Khursheed Alam
Pakistan and Afghanistan, as brotherly nations, share deep-rooted connections and mutual interests. However, certain challenges persist not due to their inherent complexity but because of insufficient attention and lack of constructive dialogue. One such issue is the Pak-Afghan border dispute, particularly concerning the Durand Line. This matter is deeply intertwined with geopolitical dynamics and is influenced by the strategic interests of global and regional players, including the United States, Israel, and India. In this analysis, I aim to explore the historical, socio-economic, and political dimensions of this dispute, examining how the two neighboring countries are likely to navigate their relationship under the influence of the US, the reigning superpower; Israel, the flag bearer of the David Dynasty; and India, a shared rival to both Pakistan and China.
1: The Pak-Afghan border issue
A: Historically, the Durand Line treaty was declared in 1893 by the British Indian government through its secretary, Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, and Afghan ruler Ameer Abdulrahman Khan to hand over the eastern belt from Torkham in the north and Chamon in the south to the British Indian Empire.
B: Was it a periodical treaty or a permanent one with no limit? Was it until a fixed date? It is not clear, as the Afghanistan government has no witness who could prove it periodically, from this date to that.
C: This treaty was later confirmed by King Habibullah Khan in 1905, in 1919 at Rawalpindi, and in 1921 by another Afghan ruler, Ghazi Amanullah Khan in Kabul.
D: In 1947 the Afghan government didn’t mention it before the British Indian Viceroy or British King George VI as what would be the future of the Durand Treaty.
E: The Afghan government canceled the Durand Line Treaty unilaterally in 1947, with no favor from the British Empire.
2: The geopolitical situation background
A: Under the Capitalist selfish viewpoint it is a complex and seriously complicated situation for both countries. Traditionally, they cannot give up the claim of ownership.
B: Capitalist-minded people believe in the rules of “Might is Right.” According to this mind set, they will have to deal with this issue in three possible ways; to fight for their claims, leave it intact, or unite the two states into a new one; but impossible under the contemporary outlook.
3: Role of global players
A: The US, Israel, and India would like to collide the two states, as they will support Afghanistan strategically through India and Israel, while Pakistan will be lulled through hollow pledges as experienced in Bengal during the 1971 war.
B: In the early stage, Pakistan might be stirred up through Baloch, Pushtoon, Kashmiri, and Baltistani nationalism. Sindhi nationalists will stand at the end if separatists manage to weaken Pakistani unity.
C: The US, Israel, and India also have a strong desire to deprive Pakistan of its Nuclear and Missile capabilities through global propaganda of Mass destruction, terrorism, etc.
D: On the other hand, they also wish Afghanistan to be broken into four different areas; Pushtoon, Uzbek, Tajik, and Hazara.
E: If the mentioned conspiracies work Afghanistan and Pakistan might not exist in the current form on the global map and the same or worse will be the future of Syria and Iran, split down into lingual and religious zones.
- The question now is how to resolve this issue and ensure that these two neighboring and brotherly states remain safe and symbiotic.
A: First and foremost, Pakistan and Afghanistan must recognize that war is not the solution. The only way to counter internal and external conspiracies is to rise above personal and individual ambitions and work towards establishing an environment reminiscent of Darussalama place of peace and harmony where people live as brothers. However, this vision cannot materialize under the prevailing systems of feudalism or capitalism, as both inherently perpetuate inequality and unrest. Whether it is the issue of global instability or local conflicts, peace and prosperity can only be achieved through equitable sharing of resources and a commitment to collective well-being.
B: Wars, battles, and street skirmishes have long been tools of opportunists seeking to exploit others for their gain. Both nations must avoid such destructive paths and instead prioritize dialogue, consensus, and diplomacy to resolve their differences. This, however, does not imply disregarding the importance of defense. A strong defense is crucial for protecting against exploiters, as evident in the cases of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, where nations with good intentions but insufficient defensive strategies fell victim to ambitious local and global powers.
The downfall of the USSR’s Communist regime, as well as the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s and Muammar Gaddafi’s reigns, exemplify the destructive impact of nepotism and selfish governance.
Leaders such as Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Saddam Hussein, and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi prioritized the luxury of their families, relatives, and close associates, amassing hidden wealth at the expense of their nations. This greed and corruption ultimately paved the way for systemic collapse and fostered unrest among the masses.
A pragmatic approach to unity
A: The factors that could foster unity between the two states are as follows:
- Both are Muslims.
- Both suffered under British colonial rule before 1947 and continue to face the challenges of terrorism, which hinder their economic development.
- Both share a legacy of unjust economic systems imposed by the British, including feudalism and capitalism.
- Both are geographically positioned near powerful neighbors.
- There is an urgent need to protect both nations from the influence of global and regional powers seeking to dominate them economically and politically.
6: The path to liberation through unity
The only viable solution to safeguard both nations from oppression, what I believe in, lies in fostering a well-structured and equitable unity under the concept of Darussalam. The steps to achieve this include:
- Eliminating the remnants of the British-imposed feudal system and the usury-based capitalist economy, while drawing lessons from the economic models of socially prosperous nations.
- Recognizing that opposing feudal and capitalist systems will provoke strong reactions both internally and externally. These challenges must be addressed with wise and carefully calculated measures.
7: A choice to make
“Either be brothers or perish” a choice that both states must deliberate on and decide for the sake of their nations’ future.
The author is a freelance writer with expertise in social sciences, history, strategic affairs, and ethnic studies.
