Peace in Afghanistan Will Not be Possible Until Kabul Acknowledges The Durand Line'

[Ahmad Sajjad Paracha]

Bros nothing is contraversial about D.L. Historically and legally eastwards of dl belongs to pakistan. Whoever disagrees can buzz off

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Dubious first ask @Solomon2 to prove that Pakistan altered the Durand Line border in the 1940s and 1950s as he stated.

I am still waiting for the proof.

And @Solomon2 was questioning your English @Dubious.

 

[Dubious]

You're standing on a point of semantics: what "border" might mean elsewhere, vs. what it meant for decades between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which Pakistan then altered, ticking the Afghans off.

OMG! You gotta be kidding me! Is THAT really your comeback line!

And @Solomon2 was questioning your English @Dubious.

Oh let him question all he wants...I am questioning his integrity

@Solomon2 you aint a bad poster a big troll maybe...what is wrong with you? You got some Afghani genes in you?

 

[MultaniGuy]

OMG! You gotta be kidding me! Is THAT really your comeback line!


Oh let him question all he wants...I am questioning his integrity

@Solomon2 you aint a bad poster a big troll maybe...what is wrong with you? You got some Afghani genes in you?

Ask him for proof that Pakistan altered the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I still waiting for that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You're standing on a point of semantics: what "border" might mean elsewhere, vs. what it meant for decades between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which Pakistan then altered, ticking the Afghans off.

The 1793 treaty itself required updating several times - I think the first time was in the 1794 Jay Treaty.

Details are essential, semantics necessary when it comes to disputes between States in the modern era. We can't go back a thousand years to 'accommodate' outlandish 'views' on what the border meant to people at that point in time.

The fact of the matter is that there is a treaty that demarcates the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a border recognized by the UN and the majority of the world. Before any other treaty or agreement can be negotiated over 'border controls', Afghanistan has to demonstrate that it is a responsible State that will abide by existing treaties and agreements, otherwise what is the point of negotiating another treaty if the Afghans, a couple of generations later, throw another hissy fit and claim that 'the border meant something else to them XYZ years ago'?

Afghanistan needs to respect Pakistani territorial integrity, accept the internationally recognized Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and only then can it be considered a responsible partner with which Pakistan can negotiate further treaties/agreements that potentially ease the movement of people and goods across the border.

 

[Dubious]

The 1793 treaty itself required updating several times - I think the first time was in the 1794 Jay Treaty.

It isnt the same situation! We arent talking about America and UK....you trying to equate that situation to Pak/ Afghan situation is just going to get you a ban....If you however, desire one just let me know I can speed up the process

 

[Solomon2]

Details are essential, semantics necessary when it comes to disputes between States in the modern era. We can't go back a thousand years to 'accommodate' outlandish 'views' on what the border meant to people at that point in time.

The fact of the matter is that there is a treaty that demarcates the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a border recognized by the UN and the majority of the world.

The fact of the matter here is that Pakistan is greedy when it comes to asserting its sovereign rights and blind when it tramples on the traditional rights of others. The dispute can be moved towards solution if both parties stop being so jealous - and Pakistan, as the stronger party, can earn international goodwill by being the first to do so.

Before any other treaty or agreement can be negotiated over 'border controls', Afghanistan has to demonstrate that it is a responsible State that will abide by existing treaties and agreements -

The Afghans could argue that the pre-1947 state of affairs was in effect an "agreement" to allow seasonal migration.

Afghanistan needs to respect -

Whereas Pakistan doesn't need to respect Afghanistan at all? Really, do you want to solve the Pushtunistan problem or not? Or does Pakistan still refuse the wise instruction of its onetime General and Ambassador Yaqub-Khan that sometimes political solutions are more appropriate than military ones, even when it comes to pride of national sovereignty?

It isnt the same situation! We arent talking about America and UK....you trying to equate that situation to Pak/ Afghan situation is just going to get you a ban....

Have some more tea, calm down, and tell me what you think are the differences.

 

[MultaniGuy]

The fact of the matter here is that Pakistan is greedy when it comes to asserting its sovereign rights and blind when it tramples on the traditional rights of others. The dispute can be moved towards solution if both parties stop being so jealous - and Pakistan, as the stronger party, can earn international goodwill by being the first to do so.

The Afghans could argue that the pre-1947 state of affairs was in effect an "agreement" to allow seasonal migration.

Whereas Pakistan doesn't need to respect Afghanistan at all? Really, do you want to solve the Pushtunistan problem or not? Or does Pakistan still refuse the wise instruction of its onetime General and Ambassador Yaqub-Khan that sometimes political solutions are more appropriate than military ones, even when it comes to pride of national sovereignty?

Huh whats this nonsense?

Pakistan respects Afghanistan territorial sovereignty as long as Afghanistan respects the Treaty of Rawalpindi 1919.

Stop beating around the bush.

So that is your comeback, traditional grazing lands for Pathans? Why do you care about that. Once the Afghanistani government accepted the Treaty of Rawalpindi 1919, they lost their rights.

The fact of the matter here is that Pakistan is greedy when it comes to asserting its sovereign rights and blind when it tramples on the traditional rights of others. The dispute can be moved towards solution if both parties stop being so jealous - and Pakistan, as the stronger party, can earn international goodwill by being the first to do so.

The Afghans could argue that the pre-1947 state of affairs was in effect an "agreement" to allow seasonal migration.

Whereas Pakistan doesn't need to respect Afghanistan at all? Really, do you want to solve the Pushtunistan problem or not? Or does Pakistan still refuse the wise instruction of its onetime General and Ambassador Yaqub-Khan that sometimes political solutions are more appropriate than military ones, even when it comes to pride of national sovereignty?

Have some more tea, calm down, and tell me what you think are the differences.

How about you tell us the similarities first. hmmm...

So what do you suggest Pakistan do? (I am smiling now, come on tell us.)

The fact of the matter here is that Pakistan is greedy when it comes to asserting its sovereign rights and blind when it tramples on the traditional rights of others. The dispute can be moved towards solution if both parties stop being so jealous - and Pakistan, as the stronger party, can earn international goodwill by being the first to do so.

The Afghans could argue that the pre-1947 state of affairs was in effect an "agreement" to allow seasonal migration.

Whereas Pakistan doesn't need to respect Afghanistan at all? Really, do you want to solve the Pushtunistan problem or not? Or does Pakistan still refuse the wise instruction of its onetime General and Ambassador Yaqub-Khan that sometimes political solutions are more appropriate than military ones, even when it comes to pride of national sovereignty?

Have some more tea, calm down, and tell me what you think are the differences.

You do realize that Durand line is not a territorial dispute like Kashmir is.

Why do you insist on talking nonsense?

Treaty of Rawalpindi was signed by the Afghanistani government. There is no expiry date.

How should Pakistan compromise, you never explained. Or are you just trolling?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Treaty of Rawalpindi was signed by the Afghanistani government. There is no expiry date.

There is no mention of a clause of expiration in any documented version of the Durand Line agreement of 1893 either. Some Afghans claim that such a clause was there in Dari and Pashtu translations of the original document but no such document has ever been produced.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer

I'd like to get your take on this, since you're one of the Indians whose views I respect as being objective when it comes to Pakistan & regional geo-politics.

I do have a view - actually, several views - but I hope that you will not take offence (they are emphatically not intended to cause offence).

Let me know if I have your license.

 

[MultaniGuy]

There is no mention of a clause of expiration in any documented version of the Durand Line agreement of 1893 either. Some Afghans claim that such a clause was there in Dari and Pashtu translations of the original document but no such document has ever been produced.

This is what I know as well.

 

[Dubious]

The fact of the matter here is that Pakistan is greedy when it comes to asserting its sovereign rights and blind when it tramples on the traditional rights of others. The dispute can be moved towards solution if both parties stop being so jealous -

You somehow forgot to elaborate on the jealousy of the Afghanis!

and Pakistan, as the stronger party, can earn international goodwill by being the first to do so.

Pakistan has done more than its share by harboring 3 million and their descendants for 3 decades refugees instead of turning them down at the border...

Tell me what Afghanistan has done...

The Afghans could argue that the pre-1947 state of affairs was in effect an "agreement" to allow seasonal migration.

If it is not mentioned anywhere how can it be?

Whereas Pakistan doesn't need to respect Afghanistan at all? Really, do you want to solve the Pushtunistan problem or not? Or does Pakistan still refuse the wise instruction of its onetime General and Ambassador Yaqub-Khan that sometimes political solutions are more appropriate than military ones, even when it comes to pride of national sovereignty?

Hey they cant move forward when they dont even respect the international border! You cant build up new treaties when old ones arent even taken note of!

And if this old one is, we dont need a new treaty...All Afghanistan needs to agree to is staying on its side and kindly taking the burden of the 3million and their descendants on itself so it can feel the weight we have lifted for 3 decades now!

Have some more tea, calm down, and tell me what you think are the differences.

Oh I am very calm! In fact I am trying to look for sanity signs in your posts

Why dont you show me the similarities first since you are trying to draw the similarities by bringing in such treaties! Also it will allow us to be on the wavelength!

 

[MultaniGuy]

I do have a view - actually, several views - but I hope that you will not take offence (they are emphatically not intended to cause offence).

Let me know if I have your license.

Ofcourse because you will be talking from an Indian's perspective.

Better to get a United Nations worker to give his opinion on the Durand Line.

 

[Kambojaric]

This is the core of Afghanistans problem. The day it recognizes Pakistans sovereignty, it will automatically gain Pakistans friendship as people in Pakistan due to ethnic and religious reasons are naturally inclined to look upon Afghanistan favorably.

Sadly our successive foreign offices have failed to make this fact abundantly clear to Kabul. Normalize relations with us or forget our friendship. You cant have both. Kick out their embassy, cancel all relations and all of their trade access. Appeasement has clearly not worked for the past 7 decades simply because their mindset perceives appeasement as weakness.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

There are two course of actions.

1. Afghanistan accepts the Durand Line and the current borders. This would force the Afghan national government to halt their divisive propaganda against Pakistan.

In turn, Pakistan could work to bring some legitimacy to a government which is plagued by corruption, desertion, and ethnic/religious infighting.

However, neither the US, Israel, nor India would accept this, as their main goal of being in Afghanistan is to ensure Pakistan doesn’t become powerful.

2. If Afghanistan continues to promote the destabilization of Pakistan by proxy terrorism and with Indian financial, material support, Pakistan will be forced to use its own power base in KPK to nullify that threat.

The whole idea of Afghan secular nationalists that Afghan Pukhtoons are brave unbeatable mujahideen and Pakistani Pukhtoons are fake Gul khans will be turned on its head.

Pakistan, with 75% of the world Pukhtoon population, is the natural defender and guardian of the Pukhtoon cause. Our Pukhtoon population of KPK and Balochistan is more than the whole population of Afghanistan.

In this scenario, Afghanistan will have to be dissolved and rebuilt on an Islam-based Pukhtoon power base which rejects secularism and Western subjugation.

The flimsy Westernized mini-skirts and lowcut dresses (Pahlavi-esque, Beirut like) Afghanistan is simply incompatible with the culture of the Pukhtoon majority of Afghanistan.

Conclusion: Pakistan is the big brother of Afghanistan, and that will not change. Afghanistan is reliant culturally and economically to Pakistan. Regardless of foreign invaders’ wishes, Pakistan and Afghanistan’s unity is the normal way of our region and the equilibrium in our relations.

Any hatred and animosity is temporary.