Federalism in Afghanistan

Hopefully, the much-frenzied Kabul propaganda that Islamabad is for a Taliban-controlled 'fiefdom' in Afghanistan is put paid by the point-blank refutation made by the Foreign Office that any such move is or was in the offing. But one is not sure if President Karzai or his subordinates would do - for, maligning Pakistan is their ready excuse for anything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. No wonder then the Islamabad-based Afghan ambassador's courtesy call on National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz has been used as a peg to hang yet another accusation. Citing Ambassador Umer Daudzai the Afghan deputy foreign minister, Ershad Ahmadi, says Pakistan 'has floated the concept of an Afghan power-sharing arrangement between Kabul and the Taliban as a part of the peace talks'. Not to be left behind, President Karzai says 'delivering a province or two to the Taliban would be perceived as an invasion'. That's not true, insists the FO spokesman, explaining it was merely a courtesy call during which the two exchanged views and there was no reference of ceding of any province to the Afghan Taliban.
"Pakistan wants to see a peaceful, united, prosperous and stable Afghanistan ...to that end Pakistan has been making constructive contribution". Pakistan doesn't have to say anything more on it, though no one should underestimate the Kabul government's capacity to manufacture anti-Pakistan propaganda. And as the Afghan endgame plays out one would expect more of it - because this is all that the Karzai group being increasingly consigned to limbo would do.
Apart from what Kabul says and how Islamabad reacts there is a hard, undeniable ground reality that without conceding something concrete in terms of running the post-2014 Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban would stay put where they have been all these 12 years. They have defied the history's most powerful war machine and they still show enough of resolve and stamina to continue combat. In fact they are stronger today than before, a reality openly conceded by General Nick Carter, deputy commander of the Nato-led coalition, who believes "if we had been very prescient the West should've talked to Taliban 10 years ago." Maybe, President Karzai doesn't have to be told by somebody else that the Taliban are a reality and that without joining the peace process there would be no peace, for he knows it first hand. Almost every second week they force through the maximum-security cordons and knock at the presidential door. Courtesy the friends of the people of Afghanistan and the US-led coalition forces, an opportunity has emerged for a constructive peace dialogue at Doha. If the Karzai cabal feels uncomfortable that's symptomatic of a negative mindset. But the Taliban leave no one in doubt about their sincerity to be part of the peace process; their willingness unmistakably reflected from their accepting the demand that they would have nothing to do with the al Qaeda - a change from the position they took at the cost of their government in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is called 'graveyard of empires', only because the Afghans resist foreign occupation sparing no sacrifice. In the modern times they, then called the 'Mujahideen', fought back the erstwhile Superpower the Soviet Union. Now they, called the Taliban, have nearly defeated the US-led coalition. They are nobody's creation; they are sons of the soil, incredibly patriotic and fearless - much less of Pakistan in pursuance of its 'strategic depth' security doctrine. Yes, there is a strong people-to-people relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a fact which doesn't sit well with rulers in Kabul, as presently. At least a million of Afghan refugees are in Pakistan and there is no hurry here that they should return home unless it's feasible for them. That there should be a Taliban-exclusive government in Kabul is an argument that finds hardly any takers in Pakistan. Pakistan wants an Afghan-owned and an Afghan-led peace process. That a Taliban "fiefdom" should become a reality on our western border is a desire of only those who want to encourage 'Pushtunistan' proponents. Last but not least, though the argument that advocates a federal system of governance for Afghanistan loses its profundity mainly because of the fact that this land-locked country lacks some of the key pre-requisites such as a reasonably educated population, reasonable economic equity and opportunities and a democratic system to understand and appreciate rules of federation for the success of this system, the Afghan society in particular must make efforts towards attaining federalism in due course.