September 2009
The return of a hero
Scott Stewart and
Fred Burton
 
A nuclear link?
Rupert Fisher
 
Flawed occupation
Andrew Small
 
Between bullets and ballots
Subhash Chopra
 
Trust comes first
David Watts
 
Will the top split up?
Rahimullah Yusufzai
 
Devilishly complex'
Inder Malhotra
 
Raising its head again
Tom Deegan and Sat-Bhambra
 
Is democracy the answer?
David Watts
 
Jeffrey Lewis from the New America Foundation on North Korean nuclear imbroglio
Shyam Bhatia
 
 
 
 
 
   
 

September 2009

Afghan elections

Between bullets and ballots

Irrespective of who emerges as the winner of the August 20 presidential polls, it is a victory for Afghanistan.

By Subhash Chopra

VOTING UNDER THREAT: Except in the south (Kandahar and Helmand provinces) where the voter turnout dipped below double digits, the rest of the country showed remarkable resilience, almost defiance of the Taliban with a turnout of around 50 per cent

The people of Afghanistan have voted in fair numbers, though not in great numbers as many would have liked. Yet, given the Taliban-Al Qaeda boycott call and threatened and actually delivered rocket and gunfire in some places and reprisals against those who chose to defy their diktat, it was a brave turnout, even a good turnout, of between 40 and 50 per cent. Except in the southern quarter of the country, in provinces like Kandahar and Helmand, where the turnout dipped below double digits, the rest of the country showed a remarkable resilience, almost defiance, with a turnout of around 50 per cent, respectable by any yardstick. To an extent it bears a small, a very small but very encouraging, resemblance to elections in Kashmir where the jihadi boycott calls have been a resounding failure except in one or two pockets in the Valley.

Allegations of vote rigging, ballot stuffing, intimidation by warlords and block delivery of votes notwithstanding, the Afghan election was generally fair as has been reported by the European Union's chief observer, General Philippe Morillon. Whoever wins the presidential race, the election is being billed as a victory for Afghanistan. The USA, EU, India and others have all hailed the democratic exercise. So have the 30-odd candidates themselves. Incumbent President Hamid Karzai and former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah have both claimed victory. However, they must wait for the final result, as must the Afghan people and others interested in their well being. Whether anybody emerges as an outright winner with more than 50 per cent votes in the first round or the election process goes into the second round must remain a tantalising affair for a few days.

 
 

One thing is clear that the failure of the Taliban and jihadi power tactics in Afghanistan as a whole has been exposed, something for which democratic forces everywhere can take heart. Sadly a price, a very real price in human lives of both soldiers and civilians, is being paid. In Britain where body caskets have been arriving in somewhat steady regularity over the past two months, the popular reaction has been one of questioning: 'Why are we there in Afghanistan? Bring back the boys. Afghanistan is none of our concern.' The media pundits have been trying on a daily basis to fault the government and the politicians either with lack of vision or with inadequate provision of helicopters and other equipment for the soldiers. Twenty two soldiers killed in the month of July, with August toll still rising (at the time of writing) besides nearly 100 wounded in the two months this year has rudely jolted the nation. Anger and despair has been writ large on the faces of mournful crowds lining the streets of small towns like Wooten Basset through which the corteges roll, as the rest of the country watches it all on television screens and hears on the air waves.

But the generals commanding the operations show no lack of nerve. True to their calling, they exude confidence for doing their job and winning the war while tactfully reminding their political masters of the long term need for development and winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.
The battle for the hearts and minds is easier said than won, without which everything is a dead loss. This hearts and minds business is a very lofty talk. The ground reality is much more earthly. The route to the ordinary Afghan Taliban fighter's heart is much simpler. Talking to some of the London-based Afghan expatriates and refugees, who have parts of their families still living within striking distance of Taliban shots back home, one is loudly reminded of America's earlier blunders. They (the expatriates) say that the ordinary Afghan Taliban is not a committed fighter; he is almost a mercenary who can be easily weaned away with a steady flow of sustenance money. Only the Arabs and Pakistanis among the Taliban are a committed lot and their numbers are dwindling, perhaps not as fast as some would wish.

The effective strategy, according to the informed expats, lies in isolating the amenable Afghan Taliban soldiers from the Arab-Pakistani jihadis who dream of the revival of the old Caliphate days when Islam ruled the world from Arabia to Spain.

Give money directly to the Afghan Taliban foot soldier and make sure it reaches him and is not siphoned away by the middle men, say the expats. After all, buying off the tribesmen is the old established strategy successfully practised in the NWFP/Afghanistan border areas by the pre-1947 British India rulers.

The people of Afghanistan, say the expats, are sick of the Taliban, though afraid to say so. They want to be rid of the Taliban and need to be assured of long term security. They are afraid of being abandoned and left to the wolves after the military defeat of the Taliban. For that's what happened last time when the Taliban were toppled but left free to launch raids into the country after the American forces packed their bags and went home.

A second part of the new strategy adopted by America's Obama administration is to seek a dialogue with the moderate Taliban to win them over to the mainstream Afghanistan. It may all sound like splitting hairs and trying to separate the good Taliban from the bad Taliban at a time when many believe that there is no such thing as good Taliban. Disregarding the rejectionists who have little time for a dialogue with the softer Taliban faction, President Obama has been pursuing the dialogue approach pretty steadily. His message to the Islamic world broadcast some weeks ago from Egypt was the first concrete step to dispel any talk of clash of cultures. His message to the Muslim world at the start of the current holy month of Ramadan is clearly in line with the new policy.

On the ground in Pakistan there appears to be a perceptible lessening of anti-American virulence. Some of the Islamists are describing Obama's approach as 'a breath of fresh air', according to reports in Pakistani newspapers.  Former hard-line leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman, ameer of the Jamat-e-Ulema, Pakistan, has already held a meeting with the U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke, according to The News daily of the Jang group. The Maulana who was part of General Musharraf's well known MMA (Majlis-e-Muttehda Amal, better known as Military Mullah Alliance) seems to be getting ready to line up his forces behind the new military establishment of Pakistan.
All that augurs well for Pakistan, Afghanistan and America itself, which is desperately in need of an exit strategy, militarily, even though for the moment it is engaged in a surge campaign to soften up the Taliban forces in the Af-Pak region. For India, however, things are very different. India is not on the American priority list, at least for now. For the moment Obama administration seems to have neither the time, capacity nor the intention to press Pakistan to accede to India's demand for bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage to book for a meaningful resumption of the Indo-Pak dialogue.

Subhash Chopra is the author of India and Britannia — An Abiding Affair. His new book, Partition, Jihad & Peace, is being published shortly.

top