Why not,the PLO,Hamas,IRA,ETA,Farc and some others did soften up,why wouldnt the Taliban?
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan : News & Discussions
- Thread starter Butter Chicken
- Start date
That's hilarious. Which Taliban are to desperate to talk to now? The good ones or the bad ones?
What happened to "we don"t talk to terrorists" mantra? Turned out to be another fart?
Quite rich coming from you after what you have done to the innocent Kashmiris last year. If that is not state sponsored terrorism then what is?
You have been killing your own people throughout your modern history. IAF bombed Nagaland and killed many and Indira killed thousands of fasting saints in Delhi (7/11/1966).
Kashmir too has lost thousands of civilians by attrocities.
That's hilarious. Which Taliban are to desperate to talk to now? The good ones or the bad ones?
What happened to "we don"t talk to terrorists" mantra? Turned out to be another fart?
Quite rich coming from you after what you have done to the innocent Kashmiris last year. If that is not state sponsored terrorism then what is?
You have been killing your own people throughout your modern history. IAF bombed Nagaland and killed many and Indira killed thousands of fasting saints in Delhi (7/11/1966).
Kashmir too has lost thousands of civilians by attrocities.
Innocent people who take up arms or go against the State are not innocent.
Of course, you lot believe in backing jihadis. There is no need to even prove the concept of Taliban Khan's reconciliation effort. Mainstreaming jihadis like Hafeez Saeed is a pass time of the Pakistani State. The only way to quell this an ensure the defeat of the jihadis is the systematic dismemberment of the Pakistani State to a rump Punjab.
Farc didnt have a position of strength?
It used to control many rural parts of Colombia,economic(drug trade) and military.
I am quite taken aback by the Indian Army chiefs comment to get into negotiations with the Taliban. Getting in negotiations with Taliban not only abandons India's position on taliban but also provide legitimacy to one of the most heinous organisations in the history of mankind. Reconciliation with taliban is an unfortunate afghan government business if anything we need to strengthen the current dispensation in kabul as well as aid the original Massoud team members who have been marginalized by the coalition forces, (Dr Abdullah, Amrullah Saleh) and especially AZM. I see AZM and Saleh to be the next gen leaders who can put the systems in place to keep talban at bay.
Encouraging Northern alliance to reconcile with taliban is akin to Modi opening talks with lashkar e taibba, and an army chief encouraging it; it's absolutely shameful and Pakistanis ( @Neo @safriz etc.) are absolutely right to mock this sorry state of Indian foreign policy. These are the same scums which bombed, killed and maimed Indians and afghans at our consulates and facilitated the hijackers of IC814.
@nair @Ashwin @Avi @nair @Bharath @_Anonymous_ @randomradio @Parthu @suryakiran
Encouraging Northern alliance to reconcile with taliban is akin to Modi opening talks with lashkar e taibba, and an army chief encouraging it; it's absolutely shameful and Pakistanis ( @Neo @safriz etc.) are absolutely right to mock this sorry state of Indian foreign policy. These are the same scums which bombed, killed and maimed Indians and afghans at our consulates and facilitated the hijackers of IC814.
@nair @Ashwin @Avi @nair @Bharath @_Anonymous_ @randomradio @Parthu @suryakiran
i am against this as well. I suppose that may be coming from the army chief - is that the stance of the govt too though?
Well it's unprecedented, we are not Pakistan, Army chiefs, air force chiefs and naval chiefs do not showcase opinions on foreign policy
this could be the doval speak for the pakistanis to say "we can pay the taliban more than you do and use them against you" - but make it come from non-political players to make it easy to disown later as "not official indian govt. stance"
Deosn't work that way, American could have paid them much higher. It did not work.
It's not just us (Pakistani's) Sir, the oposition and the Kashmiri parties too are questioning this move;
- 09 anuary 2019
Rawat said there should be talks with the Taliban to bring peace in Afghanistan, but asserted that the engagement must be without any preconditions.
Former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti on Wednesday wondered why the Centre was not initiating a dialogue with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir if Army chief General Bipin Rawat could bat for holding talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"We bat for talks with taliban, autonomy for Tibet & Tamil areas of Sri Lanka yet we are unwilling to look at engagement or political initiatives in J&K. Why is our policy all about "do as we say, don't do as we do"? Engagement for Taliban, Operation All-Out for Kashmir," Abdullah tweeted.
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=nav&utm_campaign=amp
If Ready To Talk With Taliban, Why Not Kashmiri Separatists: Omar, Mehbooba React To Army Chief's Statement
Rawat said there should be talks with the Taliban to bring peace in Afghanistan, but asserted that the engagement must be without any preconditions.
Former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti on Wednesday wondered why the Centre was not initiating a dialogue with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir if Army chief General Bipin Rawat could bat for holding talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"We bat for talks with taliban, autonomy for Tibet & Tamil areas of Sri Lanka yet we are unwilling to look at engagement or political initiatives in J&K. Why is our policy all about "do as we say, don't do as we do"? Engagement for Taliban, Operation All-Out for Kashmir," Abdullah tweeted.
"If the Army Chief can advocate for talks with (the) Taliban then why different standards when it comes to our own people?" Mehbooba asked in a tweet.
I'd look upon this as follows -
The Army Chief has most definitely been prompted by the powers that be. He can't have made such a statement unilaterally. The objective may have been to test the Waters domestically but more importantly, internationally.
The intention behind it would have been that India is pretty much isolated in it's opposition. Our biggest advantage / disadvantage is that we don't share a border with Afghanistan. Our leverage, therefore, is limited. Our previous allies in Afghanistan like Russia & Iran are now actively engaging the Taliban. Javad Zarif has been extremely candid and gone on record after his deliberations with the Indian foreign policy establishment , during the recent Raisina Conclave, where in he clearly stated that whether Iran liked the Taliban or not, as of now the Taliban controlled territory on Iran's border. They had to speak to them. While, both Iran & the GoA are of the view that, while the Taliban are a security to them as well as India, they are an existential threat to Pakistan. I agree with the assessment.
Iran may be couching it's realpolitik under such a pragmatic assessment given their current ties with the US and the presence of US forces there. The Trump administration has also realized their limited leverage over events in Afghanistan, given the dismal performance of the Afghan security forces and the rapid gains the Taliban seem to be making. It's also handicapped by the fact that while the Trump administration is openly hostile towards the Iranians, the entire political establishment in the US barring the Trump Administration is opposed to normalising ties with Russia. What has happened between the Trump administration & Pakistan over the period of the past two years & the history of US engagement with Pakistan over Afghanistan over the past 2 decades is too well known to be reiterated. The US has realized its running out of time. They need to cut their losses and run.
In the interim, they'd make do with substituting their troops on the ground with contractors like Blackwater, etc. But that is more of a temporary measure subject to their performance against the Taliban in tandem with the Afghan security forces.
I assume they would always retain some sort of presence on the ground even if we'd see a revert to a 1996 like situation wherein the Taliban control the entire Afghanistan except certain pockets in the North, East & West, acting in concert with the Northern Alliance.
Once that happens, logistics will be provided thru India via Chahbahar apart from utilizing other routes thru Russia and its allies in the CAR, subject to how US's relationship with Russia pans out in the future.
But this is more in keeping with Trump's policy of disengagement with major troubled spots the world over and isolationism under the cover of America first. Ever since the US has been assured of its energy security, thanks to loads of Shale oil deposits back home, that's been its response. You could see it Obama's reluctance to continue in Iraq, his lack of committing troops on the ground in Syria & Libya besides news that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan was imminent right from the end of Bush's 2nd term onwards, a major surge during Obama's term, notwithstanding.
Our leverage with the Taliban being limited, we'd be seeking security guarantees that the Taliban won't use its territory for actors hostile to India's interest. Our future with the Taliban would be contingent on the kind of relationship, Iran & Russia enjoy with the Taliban.
I, for one, think our relationship with the Taliban ( in whatever context & content) will be mutually exclusive from that with the Northern Alliance, as I think will be the same with the Iranians & the Russians.
As of now, apart from both - Iran & Russia, securing their own interests, they're also using their inimical relationship with the US to probe its underbelly in Afghanistan.
Under the current circumstances and in keeping with its own worldview, the Trump administration is rightly disengaging from Afghanistan.
The Pakistanis are playing a game with a very myopic view for short term gains. Their support for the Taliban is pretty much like ours for the LTTE. Knowing full well that India would be opposed to Eelam given our own concerns in TN, we used the LTTE & in turn were used by them.
We all know how that panned out .
The biggest difference between the first avataar of the Taliban in Kabul in 1996 and the forthcoming one is the emergence of the TTP in Pakistan and the commonality of goals, cadres, inspiration, etc that both of them share. That's why Iran's view that the Taliban would come back to haunt Pakistan as an existential nightmare comes true. And this time, they aren't going to be totally dependent to the point of being handicapped, on Pakistan. By ceding space to Iran & Russia, in engaging with the Taliban, the Pakistanis have blundered.
I'd be very interested to see how this one will pan out. On our side, I guess we need to brace up for extensive meddling in J&K & it's consequent fallout. I, sincerely hope preparartions for that , coupled with all such plans and procurements for operations such as Cold Start and annexation of PoK are dusted up & revised. For this time we don't have a choice in the matter.
P. S - Who's AZM? @Milspec
Also hoped @Hellfire would've been around to provide his perspective. Is he still a member out here or has he deleted his profile?
Last edited:
It's not just us (Pakistani's) Sir, the oposition and the Kashmiri parties too are questioning this move;
If Ready To Talk With Taliban, Why Not Kashmiri Separatists: Omar, Mehbooba React To Army Chief's Statement
- 09 anuary 2019
Rawat said there should be talks with the Taliban to bring peace in Afghanistan, but asserted that the engagement must be without any preconditions.
Former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti on Wednesday wondered why the Centre was not initiating a dialogue with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir if Army chief General Bipin Rawat could bat for holding talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"We bat for talks with taliban, autonomy for Tibet & Tamil areas of Sri Lanka yet we are unwilling to look at engagement or political initiatives in J&K. Why is our policy all about "do as we say, don't do as we do"? Engagement for Taliban, Operation All-Out for Kashmir," Abdullah tweeted.
If Ready To Talk With Taliban, Why Not Kashmiri Separatists: Omar, Mehbooba React To Army Chief's Statement
Rawat said there should be talks with the Taliban to bring peace in Afghanistan, but asserted that the engagement must be without any preconditions.
Former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti on Wednesday wondered why the Centre was not initiating a dialogue with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir if Army chief General Bipin Rawat could bat for holding talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"We bat for talks with taliban, autonomy for Tibet & Tamil areas of Sri Lanka yet we are unwilling to look at engagement or political initiatives in J&K. Why is our policy all about "do as we say, don't do as we do"? Engagement for Taliban, Operation All-Out for Kashmir," Abdullah tweeted.
"If the Army Chief can advocate for talks with (the) Taliban then why different standards when it comes to our own people?" Mehbooba asked in a tweet.
There's already a mechanism for such dialogue along with an interlocutor.
One year as J&K interlocutor: some progress, some setbacks for Dineshwar Sharma
If the Separatists didn't engage him, it's their call.
Security risks in Afghanistan is not a recent phenomenon, and irrespective of trump posturing, US and ISAF is not going anywhere. As soon as India engages, taliban, we have lost our high ground. We just don't lose our historical stance , we also dent our reliability as a partner with the northern alliance, and Pakistan and ISI can tout the taliban to be the big bad monster, history shows that the same taliban would pee their salwars hearing the name of Massoud. AZM- Ahhmed Zia Massoud, and Ammrullah Saleh show great potential as leaders for the future of Afghanistan and if empowered they can get rid of the closet taliban masquerading as united front members. but more than relying on individuals this government should invest all of it's powers in organization building. Great support structures for India were traditionally individuals like commander massoud and gen Fahim. Massouds demise was a big blow, and even bigger blow was Gen Fahims passing, now we need strong Northern alliance members to graduate from being a local Panjshiri groups to become a pan Afghanistan organisation which includes Pashtuns.
We need to stop buying into this narrative that Taliban have this pashtun representative agency for some reason, there were legendary leaders like Abdul Haq, who pummeled taliban in Kabul during full fletched ISI backed invasion.
Now coming to Iran, lets not buy into irans strategic outset, Iranian strategic outlook in afganistan is not looking at the long game and relies on a lot of uncertainties and can cater to multiple outside pressure groups. Next, soon pakistan will enter Yemen and Iran-Pakistan relations will deteriorate and thier own taliban strategy will change.
India's objectives are simple, develop Afghanistan, avoid it from becoming a Bteam for Pakistan asymmetric assets as in the 90's. Remember IC814?
What ever statement chief makes has an agenda...... These are all feelers sent from south block..... I don't beleieve we will directly have any contact with them.... But if the big powers are in favour of talking tlthem... then we are left with very little options...... Let us be honest.... being politically correct was story of an era... which will never come back....