The Afghan Taliban on Monday confirmed that it has freed at least three Indians it took as a hostage in exchange for the release of its 11 Taliban members, including important leaders.&nbsp;

The engineers, working at a power station, were abducted by the Taliban in May last year.

They were part of a group of seven people who had been abducted from a village located in the northern Baghlan Province of Afghanistan.

The prisoner swap was done in the early hours of Sunday at an undisclosed location.

This prisoner exchange comes after a meeting between US special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban leaders.

The United States and the Taliban — which returned to the negotiating table for talks hosted by Pakistan — had agreed to swap prisoners.

The freed Afghan Taliban includes prominent leaders like Sheikh Abdul Rahim and Maulvi Abdur Rashid.

India's foreign ministry had earlier thanked the Afghan government for the release and repatriation of the Indian nationals.

Apart from the three Indians, one Australian and one US citizen will also be released.

The Afghan Taliban on Monday confirmed that it has freed at least three Indians it took as a hostage in exchange for the release of its 11 Taliban members, including important leaders.

The Afghan Taliban on Monday confirmed that it has freed at least three Indians it took as a hostage in exchange for the release of its 11 Taliban members, including important leaders. The engineers, working at a power station, were abducted by the Taliban in May last year. They were part of a group of seven people who had been abducted from a village located in the northern Baghlan Province of Afghanistan. The prisoner swap was done in the early hours of Sunday at an undisclosed location. This prisoner exchange comes after a meeting between US special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban leaders. The United States and the Taliban — which returned to the negotiating table for talks hosted by Pakistan — had agreed to swap prisoners. The freed Afghan Taliban includes prominent leaders like Sheikh Abdul Rahim and Maulvi Abdur Rashid. India's foreign ministry had earlier thanked the Afghan government for the release and repatriation of the Indian nationals. Apart from the three Indians, one Australian and one US citizen will also be released.

Afghan Taliban frees 3 Indian hostages in exchange for 11 militants

At least 89 Taliban terrorists were killed and over 60 were injured during an operation in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/united-nations-violence-against-children-in-afghanistan-up-sharply-253900">Afghan province</a> of Tahar in the past 24 hours, the country's defence ministry said on Saturday. 
 
"Operation against the Taliban is going on throughout Afghanistan. In many areas, the Taliban have been forced to retreat. In the past 24 hours, 89 Taliban have been killed and 67 others were wounded in Tahar Province alone," the ministry's spokesman Rohullah Ahmadzai said at a news conference. 
 
The government forces took control of the province's Bahark district of Tahar, he added. 
 
Afghanistan has long been suffering from an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/blood-and-hope-women-in-afghanistans-elections-253513">unstable security situation</a>. The government continues to fight Taliban, which has been waging a war against Kabul for almost two decades, and the Islamic State terrorist group, which has been operating in Afghanistan since 2015.

At least 89 Taliban terrorists were killed and over 60 were injured during an operation in the Afghan province of Tahar in the past 24 hours, the country's defence ministry said on Saturday.

At least 89 Taliban terrorists were killed and over 60 were injured during an operation in the Afghan province of Tahar in the past 24 hours, the country's defence ministry said on Saturday. "Operation against the Taliban is going on throughout Afghanistan. In many areas, the Taliban have been forced to retreat. In the past 24 hours, 89 Taliban have been killed and 67 others were wounded in Tahar Province alone," the ministry's spokesman Rohullah Ahmadzai said at a news conference. The government forces took control of the province's Bahark district of Tahar, he added. Afghanistan has long been suffering from an unstable security situation. The government continues to fight Taliban, which has been waging a war against Kabul for almost two decades, and the Islamic State terrorist group, which has been operating in Afghanistan since 2015.

At least 89 taliban terrorists killed by Afghan forces

September elections in Afghanistan were expected to produce the country’s democratic transfer of power and a moral sign of social progress, however, it saw a record low turnout.&nbsp;

With a handful of women running for provincial seats, Afghanistan remains a hostile place for women with the Taliban controlling some parts of the country.

Thousands of Afghan women fled from their country to escape war and violence and discrimination and they landed up in India where New Delhi is a safe haven for more than 20000 registered Afghan refugee. Many of them wish to return to Afghanistan, but their hope is gloomy and uncertain.

Kamla Hirwi is one such refugee living with her husband and two children in New Delhi. She worked as a school teacher in Kabul but now she stays at home taking care of her children. Sitting in her living room, she watches Ashraf Ghani's political advertisement appealing for votes on TV. She is not happy with any of the leaders as they have mostly supported Taliban circuitously. 
 
Kamla says she is both hopeful and confused thinking about elections in Afghanistan. “We have seen the nastiest back home in Kabul where women are treated as a second class citizen of the country. Our communication and movements were restricted and we are almost confined in our own house. Many of us had to leave our jobs as we were not allowed to go out without a chaperone. Women are still routinely discriminated against, abused and persecuted in the country,” Kamla says as she remembers her early days in Afghanistan.

Kamala’s husband Hirwi has been working relentlessly for the last 6 years to bring together the Afghan men and women refugees who have come out of the conflict in Afghanistan. In one of these events of Afghan refugees, we met Zakia Ahmedi who is seeking asylum in India for the last two years. She explains that when the insurgents seized Kabul in 1996, they barred women from schools and work, forced them to wear the all-enveloping burqa when they left home, and even policed their shoes and makeup.

“My mother, grandmother could never go to school. If a woman was sick, she couldn’t even go to the hospital as she needs a male chaperone, but I want to live and be independent,” Zakia said.

While trying to meet as many refugee women possible, we reached Silaiwali, a place where Afghan women in Delhi are trying to escape horrors of their past by making unique dolls.

Taliban and other highly conservative insurgent groups still control some parts of Afghanistan, and violence and discrimination against women and girls continue all over Afghanistan. In 2011, it was named 'the most dangerous country' to be a woman.

37-year-old Gauhar tells that her husband was kidnapped by the Taliban. She suffered restrictions, violence and abuse every day in her city in Afghanistan, a hotbed of insurgency. “My husband worked as a driver in Kabul, he was kidnapped and killed by Taliban militants while travelling from Kabul to Bamyan.”

As the country prepares for a new presidential government, many wonder what kind of future lies ahead for young women like Gauhar and many others like her.

Throughout the changing political landscape of Afghanistan in the last fifty years, women's rights have been exploited by different groups for political gain, sometimes being improved but often being abused. There is a lot to be done before the equality of political rhetoric becomes an everyday reality for women in Afghanistan. There cannot be true peace and recovery in Afghanistan without a restoration of the rights of women.'

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

September elections in Afghanistan were expected to produce the country’s democratic transfer of power and a moral sign of social progress, however, it saw a record low turnout.

September elections in Afghanistan were expected to produce the country’s democratic transfer of power and a moral sign of social progress, however, it saw a record low turnout. With a handful of women running for provincial seats, Afghanistan remains a hostile place for women with the Taliban controlling some parts of the country. Thousands of Afghan women fled from their country to escape war and violence and discrimination and they landed up in India where New Delhi is a safe haven for more than 20000 registered Afghan refugee. Many of them wish to return to Afghanistan, but their hope is gloomy and uncertain. Kamla Hirwi is one such refugee living with her husband and two children in New Delhi. She worked as a school teacher in Kabul but now she stays at home taking care of her children. Sitting in her living room, she watches Ashraf Ghani's political advertisement appealing for votes on TV. She is not happy with any of the leaders as they have mostly supported Taliban circuitously. Kamla says she is both hopeful and confused thinking about elections in Afghanistan. “We have seen the nastiest back home in Kabul where women are treated as a second class citizen of the country. Our communication and movements were restricted and we are almost confined in our own house. Many of us had to leave our jobs as we were not allowed to go out without a chaperone. Women are still routinely discriminated against, abused and persecuted in the country,” Kamla says as she remembers her early days in Afghanistan. Kamala’s husband Hirwi has been working relentlessly for the last 6 years to bring together the Afghan men and women refugees who have come out of the conflict in Afghanistan. In one of these events of Afghan refugees, we met Zakia Ahmedi who is seeking asylum in India for the last two years. She explains that when the insurgents seized Kabul in 1996, they barred women from schools and work, forced them to wear the all-enveloping burqa when they left home, and even policed their shoes and makeup. “My mother, grandmother could never go to school. If a woman was sick, she couldn’t even go to the hospital as she needs a male chaperone, but I want to live and be independent,” Zakia said. While trying to meet as many refugee women possible, we reached Silaiwali, a place where Afghan women in Delhi are trying to escape horrors of their past by making unique dolls. Taliban and other highly conservative insurgent groups still control some parts of Afghanistan, and violence and discrimination against women and girls continue all over Afghanistan. In 2011, it was named 'the most dangerous country' to be a woman. 37-year-old Gauhar tells that her husband was kidnapped by the Taliban. She suffered restrictions, violence and abuse every day in her city in Afghanistan, a hotbed of insurgency. “My husband worked as a driver in Kabul, he was kidnapped and killed by Taliban militants while travelling from Kabul to Bamyan.” As the country prepares for a new presidential government, many wonder what kind of future lies ahead for young women like Gauhar and many others like her. Throughout the changing political landscape of Afghanistan in the last fifty years, women's rights have been exploited by different groups for political gain, sometimes being improved but often being abused. There is a lot to be done before the equality of political rhetoric becomes an everyday reality for women in Afghanistan. There cannot be true peace and recovery in Afghanistan without a restoration of the rights of women.' (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Blood and hope: Women in Afghanistan elections

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-government-says-real-peace-will-come-when-taliban-stop-violence-hold-direct-talks-248392">Taliban</a> said the US "will be harmed more than anyone" but left the door open for future negotiations Sunday after <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/afghanistan-donald-trump-calls-off-peace-talks-secret-summit-with-taliban-over-terror-attacks-248340">President Donald Trump</a> abruptly announced that he had called off year-long talks to end America's longest war.

"We still... believe that the American side will come back to this position... Our fight for the past 18 years should have proven to the Americans that we will not be satisfied until we witness the complete end of the occupation," the group said in a statement released on Twitter by spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.

The statement said the insurgents had "finalised" a deal with the US that had been expected to allow Washington to begin withdrawing troops in exchange for security promises from the Taliban.

It added that both sides had been preparing for the deal to be announced and signed when Trump tweeted late Saturday that he had "called off peace negotiations".

Trump had cited a Taliban attack in Kabul on Thursday which killed 12 people including a US soldier as his reason for calling off the talks, including a secret meeting with the insurgents at Camp David in Maryland planned for this weekend.&nbsp;

But the Taliban dismissed his reasoning in their statement, saying it showed "neither experience nor patience", and accused the US of killing "hundreds of Afghans" in the fighting.&nbsp;

"Americans will be harmed more than any other," by Trump's decision, the statement said, adding that the US's "credibility will be harmed, their anti-peace stance will become more visible to the world, their casualties and financial losses will increase, and the US role in international political interaction will be discredited even further."

The Taliban said the US "will be harmed more than anyone" but left the door open for future negotiations Sunday after President Donald Trump abruptly announced that he had called off year-long talks to end America's longest war.

The Taliban said the US "will be harmed more than anyone" but left the door open for future negotiations Sunday after President Donald Trump abruptly announced that he had called off year-long talks to end America's longest war. "We still... believe that the American side will come back to this position... Our fight for the past 18 years should have proven to the Americans that we will not be satisfied until we witness the complete end of the occupation," the group said in a statement released on Twitter by spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. The statement said the insurgents had "finalised" a deal with the US that had been expected to allow Washington to begin withdrawing troops in exchange for security promises from the Taliban. It added that both sides had been preparing for the deal to be announced and signed when Trump tweeted late Saturday that he had "called off peace negotiations". Trump had cited a Taliban attack in Kabul on Thursday which killed 12 people including a US soldier as his reason for calling off the talks, including a secret meeting with the insurgents at Camp David in Maryland planned for this weekend. But the Taliban dismissed his reasoning in their statement, saying it showed "neither experience nor patience", and accused the US of killing "hundreds of Afghans" in the fighting. "Americans will be harmed more than any other," by Trump's decision, the statement said, adding that the US's "credibility will be harmed, their anti-peace stance will become more visible to the world, their casualties and financial losses will increase, and the US role in international political interaction will be discredited even further."

Taliban say US 'will be harmed more than anyone' after Trump halts talks

A loud explosion shook central Kabul on Thursday, with casualties feared in yet another<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/death-toll-rises-to-16-more-than-100-injured-in-kabul-blast-official-247236"> apparent attack to rock the Afghan capital</a> as the US and Taliban negotiate a peace deal.

"We confirm an explosion in the Shashdarak area" at about 10:10 am (05:40 GMT), interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said.

The blast shook windows and doors in an area close to foreign embassies and government buildings.

It was not immediately clear if the blast had caused casualties.

On Monday, at least 16 people were killed in a Taliban attack on a residential area in east Kabul.

Monday night's attack took place in a residential area near Green Village, a large compound that houses aid agencies and international organisations.

Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said the blast was caused by a tractor packed with explosives that had been parked alongside a wall by Green Village.

The Taliban claimed the attack, which came as US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was in Kabul to discuss a proposed deal that would see the US withdraw troops from Afghanistan in return for insurgent security guarantees.

Residents in the area around Green Village were furious that their neighbourhood, which has been targeted before, had been hit once again and blamed the international presence.&nbsp;

A loud explosion shook central Kabul on Thursday, with casualties feared in yet another apparent attack to rock the Afghan capital as the US and Taliban negotiate a peace deal.

A loud explosion shook central Kabul on Thursday, with casualties feared in yet another apparent attack to rock the Afghan capital as the US and Taliban negotiate a peace deal. "We confirm an explosion in the Shashdarak area" at about 10:10 am (05:40 GMT), interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said. The blast shook windows and doors in an area close to foreign embassies and government buildings. It was not immediately clear if the blast had caused casualties. On Monday, at least 16 people were killed in a Taliban attack on a residential area in east Kabul. Monday night's attack took place in a residential area near Green Village, a large compound that houses aid agencies and international organisations. Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said the blast was caused by a tractor packed with explosives that had been parked alongside a wall by Green Village. The Taliban claimed the attack, which came as US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was in Kabul to discuss a proposed deal that would see the US withdraw troops from Afghanistan in return for insurgent security guarantees. Residents in the area around Green Village were furious that their neighbourhood, which has been targeted before, had been hit once again and blamed the international presence.

Afghanistan: Loud explosion heard in central Kabul, casualties feared

Ever since the Union government decided to abrogate Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and to divide the state into two Union territories – Jammu &amp; Kashmir and Ladakh, all efforts have been made to restore full normalcy in Kashmir.&nbsp;

In turn, no major incident of mass protest or loss of life and property has so far been reported in the Valley. However, China and Pakistan have unsuccessfully tried to internationalise the issue.

True, Kashmir has been a major bone of contention between India and Pakistan since the Partition. But it is also a fact that the erstwhile state, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), has been an undisputed part of India since 1947 when Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, following the attack by Pakistan-sponsored tribesman.&nbsp;

Subsequently, the purpose of inserting temporary Articles 370 and 35 (A) was to expedite the process of integration of the state with the rest of India.&nbsp;

Sadly, over the last 70 years, these provisions, coupled with vested interests of regional political parties and separatist groups, the era of coalition politics and the Congress party’s half-hearted approach to address the Kashmir problem, have chocked developmental activities in Jammu &amp; Kashmir.&nbsp;

While the Modi government’s decision has received overwhelming support in Parliament and outside, Pakistan is trying hard to project an alarming picture of Kashmir before the international community.&nbsp;

In doing so, the Imran Khan government has downgraded diplomatic ties with India by expelling Ajay Bisaria, India’s High Commissioner to Pakistan. Islamabad has also stopped bilateral trade and the Samjhauta Express, among other unilateral steps. &nbsp;

However, the fact remains that the international community’s reaction to the recent changes concerning Jammu &amp; Kashmir has largely been in India’s favour.&nbsp;

The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, refused to intervene in the Kashmir matter, invoking the Shimla Agreement of 1972 that does not allow third-party mediation in this issue.&nbsp;

Russia has also endorsed the Modi government’s move, saying the abrogation of Article 370 is an internal affair of India. The US has said that both India and Pakistan should maintain restraint and hold direct talks to resolve the Kashmir issue while South Asian countries, including Bangladesh and Maldives, have backed India.&nbsp;

In a surprise development, the Taliban strongly criticised Pakistan for linking the increased tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi with the situation in Afghanistan. Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahed said, “The issue of Afghanistan is not related to Kashmir,” and urged India and Pakistan not to turn Afghanistan into the “theatre of competition between other countries.”&nbsp;

The Taliban’s statement is very important for India: First, it shows the outfit’s desire to hold talks with New Delhi and second, the Taliban does not want to be seen as a puppet of Pakistan.&nbsp;

This, in turn, will help India protect its interests in Afghanistan, given the fact that over the years, New Delhi has invested over $3 billion in development activities in this country.&nbsp;

China is the only major country that has criticised India’s recent decision concerning Jammu &amp; Kashmir. The reason for China’s criticism emerges from the fact that it enjoys a close relationship with Pakistan. Additionally, the Union territory of Ladakh also includes Aksai Chin, which is currently under China’s control.&nbsp;

In turn, India has re-emphasised its claim over this area. New Delhi would also be in a better position to effectively deal with any Pakistani and Chinese design, especially since the CPEC passes through this region.&nbsp;

With the Security Council refusing to interfere in the Kashmir issue, efforts towards accelerating development activities and strengthening democratic institutions should be a major priority for the government.

It will ensure that the people of Kashmir do not again fall into the trap of separatist groups and other vested interests in the Valley.&nbsp; 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-time-to-open-line-with-taliban-to-safeguard-afghan-interests-2785722">original article</a>) 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Ever since the Union government decided to abrogate Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and to divide the state into two Union territories – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, all efforts have been made to restore full normalcy in Kashmir.

Ever since the Union government decided to abrogate Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and to divide the state into two Union territories – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, all efforts have been made to restore full normalcy in Kashmir. In turn, no major incident of mass protest or loss of life and property has so far been reported in the Valley. However, China and Pakistan have unsuccessfully tried to internationalise the issue. True, Kashmir has been a major bone of contention between India and Pakistan since the Partition. But it is also a fact that the erstwhile state, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), has been an undisputed part of India since 1947 when Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, following the attack by Pakistan-sponsored tribesman. Subsequently, the purpose of inserting temporary Articles 370 and 35 (A) was to expedite the process of integration of the state with the rest of India. Sadly, over the last 70 years, these provisions, coupled with vested interests of regional political parties and separatist groups, the era of coalition politics and the Congress party’s half-hearted approach to address the Kashmir problem, have chocked developmental activities in Jammu & Kashmir. While the Modi government’s decision has received overwhelming support in Parliament and outside, Pakistan is trying hard to project an alarming picture of Kashmir before the international community. In doing so, the Imran Khan government has downgraded diplomatic ties with India by expelling Ajay Bisaria, India’s High Commissioner to Pakistan. Islamabad has also stopped bilateral trade and the Samjhauta Express, among other unilateral steps. However, the fact remains that the international community’s reaction to the recent changes concerning Jammu & Kashmir has largely been in India’s favour. The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, refused to intervene in the Kashmir matter, invoking the Shimla Agreement of 1972 that does not allow third-party mediation in this issue. Russia has also endorsed the Modi government’s move, saying the abrogation of Article 370 is an internal affair of India. The US has said that both India and Pakistan should maintain restraint and hold direct talks to resolve the Kashmir issue while South Asian countries, including Bangladesh and Maldives, have backed India. In a surprise development, the Taliban strongly criticised Pakistan for linking the increased tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi with the situation in Afghanistan. Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahed said, “The issue of Afghanistan is not related to Kashmir,” and urged India and Pakistan not to turn Afghanistan into the “theatre of competition between other countries.” The Taliban’s statement is very important for India: First, it shows the outfit’s desire to hold talks with New Delhi and second, the Taliban does not want to be seen as a puppet of Pakistan. This, in turn, will help India protect its interests in Afghanistan, given the fact that over the years, New Delhi has invested over $3 billion in development activities in this country. China is the only major country that has criticised India’s recent decision concerning Jammu & Kashmir. The reason for China’s criticism emerges from the fact that it enjoys a close relationship with Pakistan. Additionally, the Union territory of Ladakh also includes Aksai Chin, which is currently under China’s control. In turn, India has re-emphasised its claim over this area. New Delhi would also be in a better position to effectively deal with any Pakistani and Chinese design, especially since the CPEC passes through this region. With the Security Council refusing to interfere in the Kashmir issue, efforts towards accelerating development activities and strengthening democratic institutions should be a major priority for the government. It will ensure that the people of Kashmir do not again fall into the trap of separatist groups and other vested interests in the Valley. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Taliban’s statement on Jammu and Kashmir is very important for India

US special representative Zalmay Khalilzad has almost stuck a peace deal with the Taliban during the recently-concluded Eighth Round of talks at Doha.&nbsp;

Although violence by Taliban has not come down, the US displaying extraordinary zeal to end its 18-year-old military engagement in Afghanistan is bending over backwards to reach a face-saving deal when the country goes to elections next year. &nbsp;

Afghanistan has turned out to be the longest overseas operations of the US military and has cost it over 2,400 lives and nearly $1 trillion. As a result, war-weariness and fatigue have set in.

President Donald Trump is, therefore, banking on Islamabad to get the Taliban to the negotiating table, which explains Ambassador Khalilzad’s stopover at Islamabad en route to Doha. The deal apparently entails time-bound withdrawal by the US troops in return for an assurance by the Taliban that they will not allow the territory under their control to turn into a sanctuary for international terrorism.&nbsp;

According to reports trickling out, there is some disagreement between the US and the Taliban over the time frame of the withdrawal of 14,000 US troops from Afghanistan. However, Khalilzad appeared optimistic about the deal, which would serve Trump’s objective of getting US troops home, while allowing the Taliban to proclaim victory for ‘having driven out’ foreign troops from Afghan territory.

After the deal is finalised, it is expected to be followed by intra-Afghan negotiations in Norway. These negotiations are going to be a tough nut to crack, as the Taliban has consistently refused to accord any legitimacy to the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani. &nbsp;

Although Khalilzad’s expected presence at these negotiations may ensure some forward movement, it is unlikely that lasting peace will come to Afghanistan. The whole process of negotiations with the Taliban has weakened the position of President Ghani and his government.&nbsp;

In a tribal society, negotiations are usually between equals, and the US, by negotiating with the Taliban without the presence of Afghan government, has not only given a veneer of respectability to Taliban, it has also raised their stature and simultaneously undermined the authority of the Afghan government. &nbsp;

This has demoralised the Afghan National Army, which has been the main bulwark against the Taliban. One needs to appreciate that the power change in Afghanistan has come about because the established authority has been militarily defeated due to the defection of its key military commanders.&nbsp;

In view of this precedent, it becomes even more important that anything that demoralises the military should be avoided. In any case, Taliban’s presence in the government means imposition of its own rigid obscurantist ideology on the Afghan populace.&nbsp;

Religious and sectarian minorities as well as women are accordingly concerned about their future under any regime that has Taliban as a component. Consequently, those with avenues have started making alternate plans.&nbsp;

The US decision to talk to Taliban has also transformed Pakistan’s fortunes. As most of the Taliban leadership is located on Pakistani soil and Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the chief negotiator of Taliban at Doha, was in Pakistan’s custody for almost nine years, Islamabad is trying to occupy the centre stage again, which is quite evident from its belligerent rhetoric on Kashmir.&nbsp;

 
During Imran Khan’s recent visit to the United States, not only did Trump agree to the reinstatement of economic assistance and quadrupling of trade, he even volunteered to mediate on Kashmir. All this benevolence on Pakistan was showered primarily because the US had changed its stance on Afghanistan and the Pakistan Army, which has sheltered Taliban leadership for close to two decades, could well ensure a deal with the Taliban, and before Trump’s re-election. &nbsp;&nbsp;

US interlocutors, as well as most western analysts, mistakenly believe that it is feasible to isolate Al Qaeda, while cuddling up to Taliban. They often overlook the theological dimensions of relationship between Taliban and Al Qaeda.&nbsp;

Theologically, jihad mandates that it should be waged under a righteous leader and those waging it must control some fort, city or territory. Consequently, the Al Qaeda has never talked of jihad under the leadership of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri. They have always declared that they are waging a jihad under Amir ul Muminin (Commander of the Faithful), who was earlier Mullah Omar and is now Maulavi Hibatullah Akhundzada, the leader of Taliban.&nbsp;

Consequently, if there were to be prolonged peace between the Taliban and the West, then Al Qaeda’s jihad would lose theological legitimacy. So, as long as Al Qaeda survives, it will not allow sustained peace between the US and Taliban. While a peace deal may provide President Trump a fig leaf to pull out from Afghanistan, in the long run, it will turn out to be extremely counter-productive. &nbsp;

Any Taliban regime in the future is likely to be far more closely aligned with global jihadi movements and their aims and objectives are no longer going to be confined within the geographical frontiers of Afghanistan. It will start exporting its ideology to the neighbourhood, promoting radical outfits in different parts of South and Central Asia. This could pose a serious challenge to India. It is in India’s interest to crush Taliban in Afghanistan rather than deal with them at Wagah or Srinagar.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-taliban-s-seat-at-the-table-2783216">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

US special representative Zalmay Khalilzad has almost stuck a peace deal with the Taliban during the recently-concluded Eighth Round of talks at Doha. Although violence by Taliban has not come down, the US displaying extraordinary zeal to end its 18-year-old military engagement in Afghanistan is bending over backwards to reach a face-saving deal when the country goes to elections next year.

US special representative Zalmay Khalilzad has almost stuck a peace deal with the Taliban during the recently-concluded Eighth Round of talks at Doha. Although violence by Taliban has not come down, the US displaying extraordinary zeal to end its 18-year-old military engagement in Afghanistan is bending over backwards to reach a face-saving deal when the country goes to elections next year. Afghanistan has turned out to be the longest overseas operations of the US military and has cost it over 2,400 lives and nearly $1 trillion. As a result, war-weariness and fatigue have set in. President Donald Trump is, therefore, banking on Islamabad to get the Taliban to the negotiating table, which explains Ambassador Khalilzad’s stopover at Islamabad en route to Doha. The deal apparently entails time-bound withdrawal by the US troops in return for an assurance by the Taliban that they will not allow the territory under their control to turn into a sanctuary for international terrorism. According to reports trickling out, there is some disagreement between the US and the Taliban over the time frame of the withdrawal of 14,000 US troops from Afghanistan. However, Khalilzad appeared optimistic about the deal, which would serve Trump’s objective of getting US troops home, while allowing the Taliban to proclaim victory for ‘having driven out’ foreign troops from Afghan territory. After the deal is finalised, it is expected to be followed by intra-Afghan negotiations in Norway. These negotiations are going to be a tough nut to crack, as the Taliban has consistently refused to accord any legitimacy to the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani. Although Khalilzad’s expected presence at these negotiations may ensure some forward movement, it is unlikely that lasting peace will come to Afghanistan. The whole process of negotiations with the Taliban has weakened the position of President Ghani and his government. In a tribal society, negotiations are usually between equals, and the US, by negotiating with the Taliban without the presence of Afghan government, has not only given a veneer of respectability to Taliban, it has also raised their stature and simultaneously undermined the authority of the Afghan government. This has demoralised the Afghan National Army, which has been the main bulwark against the Taliban. One needs to appreciate that the power change in Afghanistan has come about because the established authority has been militarily defeated due to the defection of its key military commanders. In view of this precedent, it becomes even more important that anything that demoralises the military should be avoided. In any case, Taliban’s presence in the government means imposition of its own rigid obscurantist ideology on the Afghan populace. Religious and sectarian minorities as well as women are accordingly concerned about their future under any regime that has Taliban as a component. Consequently, those with avenues have started making alternate plans. The US decision to talk to Taliban has also transformed Pakistan’s fortunes. As most of the Taliban leadership is located on Pakistani soil and Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the chief negotiator of Taliban at Doha, was in Pakistan’s custody for almost nine years, Islamabad is trying to occupy the centre stage again, which is quite evident from its belligerent rhetoric on Kashmir. During Imran Khan’s recent visit to the United States, not only did Trump agree to the reinstatement of economic assistance and quadrupling of trade, he even volunteered to mediate on Kashmir. All this benevolence on Pakistan was showered primarily because the US had changed its stance on Afghanistan and the Pakistan Army, which has sheltered Taliban leadership for close to two decades, could well ensure a deal with the Taliban, and before Trump’s re-election. US interlocutors, as well as most western analysts, mistakenly believe that it is feasible to isolate Al Qaeda, while cuddling up to Taliban. They often overlook the theological dimensions of relationship between Taliban and Al Qaeda. Theologically, jihad mandates that it should be waged under a righteous leader and those waging it must control some fort, city or territory. Consequently, the Al Qaeda has never talked of jihad under the leadership of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri. They have always declared that they are waging a jihad under Amir ul Muminin (Commander of the Faithful), who was earlier Mullah Omar and is now Maulavi Hibatullah Akhundzada, the leader of Taliban. Consequently, if there were to be prolonged peace between the Taliban and the West, then Al Qaeda’s jihad would lose theological legitimacy. So, as long as Al Qaeda survives, it will not allow sustained peace between the US and Taliban. While a peace deal may provide President Trump a fig leaf to pull out from Afghanistan, in the long run, it will turn out to be extremely counter-productive. Any Taliban regime in the future is likely to be far more closely aligned with global jihadi movements and their aims and objectives are no longer going to be confined within the geographical frontiers of Afghanistan. It will start exporting its ideology to the neighbourhood, promoting radical outfits in different parts of South and Central Asia. This could pose a serious challenge to India. It is in India’s interest to crush Taliban in Afghanistan rather than deal with them at Wagah or Srinagar. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Any role for Pakistan-backed extremists in Afghanistan is bad news for South Asia

The brother of the leader of the Afghan Taliban was among at least <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/four-killed-in-blast-at-pakistan-mosque-over-20-injured-243408">four people killed in a bomb blast at a mosque in Pakistan</a> on Friday, two Taliban sources told Reuters.

Police said more than 20 people were wounded and the death toll could rise. The imam of the mosque, 25 km (15 miles) from the southwestern city of Quetta, was among those killed, police said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast which comes as the Taliban and the United States are in the final stages of negotiations on an agreement letting America end its longest war and withdraw its troops from neighbouring Afghanistan.

Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada was not in the mosque when the bomb went off but his younger brother, Hafiz Ahmadullah, was among those killed. The Taliban leader's son was wounded, one of the sources said.

The mosque was known to be visited by members of the Afghan Taliban, the sources said.

Pakistani police did not confirm the identity of any of the victims.

"It was a timed device planted under the wooden chair of the prayer leader," said Abdul Razzaq Cheema, chief of police in Quetta, capital of Balochistan province.

One of the sources, who visited the site after the blast, said security at the mosque was always very tight.

Separatist insurgents and Islamist militants are active in Balochistan but many in Pakistan are likely to suspect the Afghan government, which is battling the Taliban over the border in Afghanistan, of the blast.

Pakistan also accuses India of meddling in Balochistan. India denies that.

Prospects of peace

Pakistan has promised to help the United States end the Afghan war and both US and Taliban negotiators have recently reported significant progress in their talks in Qatar.

But Friday's blast will raise concerns about prospects for peace.

The Taliban, in exchange for a US troop withdrawal, are expected to guarantee that Afghanistan will not be used for international terrorism.

The militants, fighting to expel foreign forces and set up an Islamic state, are also expected to make a commitment to power-sharing talks with the US-backed government and a ceasefire.

US President Donald Trump is keen to bring the troops home but many Afghans fear a US troop withdrawal will leave the government battling the Taliban alone.

The United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, with a focus on training Afghan forces and counter-terrorism.

The Taliban roam through more territory now than they have since their 2001 ouster and fighting between government forces and the insurgents has been heavy.

The brother of the leader of the Afghan Taliban was among at least four people killed in a bomb blast at a mosque in Pakistan on Friday, two Taliban sources told Reuters.

The brother of the leader of the Afghan Taliban was among at least four people killed in a bomb blast at a mosque in Pakistan on Friday, two Taliban sources told Reuters. Police said more than 20 people were wounded and the death toll could rise. The imam of the mosque, 25 km (15 miles) from the southwestern city of Quetta, was among those killed, police said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast which comes as the Taliban and the United States are in the final stages of negotiations on an agreement letting America end its longest war and withdraw its troops from neighbouring Afghanistan. Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada was not in the mosque when the bomb went off but his younger brother, Hafiz Ahmadullah, was among those killed. The Taliban leader's son was wounded, one of the sources said. The mosque was known to be visited by members of the Afghan Taliban, the sources said. Pakistani police did not confirm the identity of any of the victims. "It was a timed device planted under the wooden chair of the prayer leader," said Abdul Razzaq Cheema, chief of police in Quetta, capital of Balochistan province. One of the sources, who visited the site after the blast, said security at the mosque was always very tight. Separatist insurgents and Islamist militants are active in Balochistan but many in Pakistan are likely to suspect the Afghan government, which is battling the Taliban over the border in Afghanistan, of the blast. Pakistan also accuses India of meddling in Balochistan. India denies that. Prospects of peace Pakistan has promised to help the United States end the Afghan war and both US and Taliban negotiators have recently reported significant progress in their talks in Qatar. But Friday's blast will raise concerns about prospects for peace. The Taliban, in exchange for a US troop withdrawal, are expected to guarantee that Afghanistan will not be used for international terrorism. The militants, fighting to expel foreign forces and set up an Islamic state, are also expected to make a commitment to power-sharing talks with the US-backed government and a ceasefire. US President Donald Trump is keen to bring the troops home but many Afghans fear a US troop withdrawal will leave the government battling the Taliban alone. The United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, with a focus on training Afghan forces and counter-terrorism. The Taliban roam through more territory now than they have since their 2001 ouster and fighting between government forces and the insurgents has been heavy.

Brother of Afghan Taliban leader killed in Pakistan mosque blast

Sixteen-year-old Madina still has nightmares about the day two huge blasts tore through her school in Kabul, showering shards of broken window glass on her and other students.&nbsp;

She survived, with lacerations to her arms and legs. The physical wounds are slowly healing, but she remains haunted by the stress of the attack.

Madina, like many of her generation in Afghanistan, has never known peace and experts warn the psychological impact of living in a country where schools are often on the front line, and counselling is in short supply, can be overwhelming.

"It was a scary day. I still have nightmares, I cannot focus, it was very hard to prepare for exams," Madina recalled.

She had to take her maths exam in the corridor at her shattered school as many classrooms have been left unusable.

The US and Taliban claim progress in ongoing peace talks, but little has changed for Afghans, and recent attacks underscore how children remain as vulnerable as ever in the grinding conflict.

A UN tally found last year was the deadliest on record, with at least 3,804 civilian deaths caused by the war -- including 927 children. And in the first six months of 2019, children accounted for nearly one-third of civilian casualties.

"In the first few days after the attack, you could see the trauma on students' faces, they would cry every minute," Madina's school director Niamatullah Hamdard said.

'Stressed out'

According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the number of attacks against Afghan schools tripled last year compared to 2017. By the end of 2018, more than 1,000 Afghan schools had been shut due to conflict, denying about 500,000 Afghan kids access to education.

In the arid Deh Bala district of Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan, the Papen high school has been reduced to rubble amid fighting between government forces and the Islamic State group.

Kids sit on a rug outside for a class, frowning as a reporter approaches. Some of them have witnessed IS fighters beheading locals.

"When the students go to sleep at night, they dream about Daesh and they are haunted by these atrocities," school director Muhamad Wali said, using the local name for IS.

"They scream in their sleep, and when they come here they are so stressed out."

Omar Ghorzang, a school district official, said the stress takes a huge toll.&nbsp;

"When the teachers are talking to them, the kids talk among themselves and do bizarre things. They cannot pay attention", Ghorzang said.

Amir Gul, aged about 15, said he and his Papen classmates are constantly anxious.

"We are always afraid a bomb might go off. Everyone is scared and no one can study," he said.

Psychotherapist Bethan McEvoy, who works as an education advisor for the Norwegian Refugee Council in Kabul, said it can be tough to assess the prevalence of mental illness and emotional trauma resulting from school attacks.

That's because symptoms of psychological trauma often manifest only after the shock has subsided -- and in Afghanistan, people can spend years living through one stressful event after another.

"When we experience a high-stress event, there's a natural response in our body that turns into a survival response," she said. "When people are in a state of constant fear ... then it's very difficult to turn that response off."

How people are impacted in the long term depends on many factors including their background, family relations and support networks.

"If a school has something in place to provide that kind of support to the child then it can actually be very helpful," McEvoy said, noting that more can be done to provide services in Afghanistan.

- Counselling needed - 
At the Kabul school, much of the debris had been cleared, but twisted metal poked through a collapsed roof and the crunch of broken glass could still be felt underfoot in areas away from where the kids play.

Days after the Kabul attack, a Taliban car bomb targeted a government intelligence centre in the eastern city of Ghazni. The blast also hit a nearby school, wounding dozens of children.

Barely a day goes by without reports of children or families being killed or wounded.&nbsp;

It is not just insurgent groups responsible for the killing.&nbsp;

A recent Pentagon report found US forces in Afghanistan caused 134 civilian casualties in 2018. Of the 76 among them who died, 31 were children.

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said war explosives account for 84 percent of all child casualties in Afghanistan.

"Physical injuries can pale in comparison to the emotional scars many children may carry with them for years," Save the Children's Afghanistan director Onno van Manen said after the Ghazni attack.

Wali, the school director in Nangarghar, said security risks made it hard for aid groups to offer counselling for his students.

But after the attack in Kabul, the ministry of health stepped in for a few days.

Madina said the therapy has helped.

She added: "It was useful, but it was too short."&nbsp;

Sixteen-year-old Madina still has nightmares about the day two huge blasts tore through her school in Kabul, showering shards of broken window glass on her and other students.

Sixteen-year-old Madina still has nightmares about the day two huge blasts tore through her school in Kabul, showering shards of broken window glass on her and other students. She survived, with lacerations to her arms and legs. The physical wounds are slowly healing, but she remains haunted by the stress of the attack. Madina, like many of her generation in Afghanistan, has never known peace and experts warn the psychological impact of living in a country where schools are often on the front line, and counselling is in short supply, can be overwhelming. "It was a scary day. I still have nightmares, I cannot focus, it was very hard to prepare for exams," Madina recalled. She had to take her maths exam in the corridor at her shattered school as many classrooms have been left unusable. The US and Taliban claim progress in ongoing peace talks, but little has changed for Afghans, and recent attacks underscore how children remain as vulnerable as ever in the grinding conflict. A UN tally found last year was the deadliest on record, with at least 3,804 civilian deaths caused by the war -- including 927 children. And in the first six months of 2019, children accounted for nearly one-third of civilian casualties. "In the first few days after the attack, you could see the trauma on students' faces, they would cry every minute," Madina's school director Niamatullah Hamdard said. 'Stressed out' According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the number of attacks against Afghan schools tripled last year compared to 2017. By the end of 2018, more than 1,000 Afghan schools had been shut due to conflict, denying about 500,000 Afghan kids access to education. In the arid Deh Bala district of Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan, the Papen high school has been reduced to rubble amid fighting between government forces and the Islamic State group. Kids sit on a rug outside for a class, frowning as a reporter approaches. Some of them have witnessed IS fighters beheading locals. "When the students go to sleep at night, they dream about Daesh and they are haunted by these atrocities," school director Muhamad Wali said, using the local name for IS. "They scream in their sleep, and when they come here they are so stressed out." Omar Ghorzang, a school district official, said the stress takes a huge toll. "When the teachers are talking to them, the kids talk among themselves and do bizarre things. They cannot pay attention", Ghorzang said. Amir Gul, aged about 15, said he and his Papen classmates are constantly anxious. "We are always afraid a bomb might go off. Everyone is scared and no one can study," he said. Psychotherapist Bethan McEvoy, who works as an education advisor for the Norwegian Refugee Council in Kabul, said it can be tough to assess the prevalence of mental illness and emotional trauma resulting from school attacks. That's because symptoms of psychological trauma often manifest only after the shock has subsided -- and in Afghanistan, people can spend years living through one stressful event after another. "When we experience a high-stress event, there's a natural response in our body that turns into a survival response," she said. "When people are in a state of constant fear ... then it's very difficult to turn that response off." How people are impacted in the long term depends on many factors including their background, family relations and support networks. "If a school has something in place to provide that kind of support to the child then it can actually be very helpful," McEvoy said, noting that more can be done to provide services in Afghanistan. - Counselling needed - At the Kabul school, much of the debris had been cleared, but twisted metal poked through a collapsed roof and the crunch of broken glass could still be felt underfoot in areas away from where the kids play. Days after the Kabul attack, a Taliban car bomb targeted a government intelligence centre in the eastern city of Ghazni. The blast also hit a nearby school, wounding dozens of children. Barely a day goes by without reports of children or families being killed or wounded. It is not just insurgent groups responsible for the killing. A recent Pentagon report found US forces in Afghanistan caused 134 civilian casualties in 2018. Of the 76 among them who died, 31 were children. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said war explosives account for 84 percent of all child casualties in Afghanistan. "Physical injuries can pale in comparison to the emotional scars many children may carry with them for years," Save the Children's Afghanistan director Onno van Manen said after the Ghazni attack. Wali, the school director in Nangarghar, said security risks made it hard for aid groups to offer counselling for his students. But after the attack in Kabul, the ministry of health stepped in for a few days. Madina said the therapy has helped. She added: "It was useful, but it was too short."

When school's not safe: Afghan war takes toll on kids

Direct talks between the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-khan-discuss-afghanistan-terrorism-in-first-meeting-237953">Afghan government and the Taliban </a>could begin in Norway within the next two weeks, officials and sources said Saturday, marking a potentially crucial step in efforts to end the war.

The Taliban have so far refused to speak to the government of President Ashraf Ghani, which they see as illegitimate, except for at a recent summit where Ghani officials attended in a "personal capacity".

"We are preparing for direct talks," said Abdul Salam Rahimi, the state minister for peace affairs, noting that the government would be represented by a 15-member delegation.

"We are working with all sides and hope that in the next two weeks the first meeting will take place in a European country."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-afghanistan-agree-to-accelerate-afghan-peace-talks-238502">US, Afghanistan agree to accelerate Afghan peace talks</a>

He did not specify where the summit might take place, but diplomatic sources told AFP the talks were scheduled to begin in Oslo on August 7. The sources said the international community and the Afghan government were still awaiting word from the Taliban.

Ghani and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo agreed in a telephone call Wednesday that "now is the time to accelerate efforts to reach a negotiated end to the war in Afghanistan", according to a joint statement.

US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leading a push to forge a peace deal with the Taliban, has spent the past several days in Kabul, where he met with Ghani and US officials.

He is expected to fly to Doha next week for what would be an eighth round of direct US-Taliban talks. The two foes claim progress in reaching a deal that would end America's nearly 18-year military involvement in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Washington has said it wants to see a deal inked by September 1, but any deal requires the Taliban to talk to Kabul.

'Personal capacity'

The apparent development comes after Taliban negotiators sat with Afghan representatives at a so-called intra-Afghan dialogue brokered by Germany in Doha this month.

The Afghan stakeholders had agreed to attend in a "personal capacity" so the Taliban can continue to insist it is not talking directly to the Kabul administration.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP any new talks would only begin after a deal has been forged with the US, and he reiterated the insurgents' long-held position that they would "not talk to the Kabul administration as a government".

Rahimi said the next delegation would include some of those who went to Doha, as well as religious scholars, women and other members of civil society.

Meanwhile, the war rages across Afghanistan, with the Taliban, the US and Afghan forces all fighting at an increased tempo.

At least three police officers were killed and a dozen more wounded Saturday when a Taliban suicide bomber drove an explosives-packed, US-made armoured vehicle into a compound in eastern Afghanistan, officials said.

On Thursday, three blasts rocked Kabul, killing at least 10 people and wounding scores more, even as US and Afghan officials pledged to speed up their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement.

Direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban could begin in Norway within the next two weeks, officials and sources said Saturday, marking a potentially crucial step in efforts to end the war.

Direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban could begin in Norway within the next two weeks, officials and sources said Saturday, marking a potentially crucial step in efforts to end the war. The Taliban have so far refused to speak to the government of President Ashraf Ghani, which they see as illegitimate, except for at a recent summit where Ghani officials attended in a "personal capacity". "We are preparing for direct talks," said Abdul Salam Rahimi, the state minister for peace affairs, noting that the government would be represented by a 15-member delegation. "We are working with all sides and hope that in the next two weeks the first meeting will take place in a European country." Also read: US, Afghanistan agree to accelerate Afghan peace talks He did not specify where the summit might take place, but diplomatic sources told AFP the talks were scheduled to begin in Oslo on August 7. The sources said the international community and the Afghan government were still awaiting word from the Taliban. Ghani and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo agreed in a telephone call Wednesday that "now is the time to accelerate efforts to reach a negotiated end to the war in Afghanistan", according to a joint statement. US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leading a push to forge a peace deal with the Taliban, has spent the past several days in Kabul, where he met with Ghani and US officials. He is expected to fly to Doha next week for what would be an eighth round of direct US-Taliban talks. The two foes claim progress in reaching a deal that would end America's nearly 18-year military involvement in Afghanistan. Washington has said it wants to see a deal inked by September 1, but any deal requires the Taliban to talk to Kabul. 'Personal capacity' The apparent development comes after Taliban negotiators sat with Afghan representatives at a so-called intra-Afghan dialogue brokered by Germany in Doha this month. The Afghan stakeholders had agreed to attend in a "personal capacity" so the Taliban can continue to insist it is not talking directly to the Kabul administration. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP any new talks would only begin after a deal has been forged with the US, and he reiterated the insurgents' long-held position that they would "not talk to the Kabul administration as a government". Rahimi said the next delegation would include some of those who went to Doha, as well as religious scholars, women and other members of civil society. Meanwhile, the war rages across Afghanistan, with the Taliban, the US and Afghan forces all fighting at an increased tempo. At least three police officers were killed and a dozen more wounded Saturday when a Taliban suicide bomber drove an explosives-packed, US-made armoured vehicle into a compound in eastern Afghanistan, officials said. On Thursday, three blasts rocked Kabul, killing at least 10 people and wounding scores more, even as US and Afghan officials pledged to speed up their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement.

Talks between Afghanistan government, Taliban could happen within two weeks in Norway: Officials

By Ali Wardak

Getting justice in Afghanistan is a complicated business. Two main justice systems – state laws based on the civil law tradition and Islamic jurisprudence – combine with non-state institutions, such as traditional village jirgas (circles) or shuras (councils), to resolve local disputes and deal with offences.

Since the collapse of the Taliban regime, the US alone has spent well over a billion dollars rebuilding and reforming Afghanistan’s state justice sector, influenced by the Western system of retributive justice. But the failure to engage with Afghanistan’s own tradition of restorative justice and to understand its multiplicity of justice providers has undermined true reform.

It has instead resulted in a justice system that doesn’t have the full capacity to address the complex needs of all the Afghan people. And it has allowed others, including the Taliban judiciary – who have a select and narrow interpretation of Sharia – to step into the vacuum. This can lead to situations where people’s rights – especially women – are unprotected or infringed.

A “hybrid model” that instead forges links between state and non-state providers could provide justice that is more accessible, affordable and inclusive – and one with better oversight of those involved, and which would reduce human rights violations.

In 2007, out of research and a report for the UN Development Programme (UNDP), I developed such a model. The idea was to create complementary links between the existing state justice system, various non-state justice providers, and women’s/human rights units, each acting as a check and balance on the others.

Although vested interest of powerful Afghan politicians delayed the translation of this hybrid model into practice, it has now partially resulted in a draft law – the Law on Conciliatory Jirga’s in Civil Disputes – which is currently waiting to be approved by the new Afghan parliament.

Women’s rights

Research has shown that non-state justice providers (especially jirgas and shuras) are perceived as more accessible, trusted, less corrupt and speedier in resolving disputes than the state courts. But these male-only institutions exclude women, are sometimes influenced by warlords, and their decisions are not officially recorded. Most of these non-state justice institutions also variously violate human rights, for example in their use of baad, a centuries-old practice in which an offender’s female relative is given in marriage to a male family member of a victim.

A hybrid framework not only creates a collaborative dialogue between various state and non-state justice providers, but also empowers women through raising awareness of their rights and supporting spaces for contestation. Human rights units can provide disputants with help and advice in selecting the right institution for their case and can also check justice decisions are consistent with women’s and human rights principles. These units can also be empowered to examine issues relating to domestic violence, past human rights abuses and war crimes.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) units would handle minor criminal offences and any civil cases. Their decisions would be checked by the closest state justice institution to ensure that decisions didn’t violate Afghanistan’s law and/or the fundamental principles of Islamic Sharia. Decisions that failed to be endorsed on either human rights grounds or by a concerned state court, would be revised or referred to the state justice system for adjudication. But all serious criminal cases would fall exclusively under the remit of the state justice system.

A challenging time 
 
It took more than a decade to get the idea of a hybrid model of justice accepted in Afghanistan. Senior judges saw it as a threat to their exclusive authority over all cases and disputes within the state judicial system. They also saw the 2007 UNDP report recommendations as a possible diversion of international aid to non-state justice providers. The report was initially banned by Afghanistan’s Supreme Court.

But strong support from international organisations including the US Institute of Peace, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and some national and international institutions in Afghanistan led to the implementation of programmes that trained traditional local mediators, promoted legal awareness and women’s rights and resulted in more coordination between non-state actors and the state justice system.

Success of these programmes induced Afghanistan’s Ministry of Justice to revisit the hybrid model and these programmes may be the reason behind the increasing rejection of the practise of baad in Afghanistan. The UNDP report suggested that 28% of people saw baad was “always” or “sometimes” an outcome of jirga/shura decision making in 2007, recent research reveals that this practice now rarely happens.

I have now also been working with Conciliation Resources, an international peace organisation, to see how the hybrid model can be used to engage traditional and religious institutions using their established practical experience of resolving local conflict to contribute to peacemaking in Afghanistan.

The Palestine connection 
 
The hybrid model could also work in other places where multiple state and non-state justice institutions exist. Hebron University’s Mutaz Qafisheh and I recently found that the state alone cannot provide effective justice for all Palestinian children. As in Afghanistan, many people see the justice provided by key non-state providers as more speedy and accessible.

But, as we also found in Afghanistan, these are also often male-dominated providers that prioritise community over individual rights. For example, it is makhateer (traditional male mediators/community leaders) and mosleheen (male conciliators) who often decide what is good for the community, and whose judgments sometimes violate the rights of young offenders or victims, and especially girls.

As a result of this work, Swiss children’s charity Terre des hommes – which provides professional support to the Palestinian state juvenile justice system and legal/social support for children in conflict with law – is now using our idea of a hybrid model in its juvenile justice policy in the Palestinian Territories.

Justice is especially complex in countries where multiple providers exist – and whether official or unofficial, many of these are here to stay. Rather than impose one top-down retributive system, it is prudent to harness the many positive aspects of local traditional, religious and other existing non-state justice providers and link them to the state justice system in meaningful ways. This form of hybridity helps to prevent human rights violation, and promises to provide more accessible, affordable, effective and restorative justice for all. 
 
(Ali Wardak is Professor of Criminology, University of South Wales) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/afghanistan-how-to-widen-access-to-justice-109381">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Ali Wardak Getting justice in Afghanistan is a complicated business. Two main justice systems – state laws based on the civil law tradition and Islamic jurisprudence – combine with non-state institutions, such as traditional village jirgas (circles) or shuras (councils), to resolve local disputes and deal with offences.

By Ali Wardak Getting justice in Afghanistan is a complicated business. Two main justice systems – state laws based on the civil law tradition and Islamic jurisprudence – combine with non-state institutions, such as traditional village jirgas (circles) or shuras (councils), to resolve local disputes and deal with offences. Since the collapse of the Taliban regime, the US alone has spent well over a billion dollars rebuilding and reforming Afghanistan’s state justice sector, influenced by the Western system of retributive justice. But the failure to engage with Afghanistan’s own tradition of restorative justice and to understand its multiplicity of justice providers has undermined true reform. It has instead resulted in a justice system that doesn’t have the full capacity to address the complex needs of all the Afghan people. And it has allowed others, including the Taliban judiciary – who have a select and narrow interpretation of Sharia – to step into the vacuum. This can lead to situations where people’s rights – especially women – are unprotected or infringed. A “hybrid model” that instead forges links between state and non-state providers could provide justice that is more accessible, affordable and inclusive – and one with better oversight of those involved, and which would reduce human rights violations. In 2007, out of research and a report for the UN Development Programme (UNDP), I developed such a model. The idea was to create complementary links between the existing state justice system, various non-state justice providers, and women’s/human rights units, each acting as a check and balance on the others. Although vested interest of powerful Afghan politicians delayed the translation of this hybrid model into practice, it has now partially resulted in a draft law – the Law on Conciliatory Jirga’s in Civil Disputes – which is currently waiting to be approved by the new Afghan parliament. Women’s rights Research has shown that non-state justice providers (especially jirgas and shuras) are perceived as more accessible, trusted, less corrupt and speedier in resolving disputes than the state courts. But these male-only institutions exclude women, are sometimes influenced by warlords, and their decisions are not officially recorded. Most of these non-state justice institutions also variously violate human rights, for example in their use of baad, a centuries-old practice in which an offender’s female relative is given in marriage to a male family member of a victim. A hybrid framework not only creates a collaborative dialogue between various state and non-state justice providers, but also empowers women through raising awareness of their rights and supporting spaces for contestation. Human rights units can provide disputants with help and advice in selecting the right institution for their case and can also check justice decisions are consistent with women’s and human rights principles. These units can also be empowered to examine issues relating to domestic violence, past human rights abuses and war crimes. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) units would handle minor criminal offences and any civil cases. Their decisions would be checked by the closest state justice institution to ensure that decisions didn’t violate Afghanistan’s law and/or the fundamental principles of Islamic Sharia. Decisions that failed to be endorsed on either human rights grounds or by a concerned state court, would be revised or referred to the state justice system for adjudication. But all serious criminal cases would fall exclusively under the remit of the state justice system. A challenging time It took more than a decade to get the idea of a hybrid model of justice accepted in Afghanistan. Senior judges saw it as a threat to their exclusive authority over all cases and disputes within the state judicial system. They also saw the 2007 UNDP report recommendations as a possible diversion of international aid to non-state justice providers. The report was initially banned by Afghanistan’s Supreme Court. But strong support from international organisations including the US Institute of Peace, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and some national and international institutions in Afghanistan led to the implementation of programmes that trained traditional local mediators, promoted legal awareness and women’s rights and resulted in more coordination between non-state actors and the state justice system. Success of these programmes induced Afghanistan’s Ministry of Justice to revisit the hybrid model and these programmes may be the reason behind the increasing rejection of the practise of baad in Afghanistan. The UNDP report suggested that 28% of people saw baad was “always” or “sometimes” an outcome of jirga/shura decision making in 2007, recent research reveals that this practice now rarely happens. I have now also been working with Conciliation Resources, an international peace organisation, to see how the hybrid model can be used to engage traditional and religious institutions using their established practical experience of resolving local conflict to contribute to peacemaking in Afghanistan. The Palestine connection The hybrid model could also work in other places where multiple state and non-state justice institutions exist. Hebron University’s Mutaz Qafisheh and I recently found that the state alone cannot provide effective justice for all Palestinian children. As in Afghanistan, many people see the justice provided by key non-state providers as more speedy and accessible. But, as we also found in Afghanistan, these are also often male-dominated providers that prioritise community over individual rights. For example, it is makhateer (traditional male mediators/community leaders) and mosleheen (male conciliators) who often decide what is good for the community, and whose judgments sometimes violate the rights of young offenders or victims, and especially girls. As a result of this work, Swiss children’s charity Terre des hommes – which provides professional support to the Palestinian state juvenile justice system and legal/social support for children in conflict with law – is now using our idea of a hybrid model in its juvenile justice policy in the Palestinian Territories. Justice is especially complex in countries where multiple providers exist – and whether official or unofficial, many of these are here to stay. Rather than impose one top-down retributive system, it is prudent to harness the many positive aspects of local traditional, religious and other existing non-state justice providers and link them to the state justice system in meaningful ways. This form of hybridity helps to prevent human rights violation, and promises to provide more accessible, affordable, effective and restorative justice for all. (Ali Wardak is Professor of Criminology, University of South Wales) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

How to widen access to justice in Afghanistan

The United States President Donald Trump on Monday said he will leave a strong intelligence presence in Afghanistan even after US troops depart from the country. He also termed the country "Harvard of terrorists" while he was speaking in a video interview.

"We will be leaving very strong intelligence, far more than you would normally think," Trump said in an interview with Fox News.

"It just seems to be a lab for terrorists... I call it the Harvard of terrorists," he said.

"I've wanted to pull them out," Trump said of US troops who have been fighting in the country since 2001.

But he said he hesitates due what he described as advice from the military that it is preferable to fight terrorists there than at home -- echoing an argument advanced by George W&nbsp;Bush's administration.

Trump's comments come with rival Afghans set to start meeting in Qatar on Sunday in a fresh attempt to make political headway as the United States seeks a peace deal with the Taliban within three months.

After Syria, Donald Trump in December last year announced to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Following Trump's announcement, Pentagon had also announced the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-withdraw-significant-number-of-troops-from-afghanistan-official-185569"> withdrawal of around 7,000 troops from Afghanistan</a> which amounts to the removal of half of the total US forces deployed in the country at present. So far no timeline has been fixed&nbsp;

About 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, are in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces carry out counter-terrorism operations.

Watch: Why is Afghanistan a fertile ground for ISIS?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-is-afghanistan-a-fertile-ground-for-isis-226355/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

At least 3,804 civilians were killed in the war last year, according to the United Nations. Thousands of Afghan soldiers, police and Taliban were also killed.

(With inputs from news agencies)

The United States President Donald Trump on Monday said he will leave a strong intelligence presence in Afghanistan even after US troops depart from the country.

The United States President Donald Trump on Monday said he will leave a strong intelligence presence in Afghanistan even after US troops depart from the country. He also termed the country "Harvard of terrorists" while he was speaking in a video interview. "We will be leaving very strong intelligence, far more than you would normally think," Trump said in an interview with Fox News. "It just seems to be a lab for terrorists... I call it the Harvard of terrorists," he said. "I've wanted to pull them out," Trump said of US troops who have been fighting in the country since 2001. But he said he hesitates due what he described as advice from the military that it is preferable to fight terrorists there than at home -- echoing an argument advanced by George W Bush's administration. Trump's comments come with rival Afghans set to start meeting in Qatar on Sunday in a fresh attempt to make political headway as the United States seeks a peace deal with the Taliban within three months. After Syria, Donald Trump in December last year announced to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Following Trump's announcement, Pentagon had also announced the withdrawal of around 7,000 troops from Afghanistan which amounts to the removal of half of the total US forces deployed in the country at present. So far no timeline has been fixed About 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, are in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces carry out counter-terrorism operations. Watch: Why is Afghanistan a fertile ground for ISIS? × At least 3,804 civilians were killed in the war last year, according to the United Nations. Thousands of Afghan soldiers, police and Taliban were also killed. (With inputs from news agencies)

US will keep strong intel presence in Afghanistan even after troops withdrawal: Trump

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-it-has-broken-enriched-uranium-stockpile-limit-set-by-2015-nuclear-deal-232067">Iran says it has broken enriched uranium stockpile limit set by nuclear deal</a> 
 
Iran has breached a 300kg (660lb) limit on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium set under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/violent-clashes-as-hong-kong-marks-china-handover-anniversary-232056">Violent clashes as Hong Kong marks China handover anniversary</a> 
 
The angry scenes ramped up tensions in the financial hub which has been rocked by three weeks of historic demonstrations against a hugely unpopular bill that would allow extraditions to the Chinese mainland.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/water-crisis-in-india-centre-sends-out-250-civil-servants-to-driest-areas-232082">Water crisis in India: Centre sends out 250 civil servants to driest areas&nbsp;</a> 
 
India's monsoon, which accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the country's annual rainfall, turned patchy in the first month of the season that began on June 1.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/samajwadi-party-will-support-extension-of-presidents-rule-in-jammu-kashmir-ram-gopal-yadav-232008">Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress, Biju Janata Dal to support extension of President's Rule in Jammu &amp; Kashmir</a> 
 
On June 28, Lok Sabha approved the statutory resolution to extend President's Rule in Jammu &amp; Kashmir with effect from July 3rd, 2019.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-gun-battle-rages-in-kabul-after-blast-injures-100-taliban-claims-responsibility-231998">Afghanistan: Gun battle rages in Kabul after blast injures 100, Taliban claims responsibility</a>

A blast in the Afghan capital on Monday was part of an attack by Taliban fighters targeting the defence ministry compound in Kabul, the Islamist militant group said in a statement.

Iran says it has broken enriched uranium stockpile limit set by nuclear deal Iran has breached a 300kg (660lb) limit on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium set under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

Iran says it has broken enriched uranium stockpile limit set by nuclear deal Iran has breached a 300kg (660lb) limit on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium set under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Violent clashes as Hong Kong marks China handover anniversary The angry scenes ramped up tensions in the financial hub which has been rocked by three weeks of historic demonstrations against a hugely unpopular bill that would allow extraditions to the Chinese mainland. Water crisis in India: Centre sends out 250 civil servants to driest areas India's monsoon, which accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the country's annual rainfall, turned patchy in the first month of the season that began on June 1. Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress, Biju Janata Dal to support extension of President's Rule in Jammu & Kashmir On June 28, Lok Sabha approved the statutory resolution to extend President's Rule in Jammu & Kashmir with effect from July 3rd, 2019. Afghanistan: Gun battle rages in Kabul after blast injures 100, Taliban claims responsibility A blast in the Afghan capital on Monday was part of an attack by Taliban fighters targeting the defence ministry compound in Kabul, the Islamist militant group said in a statement.

News brief: Big stories of the day

China on Thursday for the first time acknowledged that it recently hosted Afghan Taliban's chief peace negotiator Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar for talks as part of its stepped-up efforts to enlarge its strategic role in Afghanistan and efforts to restore peace in the war-torn country.

Mullah Baradar, one of the four top commanders who formed the Taliban in 1994, was released from jail last year by the Pakistan government. He is believed to be the highest-ranking Afghan Taliban prisoner freed so far.

After his release from the jail, Mullah Baradar has been holding talks with US Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad.

China, a close ally of Pakistan, has been trying to iron out differences between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of providing safe haven to the Afghan Taliban, Haqqani network and other militant groups, which carry out attacks in the war-torn country.

The "head of Taliban political office in Doha, Bardar, visited China", Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told the media here Thursday.

"During his visit, the Chinese officials exchanged views with him on the peace and reconciliation process as well as the fight against terrorism," he said.

Bardar was told about the constructive role being played by China in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan, Lu said.

"We always support the Afghan-led and Afghan-owned extensive and inclusive peace and reconciliation as well as the internal dialogue among the Afghanis. So, we have made the position clear with the Taliban chief negotiator," he said.

"This is an important part of our efforts to promote peace talks. Both sides agreed that the exchange is mutually beneficial and we also agreed to seek communication and cooperation for a political settlement of the Afghan issue. We will try and talk through various means and ways to play our due role in realising peace and reconciliation, stability and development in Afghanistan," Lu said.

Mullah Baradar held several senior positions in the Taliban government before its fall in 2001. He was once considered the most influential Taliban leader after Mullah Muhammad Omar.

Asked what the Taliban wants to end the civil war in Afghanistan, Lu said, "I believe the relevant parties in Afghanistan who are committed to peace talks hope to resolve the internal situation in Afghanistan and achieve sustainable peace and reconciliation".

"China is trying to promote the dialogue of Afghanis. Another issue is the joint fight against terrorism," he said.

China has also been holding talks with India over the situation in Afghanistan.

China's special envoy in Afghanistan Deng Xijun visited New Delhi in May last and held talks the top External Affairs Ministry officials.

India and China also conducted a joint programme to train diplomats of Afghanistan.&nbsp;

China on Thursday for the first time acknowledged that it recently hosted Afghan Taliban's chief peace negotiator Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar for talks as part of its stepped-up efforts to enlarge its strategic role in Afghanistan and efforts to restore peace in the war-torn country.

China on Thursday for the first time acknowledged that it recently hosted Afghan Taliban's chief peace negotiator Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar for talks as part of its stepped-up efforts to enlarge its strategic role in Afghanistan and efforts to restore peace in the war-torn country. Mullah Baradar, one of the four top commanders who formed the Taliban in 1994, was released from jail last year by the Pakistan government. He is believed to be the highest-ranking Afghan Taliban prisoner freed so far. After his release from the jail, Mullah Baradar has been holding talks with US Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad. China, a close ally of Pakistan, has been trying to iron out differences between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of providing safe haven to the Afghan Taliban, Haqqani network and other militant groups, which carry out attacks in the war-torn country. The "head of Taliban political office in Doha, Bardar, visited China", Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told the media here Thursday. "During his visit, the Chinese officials exchanged views with him on the peace and reconciliation process as well as the fight against terrorism," he said. Bardar was told about the constructive role being played by China in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan, Lu said. "We always support the Afghan-led and Afghan-owned extensive and inclusive peace and reconciliation as well as the internal dialogue among the Afghanis. So, we have made the position clear with the Taliban chief negotiator," he said. "This is an important part of our efforts to promote peace talks. Both sides agreed that the exchange is mutually beneficial and we also agreed to seek communication and cooperation for a political settlement of the Afghan issue. We will try and talk through various means and ways to play our due role in realising peace and reconciliation, stability and development in Afghanistan," Lu said. Mullah Baradar held several senior positions in the Taliban government before its fall in 2001. He was once considered the most influential Taliban leader after Mullah Muhammad Omar. Asked what the Taliban wants to end the civil war in Afghanistan, Lu said, "I believe the relevant parties in Afghanistan who are committed to peace talks hope to resolve the internal situation in Afghanistan and achieve sustainable peace and reconciliation". "China is trying to promote the dialogue of Afghanis. Another issue is the joint fight against terrorism," he said. China has also been holding talks with India over the situation in Afghanistan. China's special envoy in Afghanistan Deng Xijun visited New Delhi in May last and held talks the top External Affairs Ministry officials. India and China also conducted a joint programme to train diplomats of Afghanistan.

We support Afghan-led peace dialogue, says China while hosting Taliban leader

Attacks on schools in Afghanistan increased almost threefold last year, making it increasingly difficult to ensure an education for children in many parts of the country, the United Nations children`s fund UNICEF said on Tuesday.

The agency, which promotes education and children's rights, said the number of attacks against Afghan schools jumped from 68 in 2017 to 192 last year. It was the first time since 2015 that a rise in attacks had been recorded.

"Education is under fire in Afghanistan," said UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore. "The senseless attacks on schools; the killing, injury and abduction of teachers; and the threats against education are destroying the hopes and dreams of an entire generation of children."

More than 1,000 schools across the country remain closed because of security threats from groups such as the Taliban and Islamic State, which have sought soft targets for attacks aimed at extending and consolidating their influence through intimidation.

Although the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-taliban-claims-responsibility-for-quetta-blast-218492"> Taliban</a> have shifted from their previous opposition to all forms of girls` education, they have faced regular accusations of shutting down schools run in a way they do not approve.

UNICEF said the use of school buildings as voter centres during last year's parliamentary election may have been a factor behind the rise in attacks.

Afghanistan has a young and fast-growing population but about 3.7 million children, or nearly half of all school-age children, are not in formal education, UNICEF said.

Attacks on schools in Afghanistan increased almost threefold last year, making it increasingly difficult to ensure an education for children in many parts of the country, the United Nations children`s fund UNICEF said on Tuesday.

Attacks on schools in Afghanistan increased almost threefold last year, making it increasingly difficult to ensure an education for children in many parts of the country, the United Nations children`s fund UNICEF said on Tuesday. The agency, which promotes education and children's rights, said the number of attacks against Afghan schools jumped from 68 in 2017 to 192 last year. It was the first time since 2015 that a rise in attacks had been recorded. "Education is under fire in Afghanistan," said UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore. "The senseless attacks on schools; the killing, injury and abduction of teachers; and the threats against education are destroying the hopes and dreams of an entire generation of children." More than 1,000 schools across the country remain closed because of security threats from groups such as the Taliban and Islamic State, which have sought soft targets for attacks aimed at extending and consolidating their influence through intimidation. Although the Taliban have shifted from their previous opposition to all forms of girls` education, they have faced regular accusations of shutting down schools run in a way they do not approve. UNICEF said the use of school buildings as voter centres during last year's parliamentary election may have been a factor behind the rise in attacks. Afghanistan has a young and fast-growing population but about 3.7 million children, or nearly half of all school-age children, are not in formal education, UNICEF said.

Education under fire' as attacks on Afghan schools jump: UNICEF

At least four militants, including a local Islamic State (IS) commander, were killed in an operation carried out by Afghan Special Forces in Nangarhar province, local media reported on Saturday.

According to Afghanistan's Interior Ministry, the operation was carried out in the Deh Bala district of the said province on Friday.

Six other IS sympathisers sustained injuries during the operation, reported Sputnik.

Nangarhar lies 120 kilometres east of capital Kabul. The province witnesses scenes of clashes between the security forces and IS militants from time to time. This has forced more than 9000 families living in the province to flee to safer places.

Afghanistan is suffering from an unstable political, social, and security situation due to the activities of the Taliban and Islamic State.

The Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) regularly conduct joint offensive operations to combat terrorism across the country.&nbsp;

At least four militants, including a local Islamic State (IS) commander, were killed in an operation carried out by Afghan Special Forces in Nangarhar province, local media reported on Saturday.

At least four militants, including a local Islamic State (IS) commander, were killed in an operation carried out by Afghan Special Forces in Nangarhar province, local media reported on Saturday. According to Afghanistan's Interior Ministry, the operation was carried out in the Deh Bala district of the said province on Friday. Six other IS sympathisers sustained injuries during the operation, reported Sputnik. Nangarhar lies 120 kilometres east of capital Kabul. The province witnesses scenes of clashes between the security forces and IS militants from time to time. This has forced more than 9000 families living in the province to flee to safer places. Afghanistan is suffering from an unstable political, social, and security situation due to the activities of the Taliban and Islamic State. The Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) regularly conduct joint offensive operations to combat terrorism across the country.

Local Islamic State commander among 4 killed by Afghan forces

"The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C.”

H R McMaster wrote that statement in his 1997 scathing critique of the Vietnam War, "Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam." He was a major in the Army at that time. Now, he is a retired lieutenant general and former national security advisor to President Donald Trump.

It is indeed ironic that McMaster eventually contributed to what many people thought to be impossible by repeating the mistakes of Vietnam and losing the Afghanistan war—both in the field and in Washington, DC.

The real tragedy is that America’s leaders, in particular, its military leaders, long knew that the war in Afghanistan could not be won having chosen to fight it in a manner that was alien to its nature, thus wasting both treasure and precious lives.

For over seventeen years we have wrongly applied counterinsurgency doctrine to a proxy war waged by Pakistan against the United States and Afghanistan. At the same time, we supplied Pakistan with generous aid packages to bribe them from pursuing a course of action opposed to our own, which they considered in their national interest.

Counterinsurgency was never a winning strategy as long as Pakistan controlled the supply of our troops in landlocked Afghanistan and regulated the operational tempo through its proxy army, the Taliban, which has maintained an extensive recruiting, training and financial support infrastructure inside Pakistan, where it has been immune to attack.

In essence, our leaders, through a combination of incompetence and indifference, allowed the United States to be defeated by Pakistan and paid them to do it.

Pakistan’s objectives for Afghanistan have always been different than those of the United States. Not only has Pakistan not helped the United States in Afghanistan, but from the very beginning through its support of the Taliban, Pakistan has actively worked against our interests and is responsible for the prolongation of the war and the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans and Afghans.

For example, Jalaluddin Haqqani, then the leader of the Haqqani Network, controlled the Khost region of eastern Afghanistan, which is where most of Osama bin Laden’s training camps and supporters were, was a CIA asset in the 1980s and met with US officials soon after 9/11.

Journalist Steve Coll wrote, “There was always a question about whether Haqqani was really Taliban, because he hadn’t come out of Kandahar; he wasn’t part of the core group. And it was quite reasonable to believe after 9/11 that maybe he could be flipped.”

In early October 2001, Haqqani made a secret trip to Pakistan, where Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, a religious hardliner and then director of Pakistan’s notorious intelligence agency, the ISI, advised him to hold out and not defect, promising that he would receive help.

Subsequently, Haqqani decided to stay with the Taliban and the Haqqani Network continues to be a threat and a source of instability in Afghanistan.

The United States was aware of Pakistan’s duplicity early on. Gary Berntsen, one of the first CIA operatives to arrive in Afghanistan, said, “I assumed from the beginning of the conflict that ISI advisers were supporting the Taliban with expertise and material and, no doubt, sending a steady stream of intelligence back to [Pakistan].”

The same pattern of duplicitous behaviour by Pakistan has continued over the last seventeen years.

Late last year, during a Taliban attack on the Afghan provincial capital of Ghazni, large numbers of Pakistani nationals were found among the dead, presumably fighting with the Taliban. The bodies were subsequently returned to Pakistan.

In a recently released video, Al Qaeda emphasises its unity with Taliban and its role within the Taliban insurgency, as the jihadists, including Pakistanis, fight together to resurrect the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

And yet American political leaders and senior military officers have done nothing, preferring to remain puzzled or indifferent as to why we have not won in Afghanistan.

Pakistanis openly brag that they have defeated the United States.

Shortly before his death in 2015, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan’s ISI, a committed Islamist and known as the “godfather of the Taliban,” said in an Urdu language television interview:

“One day, history will say that the ISI drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan with the help of USA and another sentence will be recorded that says the ISI drove the USA out of Afghanistan with the help of the USA.”

The Pakistani audience roared with laughter and applauded in approval.

The problem of Pakistan as the actual instigator of the Afghan conflict was never adequately addressed and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan remained largely untouched.

The pressure was never applied to Pakistan’s pain points, its moribund economy and financial insolvency and the existential threat of ethnic separatism, in particular among Pakistan’s Baloch and Pashtun populations.

On the ground in Afghanistan, the war effort has been a programme on automatic pilot, where everyone has been constantly reassured that everything was going according to plan and “progress was being made,” a phrase I heard endlessly during my own 2010 tenure at International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Headquarters in Kabul. If the effectiveness of the strategy was ever questioned within the military chain of command, then it had no obvious effect.

Lacking any new ideas or even a recognition of reality, we chose to continue pursuing a proven inappropriate counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan, which has now forced the United States into direct negotiations with the Taliban, a concession we had previously refused to consider.

Yet, an American withdrawal will only become a humiliating defeat, if the United States is forced into strategic retreat from South Asia because we do not have a plan in place to address the changing regional conditions in a post–US Afghanistan.

The only bargaining chip the United States has in peace negotiations is our presence in Afghanistan, which has been the primary target of the Taliban negotiators, insisting that the United States announce a six-month withdrawal plan.

The American “presence” argument is tenuous at best. The United States should be identifying new forms of leverage to bolster our negotiating position in the short term and, longer term, provide a basis for a new South Asian strategy.

The recently-announced effort to strengthen military ties with India is a step in the right direction.

The United States should also include measures to thwart plans by the China-Pakistan Axis for regional hegemony. Beijing intends to extend its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) throughout South Asia, including Afghanistan, and follow it with the establishment of military facilities, such as Chinese naval bases on the Arabian Sea.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is the flagship of BRI. Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan is CPEC’s centre of gravity and the location of a festering independence insurgency. Just recently, the Balochistan Liberation Army made a daring and high-profile attack on the Pearl Continental Hotel in the heart of the Chinese-run port of Gwadar, CPEC’s centrepiece project.

An independent Balochistan could fulfill a number of US strategic interests in the region, for example: providing Afghanistan a friendly neighbor and access to the sea; eliminating a major area of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure; placing additional pressure on Iran, which has its own restive Baloch population; and blocking Chinese ambitions for economic and military dominance of South Asia.

The foundations of a new US strategy in South Asia should include burden shifting and, when necessary, strategic disruption of our adversaries. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

"The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C.” H R McMaster wrote that statement in his 1997 scathing critique of the Vietnam War, "Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.

"The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C.” H R McMaster wrote that statement in his 1997 scathing critique of the Vietnam War, "Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam." He was a major in the Army at that time. Now, he is a retired lieutenant general and former national security advisor to President Donald Trump. It is indeed ironic that McMaster eventually contributed to what many people thought to be impossible by repeating the mistakes of Vietnam and losing the Afghanistan war—both in the field and in Washington, DC. The real tragedy is that America’s leaders, in particular, its military leaders, long knew that the war in Afghanistan could not be won having chosen to fight it in a manner that was alien to its nature, thus wasting both treasure and precious lives. For over seventeen years we have wrongly applied counterinsurgency doctrine to a proxy war waged by Pakistan against the United States and Afghanistan. At the same time, we supplied Pakistan with generous aid packages to bribe them from pursuing a course of action opposed to our own, which they considered in their national interest. Counterinsurgency was never a winning strategy as long as Pakistan controlled the supply of our troops in landlocked Afghanistan and regulated the operational tempo through its proxy army, the Taliban, which has maintained an extensive recruiting, training and financial support infrastructure inside Pakistan, where it has been immune to attack. In essence, our leaders, through a combination of incompetence and indifference, allowed the United States to be defeated by Pakistan and paid them to do it. Pakistan’s objectives for Afghanistan have always been different than those of the United States. Not only has Pakistan not helped the United States in Afghanistan, but from the very beginning through its support of the Taliban, Pakistan has actively worked against our interests and is responsible for the prolongation of the war and the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans and Afghans. For example, Jalaluddin Haqqani, then the leader of the Haqqani Network, controlled the Khost region of eastern Afghanistan, which is where most of Osama bin Laden’s training camps and supporters were, was a CIA asset in the 1980s and met with US officials soon after 9/11. Journalist Steve Coll wrote, “There was always a question about whether Haqqani was really Taliban, because he hadn’t come out of Kandahar; he wasn’t part of the core group. And it was quite reasonable to believe after 9/11 that maybe he could be flipped.” In early October 2001, Haqqani made a secret trip to Pakistan, where Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, a religious hardliner and then director of Pakistan’s notorious intelligence agency, the ISI, advised him to hold out and not defect, promising that he would receive help. Subsequently, Haqqani decided to stay with the Taliban and the Haqqani Network continues to be a threat and a source of instability in Afghanistan. The United States was aware of Pakistan’s duplicity early on. Gary Berntsen, one of the first CIA operatives to arrive in Afghanistan, said, “I assumed from the beginning of the conflict that ISI advisers were supporting the Taliban with expertise and material and, no doubt, sending a steady stream of intelligence back to [Pakistan].” The same pattern of duplicitous behaviour by Pakistan has continued over the last seventeen years. Late last year, during a Taliban attack on the Afghan provincial capital of Ghazni, large numbers of Pakistani nationals were found among the dead, presumably fighting with the Taliban. The bodies were subsequently returned to Pakistan. In a recently released video, Al Qaeda emphasises its unity with Taliban and its role within the Taliban insurgency, as the jihadists, including Pakistanis, fight together to resurrect the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And yet American political leaders and senior military officers have done nothing, preferring to remain puzzled or indifferent as to why we have not won in Afghanistan. Pakistanis openly brag that they have defeated the United States. Shortly before his death in 2015, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan’s ISI, a committed Islamist and known as the “godfather of the Taliban,” said in an Urdu language television interview: “One day, history will say that the ISI drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan with the help of USA and another sentence will be recorded that says the ISI drove the USA out of Afghanistan with the help of the USA.” The Pakistani audience roared with laughter and applauded in approval. The problem of Pakistan as the actual instigator of the Afghan conflict was never adequately addressed and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan remained largely untouched. The pressure was never applied to Pakistan’s pain points, its moribund economy and financial insolvency and the existential threat of ethnic separatism, in particular among Pakistan’s Baloch and Pashtun populations. On the ground in Afghanistan, the war effort has been a programme on automatic pilot, where everyone has been constantly reassured that everything was going according to plan and “progress was being made,” a phrase I heard endlessly during my own 2010 tenure at International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Headquarters in Kabul. If the effectiveness of the strategy was ever questioned within the military chain of command, then it had no obvious effect. Lacking any new ideas or even a recognition of reality, we chose to continue pursuing a proven inappropriate counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan, which has now forced the United States into direct negotiations with the Taliban, a concession we had previously refused to consider. Yet, an American withdrawal will only become a humiliating defeat, if the United States is forced into strategic retreat from South Asia because we do not have a plan in place to address the changing regional conditions in a post–US Afghanistan. The only bargaining chip the United States has in peace negotiations is our presence in Afghanistan, which has been the primary target of the Taliban negotiators, insisting that the United States announce a six-month withdrawal plan. The American “presence” argument is tenuous at best. The United States should be identifying new forms of leverage to bolster our negotiating position in the short term and, longer term, provide a basis for a new South Asian strategy. The recently-announced effort to strengthen military ties with India is a step in the right direction. The United States should also include measures to thwart plans by the China-Pakistan Axis for regional hegemony. Beijing intends to extend its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) throughout South Asia, including Afghanistan, and follow it with the establishment of military facilities, such as Chinese naval bases on the Arabian Sea. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is the flagship of BRI. Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan is CPEC’s centre of gravity and the location of a festering independence insurgency. Just recently, the Balochistan Liberation Army made a daring and high-profile attack on the Pearl Continental Hotel in the heart of the Chinese-run port of Gwadar, CPEC’s centrepiece project. An independent Balochistan could fulfill a number of US strategic interests in the region, for example: providing Afghanistan a friendly neighbor and access to the sea; eliminating a major area of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure; placing additional pressure on Iran, which has its own restive Baloch population; and blocking Chinese ambitions for economic and military dominance of South Asia. The foundations of a new US strategy in South Asia should include burden shifting and, when necessary, strategic disruption of our adversaries. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Pakistan's duplicity caused the United States to lose in Afghanistan

Afghanistan's parliament descended into chaos on Sunday when lawmakers brawled over the appointment of a new speaker, an inauspicious start to the assembly which was sitting for the first time since chaotic elections last year.

Results of last October's parliamentary election were only finalised earlier this month after repeated technical and organisational problems and widespread accusations of fraud.

Sunday's incident underscored the turmoil in Afghan politics ahead of presidential elections that are taking place in the shadow of talks between US diplomats and the Taliban about a possible settlement of an 18-year conflict.

On Saturday, Mir Rahman Rahmani, a top businessman, ran for the speakership of the 247-seat house but fell short of a majority by a single vote, triggering a clash between supporters, who declared him the winner, and opponents, who said he had not secured the necessary 124 votes.

"We will never accept the new speaker and there must be re-election with new candidates," said Mariam Sama, a lawmaker from Kabul.

Video footage widely shared on social media showed a brawl among lawmakers, with members of parliament seen blocking the speaker's seat and calling for a re-run of the vote.

Rahmani is the father of Ajmal Rahmani, a rich businessman popularly known as "Armoured Ajmal" after his business selling bulletproof vehicles to the Kabul elite.

"He has secured a majority of the votes and one vote is not an issue, so he is our new chairman," said Nahid Farid, a lawmaker from Herat who supports Rahmani.

The repeatedly delayed parliamentary vote on October&nbsp;20 was marred by widespread allegations of fraud, vote rigging, inaccurate voter lists and technical problems with biometric verification equipment.

Afghanistan's parliament descended into chaos on Sunday when lawmakers brawled over the appointment of a new speaker, an inauspicious start to the assembly which was sitting for the first time since chaotic elections last year.

Afghanistan's parliament descended into chaos on Sunday when lawmakers brawled over the appointment of a new speaker, an inauspicious start to the assembly which was sitting for the first time since chaotic elections last year. Results of last October's parliamentary election were only finalised earlier this month after repeated technical and organisational problems and widespread accusations of fraud. Sunday's incident underscored the turmoil in Afghan politics ahead of presidential elections that are taking place in the shadow of talks between US diplomats and the Taliban about a possible settlement of an 18-year conflict. On Saturday, Mir Rahman Rahmani, a top businessman, ran for the speakership of the 247-seat house but fell short of a majority by a single vote, triggering a clash between supporters, who declared him the winner, and opponents, who said he had not secured the necessary 124 votes. "We will never accept the new speaker and there must be re-election with new candidates," said Mariam Sama, a lawmaker from Kabul. Video footage widely shared on social media showed a brawl among lawmakers, with members of parliament seen blocking the speaker's seat and calling for a re-run of the vote. Rahmani is the father of Ajmal Rahmani, a rich businessman popularly known as "Armoured Ajmal" after his business selling bulletproof vehicles to the Kabul elite. "He has secured a majority of the votes and one vote is not an issue, so he is our new chairman," said Nahid Farid, a lawmaker from Herat who supports Rahmani. The repeatedly delayed parliamentary vote on October 20 was marred by widespread allegations of fraud, vote rigging, inaccurate voter lists and technical problems with biometric verification equipment.

First session of Afghan parliament ends in brawl over new speaker

Six <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-fighters-double-as-reporters-to-wage-afghan-digital-war-217700&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiH07PzlqDiAhUFuI8KHf7GCKMQFjAJegQIAhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1i-hr0wZtfNMFM9EBLJ21Y">Taliban </a>terrorists, including a key commander of the group, were killed in an anti-terrorism operation carried out by Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in Balkh province on Thursday.

Afghan National Defense and Security Forces launched the anti-terrorism raid in surrounding areas of Balkh district, Balkh province.

The security forces received hostile fire from the militants.

''Six <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-intelligence-chief-caught-by-afghan-and-us-forces-in-baghlan-218333&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiH07PzlqDiAhUFuI8KHf7GCKMQFjAIegQIABAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw3JHSqq_hYJnLA83FEVup1B">Taliban terrorists</a> were killed in the return fire by the security forces," Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs said in a statement.

The key Taliban commander who was killed in the operation has been identified as Mullah Shader.

"A Taliban outfit member named Mohammad Sarwar was arrested and eight villages were cleared of the militants during the raid," the statement added.

The security forces also destroyed vehicles belonging to the militants, reported Xinhua.

The relatively peaceful Balkh province has been witnessing scenes of clashes between security forces and Taliban militants since early this year.

The Afghan National Defence and Security Forces have beefed up operations against anti-establishment armed militants who have carried out terror activities across Afghanistan.

So far, the Taliban has not released any statement regarding the operation.&nbsp;

Six Taliban terrorists, including a key commander of the group, were killed in an anti-terrorism operation carried out by Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in Balkh province on Thursday.

Six Taliban terrorists, including a key commander of the group, were killed in an anti-terrorism operation carried out by Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in Balkh province on Thursday. Afghan National Defense and Security Forces launched the anti-terrorism raid in surrounding areas of Balkh district, Balkh province. The security forces received hostile fire from the militants. ''Six Taliban terrorists were killed in the return fire by the security forces," Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs said in a statement. The key Taliban commander who was killed in the operation has been identified as Mullah Shader. "A Taliban outfit member named Mohammad Sarwar was arrested and eight villages were cleared of the militants during the raid," the statement added. The security forces also destroyed vehicles belonging to the militants, reported Xinhua. The relatively peaceful Balkh province has been witnessing scenes of clashes between security forces and Taliban militants since early this year. The Afghan National Defence and Security Forces have beefed up operations against anti-establishment armed militants who have carried out terror activities across Afghanistan. So far, the Taliban has not released any statement regarding the operation.

Afghanistan: Key Taliban commander among 6 terrorists killed in anti-terrorism operation

US defence ministry said today that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-fighters-double-as-reporters-to-wage-afghan-digital-war-217700">Afghan and US forces</a> had caught Haji Mohammad Ramin, the intelligence chief of Taliban for northern Baghlan province.

"Taliban intelligence chief for Baghlan, Haji Mohammad Ramin was caught alive by Afghan and US forces in Baghlan province," the Ministry of defence said in a statement.

“He was hiding in a bathroom,&nbsp;ten of his bodyguards were killed,” the statement added.

The Taliban is yet to give its side on the capture of the Ramin. The development comes even as <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/relentless-taliban-violence-casts-a-pall-over-slow-afghan-talks-217529">US talks are underway </a>with the Taliban in Doha.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/taliban-intel-chief-haji-ramin-arrested-218227/embed" width="560" height="350" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" autoplay=1 allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

US special envoy on Afghanistan &nbsp;Zalmay Khalilzad had said on Saturday that America was ready for all sides involved to lay down their arms in the Afghan conflict.

Earlier, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had said he was ready to call an immediate ceasefire but the Taliban did not respond. As a gesture of goodwill, Ghani offered to release 175 prisoners.

Meanwhile, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid had said in a tweet that America should "forget about the idea of us putting down our arms".

US and Taliban negotiators had wrapped up their sixth round of peace talks last Thursday. A day earlier, a Taliban attack on a US-based aid group in Kabul killed at least nine people as Taliban forces battled against security forces.

At least 20 civilians were wounded in the attack with Taliban gunmen storming the Counterpoint International office.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

US defence ministry said today that Afghan and US forces had caught Haji Mohammad Ramin, the intelligence chief of Taliban for northern Baghlan province. "Taliban intelligence chief for Baghlan, Haji Mohammad Ramin was caught alive by Afghan and US forces in Baghlan province," the Ministry of defence said in a statement.

US defence ministry said today that Afghan and US forces had caught Haji Mohammad Ramin, the intelligence chief of Taliban for northern Baghlan province. "Taliban intelligence chief for Baghlan, Haji Mohammad Ramin was caught alive by Afghan and US forces in Baghlan province," the Ministry of defence said in a statement. “He was hiding in a bathroom, ten of his bodyguards were killed,” the statement added. The Taliban is yet to give its side on the capture of the Ramin. The development comes even as US talks are underway with the Taliban in Doha. US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad had said on Saturday that America was ready for all sides involved to lay down their arms in the Afghan conflict. Earlier, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had said he was ready to call an immediate ceasefire but the Taliban did not respond. As a gesture of goodwill, Ghani offered to release 175 prisoners. Meanwhile, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid had said in a tweet that America should "forget about the idea of us putting down our arms". US and Taliban negotiators had wrapped up their sixth round of peace talks last Thursday. A day earlier, a Taliban attack on a US-based aid group in Kabul killed at least nine people as Taliban forces battled against security forces. At least 20 civilians were wounded in the attack with Taliban gunmen storming the Counterpoint International office.

Afghan Taliban intelligence chief caught in Baghlan

The US special peace envoy for Afghanistan should stop calling on the Taliban terrorists to lay down their arms and convince the United States to end the use of force instead, the Taliban said on Friday.

Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US&nbsp;diplomat, entered the sixth round of talks with the hardline Islamist group in Qatar this week in a bid to end America's longest war.

"In our opening session, I underscored to the Talibs that the Afghan people, who are their brothers &amp; sisters, want this war to end," Khalilzad said in a tweet.

"It is time to put down arms, stop the violence, &amp; embrace peace."

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid issued a series of sharp tweets in response.

"@US4AfghanPeace (Khalilzad`s twitter handle) should forget about the idea of us putting down our arms," he said.

"Instead of such fantasies, he should drive the idea home (to the US) about ending the use of force and incurring further human and financial losses for the decaying Kabul administration."

He said the United States must stop repeating failed strategies while expecting different outcomes.&nbsp;

"It would be better if @US4AfghanPeace musters the courage to call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool &amp; accept the current realities."&nbsp;

Intense fighting continues across the country with the Taliban controlling or influencing more territory than at any point since their ouster at the hands of US-led troops following Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a NATO-led mission, known as Resolute Support, that is training and assisting the Afghan government’s security forces in their battle against Taliban fighters and extremist groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda.

After five rounds of talks, Khalilzad reported some progress towards an accord on withdrawing US&nbsp;troops and on how the Taliban would prevent extremists from using Afghanistan to launch attacks.

The Taliban, who refuse to talk to the Afghan government, insist that talks cannot move ahead until foreign forces leave.&nbsp;

"Peace will require that we find common ground on four inter-connected issues: troop withdrawal, counter-terrorism assurances, intra-Afghan dialogue &amp; negotiations, and reduction in the violence leading to a comprehensive ceasefire," Khalilzad said in his tweet.

"Nothing will be final until we agree on all 4 issues."

The US special peace envoy for Afghanistan should stop calling on the Taliban terrorists to lay down their arms and convince the United States to end the use of force instead, the Taliban said on Friday.

The US special peace envoy for Afghanistan should stop calling on the Taliban terrorists to lay down their arms and convince the United States to end the use of force instead, the Taliban said on Friday. Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US diplomat, entered the sixth round of talks with the hardline Islamist group in Qatar this week in a bid to end America's longest war. "In our opening session, I underscored to the Talibs that the Afghan people, who are their brothers & sisters, want this war to end," Khalilzad said in a tweet. "It is time to put down arms, stop the violence, & embrace peace." Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid issued a series of sharp tweets in response. "@US4AfghanPeace (Khalilzad`s twitter handle) should forget about the idea of us putting down our arms," he said. "Instead of such fantasies, he should drive the idea home (to the US) about ending the use of force and incurring further human and financial losses for the decaying Kabul administration." He said the United States must stop repeating failed strategies while expecting different outcomes. "It would be better if @US4AfghanPeace musters the courage to call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool & accept the current realities." Intense fighting continues across the country with the Taliban controlling or influencing more territory than at any point since their ouster at the hands of US-led troops following Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a NATO-led mission, known as Resolute Support, that is training and assisting the Afghan government’s security forces in their battle against Taliban fighters and extremist groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda. After five rounds of talks, Khalilzad reported some progress towards an accord on withdrawing US troops and on how the Taliban would prevent extremists from using Afghanistan to launch attacks. The Taliban, who refuse to talk to the Afghan government, insist that talks cannot move ahead until foreign forces leave. "Peace will require that we find common ground on four inter-connected issues: troop withdrawal, counter-terrorism assurances, intra-Afghan dialogue & negotiations, and reduction in the violence leading to a comprehensive ceasefire," Khalilzad said in his tweet. "Nothing will be final until we agree on all 4 issues."

Don't tell us to lay down arms, tell the Americans: Afghan Taliban

After several rounds of US Taliban Peace Talks in Doha, the reluctantly agreed upon ‘so-called intra-Afghan dialogue’ scheduled on April 19 was abruptly cancelled on April 18 amidst insignificant disagreements over the size and composition of the Afghan delegation.

US State Department conveyed their disappointment to President Ashraf Ghani on April 21 and condemned Taliban's announcement of starting another offensive in the spring.&nbsp;

However, it had to happen as the Taliban was in no mood to talk to present Afghan government calling them a puppet&nbsp;of 'foreign powers'. Afghanistan current regime is also not too happy with a sense of isolation during&nbsp;various rounds of US -Taliban Peace Talks without their participation.

The reality of Afghanistan&nbsp;

After 17 years of war, the Taliban seized more territory and controls. Taliban cannot be relied upon for any kind of peace settlement with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar being their chief negotiator. Baradar&nbsp;has political ambitions and has held various appointments in erstwhile Taliban government prior to US invasion.

 They will eventually find reasons to rule the country, even if they promise to allow to have a peaceful democratic solution. President Ghani-led&nbsp;does not give the confidence of&nbsp;being strong enough to face the Taliban all by themselves.&nbsp;

Taliban is unlikely to give up the ambition of ruling through Sharia laws irrespective of the liberalised words they have been using during the peace talks.

The Afghan military is not yet strong enough to take on the Taliban in the entire country. It still needs a lot of training, capability and military hardware. With continuous attacks by Taliban and splinter groups of Daesh getting into Afghanistan, peace is a distant dream.&nbsp;

Significance of US-Taliban Peace Talks&nbsp;

During US-Taliban Peace talks, there seemed to be some consensus on ‘Issues of Framework Agreement’. The US has agreed for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan after the final agreement.

Timelines for withdrawal, however, have not been agreed as the Taliban wants withdrawal in eighteen months and the US is suggesting a period of five years linking it with the implementation of the agreement.&nbsp;

Taliban has agreed that it won't allow any terrorist group to operate from Afghani soil and will get rid of all foreign terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This, however, is unrealistic and in my opinion, unlikely to happen.&nbsp;

The US Taliban exclusive peace talks have isolated the present regime in power under President Ghani. It is clear that unless the present democratically elected Government is on board, no peaceful elections can take place.

The democratic peaceful elections are unlikely in the near future unless intra-Afghanistan talks take place. The US wants to withdraw as per their time table and President Trump wants to make such an announcement before the next election.&nbsp;

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan will definitely alter the strategic balance in favour of the Taliban, Pakistan, China and Russia. It, however, poses a question that is the US willing to concede this important strategic space in the Af-Pak region to its competitors so easily knowing that China and Pakistan are waiting to grab it?&nbsp;

&nbsp;In an interview to CNN Trump had indicated that Russia, China, India and Pakistan should replace US troops in Afghanistan and resolve this problem as a regional issue. In my opinion, treating it is a regional issue may not be realistic&nbsp;with the growing strength of Taliban, and some existence of Al Qaeda, Haqqani network and Daesh, I see a large caliphate in making.

The position of other stakeholders &nbsp;

There are conflicting interests of every stakeholder. Pakistan nurtured Taliban and Al Qaeda, hence would be happy if the Taliban is on driving seat, but it will not compromise on Durand line because it wants strategic depth. Taliban also will not compromise on the border issue with Pakistan.

The US is fed up of fighting but if it withdraws, it will lose the strategic space to China.&nbsp;

Russia had entered Afghanistan earlier to deny the US influence there during the cold war period. The US helped Mujahideen to counter Russia. Later Russia found it difficult to sustain and withdrew unilaterally.&nbsp;

Russia, however, has been considering the establishment of a second military base in the southern flank of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan bordering Afghanistan to fulfil its strategic interest. Russians also hosted Peace Talks on Afghanistan with all stakeholders and also invited India.

China has been actively engaging with the Taliban in the recent past and Pakistan harboured them even when multi-national forces were fighting with them earlier.&nbsp;

I, therefore, see no reason why Pakistan will not be amenable to Afghanistan under Taliban Islamic rule. If Taliban guarantees China’s that it will not support The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) operating in Xinjiang, they may also be amenable to Taliban rule.

Implications for India &nbsp;&nbsp;

India is the largest regional donor to Afghanistan. It has helped the country with infrastructure and invested over $10 billion since 2002 in doing so. Afghan exports to India stood at $740 million in 2018, making it the largest export destination. 
 
Any new dispensation in Afghanistan involving the Taliban, if not friendly to India, may jeopardise India’s investments in Afghanistan.&nbsp; 
 
Taliban may not want to speak to Afghan establishment but the talks with the US have no meaning if the Afghan government is not part of it, because the electoral process cannot begin otherwise.

The US on their part is not going to give up its efforts to create conditions for its smooth pullout from Afghanistan. Their special envoy for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, is already on another regional trip to Qatar for a new round of negotiations with the Taliban, aiming to find a political solution to the Afghan war despite the disappointment of the cancellation of ‘Intra-Afghan dialogue’.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

After several rounds of US Taliban Peace Talks in Doha, the reluctantly agreed upon ‘so-called intra-Afghan dialogue’ scheduled on April 19 was abruptly cancelled on April 18 amidst insignificant disagreements over the size and composition of the Afghan delegation.

After several rounds of US Taliban Peace Talks in Doha, the reluctantly agreed upon ‘so-called intra-Afghan dialogue’ scheduled on April 19 was abruptly cancelled on April 18 amidst insignificant disagreements over the size and composition of the Afghan delegation. US State Department conveyed their disappointment to President Ashraf Ghani on April 21 and condemned Taliban's announcement of starting another offensive in the spring. However, it had to happen as the Taliban was in no mood to talk to present Afghan government calling them a puppet of 'foreign powers'. Afghanistan current regime is also not too happy with a sense of isolation during various rounds of US -Taliban Peace Talks without their participation. The reality of Afghanistan After 17 years of war, the Taliban seized more territory and controls. Taliban cannot be relied upon for any kind of peace settlement with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar being their chief negotiator. Baradar has political ambitions and has held various appointments in erstwhile Taliban government prior to US invasion.  They will eventually find reasons to rule the country, even if they promise to allow to have a peaceful democratic solution. President Ghani-led does not give the confidence of being strong enough to face the Taliban all by themselves. Taliban is unlikely to give up the ambition of ruling through Sharia laws irrespective of the liberalised words they have been using during the peace talks. The Afghan military is not yet strong enough to take on the Taliban in the entire country. It still needs a lot of training, capability and military hardware. With continuous attacks by Taliban and splinter groups of Daesh getting into Afghanistan, peace is a distant dream. Significance of US-Taliban Peace Talks During US-Taliban Peace talks, there seemed to be some consensus on ‘Issues of Framework Agreement’. The US has agreed for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan after the final agreement. Timelines for withdrawal, however, have not been agreed as the Taliban wants withdrawal in eighteen months and the US is suggesting a period of five years linking it with the implementation of the agreement. Taliban has agreed that it won't allow any terrorist group to operate from Afghani soil and will get rid of all foreign terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This, however, is unrealistic and in my opinion, unlikely to happen. The US Taliban exclusive peace talks have isolated the present regime in power under President Ghani. It is clear that unless the present democratically elected Government is on board, no peaceful elections can take place. The democratic peaceful elections are unlikely in the near future unless intra-Afghanistan talks take place. The US wants to withdraw as per their time table and President Trump wants to make such an announcement before the next election. President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan will definitely alter the strategic balance in favour of the Taliban, Pakistan, China and Russia. It, however, poses a question that is the US willing to concede this important strategic space in the Af-Pak region to its competitors so easily knowing that China and Pakistan are waiting to grab it? In an interview to CNN Trump had indicated that Russia, China, India and Pakistan should replace US troops in Afghanistan and resolve this problem as a regional issue. In my opinion, treating it is a regional issue may not be realistic with the growing strength of Taliban, and some existence of Al Qaeda, Haqqani network and Daesh, I see a large caliphate in making. The position of other stakeholders There are conflicting interests of every stakeholder. Pakistan nurtured Taliban and Al Qaeda, hence would be happy if the Taliban is on driving seat, but it will not compromise on Durand line because it wants strategic depth. Taliban also will not compromise on the border issue with Pakistan. The US is fed up of fighting but if it withdraws, it will lose the strategic space to China. Russia had entered Afghanistan earlier to deny the US influence there during the cold war period. The US helped Mujahideen to counter Russia. Later Russia found it difficult to sustain and withdrew unilaterally. Russia, however, has been considering the establishment of a second military base in the southern flank of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan bordering Afghanistan to fulfil its strategic interest. Russians also hosted Peace Talks on Afghanistan with all stakeholders and also invited India. China has been actively engaging with the Taliban in the recent past and Pakistan harboured them even when multi-national forces were fighting with them earlier. I, therefore, see no reason why Pakistan will not be amenable to Afghanistan under Taliban Islamic rule. If Taliban guarantees China’s that it will not support The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) operating in Xinjiang, they may also be amenable to Taliban rule. Implications for India India is the largest regional donor to Afghanistan. It has helped the country with infrastructure and invested over $10 billion since 2002 in doing so. Afghan exports to India stood at $740 million in 2018, making it the largest export destination. Any new dispensation in Afghanistan involving the Taliban, if not friendly to India, may jeopardise India’s investments in Afghanistan. Taliban may not want to speak to Afghan establishment but the talks with the US have no meaning if the Afghan government is not part of it, because the electoral process cannot begin otherwise. The US on their part is not going to give up its efforts to create conditions for its smooth pullout from Afghanistan. Their special envoy for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, is already on another regional trip to Qatar for a new round of negotiations with the Taliban, aiming to find a political solution to the Afghan war despite the disappointment of the cancellation of ‘Intra-Afghan dialogue’. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

US-Taliban talks: Peace remains a distant dream for Afghanistan

The Afghan Taliban have banned the World Health Organization and the Red Cross from operating in areas under their control until further notice, a spokesman said on Thursday, citing unspecified "suspicious" actions during vaccination campaigns.

The move come as the WHO is carrying out a vaccination campaign in Afghanistan, one of the last countries in the world where polio is still endemic.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said fighting across Afghanistan had created a "complex situation" and some charitable organisations including the WHO and the Red Cross were not operating in accordance with the situation.

"They have not stuck to the commitments they had with the Islamic Emirates, and they are acting suspiciously during vaccination campaigns," he said, providing no details.

Other aid groups were free to continue operations, he said.

There was no immediate comment from the two organisations.

The Afghan Taliban have banned the World Health Organization and the Red Cross from operating in areas under their control until further notice, a spokesman said on Thursday, citing unspecified "suspicious" actions during vaccination campaigns.

The Afghan Taliban have banned the World Health Organization and the Red Cross from operating in areas under their control until further notice, a spokesman said on Thursday, citing unspecified "suspicious" actions during vaccination campaigns. The move come as the WHO is carrying out a vaccination campaign in Afghanistan, one of the last countries in the world where polio is still endemic. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said fighting across Afghanistan had created a "complex situation" and some charitable organisations including the WHO and the Red Cross were not operating in accordance with the situation. "They have not stuck to the commitments they had with the Islamic Emirates, and they are acting suspiciously during vaccination campaigns," he said, providing no details. Other aid groups were free to continue operations, he said. There was no immediate comment from the two organisations.

Afghan Taliban bans WHO and Red Cross work amid vaccination drive

India’s reluctance to hold talks with the Taliban in view of the latter’s increasing resurgence against the backdrop of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is both a good example of moral principle and a bad example of faltering on realpolitik. It is all very well not to hurt the sensitivities of the Kabul government, but India cannot afford to sit idle if the Taliban eventually becomes the chief interlocutor of one of its strategically most important neighbours. India’s need to talk to them becomes even more imperative in the light of Iran’s Shia regime, despite being staunchly hostile to the extremist outfit, a Sunni dispensation, establishing an official dialogue with the Taliban.

The bigger irony is that the ‘peace’ talks between the US and the Taliban are happening against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s tortured presidential race scheduled to be held on July 20 and the Taliban’s refusal to talk to the government. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special envoy on Afghan reconciliation, who had six days of consecutive talks with representatives of the Taliban insurgents in Doha, Qatar early this year spoke about how the Taliban, wary of giving sole credit to the incumbent President Ashraf Ghani, whom India trusts, is averse to talking to the current Afghan government. Ghani is currently facing a line of tough contenders, some seventeen of them, challenging his bid for his second term. While Khalilzad has been given six months for Afghan peace efforts, Ghani thinks the peace plan needs at least five years. But with uncertainties looming as to who would govern Afghanistan next, the prudent course of action is to resume talks with the Taliban.

Like India’s dilemma in talking with the Taliban, Pakistan would loathe to deal with a dispensation likely to be run by moderate Pashtuns working with Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras which might be keen to forge a stronger relationship with India than with Pakistan. New Delhi had lent the northern Afghans support during their civil war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, which might prompt them to ally with India. It is not only them who dislike Pakistan; the moderate Pashtun Afghans have remained grateful for the educational and commercial opportunities India offered them, and they resented Pakistan for stirring up trouble in their landlocked nation. It is true that India would have to talk with the Taliban with the lurking and atavistic fear that the Taliban could one day serve as a proxy force to seize India’s half of the Kashmir region. But if India desists from talking to the Taliban, it would also shy away from those favouring India and waste the benefits of goodwill it had earned so meticulously with more than $3 billion invested by it since 2001, and at a great human cost.

It’s important to consider how the Taliban refused to surrender their vision even when confronted by the United States after September 11, 2001 and how, reinventing themselves as part of a broad insurgency that destabilised Afghanistan, they pledged to drive out the Americans, NATO, and their allies and restore their “Islamic Emirate.”

Having conceded that, it is prudent for India to find a mechanism to begin talks with the Taliban not when they appear as non-state actors but when they are legitimate stakeholders of the reconciliation process. Afghan National Security Adviser Hamdullah Mohib had already lambasted Khalilzad for “delegitimising” the Ashraf Ghani government by keeping it outside the loop. Having a pacifist worldview, New Delhi’s posture to “participate in all formats of talks which could bring peace and security in the region” would stand it in good stead. The Taliban are virtually from the Pashtun tribe, which comprises Afghanistan’s dominant ethnic group. Taliban is not one monolithic group that can prevent groups like al-Qaeda from operating or resist the emergence of a new similar terrorist group seeking to build an emirate. Due to the same reason, it is no longer subject to ISI’s machinations, having many clones and offshoots with differing loyalties, notably the Al-Khorasan and the Tehrik-e-Taliban which is a breakaway group from the original Taliban created by the Pakistan government only to become the latter’s sworn enemy as evident in the fissures between Afghan Taliban and Pakistan.

With the conflict in Afghanistan entering a critical phase, political leaders begin to recognise that all stakeholders need to engage with the Taliban to negotiate a sustainable peace. India must learn to drift with the tide.

Afghanistan is too important a country to remain outside India’s strategic bounds.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-delhi-can-t-avoid-talking-to-taliban-in-current-scenario-2734269">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

India’s reluctance to hold talks with the Taliban in view of the latter’s increasing resurgence against the backdrop of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is both a good example of moral principle and a bad example of faltering on realpolitik.

India’s reluctance to hold talks with the Taliban in view of the latter’s increasing resurgence against the backdrop of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is both a good example of moral principle and a bad example of faltering on realpolitik. It is all very well not to hurt the sensitivities of the Kabul government, but India cannot afford to sit idle if the Taliban eventually becomes the chief interlocutor of one of its strategically most important neighbours. India’s need to talk to them becomes even more imperative in the light of Iran’s Shia regime, despite being staunchly hostile to the extremist outfit, a Sunni dispensation, establishing an official dialogue with the Taliban. The bigger irony is that the ‘peace’ talks between the US and the Taliban are happening against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s tortured presidential race scheduled to be held on July 20 and the Taliban’s refusal to talk to the government. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special envoy on Afghan reconciliation, who had six days of consecutive talks with representatives of the Taliban insurgents in Doha, Qatar early this year spoke about how the Taliban, wary of giving sole credit to the incumbent President Ashraf Ghani, whom India trusts, is averse to talking to the current Afghan government. Ghani is currently facing a line of tough contenders, some seventeen of them, challenging his bid for his second term. While Khalilzad has been given six months for Afghan peace efforts, Ghani thinks the peace plan needs at least five years. But with uncertainties looming as to who would govern Afghanistan next, the prudent course of action is to resume talks with the Taliban. Like India’s dilemma in talking with the Taliban, Pakistan would loathe to deal with a dispensation likely to be run by moderate Pashtuns working with Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras which might be keen to forge a stronger relationship with India than with Pakistan. New Delhi had lent the northern Afghans support during their civil war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, which might prompt them to ally with India. It is not only them who dislike Pakistan; the moderate Pashtun Afghans have remained grateful for the educational and commercial opportunities India offered them, and they resented Pakistan for stirring up trouble in their landlocked nation. It is true that India would have to talk with the Taliban with the lurking and atavistic fear that the Taliban could one day serve as a proxy force to seize India’s half of the Kashmir region. But if India desists from talking to the Taliban, it would also shy away from those favouring India and waste the benefits of goodwill it had earned so meticulously with more than $3 billion invested by it since 2001, and at a great human cost. It’s important to consider how the Taliban refused to surrender their vision even when confronted by the United States after September 11, 2001 and how, reinventing themselves as part of a broad insurgency that destabilised Afghanistan, they pledged to drive out the Americans, NATO, and their allies and restore their “Islamic Emirate.” Having conceded that, it is prudent for India to find a mechanism to begin talks with the Taliban not when they appear as non-state actors but when they are legitimate stakeholders of the reconciliation process. Afghan National Security Adviser Hamdullah Mohib had already lambasted Khalilzad for “delegitimising” the Ashraf Ghani government by keeping it outside the loop. Having a pacifist worldview, New Delhi’s posture to “participate in all formats of talks which could bring peace and security in the region” would stand it in good stead. The Taliban are virtually from the Pashtun tribe, which comprises Afghanistan’s dominant ethnic group. Taliban is not one monolithic group that can prevent groups like al-Qaeda from operating or resist the emergence of a new similar terrorist group seeking to build an emirate. Due to the same reason, it is no longer subject to ISI’s machinations, having many clones and offshoots with differing loyalties, notably the Al-Khorasan and the Tehrik-e-Taliban which is a breakaway group from the original Taliban created by the Pakistan government only to become the latter’s sworn enemy as evident in the fissures between Afghan Taliban and Pakistan. With the conflict in Afghanistan entering a critical phase, political leaders begin to recognise that all stakeholders need to engage with the Taliban to negotiate a sustainable peace. India must learn to drift with the tide. Afghanistan is too important a country to remain outside India’s strategic bounds. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

India can’t avoid talking to Taliban in current scenario

afghan-taliban

Afghan Taliban, News on Afghan Taliban, stories on Afghan Taliban, articles on Afghan Taliban, Afghan Taliban stories at Wion, Afghan Taliban news, Afghan Taliban latest news

afghan taliban