Photo

Having occurred amid growing fears about the security situation after the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan, the attempted bombing of the Indian consulate in Jalalabad province on Aug. 3 ignited frantic speculation about whether India planned to exit in the face of danger or stay and deepen its footprint.

Indian officials stationed here live with the constant threat of attack. Four officials were killed in a 2008 attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, which was blamed on the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction closely associated with Pakistan’s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence.

Despite these risks, many officials believe India has to stay in Afghanistan to counter Pakistan’s influence in the country, and prevent the nightmare scenario of its spies or army using the country as a backyard to train militants for launching attacks on Indian soil after the U.S. military pullout at the end of 2014.

At the helm of India’s operations in Afghanistan is Ambassador Amar Sinha, an economics graduate who has served in the Indian Foreign Service for more than three decades. He travels with a bulletproof jacket in his car but laughs and refuses to say how often he uses it.

A week after the Jalalabad bombing, Mr. Sinha said in an interview that India had no plans to leave Afghanistan, and that it would continue to focus on expanding its soft power through economic activities and aid in development and education.

In a conversation over tea and dry fruits at his house in Kabul, Mr. Sinha talked about India’s future in Afghanistan and the safety of its citizens living here.

Q.

There has been concern that there will be a lot of chaos and a bad security situation after the American withdrawal next year, and Indians could be increasingly targeted. Are these concerns valid?

A.

Indians are under threat even today. So, I don’t think it’s going to substantially increase after the withdrawal.

A lot of Indians also work with American companies on the bases, which we don’t even know. There are many more with international organizations. So if their operations get reduced, the number of Indians will reduce here. Of course, the embassy will continue.

But this scenario that it will all become chaos and unmanageable is an element of politics and competition. I personally don’t subscribe and don’t think the Government of India subscribes to the scenario that it will be doomsday.

Q.

Is India following the wait and watch approach?

A.

No, we don’t have a wait and watch approach. Wait and watch for what? We keep the situation under constant review. For instance, at the Salma dam (a hydroelectric dam being funded by the Indian government in Herat province), the areas where we are investing and where we have presence and people — if the security situation deteriorates, of course it will impact the presence of the Indians.

So then we’ll have to review what do we do. Do we enhance security, do we reduce the personnel? So there is no clear-cut decision. But it’s not like with the next bomb blast we all just disappear. I don’t think that’s the policy. So we are not following wait and watch.

Q.

There has been a lot of speculation on whether India’s economic footprint in Afghanistan will increase or decrease after the American withdrawal. Will it increase or decrease?

A.

One footprint is what you create through aid. The government has already said that we will remain committed. And we don’t have an option of walking away from here. So we will definitely remain committed.

Now, how the climate evolves — that will decide whether private investments also come. We do see a lot of people in trade but we could like to see this graduate into investments.

Q.

The $2 billion that was pledged in terms of aid. How much of that has been spent?

A.

Well this is an ongoing thing. It was not said that $2 billion would be spent in one year. But all these projects I think are close to $1 billion. Some projects like the parliament house, which is going on, the Salma dam, these are expensive projects so by the time they will finish we would have consumed a substantial amount of more money. And of course, if the funds are available then it is for the Afghan government to tell us what their priorities are and we will be happy to do those things for them.

Q.

Could the aid exceed $2 billion?

A.

I guess so. I don’t think there is a cap.

Q.

Has it been difficult to get private investors from India here?

A.

Let’s put it this way that it has been very easy to get investors to Afghanistan. We have had a stream of delegations. Both FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) and CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) are doing an absolute fantastic job. In terms of interest, it has been very easy to get people. Actual investments, a few have bid. They are looking at textiles, they are looking at cement, cashmere, marble mining and food processing. Our role is to facilitate their interaction and then help them find reliable partners.

Q.

What does Pakistan make of India’s economic presence?

A.

Pakistan’s policy seems to be guided by a sense of paranoia about India, about our presence, about our economic development assistance, and our commercial presence. And I guess they are on a completely wrong track.

Q.

Do you feel scared living here?

A.

No. See, we live under constant threat and we know what is the source of the threat. We have intelligence; we talk with the local government, which is very, very cooperative. So, yes there is threat but that does not mean we live under fear. And definitely the Indian embassy will not like to bunker itself down because that beats the very purpose of our being here. Because that is the cheapest victory to give to your enemy.

But do I go and play golf? No, obviously I will not take undue risks.

Q.

That enemy being?

A.

That enemy being a different ideology and vision for Afghanistan.

(The interview has been lightly edited and condensed.)

Betwa Sharma is a freelance journalist based in New Delhi.