India’s Afghan outreach as a counter to Pak, clashes with its spirit of solidarity with beleaguered people of other nations; points to future where empathy will vanish, transactional ties will take over
A host of recent diplomatic commentaries and analyses on Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi's visit to India, including one by a retired Indian foreign service officer – a person I greatly respect and interact with regularly – shrouded my heart with sadness that is immense and equally overwhelming.
That these observations, juxtapositions, and opinions found echoes in the shrill hyperbole of princes and princesses of rant and bluster, masquerading as ‘patriotic’ TV anchors, worsens the suffering. At no time can these motormouths be equated with most of the diplomatic commentators, but they unusually happen to hold the same viewpoint, albeit for different reasons and motivations.
Idealism sacrificed at altar of pragmatism
My conscious distress, however, is faced with confusion as a rival within the mind, because these well-argued writings and theatrical monologues into the camera are steeped in pragmatism, undeniably the pathway of the times, as the world turns more selfish with more and more leaders capturing power in their nations with a ‘me-first’ pledge.
Also read: Taliban 2.0’s U-turn in ties with India, Pak, a game-changing moment for South Asia
The paradox deepens further because the line of reasoning appears apt for the challenges the country faces in part of the neighbourhood.
But, if these pragmatic homilies for statecraft are indeed the guiding principles to negotiate twists and turns in today’s increasingly complex world, where and how do I, and innumerable others like me, discard the idealism embraced as a credo of life, in the course of ‘drifting’ into journalism, a profession which I got betrothed to, more than four decades ago?
The Taliban has not changed with time. Its position on several matters continues to remain detestable to a large section of our people despite several beliefs finding resonance within supporters of the current political regime in India.
This is not to suggest that only journalists were or are idealists – there would be, without doubt, numerous romantics in every sphere of life and society, even politics. But everywhere, and unremittingly too, problems and tricky situations are being increasingly tackled in practical and realistic ways.
Idealists remain, of course. But, they have been rendered into being part of a minority; more so because many turn to cynicism after failing to see success with romanticism.
Taliban minister’s discomforting Indian visit
While it is Muttaqi’s visit that has evoked in me these contrasting emotions, ricocheting between the heart and mind, before heading further, a disclaimer is in order: These divergent sentiments preceded women journalists being denied entry from the visiting Afghanistan foreign minister’s first press conference.
The discomfort with the way the visit was unravelling was always there. The absence of our women colleagues from Muttaqi’s media interaction at the embassy, which wasn’t yet that of the Afghan Emirate, only cemented the sentiment.
Also read: India has to cement Taliban ties as China advances, Pak reels back in Afghanistan
The Taliban has governed Afghanistan since 2021. There is a certain history associated with it, dating to the mid and late-1990s when it controlled large tracts of Afghan territory, till its ouster by US-led troops, as part of retaliation for the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on September 9, 2001.
It is almost a quarter of a century since then. Yet, the Taliban has not changed with time. Its position on several matters continues to remain detestable to a large section of our people despite several beliefs finding resonance within supporters of the current political regime in India.
Taliban is no role model
In particular, I am drawing attention to the treatment of minorities, of women and girls who aren't allowed to go to school in Kabul, besides the Taliban’s archaic social and political outlook.
It can be argued, and was in commentaries above, that India has long retained cordial ties with several nations, not known for social parity on numerous counts within their countries, and which are either not formally democratic, or are so, solely in name.
‘Why exorcise the current Afghan regime then?’ goes the argument, especially when the landlocked country’s strategic location can be used against India, the pragmatists say.
But, should India not recall the ties of the Taliban with several terrorist organisations who spewed mayhem in Jammu and Kashmir and several other parts of India from the mid-1990s? Is it not a fact that the Taliban played a very potent role in worsening India’s internal security?
Also read: Javed Akhtar slams Taliban minister's reception in India, says he 'hangs his head in shame'
The Taliban, after all, remains a negative point of reference – it is often contended in debates that the Sangh Parivar is on its way to resembling a ‘Hindu Taliban’ and that it is pushing India into being a ‘Hindu Pakistan’. Effectively, drawing such a parallel establishes that the Taliban is not anyone’s role model or an aspirational regime.
Why break bread with Taliban?
If that is the case, is it then prudent to stretch the welcoming arm that Messrs S Jaishankar and others have lent to Muttaqi, of course, after due clearance?
Consequently, the Indian officialdom chose to look the other way from such uncomfortable questions and even referred to Muttaqi as the ‘Foreign Minister’ of Afghanistan, although India has yet to recognise the regime and has diplomatic ties with it, at least as of now.
What drove the government into breaking bread with the Taliban? One leading prince of rants provided the logic in a monologue: “Dushman ka dushman, hamara dost (the enemy of our enemy is our friend)...”
What then has driven the government, and a significant section of the country’s public opinion, into breaking bread with the Taliban and making a clear break from the principles that we as a people and a nation subscribed to in a not-too-distant past?
One leading prince of rants provided the logic in a monologue that was widely circulated on social media as a ‘short’: “Dushman ka dushman, hamara dost (the enemy of our enemy is our friend)...”
An Afghan cure for Pakistan
Established commentators built their case more argumentatively. Muttaqi’s visit has to be set against the backdrop of developments in India’s western neighbourhood, specifically the simultaneity of Pakistan’s progressively warming relationship with China and the United States.
This has to be juxtaposed with the difficulties India faces with these two nations and Pakistan’s deteriorating ties with its neighbour across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.
Also read: Afghan FM blames ‘technical issue’ for excluding women journalists from press meet
The last ‘factor’ was further buttressed by the clash between Pakistan and Afghanistan while Muttaqi was still in India, gathering kudos from the seminary, Darul Uloom, in Deoband, Uttar Pradesh, among other engagements in the country.
Switch to pragmatism
In the history of Indian diplomacy, the role of Nehruvian India in taking a leadership position in the Non-Aligned Movement (a coalition of countries that emerged during the Cold War) remains a matter of pride even today. Despite early struggles to overcome multiple challenges in the wake of securing independence, India fashioned itself as a principled supporter of national movements against colonial forces.
India was also a leading voice against apartheid in South Africa and forfeited the Davis Cup finals in 1974 by not playing against it. We are more pragmatic on the playfields, too.
We now play matches against Pakistan because there is moolah to be raked, but then project the decision which violates sportsmanship by not shaking hands, as evidence of muscular nationalism.
Also read: India had 'no role' in barring women journalists in Mattaqi's presser: MEA
Almost a decade and a half after refusing to enter the tennis courts, in 1989, there was a visible public outcry in India against Myanmar’s military action against Aung San Suu Kyi, almost considered a “daughter of India” for having lived in Delhi with her mother during her school and college years. The solidarity expressed for Suu Kyi left Rajiv Gandhi with no option but to deal sternly with the Junta there.
PV Narasimha Rao, then foreign minister, apparently told a parliamentary panel that India would financially back the pro-democracy movement. New Delhi also decided not to send back any refugee seeking shelter in India after the military government arrested Suu Kyi – a stance that is poles apart from today’s regime, which views the refugee crisis from its Hindutva perspective.
In subsequent years, however, India took a more pragmatic approach and engaged with the Junta to foster a progressively cordial and mutually beneficial relationship.
Although this turn preceded 2014, the present regime furthered this approach and after the (another) military coup in February 2021, it chose its strategic interests over articulating concerns over the humanitarian and democratic crises in Myanmar.
India chooses populism over solidarity
The Hindutva-driven regime in India should, in ‘normal’ circumstances, consider the Taliban and Afghanistan as inherently inimical to its worldview.
Even from the non-Hindutva or liberal perspective, the politics of the Taliban is problematic for India.
But, driven by pragmatism, New Delhi is seeing the Taliban solely as a counter-balancing force to Pakistan and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming closely intertwined with China, economically as well as strategically.
Also read: Jaishankar meets Taliban FM Muttaqi in Delhi: Top 5 takeaways from crucial meeting
The spirit of solidarity for beleaguered people of other nations is of little concern globally in this age of rising populism.
The MAGA (Make America Great Again) spirit has long been preceded by Hindutva forces pledging to return India to its ‘golden’ ages.
With idealism becoming passé, the flanks comprising cynics will only swell. Little will change as long as the electoral mandate remains in the direction of the three previous parliamentary polls.
Even if the people vote differently, there is no certainty that India’s push towards pragmatism will be reversed.
Pragmatism will create transactional ties
Further strangulation of India’s foundational constitutional values cannot be halted, and these principles shall not be restored unless idealism regains its pivotal position of yore.
India’s first-past-the-post system ensures that the proportional legislative strength of the present ruling party is in far excess of its share of votes.
Unless there is any significant alteration in this electoral equation, a section of people, despite not comprising an electoral majority, would be sufficient to ensure perpetual legislative hegemony for the present government.
Also read: Afghan min seeks better ties with India, Pak: ‘Courage of Afghans shouldn’t be tested’
Such a situation would likely universalise pragmatism in every sphere of life and make all relationships merely transactional. Empathy will disappear from the bouquet of emotions of most citizens and their minor wards, too. The only collective action will then be against the imagined ‘other’.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
