidence in taking on a large-scale state-building effort without adequate resources and tools.
• Conflicting diplomatic and military policies — the U.S. diplomatic arm began peace negotiations with the Taliban, while the military arm was planning for a surge to combat them.
• Flawed assumptions and misjudgments — the U.S. incorrectly assumed that the Taliban could be a constructive force in Afghanistan and that Pakistan would end its support for the Taliban and other transnational terrorist groups.
• The tendency to pursue short and mid-term gains in lieu of long-term strategic success.
• Lack of proper understanding of the operational environment and the enemy — the U.S. did not know who to trust or who was friend or foe.
• Underestimating of the socio-economic, historical, and cultural features of the invaded state — the U.S. could not communicate in native Afghan languages, and did not have a grasp of the myriad of tribes and ethnicities, local authorities and allegiances.
• A desire to build Western-style institutions difficult to sustain in the host nation.
• A failure to apply lessons learned from other similar missions — the U.S. did not learn from its mistakes in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq.
• The inability to curb the destructive influences of regional actors — the U.S. incorrectly assumed that Pakistan would end its support for the Taliban and other transnational terrorist groups.

Strategic Paralysis in Delhi

India is currently facing a strategic paralysis in Delhi, with other strategic challenges growing as all other powers talk to the Taliban to secure their interests.

Lack of Coherent Afghanistan Policy

There is no coherent Afghanistan policy in India at the moment, with some justifying this as an exercise in strategic patience. However, what is really being witnessed is strategic paralysis. While the US and China engage in direct and high-level talks with the Taliban, India remains the only major power unable to do so.

Wait-and-Watch Approach

Even after the US-Taliban deal in February 2020, Indian strategists continued to ignore emerging realities, with senior political personalities in Kabul confirming that India maintains a "wait-and-watch" approach. This has resulted in India becoming a bystander in Afghanistan, unsure of its next steps.

Refusal to Engage with the Taliban

Some analysts argue that countries engaging with the Taliban will pay a price for not understanding the true nature of the group, suggesting that India should wait for contradictions to emerge and for the Taliban to become a "pariah". The current thinking in official Delhi seems to favour this approach, letting the "true nature" of the Taliban-Pakistan relationship surface while doing little to re-orient India's Afghan policy.

Lack of Realism in Afghan Policy

Despite external affairs minister S Jaishankar's statement that "realism should dictate policy", there has been no manifestation of such realism in India's Afghan policy thus far. Jaishankar also reiterated that India would "never accept any outcome decided by force", yet it is unclear if India is preparing for the possibility that force becomes the deciding factor in Afghanistan's future.

Lack of Open, Direct, and High-Level Contacts with the Taliban

It is inexplicable why India continues to deny itself open, direct, and high-level contacts with the Taliban, who are set to remain an important military and political force in Afghanistan. Behind-the-scenes meetings of intelligence officials with the Taliban cannot be a substitute for these open meetings.

Need for a Stable Afghanistan

India should seek a stable Afghanistan that is not hostile towards it and allow Afghans to decide the nature of their polity. With China seeking to integrate countries to India's west into its framework, Pakistan becoming almost a client-state of China, and China's relations with Central Asian states growing closer, India must focus its attention on not being left out of this changing geopolitical landscape.

Inaction in the Face of Provocations

India's policy in Afghanistan has been marked by vacillation and incoherence. India has been reluctant to play a greater role in the security of Afghanistan, even though it has been the largest regional provider of humanitarian and reconstruction aid to the country.

India's inaction in the face of provocations is curious. On the diplomatic front, India's actions can at best be described as tepid. India has helped neither itself nor the region with any proposal of its own.

For example, from Delhi's perspective, Iran holds the key to Afghanistan's reintegration into South Asia. Yet India has done little to persuade the United States to make an exception to its sanctions on Iran so that India could continue the highway from Delaram to Zaranj through Milak to Chabahar. This route would not only open Afghanistan up to trade but also the rest of Central Asia.

India's inaction in the face of provocations has been a feature of its policy in Afghanistan. India's reticence to become involved in Afghanistan's security has come at a high price. Even as talk of downsizing the American commitment to Afghanistan appeared in the US presidential election campaign in May 2008, the Indian embassy in Kabul was the target of a terrorist attack that left 58 people dead and 141 wounded.

In February 2010, terrorists levelled the Arya Guest House, killing nine Indian doctors. In August 2013, the Indian consulate in Jalalabad suffered a suicide bomb attack with 10 casualties, and the Indian consulate in Herat was attacked in May 2014, thankfully with no injuries.

Many of these attacks have been traced back to Pakistan and its notorious intelligence service, the ISI. The US retreat had not only encouraged the Taliban to launch their own Spring Offensive but also emboldened their patrons in Islamabad to try and dislodge Delhi's foothold in their backyard.

In fact, Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff from 2007 to 2013, had publicly called for minimizing India's role in Afghanistan in exchange for stability in Afghanistan.

Diplomatic Failure

India's Diplomatic Failure in Afghanistan

India's diplomatic failure in Afghanistan can be attributed to a combination of factors, including vacillating foreign policies, a lack of proactive engagement, and a hesitancy to commit militarily. These factors ultimately led to a loss of influence and leverage in the region.

Vacillating Foreign Policies

India's foreign policy towards Afghanistan has been characterised by inconsistency and indecision. After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, India was keen to foster a democratic system in Afghanistan and provided significant development assistance. However, India's support waned during the Afghan civil war and the Taliban government in the 1990s, and it refused to play a military role in Afghanistan despite requests from the United States. This vacillation sent mixed signals to both Afghanistan and the international community.

Lack of Proactive Engagement

India's engagement with Afghanistan has often been reactive rather than proactive. For example, India only recently established formal channels of communication with the Taliban and has had limited direct interactions with them. India's slow response to the changing situation on the ground, including the Taliban's growing influence, put it at a disadvantage compared to countries like Pakistan and China, who have actively courted the Taliban.

Hesitancy to Commit Militarily

Despite its concerns about security and the rise of militancy in the region, India has been reluctant to commit military forces to Afghanistan. While it has provided training and military equipment, it has stopped short of deploying boots on the ground. This hesitancy has been interpreted as a lack of commitment to regional security and has allowed other powers, like Pakistan, to increase their influence.

Loss of Influence and Leverage

India's diplomatic failures have resulted in a loss of influence and leverage in Afghanistan. With the Taliban's return to power, India finds itself marginalised and struggling to protect its interests and investments in the country. India's $3 billion in development assistance, which funded various infrastructure projects, is now at risk. Additionally, India's efforts to build transportation links bypassing Pakistan have been jeopardised.

Way Forward

To salvage its position, India must adopt a more proactive and pragmatic approach. It should seek to engage with the Taliban and other regional stakeholders, like China and Pakistan, to protect its interests. India should also focus on strengthening its soft power in the region, including through educational and cultural exchanges, to maintain goodwill among the Afghan people.

Security Concerns

India has a lot at stake in Afghanistan, and the Taliban takeover has raised security concerns for the country. Here are some of the security concerns:

• Terrorism and the rise of the Islamic State: The Taliban takeover has raised concerns about the resurgence of terrorism in the region. The Islamic State (IS) has already claimed responsibility for an attack on a Gurdwara in Kabul in March 2020, and there are fears that the group will continue to target religious minorities and carry out attacks in India.
• Pakistan's influence: Pakistan has long-standing ties with the Taliban and has provided support and refuge to militant groups operating in India. There are concerns that Pakistan will use Afghanistan as a base to expand its influence and carry out attacks on India.
• Threat to Indian investments: India has invested heavily in Afghanistan's infrastructure and development projects. There are concerns that the Taliban will not honour these investments and that Indian businesses operating in the country will suffer.
• Impact on regional stability: A stable Afghanistan is crucial for regional security. The Taliban takeover has already led to an increase in violence and instability in the region, and there are fears that this could escalate further.
• Impact on Indian citizens and interests: There are thousands of Indian citizens in Afghanistan, including those working on development projects, and students. The Taliban takeover has raised concerns about their safety and well-being.

Frequently asked questions