Former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani before the fall to Kabul demanded that Taliban must not recognize the Durand. Ironically he asked the very group to not recognize the international border with Pakistan, which Ghani and his colleagues in Kabul label as ‘Pakistani proxies’.
Durand line constitutes the 2670 kilometers long border between the modern day states of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The border or Durand line has been a source of peddling narratives by Pashtun nationalists ever since inception of Pakistan in 1947. What is noteworthy is that the state of Afghanistan has historically resented from recognizing the line as sovereign border with Pakistan. From 1947 to contemporary times, there have been various instances where Afghanistan, violating the sovereignty of neighboring Pakistan, tried to upheave tensions in areas constituting the Durand line. Relations went to a new low when Afghanistan’s state forces were involved in an incursion in Bajaur in September 1960. Afghan forces were driven back by Pakistani Pashtuns and armed forces, several Afghan troops also surrendered. This resulted in Pakistan severing diplomatic ties with Afghanistan
History of Durand Line
The Durand Line was declared as the Independent border between British held India and Afghanistan. The agreement was signed between British government representative, Mortimer Durand and Afghan ruler Abdur Rahman Khan, in 1893. This treaty resulted in formation of the North Western Frontier Province, presently called as Khyber Pakhtun Khwa. After the death of Abdur Rehman Khan, his son Habibullah Khan, who revisited the previous agreement and signed another agreement in 1905. When Habibullah died in 1919, his son Amanullah became the Afghan monarch. Amanullah tried to take advantage of British indulgence in first world war and started conflict with the British. Amanullah was eventually defeated by the British in the Third Anglo-Afghan War. The Afghan ruler had to go for the ceasefire. A Treaty of Peace was signed on August 8, 1919, at Rawalpindi. Similarly, the treaty of Kabul ( signed in 1921) further solidified the Durand line as border.
When Pakistan emerged as the successor state of colonial British India in August 1947, it naturally inherited the demarcated borders. As per Article 62 Vienna Convention, “A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty”. This means that when any country emerges out of a previous colonial territory, all previous agreements in colonial era will not have their legality affected. This means that all agreements signed by British with Afghanistan will be intact for their dominion of Pakistan.
On the contrary, King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan, ignoring these facts refused to grant recognition to the newly formed neighboring Muslim state of Pakistan. Destabilization tactics were employed using Faqie -e Ipi and former congress allies in the frontier. The rest is all readable history. My aim to inspect the veracity of Afghan claims for the Durand.
Pashtun Nationalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan that buy the narrative of Pashtunistan employ primarily three kinds of arguments.
Signed under duress?
Firstly, it is argued that Afghanistan was forced to sign the agreements under duress. And due to this, Pakistan cannot enjoy the rights of the ‘extinguished person’ which were the British. The multiple instances of revisiting and signing of these agreements between Afghanistan and British downplays this assertion. The evidence of duress at the time of signing in 1893 is not substantial. What is more interesting that Amir Abdur Rehman himself reached out to the British which eventually led to signing of 1893 agreement.
Whether Pakistan inherited the rights of British, Novl Backer, the Secretary of States of Common Wealth Affairs, in his address to the House of Commons on 30th June, 1950 stated that:
“It is His Majesty’s Government’s view that Pakistan is in the international law the inheritor of the rights and duties of the old Government of India, and of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, in these territories and that the Durand Line is the international frontier”
In this very argument, one hears the popular narrative of Durand expiring after 1993. There is no clause of time limit in any of the signed documents of 1893, 1919 or 1921. So even the ‘ hundred year expiry’ argument has no legal relevance.
Historical Reversion
The second argument takes a dint at history by claiming that historically much of India was under control of Afghanistan, especially present day Pakistan. Analysis through political geography shows that at Maximum extent of Durrani empire founded in 1747, the area controlled eastwards reached Delhi and Lahore. Lahore was ceded to the Mughals in 1798 and Peshawar was lost to Sikhs in 1823. If this premise for having control for seven to eight decades is considered legitimate, then the reader must imagine how the world map would dramatically. If such is taken so, then any other state can claim Afghan lands on the basis of ‘once ruled’ in history. Any state or belligerent could demand a piece of land around the globe on this premise then.
A single nation, divided by borders?
Third argument which is stronger and most frequently used is that of Pashunistan, the idea that Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan formed a single nation and no border should exist between them.
Sir Olaf Caroe, a British Civil Servant and Administrator of the NWFP during partition, in his famous book The Pathans 550 B.C.–A.D. 1957 opines that :
“the eastern Pathans have enjoyed close economic and political ties with the major states of the Indus valley, and have developed linguistic differences with the western Pathans.”
The map which the proponents of Pashtunistan bring forth depicts a slightly different story for what claim is a single Pashtun nation. That map of Pashtunistan shows the area stretching from the Pamirs all the way to the Arabian Sea. This includes areas with fewer Pashtun populations such as Chitral, Gilgit, Baltistan and Balochistan. This depicts another underpinning under the guise of a nationalist state. The state centric sources ( ruling Pashtuns) would seek to bolster their position in regard to Persian and Turkic speaking Afghans who form a sizeable portion of Afghanistan. Secondly, this too would be the stratagem to seek an outlet to the Arabian sea.
Furthermore, Afghanistan’s Pashtuns constitute 42 percent on the total population. This shows that the notion of ‘single nation’ does not fill well in the amalgamated outlook of Afghanistan itself.
In Pakistan, the Punjabis form nearly 44 percent of the total population but there has never been any political slogan that calls rest of Pakistan’s ethnic or linguistic group as Punjabi, neither there have been attempts to impose a major identity over other groups. Rather Pakistan has always projected the diverse outlook of its identity, be it in national curriculum or its federalist political system.
Present Kabul government and their leaders have often used nationalist narratives to peddle with Pakistan’s sovereignty. Even high ranking officials have not kept themselves from indulging in infantile demeanors. In May, the Afghan National Security Advisor used derogatory language for Pakistan. He used the words of ‘ brothel house’, often used by Pashtun nationalists to mock a neighboring state.
Conclusion
The issue of Durand line, often raised for political point scoring by certain ethno nationalist elements in Afghanistan and even in Pakistan does not hold an academically relevant empiricism when analyzed under lens of political geography. Even when it is compared to other boundary disputes around the globe, neither contemporary claims nor historicity of the above mentioned argumentation hold any substantial weigh.
Present Kabul government and their leaders have often used nationalist narratives to peddle with Pakistan’s sovereignty. Even high ranking officials have not kept themselves from indulging in infantile demeanors. In May, the Afghan National Security Advisor used derogatory language for Pakistan. He used the words of ‘brothel house’, often used by Afghan nationalists to mock Pakistan.
In 21st century, notions of statehood have changed. If elements that denounce history of Durand line want their arguments to hold empiricism, they should be rooted in international law and academic political geography. Otherwise their usual arguments would only serve the supremacist and xenophobic tendencies against other races. Furthermore, it only serves as a smokescreen to hide their own shortcomings in the light of Taliban offensive that captured Afghan districts rapidly, and ANDSF is giving sway without any fight.
Lastly, historical records must be set straight. When a feasible amount of historical literature is available then arguments like ‘blood in soil’ do not hold materiality. Any reader can initiate his/her own little research to go through texts of the multiple agreements signed between British and Afghans to dissect facts from nationalist slogans, provided the latter also has a gruesome underpinnings i.e the persecution of Hazaras under Abdur Rehman Khan, the very monarch signing the Durand line agreement. Neutral enquiry is the basic need to lay rest to the often repeated narratives of Pashtunistan can be laid to rest as Pakistan is a geopolitical reality, and historical revisionism by certain ethno fascists only spoils prospects of peace for Afghanistan itself.
About the Author
Hammad Waleed is a student of International Relation in Islamabad. His interests include discourse analysis, Foreign policy analysis, South Asian affairs, Military and Strategic affairs. He can be reached at [email protected]
