New Delhi: Even as intense behind-the-scenes manoeuvring takes place over intra-Afghan peace talks, one of Afghanistan’s most influential mujahideen leaders warned that any perceived inequity in terms of power-sharing in the interim Afghan government and political settlement would lead to problems.
In an interview with The Wire at his hotel this weekend, 75-year-old Ismail Khan, whose writ ran large in north-western Afghanistan, makes no bones that he is not satisfied with the proposals circulated by the US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad.
He began his career as an Afghan army captain rebelling against the Soviet Invasion. During the Taliban regime, Khan was a senior commander of the Northern Alliance, backed by Iran, India and Russia. In the post-Taliban era, he became a governor of Herat, followed by a 10-year-long stint as minister of water and energy in the Hamid Karzai government.
The former jihadi leader was in New Delhi for a visit, during which he met with the Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar last week.
His visit to India takes place against the backdrop of the fast-paced developments that have followed the Biden administration’s concerted push to find a settlement to the Afghanistan solution and withdraw all US troops.
He noted that the US has already paid financially for the human cost in the war in Afghanistan. “I also believe if the US had gone alone and the other countries in NATO had not contributed, the Americans would not have been able to continue this war.”
Former Afghan warlord Ismail Khan with external affairs minister S. Jaishankar. Photo: Twitter@DrSJaishankar
At their peak, US troop levels in Afghanistan were over 100,000, which came down to around 12,000 in early 2020. Currently, there are about 3,500 US troops posted in the country.
“They have been trying their best to leave Afghanistan in the best way possible…That was the reason that the Americans started negotiations with the Taliban. In the last two years, a lot of meeting and negotiations have gone on…the people of Afghanistan were very keen and happy that a peace agreement was reached”.
The peace agreement
In February 2020, the US and the Taliban signed a peace agreement that agreed on a timeline on US troops’ conditional withdrawal, reduction in violence and counter-terrorism guarantees. It also kick-started the intra-Afghan talks, which began in Doha in September last year.
Khan considered the peace agreement tilted towards the Islamist group. “The Americans gave the opportunity more to the Taliban…That’s why there are so many challenges to the peace process right now”.
However, the Doha talks stalled. The letter signed by the new secretary of state has shaken the peace process, pushing for talks between Afghan leadership and the Taliban in Turkey this month. It also proposed the immediate formation of an “inclusive” interim government, with the Taliban in its power structure.
Khan said that the “road map to peace” in Blinken’s letter conveyed by Zalmay Khalilzad had “positive and negative points”.
The former jihadi leader stated that giving equal power to the Taliban in an interim government would be unfair.
“Especially, one section of the road map which is about the sharing of the power, proposes it would be 50-50 between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban. This is not a good point, and this is not acceptable,” he told The Wire.
Khan, who does not speak English, spoke in Dari for the duration of this interview. His son, Syed Taha Sadeq, a member of 0arliament in Kabul, served as a translator for the interaction.
Also read: The US’s Latest Plan For Afghanistan and Why India Is Counting On Afghan Leaders
Khan asserted that the power-sharing formula side-steps the mujahideen groups, several of whom have remained outside Kabul circles.
“Seven years prior to the involvement of the US in Afghanistan, the mujahideen and the resistance coalition started to fight with the Taliban… In the wars in Afghanistan, there are three parties involved – the government of Afghanistan, Taliban and there is the resistance coalition that was there before this government and the involvement of America,” he said.
The Jamaat-e-Islami leader cautioned that any perception of injustice would impair the peace process’s success. “If we don’t see the fairness in the sharing of power, then problems will arise.”
As a counter-proposal, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has drawn up a “three-phase” plan. For the first time, Ghani has not outrightly rejected an interim government and has offered to hand over power to an elected successor. He planned to present it at the Istanbul conference.
The Afghan High Council for National Reconciliation’s 15-member panel went through over two dozen peace plans proposed by various political parties. A final draft peace proposal, drawn from these plans, would be then presented at Turkey.
Afghanistan’s second vice-president, Mohammad Sarwar Danesh, has criticised the HCNR’s unified peace proposal as being non-inclusive and creating more rifts.
When The Wire had spoken to Khan, the outline of a unified peace proposal had not yet been finalised. To a query whether a deeply divided Afghan polity could rally behind a single proposal, he expressed confidence.
“There is a lot of work going on to bring people around to support one plan. There is a good possibility of 80% of people backing it. Of course, some sides may not agree with the conclusion. But we are trying hard to gather everyone around so that there is strong support for one unified proposal,” he said.
The Istanbul conference was supposed to have been held on April 16, but the Taliban refused to join.
The conference’s new dates are April 26 to May 4, but the Taliban have not yet announced their readiness to send a delegation. But, there is greater optimism that the Taliban will take part in the talks now that the US government set a date for the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan.
As per the February 2020 agreement, the US had to withdraw all its troops by May 1. The US administration had stated that the deadline was not logistically doable, which had led to warnings from the Taliban.
On Wednesday, US President Joe Biden declared from the White House that all the remaining American troops will leave Afghanistan by September 11.
Despite all the misgivings, Khan, who has usually not seen eye-to-eye with President Ghani, said that there was a degree of urgency and determination about the latest process, making the possibility of reaching an agreement high.
“We see the world community is more serious about these peace talks at this time. We also see that the government is more flexible with the talking. They have also shown flexibility about the elections. Everyone in Afghanistan is more serious and more optimistic about the Istanbul talks.”
There is more pessimism in some quarters in Washington. The US Intelligence Community’s Annual threat assessment report released on April 9 stated that “prospects for a peace deal will remain low during the next year”.
Khan also pushed for the regional countries of Afghanistan to find a common voice.
“For this unified proposal, as important as the team of Afghans is for the regional countries to work in unity. Their involvement is also key to the success of the peace process. If they are not, the peace process will not be successful.”
He hoped that India would get a front seat at the Turkey talks. “India is very large and economically, politically important in the region. It is like a neighbour to Afghanistan. It is very vital that everyone should see the presence of the Indian government in the peace process that is going on”.
India’s role in peace building
India, one of Afghanistan’s top aid donors at $3 billion, has been consistently sceptical of the peace talks between the US and the Taliban. Still, it attended the signing ceremony in February and subsequently at the inauguration of the intra-Afghan negotiations in Qatar.
The US secretary of state’s letter to the Afghan leadership had come as a surprise to New Delhi, just as it did to Washington’s other partners. There is rising acceptance of the reality that the Taliban will be part of the government, sooner than later.
While India does not have a direct role in the intra-Afghan talks, New Delhi believes that its interests will be protected as it is similar to that of the senior Afghan political leadership. This is despite the fact that the Afghan polity is riven with factions and would prefer to see the back of Ghani at the earliest.
In the last six months, India has been trying to revive its old links among the Afghan political elite. Before Khan, there had been visits by Abdul Rashid Dostum, Atta Muhammad Nur and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf to New Delhi.
Asked whether India made a mistake by putting all its eggs in the basket of Arg Palace and not embracing former Northern Alliance leaders as ardently, Khan answered carefully. “India thought that the (post-Taliban) situation would be stable. But, due to the wrongful actions (of the international community), the situation got worse”.
The primary mistake was the resurgence of the Taliban after their defeat. “Taliban had surrendered and totally destroyed in Afghanistan. For them to come back fighting and gain territories again, it was all due to the wrong political decision of the world community in Afghanistan.” But, he didn’t want to resurrect old wounds at this crucial junction. “At this very important time of the peace process, I don’t want to talk about all these wrong decisions and name their perpetrators.”
Among the major regional players, India is the only country that has refrained from talking to the Taliban. Even Iran, which had looked at the Taliban as an enemy, fostered ties with the insurgent groups, with delegations publicly visiting Tehran.
To a question whether he would ask for India to also talk with the Taliban, Khan hesitated. “India having more contact with Taliban is more difficult than Iran.” He didn’t expand on this observation, but Khan was likely referring to Taliban’s Pakistani backers, who don’t have a similar antipathy to Iran as they have towards India.
The Herati leader also cited Iran’s example as a country that has managed to carve a role for themselves in the intra-Afghan talks despite the qualms. “You know Iran also has the same concerns about the peace talks in Afghanistan. So, if they join any meeting, they are joining with a lot of concerns.”
Iran has been the largest foreign investor in Herat province, which is economically and culturally integrated with the neighbouring country since historical times.
Whenever the Taliban had been hot on his tails during the 1990s, Ismail Khan had fled to Iran to take refuge and recoup. After 2001, Iran had been Khan’s key backer, providing material support to consolidate his power in the region.
However, Khan came into the conflict with Iran over a critical resource for the border province – water.
Salma Dam’s significance in India-Afghan ties
It was control over water that brought Ismail Khan and India in close partnership during the decade long construction of 42 megawatt Salma Dam over the Hari Rud river. When it was finally inaugurated in 2017, India had spent over Rs 1,775 crore on the dam construction.
For Ismail Khan, the principal significance of Salma Dam has been the sovereignty it allows over water resources. “Yes, it is mainly for the storage of water, which is for agricultural purposes, not just for electricity generation”.
Iran had strenuously objected to the Salma Dam’s construction, worried that it will restrict water flow. “Hari Rud river is a seasonal one. The water level in the border of Iran-Afghanistan is so low that there is not enough for drinking and agriculture. Iran might have thought that building this dam will make for greater shortage”.
When Iran refused to allow dynamite required for dam construction, Khan, who was then the minister of water and energy, personally scoured for alternative channels.
“We had asked a lot of countries, but no one was willing to give this explosive. The president of Tajikistan had very good relations with me. When I went to Tajikistan for a contract about power, I made a request. He ordered his minister to provide any amount of dynamite required for the dam”.
After the completion of the dam, Herat province for the first time, began producing its electricity. But, Khan notes that five years after the dam was finished, the utilisation of water for agriculture has not been optimal. “Because of the lack of canals, it is not divided equally through the lands,” he said, adding that only agricultural plots nearer to the dam were getting adequate water.
Khan pointed out that the building of the dam and other infrastructure, far from cities and located in remote, insecure areas, meant a lot for Afghanistan.
“We were completely confident that however long the project takes, we would give proper security to the Indian engineers… And really, we tried our best. We ensured whatever they need for their comfort, we would arrange that”.
Khan stated that this was accomplished by the cooperation of the former mujahideen, who were the local militia in the rural areas.
He explained that the security for the Indian workers had been a matter of personal pride. “Everyone who came from India, they were going to the mountains, very difficult places and working day and night, for us. It was very important to return them safely to their homes”.
