Today is the 98th anniversary of Treaty of Rawalpindi

[Reichsmarschall]

https://twitter.com/x/status/894948991925977088

@Mian Babban @Sher Malang

 

[Reichsmarschall]

@Areesh @maximuswarrior @El Sidd @Kaptaan

 

[El Sidd]

@Areesh @maximuswarrior @El Sidd @Kaptaan

Its been a hundred years of struggle trying to explain them their own border.

No wonder Alexander gave up on them quickly enough.

Lost cause these barbarians

 

[saiyan0321]

Today is 9th.

Anyhow why does Afghanistan celebrate their independence day on 19 when the treaty was signed on 8th. Treaty of Rawalpindi granting Afghanistan freedom of foreign relations.

Today is 9th.

Anyhow why does Afghanistan celebrate their independence day on 19 when the treaty was signed on 8th. Treaty of Rawalpindi granting Afghanistan freedom of foreign relations.

 

[Sher Malang]

No British-India, no validation for any treaty; Loy Afghanistan should have been established right after Britons left the region.

 

[El Sidd]

No British-India, no validation for any treaty; Loy Afghanistan should have been established right after Britons left the region.

I think the news reached Afghanistan in 1979 that British have indeed left.

 

[Sher Malang]

I think the news reached Afghanistan in 1979 that British have indeed left.

No, keep reading you will find out.

 

[El Sidd]

No, keep reading you will find out.

Ok.
This is very complicated.
I have to use google maps

 

[Reichsmarschall]

No British-India, no validation for any treaty; Loy Afghanistan should have been established right after Britons left the region.

why dont you invade us and take back your land?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Narendra Trump Thanks for tagging me. We must keep in mind that every border in South Asia was drawn by either foreign British or Russian officials without taking any leave from us the "natives". This applies as forcefully to the northern border of Afghanistan which was drawn around the same time Durand Line went up. It was as artificial as Durand. It divided Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen into the Russian Empire as brutally as it divided the Pashtuns and to a degree Baloch into the British Empire.

Radcliffe Line that divides India and Pakistan was the only line in South Asia that recieved input by the locals. All rest were drawn on the fancy of British/Russian empire officials. So if you question the validity of Durand Line - something of course that attrracts Indian attention remind them of the Anglo-Russian border Line and more closer to the Indians the Johnson Line or McMahon Lines with China. Those lines divide Tibetan people in half. So of Durand can be questioned China ought to question the McMahon or Johnson lines on the same grounds. Ditto Tajikistan with Afghanistan. Please do read more how Anglo-Russian line was drawn.


http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/boundaries-iii


Ps. There is no need to use abusive language please. This argumant is very simple and can demonstrated with simple facts that Afghans/Indians have no basis to questioning of Durand. I will post more facts later so people can use that as referances. I would ask our members here to arm themselves with the facts. Let facts win our case.

 

[saiyan0321]

@Narendra Trump Thanks for tagging me. We must keep in mind that every border in South Asia was drawn by either foreign British or Russian officials without taking any leave from us the "natives". This applies as forcefully to the northern border of Afghanistan which was drawn around the same time Durand Line went up. It was as artificial as Durand. It divided Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen into the Russian Empire as brutally as it divided the Pashtuns and to a degree Baloch into the British Empire.

Radcliffe Line that divides India and Pakistan was the only line in South Asia that recieved input by the locals. All rest were drawn on the fancy of British/Russian empire officials. So if you question the validity of Durand Line - something of course that attrracts Indian attention remind them of the Anglo-Russian border Line and more closer to the Indians the Johnson Line or McMahon Lines with China. Those lines divide Tibetan people in half. So of Durand can be questioned China ought to question the McMahon or Johnson lines on the same grounds. Ditto Tajikistan with Afghanistan. Please do read more how Anglo-Russian line was drawn.


http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/boundaries-iii


c

These lines are not just found in south Asia. They are also found in the Americas and Africa which in most cases are ruler straight lines. It doesn't get more artificial than that yet it is something recognized by all states and this recognition by being a signatory of the UN which Afghanistan is.

In fact there are two types of borders recognized.

Natural borders which are seas. Mountains e.t.c
And
Artificial borders or manmade borders. These borders are man made and they are most common and have been formed through wars or treaties and they have been formed since the dawn of civilization. In modern world man made borders dominate the countries where countries agree that these areas are under our sovereignity and these are under yours. With that we place the foolish argument of artificiality to rest.


Second comes the British India and Afghanistan argument. The treaty was validated by both sides and since nobody abrigated or called for its cessation in a three year period the treaty becomes complete in force and treaties gentlemen are the primary and first source of international law I.e
Article 38 of the ICJ

The court. Whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it shall apply
a. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states.

With that also one cannot unilaterally abrogate a treaty and Afghanistan has not unless the termination process has been provided and the termination is in accordance to the provided process and since nobody abrogated it in three years hence forth the treaty is solid and in full force.

Now the argument that it was made with British India and not pakistan is also rubbish.

The concept of successor states come to terms and pakistan is the successor state of British India bcz British carved these two states and handed down its power to these states making them the classic example of successor states.

Professor openhiem places it " a succession of international person ( state) occurs when one or two more international person take place of another international person in consequence of certain changes in the latter's condition."
The areas of pakistan, India came to be with the change of govt brought by the British as they gave their withheld power to the nascent States and awarded them the international personality derived from the previous international personaility.

In this way pakistan inherited the treaty of Rawalpindi as a successor state.

Article 2 of Vienna convention " succession of state is the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility of international relation of territory"

According to brownlie " state succession arises when there is definite replacement of one state by another in respect of sovereignty over a giver territory in confirming with international law".

And the shortest that the British itself told the afghan govt that Pakistan was its successor state and British were far more in tune with international law than Afghanistan ever was.


Now if Afghans say international law is not for us they wilfully voilate the UN laws, state recognition and its cohesion with other international states.


There is a reason that Afghanistan has never taken this to ICJ or even in the UN. Bcz they know they have no grounds and will lose. So they make speeches for domestic consumption of loy Afghanistan and how locals can decide alone. The border is iron. There is no other argument.

Thus this entire discussion is useless.

 

[El Sidd]

These lines are not just found in south Asia. They are also found in the Americas and Africa which in most cases are ruler straight lines. It doesn't get more artificial than that yet it is something recognized by all states and this recognition by being a signatory of the UN which Afghanistan is.

In fact there are two types of borders recognized.

Natural borders which are seas. Mountains e.t.c
And
Artificial borders or manmade borders. These borders are man made and they are most common and have been formed through wars or treaties and they have been formed since the dawn of civilization. In modern world man made borders dominate the countries where countries agree that these areas are under our sovereignity and these are under yours. With that we place the foolish argument of artificiality to rest.


Second comes the British India and Afghanistan argument. The treaty was validated by both sides and since nobody abrigated or called for its cessation in a three year period the treaty becomes complete in force and treaties gentlemen are the primary and first source of international law I.e
Article 38 of the ICJ

The court. Whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it shall apply
a. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states.

With that also one cannot unilaterally abrogate a treaty and Afghanistan has not unless the termination process has been provided and the termination is in accordance to the provided process and since nobody abrogated it in three years hence forth the treaty is solid and in full force.

Now the argument that it was made with British India and not pakistan is also rubbish.

The concept of successor states come to terms and pakistan is the successor state of British India bcz British carved these two states and handed down its power to these states making them the classic example of successor states.

Professor openhiem places it " a succession of international person ( state) occurs when one or two more international person take place of another international person in consequence of certain changes in the latter's condition."
The areas of pakistan, India came to be with the change of govt brought by the British as they gave their withheld power to the nascent States and awarded them the international personality derived from the previous international personaility.

In this way pakistan inherited the treaty of Rawalpindi as a successor state.

Article 2 of Vienna convention " succession of state is the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility of international relation of territory"

According to brownlie " state succession arises when there is definite replacement of one state by another in respect of sovereignty over a giver territory in confirming with international law".

And the shortest that the British itself told the afghan govt that Pakistan was its successor state and British were far more in tune with international law than Afghanistan ever was.


Now if Afghans say international law is not for us they wilfully voilate the UN laws, state recognition and its cohesion with other international states.


There is a reason that Afghanistan has never taken this to ICJ or even in the UN. Bcz they know they have no grounds and will lose. So they make speeches for domestic consumption of loy Afghanistan and how locals can decide alone. The border is iron. There is no other argument.

Thus this entire discussion is useless.

take a breather buddy

it is all good.

we have google maps now and India is giving Afghanistan a satellite.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I will again ask members here to remain civil. Let our intellect prevail. I live in UK and here you learn to win by placing logic, facts and reason prevail. The moment you begin abuse you lose the argumant. I know Pakistan is on solid legal ground as far as international law goes with regards to the Durand Line. Nobody can stop people claming anything. I could begin a cliame by saying my grandad owned Buckingham Palace and tell the Queen to pack bag and leave. But the real issue here is if you have the facts to back up your case.

Anyway going forward on this many Afghans and their Indian supporters allege that Pakistan is a artifical country of composite ethnic groups. That is then used to build up the case that it ought to be broken into it's constituent ethnic parts. But that is equally valid to India and Afghanistan. If we follow the concept of a pure "one ethnic state" then apply it this is what Afghanistan would look like [below]. It would have to be broken into at least five parts each making "pure ethnic group". Under these conditions a case [valid] could be then made that Pakistan surrenders Khyber Pakhtunkwa province to the Pashtun territories breaking away from Afghanistan to make a pure "Pashtunistan". Baloch would also have to be integrated with those in Iran, in Afghanistan and Pakistan to make a greater Balochistan. Tajiks could integrate with Tajikistan to make greater Tajikistan etc etc.

This is what "one ethnic group" concept of pure nation states would look like in Afghanistan. It would be recipe for disaster. The problem in real life is within these parts there would be signficant minorities left. Is this what people want? Is Afghanistan prepared to do this in order to create pure one ethnic nation state?

For now I won't even bother with India as you know that country has dozens, on dozens of weird ethnic groups all stitched together by the British and before that the Muslim invaders.

 

[Mian Babban]

https://twitter.com/x/status/894948991925977088

@Mian Babban @Sher Malang

Thanks for tagging me.....

Afghanistan demanded "Independent Pashtunistan" in 1947 instead of the option of joining Afghanistan, because they had signed these treaties with British and were legally not in position to demand the areas back from the British. Much of the FATA and Malakhand were never under the rule of Kabul rulers while they had lost present-day KP to Sikhs in early 19th century. The Pashtun districts of present-day Baluchistan were under rule of Kabul but they ceded it to British in treaty of Gandamak, 1879.

 

[saiyan0321]

Afghans and their Indian supporters allege that Pakistan is a artifical country of composite ethnic groups. That is then used to build up the case that it ought to be broken into it's constituent ethnic parts. But that is equally valid to India and Afghanistan.

Artificial country is another rubbish statement that could only be found in the arguments formed in gutters.

No nation state is an artificial country.

State is formed on following basis.

Prof. Laski " state is a territorial society divided into government and subjects and claiming with in its allotted physical area, supremacy over all other institutions".

Holland, " state is assemblage of human beings organized for law, generally occupying a certain territory."

These definitions give form that states whether old and new require only four elements
Population.
Government
Sovereignty
Territory.

International recognition of states comes with addition of popular government and ability to fulfill international obligations and a States becomes a recognized and complete state when it is added into the UN and this is I'm accordance to article 304 of UN charter.

Coming back to ethnic composition. There are many states that are not single ethnicity.

Afghanistan
India
China
Iran
Turkey
Iraq
Syria
Israel ( holding significant population of Arabs)
And so many more. Are they all artificial states. Those that say artificial highlight clear lack of common sense and knowledge.

In fact kelsen stated on his definition of states that it is perfectly normal of for states to come together and form a union I.e the union of India or the federation of pakistan.

The fact is that ethnic composition argument is often made through the well of poison. Groundless and senseless, it defies logic and holds no ground in international community as well as in international law.