I spent some time in Afghanistan a while back. It seems almost impossible to resolve the ongoing conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the one hand, the Taliban claim territory up to Attock Pul on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)-Punjab border – a demand Pakistan finds entirely unacceptable. On the other hand, Pakistan accuses the Afghan Taliban government of sheltering the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) cadres. Given this situation, what does the future hold?"
Christine Fair: It's an historical issue; when Pakistan became independent, Afghanistan took the opportunity to rubbish the Durand Line as an international border. The Afghan government argued that Pakistan is an illegal successor state, while the British said it is a legal successor state and the border is a legitimate one. But since (Pakistan’s) independence, every Afghan ruler has rejected the Durand Line. The Pakistanis were anxious to put some regime into place so that the Afghans would accept the Durand Line. That is why Pakistan kept supporting the Taliban. Pakistan hoped that the Taliban would finally accept the Durand Line as the border. So, that is where we are; while the Taliban have not accepted the Line, Pakistan continued to engage in hopes of settling the border.
The Taliban leadership claims they are being targeted by Pakistani forces, but I got a sense that the TTP, the Afghan Taliban, and perhaps even Al Qaeda frequently overlap. How do you analyse this?
Christine Fair: Well, the Taliban is giving safe haven to the Pakistani Taliban and that is the core issue. This has been continuing. Even when Americans were in Afghanistan, they (Americans) could not expel Pakistani Taliban leadership from Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban continues to create a safe haven for the Pakistani Taliban. That's why the Pakistanis are engaging in a military action against TTP redoubts in Afghanistan.
Isn't this support largely owing to the ethnic Pashtun connection?
Yes. They are generally Pashtun. But there is also a Deoband connection.
However, the Afghan Taliban also acknowledge that they found refuge in Pakistan for all those troubled years, leaving them somewhat indebted to Islamabad…
Christine Fair: Basically, the Taliban are trying to say that they are not giving them (TTP) safe haven, but that is not true. They also forced themselves on local communities in the tribal areas as you note, but essentially the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban is in Afghanistan. Like Lashkar-e-Taiba. The organisation operates in Kashmir but their high-level leadership is in Pakistan.
Two parallel crises are snowballing in Pakistan: the Balochistan conflict and the widespread protests surrounding Imran Khan’s ongoing detention. Do these movements overlap, and what does the future hold for them?
Christine Fair: No. They are not overlapping. They are separate issues.
The Baloch issue dates back to 1946 elections; there was no Baloch assembly (unlike in Sindh or Punjab). There were two kinds of Balochistan in 1946. One part was under British control with no provincial assembly. The Baloch got a provincial assembly as late as 1971 war or after the war.
The rest of Balochistan – initially under the Khan of Kalat – did not want to join Pakistan. Then he did so under duress and interestingly Jinnah was his lawyer, then (Khan of) Kalat changed his mind and Pakistan forcefully annexed Balochistan. Baloch never wanted to join Pakistan. We have seen Punjab, Sindh, East Pakistan – all went with Muslim League with the exception of Baloch who had no vote. Of course, the North West Frontier Province (now KPK) voted for Congress, essentially voting to stay within India.
Now, talking about the recent insurgency, it goes back to the time of President Musharraf. Musharraf actually was the one who brought Chinese development to Balochistan. There's this National Finance Commission of Pakistan that provides a pittance for Balochistan (for all these developments) because it is based on the population of the state; Balochistan got less because it's the least populated states but also one of the largest states geographically. They actually needed more development than was given by the Commission. So, there are no jobs and no opportunities. And whatever jobs and opportunities were there, it went to the Chinese. And Chinese are bringing in the workers, so this current crisis dates back to the time of Musharraf.
Which way are the protests organised by Imran Khan’s party heading as the situation heats up?
Christine Fair: I don't think the Imran Khan’ issue is heating up. The army has a lot of discontent with the Imran Khan situation. The army has it under control and Imran Khan is not going to get out of jail, no matter what his supporters say. The only way Khan is going to get out of jail is if he agrees to go into exile, and so far, he has not agreed to opt for exile.
So, are you saying the Pakistani government will be able to contain the situation despite these massive protests?
Christine Fair: It's not the government; it's the army and the intelligence services. They have been able to manage the situation. I am not saying I agree with it, but from my point of view, Field Marshal Asim Munir (army’s overall chief) has consolidated so much power that he is probably going to get away with it. That's my assessment.
And is that because of the fact that he is immensely liked in Washington?
Christine Fair: Pakistan’s ability to control these crises has nothing to do with how much Donald Trump will accept or not accept (them). It is a whole separate issue. (Indeed) Washington enables him (Munir), but his ability to control the situation is independent of how much Trump likes him personally.
As seen during the BoBC, how deeply was the event focused on India-Bangladesh relations. Many private and public discussions were centered around former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who is currently in India – Whether she can return to Bangladesh and what could be the possible impact. How do you analyse this situation, and what is the potential outcome of this impasse?
Christine Fair: I am a very practical person; I like to look at the facts on the ground. Ground facts as they are like this: yes, it is a political demand of the students and the BNP that India returns Hasina to Bangladesh.
That was the first question asked to the Indian High Commissioner (in BoBC), but the question is what will happen when she comes back to Bangladesh. The reality in Bangladesh suggests that executing a woman by hanging is quite difficult. And what she's going to do in jail? And then if she dies in jail, she becomes a 'martyr' to many. I would argue that the worst-case scenario for Bangladesh is if Sheikh Hasina returns to Bangladesh and dies here. It could create complications for the country’s politics.
From India’s point of view, India would love to see her leave India but no country will take her. And India is not going to hand her back over to Bangladesh under any circumstances.
Why so?
Christine Fair: Because she has proved to be a valuable asset to them all this while she was in power and there is no Extradition Treaty if the character involved is a political one.
In that case, there has to be a legal process to hand her over. For Bangladesh, it is better if she passes away in India rather than in Bangladesh.
Also, India has a long history of dealing with such situations, like dealing with the Dalai Lama or Aung San Suu Kyi (though she was not in formal exile). When India wants to keep a leader silent, it can.
So, the question is why do Indian authorities allow her to conduct provocative press conferences? That is the question I ask and the answer I get is not convincing; (they say) ‘well, we can't stop her, it is very difficult.’
Well, no, when you ask the Dalai Lama to stop making comments on China, he listens. Same with Aung San Suu Kyi. So why is silencing Hasina so difficult? This I think has a lot more to do with India’s domestic politics than international politics.
One last question. What do you think about the ongoing protests in India and what kind of impact it may have on the BJP led government?
Christine Fair: No comments on that.
Thank you.
Christine Fair: Thank you.