Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.
Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.
One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.
All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.
Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.
But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.
India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.
The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.
Comments
U NEED TO GO THRU STATISTICS... Many girls IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY are threatened and raped before they get to the marriage age from their own family members as well as the saints , most of them are in jails...
Some community girls are used and misused by the men and the girl tolerates b4 the marriage. The drunken men alwz escape with cheddi culture by threatening the young girls and their parents.... Go thru the statistics... It is better to get married and take responsibility of the family if the girl is ready to marry.
Dear Prathima,
You said some communities like under age girls for..,
see my sister, what difference does it make age below 18 to 15. Do they have more power than girls above 18.
does girl become very old if she is above 18. Above 18means usually it can go upto 28.
95% marriage of girls take place between 16-30
May God protect our girls and boys also.
Only the girl can say if she has been raped or not
what about other religion girls starts having sex immediate after puberty? even some try when they enter highschool.
Listen carefully, the above text says :
" Sex with a wife who is under 18yrs of age is rape and therefore a crime. "
It interpretes as child marriage is invalid.
If the marriage is invalid how do they become wife and husband.
So this rule may does not applicable such wife.
This law is not thought through. Judges need the input of psychologists to understand the behaviour of adolescents. There are teenagers today having relationships before 18. Are they going to throw them in jail?
Ridiculous judgement. Marriage is society's way of allowing for the purpose of having children, since the married couple will then have to make the necessary sacrifices to bring up the children. If under 18 is statutory rape then why allow the marriage in the first place? The SC is coming up in many cases with foolish decisions that are against accepted norms and practices. The SC will risk making itself into an impotent body if it does not have a clue on how this is viewed by the people at large.
Underage marriage is still practiced by muslims
Many pedophile worshipers belonging to a piece full community disguising as hindu are venting their anger against this judgement for reasons very well known to all. next we should ban all books / texts /manuals/biographies which eulogizes pedophiles/ pedophilia.
Some community men like young underage girls for . We welcome the order.
Is its applicable only to Hindus or is it also applicable to Muslims? ..I see lot of them getting married at 15year 2 children by 18yrs..
What if the wife does not tell the husband the correct age and inter course is consensual? Later on there is marital discord, can then it be considered as rape?
Add new comment