Should India send militay to Afghanistan ?
Debate Rounds (3)
India would not safeguard its interests by sending forces to Afghanistan. India's relationship with Pakistan is one in which both parties treat the other with a continuous dislike, or at best, suspicion. There has been the Kashmir Question, one that has not come to a resolution as of yet, and the government of Pakistan's support for the Taliban Regime during the 1990s. Indian soldiers committed horrific atrocities against Pakistani civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as on Pakistani civilians during the War of 1971 and the Kargil War, and Pakistani soldiers committed atrocities against civilians and soldiers during those wars as well. The relationship is by no means healed, and with both countries being in possession of nuclear weapons, the border always has been and always will be a location of bitter conflict and international crisis. Pakistan's support for the Taliban during the 1990s is rather revealing of the agenda, especially since the reason relations started to sour is because the European-imposed borders under the Durand Line were seen as void by Kabul, while Islamabad saw them as legitimate (strangely, the borders sealed a lot of mineral and agricultural wealth inside Pakistan, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it), but there are are still elements of the Pakistani government in support of the Taliban, or that at least sympathise with it. But no matter what the relationship between the Pakistani government and the Taliban, it will always be warmer and more amicable than its relationship with India, therefore an intervention would only provoke anger and endanger the lives of Indian soldiers stationed there severely. Also, there is no way of Indian soldiers getting to Afghanistan without going through Pakistani or Iranian lands or airspace. Pakistan would not allow it, and it would easily provoke a severe diplomatic crisis, or lead to a number of attacks on Indian soldiers or by Indian soldiers in Pakistan, as both of the wars are within living memory, and the people that are of military age in both countries will remember growing up in a period of war with their neighbour. In summary, an intervention would not safeguard Indian interests, it would merely destablilise the region and jeopardise Indian interests.
It does not show India's commitment to freedom to join a war. The real aim of the War in Afghanistan is to protect the pro-US Islamic Republic of Pakistan from the anti-US Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan. It is an excuse to expand its hegemony and reinforce its theocratic dictatorial allies in the process. Yes, the rhetoric used by proponents of the war revolves around the essence of freedom, but the west has never had an interest in freedom. It wants stability, capitalism and loyalty in the region, be it through democracy (rarely), theocracy (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) or fascism (pre-1990 Iraq and pre-1979 Iran). The war has accomplished nothing with regards to freedom, with rife corruption in Karzai's government, closed elections and Taliban sympathisers in every area. All the war has done is plunge the Afghan eople further into poverty, strengthen pro-Taliban sentiment in the country and has so far cost the lives of six thousand Coalition soldiers and twenty thousand civilians. This shameful expedition has already cost too much and accomplished too little for India to think about getting involved.
If India wants to preserve its sovereignity as a country, which has been eroded enough since the adoption of Thomas Friedman's policies that sell its economy to foreign investors; it must not kowtow to the US. It needs to be assertive, like China. Only then will it get the respect as a power it deserves, rather than be treated as a US vassal like the rest of the world.
priyam forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented no arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.