Pakhtunistan: The Frontier Dispute Between Afghanistan and Pakistan Author(s): S. M. M. Qureshi Source: Pacific Affairs, Vol.

39, No. 1/2 (Spring - Summer, 1966), pp. 99-114 Published by: Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2755184 . Accessed: 10/10/2013 02:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Pacific Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Frontier Dispute Pakhtunistan: andPakistan between Afghanistan

the Durand Line, the frontier betweenPakistanand Afghanistan. Since repudiatedthe Durand Line and dehas consistently 1947 Afghanistan manded the rightof self-determination for the Pakhtunsbecause she does insistthisassertion, not consider thema part of Pakistan.Pakistanrefutes the Afghanclaim a of the Durand Line, and considers ing on the validity violation law. of international to Afghansources,1 Pakhtunistan consists of the area westof According the riverIndus up to the Afghanfrontier, a tractof land of i90,000 square miles inhabitedby seven million people who are divided into numerous in the south, both fromChitralin thenorthto Baluchistan tribes. It extends Swat, of Hazara, Kohistan, and besidesthemincludesthe districts inclusive, Dir, Buner, Peshawar, Tirah, Bajaur, Kohat, Bannu, Deraghazi Khan, Dera Ismail Khan, Waziristan, Khyber, Pezu, Gomal,Bolan and Malakand. Accordingto the same sourcesBaluchistanis also inhabitedby Pakhtun the Shorani in the northand the Kahari, Dunar, and clans, principally Mandokhelin thesouth. This inclusionof Baluchistanis questionable, since its populationof Jatsand some otherIndian about two millionconsists of Baluchis,Brahuis, as Pakhelements as well as somenegroid people, noneofwhomis regarded betweenthe Baluchis and tun. PercivalSpear, emphasizingthe difference mustalways the distinction the Pathans,says: "In dealingwith the frontier between be remembered theBaluchisand thePathans, peoplesverydifferent Fraser-Tytler in custom and situation, who require separatetreatment."3 also says thatthe majority of the Baluchis are not Pathans,but ratherof mixed race. Some of themhave descendedfromthe old Arab invadersof the ninthcentury, some are of Persianorigin,and thereare tracesof even olderracesliketheDravidians.4
Hove 1Pakhtunistan-The KhyberPass as the Focus of the New State of Pakhtunistan, (England), I952. 2 H. A. R. Gibb, J. H. Kramers, et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition, Leiden, i960, Volume I. 3Percival Spear, in V. A. Smith (ed.), The OxfordHistoryof India, Oxford,i958, p. 698. 6 in CenA Studyof PoliticalDevelopments Afghanistan, Sir William Kerr Fraser-Tytler, p. 282. and Southern Asia,London,2958, reprint, tzral 99

S. M. M. Qureshi
sidesof lieson both or Pathans, thelandofthePakhtuns

AKHTUNISTAN,

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Aflairs
Ethnically, thePakhtuns5 are includedin thebroad category of Afghans. Territorially theyfall in threemain groups: (i) the highlanders livingin the mountains whose watershedmarks the international frontier-the Afridi,Khatak, Orakzai, Bangash, Wazir, Mahsud, and Turi, who are "pre-eminently thePakhtuns or Pashtuns"6;(2) theinhabitants of thewestern plains and plateau-the Durrani,also called Abdali and Ghilzai-and of the Peshawar plains and the valleysin the east-the (3) the residents Yusufzaiand their kin. While the Afghansin the west have been under Persianrule and also Persianinfluence in language and culture, thosein the east have had close contacts withtheMughal Empireof India and untiltheend of Shah Jahan's reignformed partof his dominion. The highlanders have neverbeen under the effective controlof any government. They have, however,always had traderelations withtheIndus townsin the east and neverwiththosein the west. "Consequently," says Sir Olaf Caroe, "theirlinks with the Eastern Afghansof the Peshawarvalleyhave been closerthanwiththeDurranisor othertribes inhabiting thecountry to thewest.... In a verybroadway,and with some local exceptions, the EasternAfghansand the high land Pakhtunah,theirbrethren, all live east of the Durand Line, withinPakistanas theSuccessor StateoftheBritish in India."7 Pashtu or Pakhtu,the language of the Pakhtuns,is spoken,according to Afghansources, millionpeoplein CentralAsia, whichincludes by twenty and Pakhtunistan; Afghanistan by overtwo millionPakhtunsin India and in this some in Pakistanand Kashmir.As therewas no local principality area until I747, thereare no local recordsor coins exceptof the empires thesetribalbands formed. whose fringes The language was not reducedto until the fifteenth workin existence writing and no literary century, recognized as genuine, than datesearlier the seventeenth Some attempts century. have been made to collectliterature and some works,going as far back as theeighth have been published, century, but it is hardto provetheirauthenPashtu and Pakhtu,althoughthe termsare oftenused interchangeticity. ably,are in reality thetwo variants of the same language.Pakhtu is spoken by thenortheastern tribes The line of and Pashtuby thosein the southwest. divisionbetweenthe two runs west fromthe Indus, just south of Attock there southof the through Kohat,up theMiranzaivalleyto Thal, and from Kurramriver to Hariob and theShutargardan Pass.8 Basically,Pathan societyis tribalin structure, althoughdifferences in
5The words Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns, and Pathans,are variants of the same word. Pashtuns, The hard sound is used in the north,the softone in the south. The word Pathan is the Indianvariant of thesamewordadoptedby theBritish. 6 Olaf Caroe,The Pathans, London,i958, p. xv. YIbid. 8 Ibid., pp. xvi-xxi.
NO0

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheFrontier Dispute Between andPakistan Afghanistan Pakhtunistan:

social formcan be detected betweentribaland settled areas.9Generally the social structure is based on patriarchal kinship, in which descentis traced fromthe commonmale ancestor.This way of reckoningdescentmakes everyPathana cousinof everyother. In thislarge kinshipsystem the tribe, the lineage and the familyare the main groupings.The largestunit to whicha Pathangiveshis allegianceis the tribe;and although occasionally a numberof tribesmay co-operate for a commonpurpose,this does not involve an extension of allegiance.The tribes are distinct fromeach otherin name and in the area theyown as well as in speechand dresspeculiarities. The maintenance of law and orderin its territory and defenseof the territory is the dutyof each tribe,and each tribehas its own code of law.'" On earlyhistory verylittle information is availableaboutthisarea. Pakhtunistan has neverhad an independent history as a politicalentity. Its significance derives from itslocation on thefringes ofthegreatempires founded by theIranians, Indians and the CentralAsians.Herodotus, referring to the people of this area, wrote: "There are otherIndians further north, in the neighbourhood of Caspatyrus country of Pactycia, who in theirmode of life resemble theBactrians. These are themostwarlikeoftheIndiantribes....1 The names Pakticaand Pakti,referring to whattodayis Afghanistan, have been mentioned in the Hindu scripture, Rigveda,besidesthe Pactyciamentionedby Herodotus. According to Sir Olaf Caroe,thename Paktuesdisappears for 2,000 years while the name Afghan does not emergeuntil the oftheIslamicera.12 beginning From 6I2 B.C. to 700 A.D. thisarea was ruledby the Indians,Persians, and the CentralAsians in succession; Macedonians, the Indian and Persian empires havingswayforthe major part.In 700 A.D. it was conqueredand incorporated in the UmmayyadCaliphate and thereafter in the Abbasid Caliphate.Though the caliphal suzerainty lasted well into the thirteenth the effective century masters of thisregionchangedseveraltimes.By I230 the Mongols had set themselves up in CentralAsia includingthe present Afghanistan. For the next two centuriesthe Timurid rule lasted here; thereafter the Mughals of Delhi extendedtheirsovereignty over the whole of northern India and present-day Afghanistan and theymaintainedtheir frontier through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the eighteenth the Mughal empirebroke up and Nadir Shah established century his dominionoverPersiaextending to thewestern sideofRiverIndus.
9The termtribal societyhas a sociologicalconnotation, whereas the term tribal areas relatesto the territory not subjectto the laws or authority of the Government of India (now Pakistan) or of the Government of the N.W.F.P. (now West Pakistan),but having its own code of conduct and itsown method of enforcement. 10Herbert H. VreelandIII, "Pathansof the PeshawarValley" in S. Maron (ed.), Pakistan: Society andCulture, NewHaven, Conn., I957, pp. I04-I34. 11Herodotus, TheHistories, Penguin Classics, I958, pp. 207-208. 12 Caroe, op. cit.,p. 58. I0I

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Affairs history with theasAfghanistan started itsseparate and independent sumption ofpower byAhmad Shah on theassassination ofNadir Shah in bywars between hissons 1747. Ahmad Shah's death in 1773 wasfollowed northwestern frontier inthe British feeling ofinsecurity with regard totheir wake Anglo-Afghan Wars-the first ofRussian expansion inturn ledtothe
of Afghanistan and the lasting untili8io. The ensuing internal weakness

the The Afghan in a position to stabilize Amirs were probably never internal andmake in their foreign dealings. situation lasting arrangements themore Indiaagainst Theysought helpfrom Russia as wellas British they were notreally imminent dangers andeven entered into agreements didnothaveanyfixed and willing to abide by.'3 Moreover, Afghanistan theendofthenineteenth demarcated international frontiers until almost international frontiers were century. The most important ofAfghanistan's Afghanistan and itsneighbours, demarcated, notby agreement between buteither and between theneighbours, byarbitration or byagreements wererequired to give, to these agreements therulers of Afghanistan or de facto recognition. The either willingly or unwillingly, their formal Afghanistan's northern and agreements between Russia andEngland fixed were signed between England northwestern frontiers. A series ofprotocols on the The frontier thefirst time an Afghan representative participated.
and Russiaat Londonin i885, at Khamiabin i886,at St. Petersburg in Dukhtaran in i893; it was onlyat thelastonethat for i887,and at Chehel

in i839, andthe second in i879.

toquestion the ofthe Durand sawfit In later validity years Afghanistan itsweak that it wasimposed Lineon the bya great power upon grounds the ofSirPercy ofDurand, Butthe evidence biographer neighbour. Sykes, Durand that wasthecase. hadledan unthecontrary little doubt leaves and he stayed in of Amir Abdurrahman at theurging armed mission thetreaty. The Government of India weeks Kabulforfour negotiating
to theAmirwhichhe accepted. of Rs. 6oo,ooo an annualsubsidy offered
13 In i88o Amir Abdurrahman the conductof Afghan foreignrelationsto surrendered for theirsupport againstRussia, but the Third the British by the Simla Agreement in return being so tied to Britain.See Fraser-Tytler, AfghanWar showed that the Afghansresented Its People, Its Society, Its Culture, New op. cit.,p. I52, and also, D. N. Wilber,Afghanistan,

rahmanin i893.

The limits ofAfghan were imposed sovereignty in theeastandsoutheast in i877theruler ofAfghanistan, bytheBritish uponAfghanistan when Amir of Indiathat Shere Ali,was simply informed bytheGovernment nolonger toDir,Swat, Chitral, andBajaur.'4 The they recognized hisclaim formal Indiaand Afghanistan was estabinternational between frontier lished Durand and Amir Abdurbynegotiations between Sir Mortimer

in i872 and i875. arbitration southwest ofAfghanistan was fixed byBritish

Haven, Conn., i962, p. I78. 14Wilber,op. cit., pp. I74-I75.

I02

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andPakistan Between Afghanistan TheFrontier Dispute Pakhtunistan:

even called a specialdurbarin which he praisedthe British Abdurrahman and asked his Sardarsand subjectsto be good to themas theywere their they friends.15 Had the Afghansor theirAmir not approvedof the treaty had ample opportunity as theyhad done violently to show theirdispleasure in the past,or if reallyunderstrong pressure, theycould surelyhave withheldanydemonstration They did neither. offriendship fortheBritish. in a regionwhich had The Durand Line thus demarcated the frontier whose so farbeen a kind of no man's land betweenIndia and Afghanistan, and had been people had owed allegianceto neither of thesetwo countries had been comraidingboth sides impartially. Both India and Afghanistan petingforinfluence in thisarea,but neither had succeededuntilthe agreementof i893 created acceptedby bothsides, thisfrontier, which"was freely frontiers in and becameone of thebestdefined recognized and mostclearly the Amir and the world."'16 To this agreementeach of the signatories, in theterritories of the interference' Durand-"pledged itself not to 'exercise to regardthe agreeotherlyingbeyondthisline,and each partyprofessed of differences mentas a 'fulland satisfactory settlement of all the principal "17 The opinionwhichhave arisenbetweenthemin regardto the frontier.' son HabiTreatyof i893 was subsequently confirmed by Abdurrahman's pindiwhichendedtheThirdAfghan War. The relations were betweenthe Government of India and Afghanistan and external sovput on a formal basis,granting Afghanistan full internal "underereignty, by theAnglo-Afghan treaty of I92I, by whichtheAfghans of India."'8 On Amanultook to respect theindependence and the frontiers lah's abdication in I929 his successor of thepresent King Nadir Shah,father Zahir Shah, reaffirmed the treatyon May 6, I930. Accordingto FraserTytlerthis treaty provided,at least in theory, a basis to assume that the frontiers betweenIndia and Afghanistan would be governedand regulated accordingto the principles of international law. The BritishGovernment and Pakistanto be affirmed theDurand Line to be theinternational frontier the successor in internastateof British India in theseareas as recognized tional law, throughher Secretaries Relations of State for Commonwealth on June30, i950, and Lord Home on November 3, I955). (Noel-Baker on March I, i956, the Anthony Eden, thethenPrimeMinister, also affirmed oftheBritish position Government. With the demarcation of the frontier betweenIndia and Afghanistan arose the problemof the politicalassimilation particularly on of the tribes,
15 SirPercy Sir Mortimer Sykes, Durand,A Biography, London,I926.
16 17

ofRawalbullah in i905, and byhissonAmanullah in i919 bytheTreaty

p. I88. 18'Ibid., p. 2.6i.

L. F. Rushbrook Williams,The State of Pakistan,London, I962, pp. 62-63. Aitchison'sTreaties,Vol. XIII, No. XII (Afghanistan), referred to in Fraser-Tytler,

103

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Aflairs Pacific
in race,reFor in spiteof homogeneity the Indian side,withtheircountry. organized politically and have never been they customs language, ligion, been said that"of such loyalty it has rightly theirloyalties, and as regards (Delhi or Kabul) thereis verylittleevidence.To the government to either any kind of control loyalty; Islam is thegreater militant fanatical tribesmen fortheAmir, the infidel will fight to them.They Kabul is hateful evenfrom in trito interfere Afghanofficials but objectto payingtaxesand admitting bal life."'9 The Britishdid not succeed in subjugatingthe tribesand in occupywhile theydenied the Amir of Afghanistan, ing the tribalarea themselves, the nominalhead of all the Afghanpeople,any power or rightto exercise with the tribalpeople. The tribalterritory influence over or to interfere hedge" it has alwaysbeena "prickly stability; thushas neverknownpolitical states.Disarea betweentwo friendly quite unfitto serveas the frontier to take place in one or the othersector; continued and uprisings turbances but at timeseven against againstthe British, most of thesewere directed Afghanrule.20 in new developments The periodafterthe Second World War brought reWhen the Afghan Government the foreignrelationsof Afghanistan. fromIndia, it began to question alized thatBritainwas going to withdraw the validityof the Durand Line, which accordingto one sourcehad left and fiveand a half millionin the threemillionPathans in Afghanistan NorthwestFrontierProvince (NWFP) ,21 and accordingto another,six and claimed and fivemillionin Pakistan,22 millionPathansin Afghanistan senta note to Delhi and London frontier. Afghanistan a new international on July3, 1947 declaringthat the people of the NWFP and Baluchistan or of joiningPakistan independent shouldbe giventhe optionof becoming a separate proposed On rejection of theirclaimtheAfghans or Afghanistan. "was confident that before Afghanistan Pathan state called Pakhtunistan. a stateof this kind in its own terrilong it would be able to incorporate tory."23 of India thePathansweregiventhe optionof choosing, On thepartition rebetweenIndia and Pakistan."Duly held, the plebiscite in a plebiscite, for Pakistan,289,244votingfor union sulted in an overwhelming victory and only 2,874for union with India."24This plebiscite, with thatcountry movement, whichhad was boycotted by the Khudai Khidinatgar however, and was led by Khan AbwiththeIndian National Congress been affiliated of the NWFP), firstly of the CongressPremier dul Ghaffar Khan (brother
19 Sir WilliamBarton, India'sNorth-West Frontier, London,1939, p. 6. 20 Wilber, op. cit.,pp. 177-i83. 21 "Pathans December on Warpath," Newsweek, 29, 1952. 22 ArnoldFletcher, "Afghanistan: Highwayof Conquest,"Current History, June,I950. 23 Rushbrook Williams, op. cit.,p. 66. 24 Fletcher, op. cit.,p. 338.

I04

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheFrontier Dispute Between andPakistan Afghanistan Pakhtunistan:

on thegrounds thatthe CongressPartyhad not recognized theprinciple of the partition of India, and secondly becausethe choicewas limitedonly to India and Pakistanand did not includecomplete independence or joining Afghanistan. As a resultof the boycott only55.5 per centof the electorate participated in votingon July20, 1947.25 Moreover, was held the plebiscite onlyin thesettled areas; the tribalterritories did not expressthemselves in it. In 1947 Afghanistan protested twice againstthe termsof this plebiscite but received no satisfaction. She did not accept the plebiscite because the choiceoffered was onlybetweenHindu India and Muslim Pakistan, and it was obvious that the Pathans would choose Islam. Afghanistaninterpreted thevotingby only55 per cent of the electorate, thoughoverwhelminglyin favourof Pakistan,as showingthat the Pathans were not happy withthechoiceoffered. The Khudai Khidmatgar also did notaccepttheresultofthereferendum as final. By 1948 strongseparatist tendencieshad manifested themselves;the Khudai Khidmatgar was accusedof spearheading these, while the Faqir of Ipi was leadingan underground movement foran independent Pathan nation called Pakhtunistan with boundariescorresponding to those of the NWFP.25 The Faqir's actsof sabotageled to reprisals by theGovernment of Pakistanthatstrained its relations withAfghanistan to the brinkof war. It seems,however, that"the uncertainty of the AfghanGovernment as to the response of the trans-border Pathansactedas a peace-maker."27 And though the Faqir was ceremoniously receivedby the AfghanGovernor of Gardez in July 1949,his chances of beingaccepted as a leaderon thePakistanside of the borderwere slight.28 Anothergroup, the Young AfridiParty,called Sarishta, announcedtheformation of an independent Pakhtunistan in I949. Most of the Afridielderswere opposed to this defianceof Pakistan,but Wali Khan, one of theirthreeleaders,had been in collaboration with the Faqir of Ipi in his acts of destroying communication lines,and finally had tofight against hisown tribesmen. The plan of thePakistanGovernment to mergein one unittheprovinces and statesin West Pakistanwas criticized by the AfghanPrime Minister, Sardar Daud, in a speechbroadcast over Radio Kabul on March 29, I955. to be officially Demonstrations, reported followedin Kabul, Jalainspired, labad and Qandahar; Pakistanflagswerepulled down and insulted and the Pakhtunistan flagwas hoistedon the chancery of the PakistanEmbassyin Kabul.29AlthoughKing Zahir was, accordingto reports, so disturbed that he was prepared to replaceDaud withhis predecessor,"0 Radio Kabul now
25Wilber, op. cit.,p. I83. 26 "Pathans op. cit.,p. 31. on Warpath," 27 Fletcher, op. cit.,p. 339. 28 Lord Birdwood, A Continent India and Pakistan, Decides,New York, 1954, p. 77. 29Economist (London), May 14, 1955. 30New York Times,May 13, 1955.

105

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Afairs
called certainage-groups to report to recruiting offices, which Pakistaninterpreted as thestart of a generalmobilization. Afghanistan's refusal to provide satisfaction to Pakistanon the flagincidentled to the withdrawal of ambassadors in OctoberI955 and fulldiplomatic relations werenotresumed untilafter thePrimeMinister of Pakistan, Suhrawardy, paid a visitto Kabul

In themeantime, theprovinces and the states in West Pakistanhad been mergedinto one unit,with Dr. Khan Sahib as the Chief Minister. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan again headedan agitation againsttheOne Unit,buthe was arrested in i956 by the government of his own brother. At his trialon September 3, i956, Ghaffarsaid that he was advocatingan autonomous Pathanprovince ofPakhtunistan, notan independent state.31 The visitof Prime MinisterSuhrawardy was returned by King Zahir, who visitedKarachi in January 1958. An agreement forthe improvement of relations betweenPakistanand Afghanistan, and fortransit facilities for Afghangoods through Pakistan,was signed on May 29, i958. But in the laterpartof 1959, relations between thetwo again deteriorated. Pakistanprotested in September 1959 against thespeeches of King Zahirand PrimeMinisterDaud supporting Pakhtunistan, and also againstthe flight of an Afghan plane overPakistanon November23, 1959. The AfghanGovernment as a resultof thisprotest, refused, to renewthevisas of Pakistanis livingin Afghanistan. On August4, i960 Pakistanprotested againstthemaltreatment of Pakistanis in Afghanistan. a communiqueissuedon Mr. KhrushAt thistimeof strained relations chev'svisiton March 2, i960 expressed the hope thatthe principle of selfthe determination would be applied to Pakhtunpeople. On his returnto Moscow on March 5, i960, Khrushchev, that duringa speech,mentioned has alwaysbeena partofAfghanistan." Pushtunistan "historically remainedconfined So far the Pakistan-Afghanistan disputehad mostly to international bickering, incitingspeecheson state-controlled radios on of each other's and thewithbothsidesof thefrontier, harassment nationals But in i960-6i the disputegrewhotter. drawalof diplomatic representatives. The first skirmish took place inside Pakistanin the stateof Dir resulting the Khan of froma disputebetweenthe Nawab of Dir and his feudatory triedto take advantageof thissituation Khar. Afghanistan by bribingDir in the Bajaur area in September and attacking Khar with irregulars i960. and beat the attackers.32 But the Khan of Khar raisedhis own forces Radio Kabul in March (and also an articlein Pravda in April i96i) alleged Pakistani brutalities against the Pathans,while Pakistan claimed on April 6, to bombtwo housesin theBajaur area which i96i, thatshe had been forced to her,used by Afghanagents.Pakistanalso announced the were,according
32

in June 1957.

31 Dawn (Karachi), January 25, 1957. op. cit., pp. 74-75. Rushbrook Williams,

io6

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andPakistan Between TheFrontier Dispute Afghanistan Pakhtunistan:

to beingcommissioned arrest of several Afghan agents, who admitted by theAfghan Government for creating unrest and trouble in Pakistan. It was againin theBajaurareathat in May i96i fighting broke outbetween Pakon her istanand Afghanistan. Pakistan accused Afghanistan of intruding territory, whileAfghanistan blamed Pakistan forusing armed force against thediscontented Pathans. By August had so deteriorated thaton the23rdPakistan i96i relations and announced the closing of herconsulates in Qandahar and Jalalabad, demanded the same of Afghanistan by September 6, i96i, alleging her officials in Afghanistan werebeingharassed by theAfghan Government, to but indicating facilities transit thatshe wouldstillcontinue to provide Afghanistan. The Afghan Government threatened to severdiplomatic relations refused tocomply ifPakistan's demand wasnotwithdrawn. Pakistan andAfghanistan broke off diplomatic relations on September 6, i96i, closed theborder Pakistan. and stopped theflow ofhertransit trade through direct talks The ShahofIranoffered as a result to mediate thedispute; on wereheld in Teheranbetween Pakistan and Afghan representatives to re-establish May 26, i963, and two dayslaterthetwocountries agreed diplomatic relations. However, on May29, i963, theAfghan Minister, Sayhad yidRashtyia, was reported to havesaid in Teheran thatAfghanistan and Paknever recognized theDurandLine as thefrontier between herself the istan andthat Pakhtunistan continued todivide thetwocountries, while PakhtunisPakistan that delegate, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, saidin Rawalpindi tanwas a deadissueand Pakistan wouldcontinue restrictions on theentry of Afghan nomads, calledPowindhas. The border was finally openedon July 20, i963, and the same day Afghan consuls tookup their postsat Quetta andPeshawar. her According to Afghanistan, thetwomainpoints of dispute between and Pakistan are: (i) thattheDurandLine is notthelegitimate international frontier between them, and (2) that thetrans-border Pathans arenot a partof Pakistan, and,therefore, shouldform a separate nation of their own.The first Ampointwas illustrated by AbdulHadi Dawi, Afghan to Egypt bassador in Cairoon May27, I952: "I am pleased to saythat Afghanistan considers Egypt's problem similar to her own. You are clamfor theunification andtheSudan, while we areclamouring ouring ofEgypt forthe unification of Pakhtunistan withus." Another example is theannotbeenin force, Sindh, Punjaband Kashmir wouldhavebeenincluded in Afghanistan." Sardar Ambassador to the Najibullah Khan,theAfghan U. K., presented thesecond pointin a letter to The Times (London) on November withthe 8, I955, stating: (i) until 1947thePakhtuns' relations wereuneasy British and occasional outbursts had to be settled byresorting to arms;(2) Pakhtuns ofPakistan aredifferent from therest of thePakis107

onRadioKabulon October nouncement 3I,

I955:

"Had this Durand Line

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Aflairs Pacific be independent; andshould nation area separate they as such, tanis; (3) in I947; (4) theDurandLine to join Pakistan werecompelled Pakhtuns in the hadany validity never writ theBritish since frontier, is notthereal is to thePakhtuns gives Afghanistan that and(5) thesupport area, tribal havealways TheAfghans grounds.33 on ethnic andbased altruistic purely onthe ofi894 andbytheBritish pressure bythe treaty that, resentful been Afof India, Government to the his allegiance transfer to KhanofKalat tothesea.34 ofaccess wasdeprived ghanistan to wants that Afghanistan arguing claims, Afghan both rejects Pakistan and Line, the Durand of andeast Indus River ofthe west the areas annex ofthe ofself-determination right inthe interest altruistic that the professedly Pakistan. in West ofdisintegration a process to start Pakhtuns is a pretext imagiclique's ruling Afghan ofthe "a figment Pakhtunistan Sheconsiders independence forPakhtun demand sheseesno genuine nation," because tribal ofthe toretain control the andin order tribesmen, among anywhere but forces there armed regular haveto maintain areas shedoesnoteven atthe only areemployed forces Regular militia. recruited locally relies upon to than rather attacks Afghan against Pakistan to protect border Afghan ofa to be no question seems "There submission. thetribesmen into force would which state fora separate themselves bythetribes demand united Pakistan."35 from andbenefits losesubsidies have andwould few resources obTheStatesman, newspaper, editor Indian ofthe Ian Stephens, a former areas tribal tothe histravels during activity ofPakhtunistan nosign served British the since ever peaceful very Pathans the in I948 andI95i andfound Afghanisthat andsays viewpoint Pakistan's left.36 supports HughTinker the that noticed W. Spain James quality.37 a cardboard tan's hasonly claim theincauseamong a common hascreated movement for Pakhtunistan in bringing andhas succeeded tribes of theimportant members dividual in Kabulwhere primarily toexist seems harmony "but this them together, appeal inthe factor emotional ofthe andinspite the iscentered," movement has had "Pushtunistan couldarouse, affinity racial and linguistic which area."38 tribal inthe attraction little relatively oftheGovernment theapproach difference between is a marked There thetribestowards Pakistan andthe Government of under Britain ofIndia with and dealt as a thetribesmen problem looked The British upon men. in a believed rulein India. They most oftheir during them accordingly the ofwarwith andeven Japanese at the height presence military constant in the and four armoured regiments battalions maintained 57 infantry
35Wilber, op. cit., p. I 84. op. cit., p. 7. Stunt, 36 The Pakhtunistan

33The Pakhtunistan AprilI956, p. 4. Karachi, Stunt, op. cit.,p. 77. 34Pakhtunistan, 97H. Tinker, London,i962, p. 2I5. India and Pakistan, 38 J. W. Spain, "Pathansof the Tribal Area," in S. Maron (ed.), op. cit., p. 147,

Io8

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheFrontier Dispute Between Afghanistan andPakistan Pakhtunistan:

Northwest Frontier area.39The tribesmen regardedthe British as infidels, but withtheappearance of Pakistanthereligious has disappeared. animosity The confidence thatPakistanhas reposedin the tribeshas paid dividends, as the withdrawal of her regularforces has not led to the extension of Afghan influence in thetribal area; on thecontrary thePathanshave even condemnedAfghanpropagandaagainstPakistanin resolutions passed in tribal meetingsfrom Chitral southwards, rejectingAfghan espousal of their cause and emphasizing theirloyalty to Pakistan.40 From the outsetof Pakistan'sindependence the tribes had expressed allegianceto Pakistanat various Jirgas(assemblies) held by the NWFP Governor, Sir George Cunningham, and the PoliticalResidentof the NWF Agencyin late I947. The distribution in I949 of land fitforagriculture in the Indus valleyto Mahsud tribesmen and, in the Bajaur area, the construction of schools,hospitals and roads,the distribution of busesand trucks, along with soil conservation havefurther demonstrated Pakistan's sincerity. Pakistan considers baselessthe claim of Kabul that the Pathans are a partof Afghanistan. The Pathansof Khyber, historically, were no moreunder the Amir of Kabul than theywere underthe British;theyneverpaid any revenues to theAmir and he could deal withthemonlyby bribing and from imposingtheir authority blackmailingthem. The Britishrefrained upon the tribes, because it would have led to war with Afghanistan, resultingin its disintegration and would have ruinedthe whole frontier arrangement for CentralAsia. The strongbond of relationship betweenthe Pathans and Afghanistan was based upon the fact that the Pathans used Afghanterritory forlaunchingraids upon India, and subsequently retiring to safety.4' By rejecting the Durand Line and insisting thatthe River Indus is "the naturaland historical borderof the Indian sub-continent" and "today the eastern frontier of Pakistan,"42 the Government of Afghanistan impliesthat northwestern and westernKashmir,the NWFP, Baluchistan,and some partsof Sind have neverbelongedto India. Historically, Sind had been a partof theMughal Empire,becameindependent at its declineand was conquered by Ahmad Shah in I773. In I793 it again became independent and in I843 the Britishbroughtit into BritishIndia. SimilarlyKashmir remainedunderMughal sovereignty until1712; thereafter it passed underthe suzerainty of the Sikhs who ceded it to the Britishin i846. Since I948 the claim to Kashmirhas been contested by India and Pakistanbut not by Afghanistan. Likewise,Baluchistan neverbelongedto Afghanistan. The frontierof India has historically been the line running fromGhazni to Qanda39Tinker,op. cit.,p. 2i 6. 40Fraser-Tytler, op. cit., p. 309; Birdwood,op. cit.,p. 77; Rushbrook Williams,op. cit., p. 76; and Barton,"The NorthWest Frontier," The Fortnightly, August I949, p. io6. 4'Fraser-Tytler, op. cit.,pp. i84-i85, 262-263. 2 The Pakhtun Question, Hove (England), p. a.
IO9

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Afairs

har:"This wasin fact the Mughal until Kandahar frontier waslost in the reign ofShah Jehan."43 The assertion of theseparate ethnic identity of Pakistani Pakhtuns would hardly provide any basis for resolving the problem since India, Pakistan, andeven Afghanistan are states composed of heterogeneous ethnic groups. Ifa solution were tobe sought in a plebiscite todetermine the free choice ofthePathans, then this principle tothePathans should be applied onboth sides ofthe Durand Line. Manzur Qadir, Pakistan's former Foreign Minister, disclosed onMarch 8,i960, that hehadsuggested toSardar Naim, the Afghan Foreign Minister, inJanuary ofthat year tohold a plebiscite on both sides ofthe frontier in order toascertain whether thetribesmen want tojoinAfghanistan orPakistan.44 Butthe Afghan Foreign Minister showed nointerest in Manzur Qadir's proposal; indeed, hecould scarcely afford to do so.Oncetheprinciple ofself-determination byplebiscite wasaccepted, a chain reaction ofsimilar demands could develop among the other ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups living on Afghanistan's border, e.g.,the Turkmens, theTadzhiks, etc., all ofwhom havestrong tieswith groups living in neighbouring countries: thePersians with their kinsmen in Iran andSoviet Russia, the Uzbeks with the people ofSoviet Uzbekistan, etc. If taken seriously, self-determination byplebiscite coulddisrupt all political stability inthe region. Thetwo contentions ofAfghanistan-that the Durand Linebe revoked, andthat Pakhtuns Pakistani be given freedom-seem to be incompatible. theAfghan if thelineof claim would havemore Theoretically, weight argument followed were that Lineis thefrontier theDurand ofAfghanistan, butthat thePakhtuns, havetheright whoarenotPakistani, should ofself-determination andAfghan fate interest in their is purely altruistic. a re-demarcation should seek Alternatively, Afghanistan ofher frontier with Pakistan onthe that the Durand grounds Linewasnever recognized byher butmerely under thepressure British of superior arms. In this accepted case, Afghanistan should nothaveanyinterest in Pakhtunistan and the Pakhtuns. ThatAfghanistan has chosen neither of these buta courses, combination ofboth, isconfusing. hasnotbeenableto prove thePathans that Afghanistan want really either ortogain their tojoinAfghanistan from Pakistan with independence the there ofAfghanistan. is evidence that have help Rather, they historically fearful In i876 the ruler been ofChitral offered ofAfghan volundesigns. topersuade tothe ruler andalsotried ofKashmir tary allegiance the rulers of Swat, suit. and Dir to follow Sincevarious other tribes Bajaur, and all these mountains states andthestate ofKashmir, intervene the between
43 H. H. Dodwell (ed.), The Cambridge History of India, Cambridge, 1929, Vol. V, pp. 483-486. 44AfghanChronology, From Khrushchev to Present, PakistanEmbassy, Washington, D.C.

HO

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheFrontier andPakistan Dispute Between Afghanistan Pakhtunistan: only reason for this voluntary vassalage ruler seems tobe the fear ofthe of Chitral a possible against attack by the Amir ofKabul.45 Theweakness inPakistan's claim arises outofthe heavy emphasis placed upon the referendum ofI947 andthe held shortly after. Thereferenlirgas dumwasheld in thesettled only areas where lessthan ofthe onequarter Pathans live while the tribal area wasleft out. Pakistan discounts tribal consultation because ofthe absence ofrepresentative government inthose areas, but the argument is weak since a referendum needs no legislative assembly. The whole adultpopulation couldhavebeenconsulted. Of thelimited electorate only 55percent participated in a referendum already limited in choice tojoining India orPakistan. To befair, itshould have offered union with Afghanistan, Pakistan orIndia as well as complete independence. Ifit is true that the Pathans considered themselves separate from the rest ofthe Pakistanis andclose to theAfghans, then they really didnotgettheopportunity toexercise the right ofself-determination. The inadequacy ofthe referendum wasconfirmed byKhanAbdul Ghaffar Khan, who, "addressinga public meeting atBannu onthe 22nd ofJune, that the PathI947, said answere prepared tocontest the Frontier referendum on the issue ofPakhtunistan andPakistan butnoton theissue ofPakistan andHindustan."46 As tothelirgas, it is difficult to establish their authenticity, since they were heldunder theauspices ofBritish representatives, though nowserving Pakistan, just asthey used tobeinthe days ofthe British viceroys. There is no convincing evidence to show that thetribes fully comprehended the changed political situation andits implications. In conclusion, itcanbesaidthat Afghanistan have didcertainly genuine grievances against the British, yet inall fairness, those grievances cannot be transferred to Pakistan because Pakistan is thesuccessor state to British India. Afghanistan's arguments areconfusing to estabandshehasfailed lishherbonafides. On theother side, Pakistan's arguments arealsonot strong enough toestablish herclaims prima theweakness facie. Moreover, of Afghanistan's caseis notnecessarily of proportionate to thestrength Pakistan's case. inAsiahave Asians Most ofthe not been established frontiers but bythe It is,therefore, difficult toinsist on the ofEurope. bytheimperial powers theDurand ofanyfrontier, andinviolability authenticity Line. including Most areatlas ThusTinker calls thePak-Afghan frontier "an decorations. across thebarren to determine there. . . traced imaginary frontier, hills, ofAfghanistan."47 oftheBritish spective sovereignty Raj andoftheAmir hasbeen loudin championing thecause ofthePathOnly Afghanistan themselves forthemost remained ans; thePathans silent have, on part,
45Gen. SirJohn Adye,IndianFrontier Policy, London,I897, p. 5I. 46Pakhtunistan, op. cit.,p. I I 5. 4 Tinker, op. cit., p. I42. III

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Afairs

onmany occasions they have very this issue. They arenot habitually silent; They have been noted clearly demonstrated what they areagainst. through character oftheir life. Their all their history for thehighly individualistic be saidtohavesuch, doesnotgo political organization, ifthey cantruly toascertain what the Pathan stands beyond the tribe. Itis,therefore, difficult thePathan hasnotshown anyirfor, besides hispersonal freedom. So far Pakistan, butequally, hasshown revocable antagonism andhostility toward Most incidents disturbing the peace no special attachment for Afghanistan. ofthearea-which in a tribal territory-seem to have is nothing unusual been policy orfunctionary rather than provoked bya particular government periods ofPakistani military orinterbymass rebellion. Atnotime during though they could have done soeasily. the antagonistic totheIndian MusHistorically, Pathans have notbeen but they identified themselves with them. lims, whenever the occasion arose In their law(rawaj)theBritish failed largely attempt tocodify the Pathan became aware of their identity with "because theMuslim Pathans early other andtold the British interrogators that Muslims ofthe sub-continent"48 theuniversal Muslim personal law. they hadno rawajbutonly Sharia, in 1946,when Pandit oftheViceroy's Nehru, then Vice-President Again, he received a very chilly reception Executive Council, visited Waziristan, fact hadasofthe Frontier Province despite the that the Congress Ministry "After was over. sured thePathans that expeditions theera of punitive toldhimthey would avenge firing on hisplane, theJirgah at Miranshah Further proof ofPathan solidarity the ill-treatment ofMoslems in India."49 theclashwithIndian withPakistan can be seenin their spearheading could inKashmir ofPakistan send regtroops even before the Government ularforces. from within Afghanistan, butthe Sometribesmen hadcome from the territory. majority came tribal that hislandcannot is thePathan, In addition, support him, realizing thedevelopandother assistance aid for to accept financial quite willing hischerished values. itdoes not ment ofhisregion infringe upon provided thefinancial started is besides subsidy bytheBritish, Pakistan, continuing buthas for andmaterials thenecessary alsogiving improvement, money in for. Thishasoften resulted is asked toprovide what been careful only the of there doubt that with is little but expansion unplanned development, in turn will "the Pathans advancement welfare andwith economic schemes a full assume andgradually meet their placein thenational obligations, ofthe at thetime thePathans to reassure lifeof Pakistan."50 Moreover, theWarsak Pakistan Dam was in West Province oftheFrontier merger
49Birdwood, op. cit.,p.
op. cit., p. ?0Spain,
I49. 48

attempt tosecede, alnal weakness-particularly in I947-48-did thePathans

Spain, op. cit.,p.

I43

30.

II2

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheFrontier Dispute Between Afghanistan andPakistan Pakhtunistan:

builtclose to Peshawar; thereafter the University of Peshawarreceivedexpanded facilities and funds, and its higherpositions were filledby Pathans. Also, the Ministry of Tribal Areas was established in Peshawar.It might even be said that the appeasement of the Pathans has gone to the extent thatnow, as Tinker says,Pakistanhas "Pathan Raj" because the President of Pakistan, theGovernor ofWestPakistan, and theCommander-in-Chief of thePakistan Armyall are Pathans. One of the possiblesolutions to the problemof the Pakhtuntribes, the Powindahs, and the conflicting Pak-Afghan claims,can be the creation of a larger political unitencompassing Afghanistan and Pakistan. With theeliminationof the Durand Line as the international frontier the Pak-Afghan conflict on thisgroundwould cease to exist; enforcement of law and order would improvesince offending tribesmen would no more escapejusticeby merelycrossingthe frontier, and the Powindahs-the seasonal migrant tribes-wouldbe saved theinconvenience of entering a new stateeach time. In additionto politicalconsiderations, thereis a great possibility of mutually advantageous economic and military prospects.5' The idea of a union betweenPakistanand Afghanistan as the best solution to the problemof the tribeswas first broachedby Fraser-Tytler in I954. This proposaldid not long remainconfined to the realmof academic speculation but was given a moreconcrete of Malik shape in the statement Feroz Khan Noon, thenPrime Ministerof Pakistan,who said on August 21, 1958: "Pakistanis prepared fora federation withits Muslimneighbours, Iran and Afghanistan, if theyso desire."Iran also showedinterest with the Shah of Iran proclaiming thatthe formation of an "AryanConfederation" composedof Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan was "under carefulstudy."52 in thisdirection so long as PakHowever,not much could be accomplished Afghanrelations were on the vergeof war, or, at best,remainedcool. On August6, i962 President the "fusion Ayub took the initiative by proposing of the threebrotherly Muslim Statesinto a greater neighbouring political unity."But his proposalmet with such opposition thatthe Government of Pakistanexplainedthat the President had not proposeda tightfederation but a commonwealth withfull freedom of actionforthe participants. With the replacement of Sardar Daud by a non-royal Dr. Mopremier, hammad Yusuf, Pak-Afghan relations seem to have taken a turn for the better. Indian influence in Kabul, which may have contributed Moreover, in keeping Pak-Afghanrelationsstrained, appears to have receded.The Afghans,who looked upon India as a genuine neutraland consequently close to them,now findthatby accepting substantial aid fromthe military West India has compromised her neutrality. The re-establishment of diplo51 For a detailed description see Louis Dupree, "A SuggestedPakistan-Afghanistan-Iran The MiddleEast journal,Autumn Federation," I963, pp. 383-399. 52 Time, October 6, I958.

II3

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Aflairs matic relations andtheresumption oftransit Pakistan trade between and Afghanistan ini963 ushered ina new era ofmutual toleration. Pakistan has beenstriving notonly butforactive forgoodrelations cooperation and some kindof unity with herMuslim neighbours. Such overtures havemetwith positive response from Teheran andAnkara; in orderto further promote Pak-Afghan understanding and eventually tobring Afghanistan closer, orwithin the larger unity, President Ayub jourShah. neyed toKabul onJuly i, i964 where hewasreceived Zahir byKing in Their talks were described as very satisfactory. Butitwaspress reaction both countries which showed greater enthusiasm. Dawn (Karachi) found Pak-Afghan relations greatly improved since there-establishment of diplomatic relations anddiminished Indian influence over Kabul. On theAfghansidethenewspapers Anis, HaiwadandtheKabulTimes hadbeen pleading forcloser relations, and theKabul Times editorially described theAyub-Zahir meeting as the"manifestation of improved relations between the two countries." Arriving in Teheran from Kabul, Ayub "backed theideaofevolving greater unity, some sort of a common platform for Iran, Pakistan, Turkey andAfghanistan." But, he said"the Muslim countries must have a common philosophy oflife andcommunity ofthought before such a scheme could become feasible," for heconsidered "inward-looking nationalism" the greatest impediment toMuslim unity. The absence Iranand ofthis in Pakistan, inward-looking nationalism Turkey, at leastvis-a-vis eachother, and also twodecades of generally cordial andmostly for close relations between basis them provided the unity thethree between itsscope. The tripartite CENTO allies, though outside summit meeting produced anagreement toset upa permanent organization to promote "regional cooperation fordevelopment" which has already started working andis likely to bring about active collaboration between thethree economies, development of inter-linking communications with visarestrictions eliminated, possible joint airandsealines, andgreatly enhanced cultural exchanges.53 that It is likely the ofthetripartite success friendcooperation, growing andincreasing trade between ononeside andPakistan liness, Afghanistan andbetween Afghanistan andIranontheother may have a positive effect on Afghan attitude towards somekindof association withher seeking ofbeing southern neighbours. Thefear isolated from a growing unity may alsocontribute towards this goal. ForifAfghanistan chooses tocollaborate herneighbours, with theeconomic advantages to herwillbe proportionthan ately greater toher associates.54 University ofAlberta, Edmonton
53 PakistanDocumentSeries,Vol. I, No. i, August I964, Embassyof Pakistan, WashD. C. ington, 54 Dupree, op. cit.

II4

This content downloaded from 121.52.147.11 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:09:29 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions