Indian Boots on Foreign Ground

 In the last 20 years, the US requested Indian "boots on the ground" on two occasions.

1. George W. Bush's request for 20,000 Indian troops in Iraq was rejected by Vajpayee. In spite of pressures from multiple quarters, Vajpayee built public consensus and took the decision, keeping the wider interests of the nation in mind. Experts unanimously agree that it was a wise decision.
2. Trump administration wanted India to send her troops to Afghanistan. Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman rejected US Secretary of Defense James Mattis's demand.

Given the recent developments of US’s departure from Afghanistan and Taliban regaining control, the moot point is whether Nirmala Sitharaman’s decision was correct.

India is aware of the importance of a good relationship with Afghanistan. To counter Pakistan’s influence and to secure strategic interests, India invested heavily in the rebuilding of the war-torn country. President Trump was, however, dismissive of India’s efforts and made fun of India’s interest in “building libraries in Afghanistan.”

Some of India’s efforts included building the parliament complex (which included a library), water reservoirs, schools, power stations, and health clinics. Many of these projects are important but invisible and harder to trace and cost India a few billion dollars. However, this pales in comparison to the trillions that US spent on Afghanistan.

If we go by the official map, India shares a land border with Afghanistan. Taking back POK enables India to have a land route to Central Asia. However, that part of Kashmir that borders Afghanistan is under the control of Pakistan. India still hopes to take POK back and so resists any third-party intervention in adjudication of the Kashmir issue.

If taking back POK still remains an objective of India, a military role in Afghanistan would have certainly helped. Rather than building “libraries”, a military intervention, with boots on the ground in Afghanistan would have reduced the burden of USA. It would have improved the US-India relationship from the present transactional to a more strategic one.

Yes, it would not have been easy on India. There would have been body bags coming in. It’s not for nothing that Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires. However, India’s mountain warfare capability is considered among the best in the world. In the recent years, Indian army had withdrawn a proposal to raise a mountain corps to effectively counter threats in the Himalayan borders, keeping in view the costs involved. A military intervention in Afghanistan would have necessitated the mountain corps and India could have had the US pay the bill. With the US providing support with their advanced weaponry and surveillance capabilities and taking care of the monetary aspect, the coalition would have countered the Taliban in a far better manner and longer than what had transpired.

India would have had an opportunity to convince the US about Pakistan’s complicity in strengthening the Taliban. It was not that the US did not have an inkling that Pakistan was actually shielding Taliban. The US did not have any other option but depend on Pakistan. India’s involvement would have reduced the US’s dependence on Pakistan.

In return for troops on ground, India could have bargained for transfer of technology for advanced weapons and ammunition. And a security treaty that allowed for US intervention in case of a Chinese invasion. Such a treaty would have enabled India to focus her resources on economic development rather than on securing the borders.

 

Now, with the withdrawal of US and Taliban regaining control, India became irrelevant as far as Afghanistan is concerned. India did not figure in any of the discussions that Russia or the US had. Pakistan and China seem to have emerged as the winners. China is knocking India’s doors at the border and war seems to be imminent. India can’t expect the US to come to her aid readily given her inaction in the past. And without advanced weapons and technology, a full-blown Indo-China war is lopsided in favor of China.

 

However, Amit Shah’s statements on POK and Aksai Chin and Modi’s statements give some clues on India’s designs and thinking pattern. After Article 370 was revoked, Modi hinted about more action coming. He hinted that what had happened was nothing compared to the plans that he had for the rest of his term. If taking back POK is part of the plan, India would prefer to maintain her independence in military matters. Any dependence on any other country would have meant yielding to their reservations on the Kashmir issue. If India wanted a free hand in dealing with Kashmir and Pakistan, any external dependence would have been a hurdle.

 

Does this mean India is going to swoop down on POK in the next three years? Is China just testing Indian preparedness or does it have intentions of acting on the threats on Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh? Can India withstand a two-front war?

 

India seems to be gearing up for a limited war with China and a frontal assault on Pakistan to take back POK. India seems to have waited until Pakistan has weakened economically. Modi had focused his first term and the initial years of his second term to isolate Pakistan internationally and weaken her economy. Pakistan is among the top ten nations with the largest foreign debts. Pakistan continues to be on the FATF grey list and has difficulty securing loans from international organizations. Saudi Arabia was successfully weaned off and Pakistan is now solely reliant on China.

 

Modi seems to be getting ready for swooping down on POK and settling the Kashmir issue, in the next two years. It remains to be seen whether he will be successful in warding off China. Interesting times ahead!