The Durand Line-S. Asia's New Trouble Spot

[S-2]

There are issues of sovereignty from Balochistan north to Kashmir and Chitral. Anywhere in that region and you've an unusual and disturbing trend-line of governance. It's very unhealthy. The Pashtun tribes have maintained a very "convenient" view of Pakistani sovereignty. No reasonable Pakistani can deny the absence of governmental authority that's required soldiers, tanks, guns, helicopters, and jets to contain.

Suggestions otherwise are delusional.

 

[roadrunner]

There are issues of sovereignty from Balochistan north to Kashmir and Chitral. Anywhere in that region and you've an unusual and disturbing trend-line of governance. It's very unhealthy. The Pashtun tribes have maintained a very "convenient" view of Pakistani sovereignty. No reasonable Pakistani can deny the absence of governmental authority that's required soldiers, tanks, guns, helicopters, and jets to contain.

Suggestions otherwise are delusional.

Thank you Mr Genius for your expert assessment of the situation. I would just like to add that FATA has been an autonomous region for centuries, and they do their own policing etc. As far as no tribal NWFP, Balochistan, Chitral, Northern Areas, they all are very much under government control. Isolated instances may have ocurred, but settled NWFP is very much under government control. Kashmir, Pakistani Kashmir, is an autonomous region ..Azad, but let's take it slowly.

 

[roadrunner]

This disputed land was legally to be returned to Afghanistan in 1993 after the 100 year old Durand Treaty expired,

Which is incorrect. Use your perfect vision to find a link as to how or where this 100 year limit fits into the Durand Line Treaty.

 

[Spring Onion]

There are issues of sovereignty from Balochistan north to Kashmir and Chitral. Anywhere in that region and you've an unusual and disturbing trend-line of governance. It's very unhealthy. The Pashtun tribes have maintained a very "convenient" view of Pakistani sovereignty. No reasonable Pakistani can deny the absence of governmental authority that's required soldiers, tanks, guns, helicopters, and jets to contain.

Suggestions otherwise are delusional.

Yes beacuse Terrorists like Baitullah Mehsud finds backing from your side in Afghanistan.
And we are trying to handle these terrorists.
Pakistani Pashtuns have been gaurding the Pakistani sovereignty on Western front for the last 50 years despite of what you call "absence of governmental authority".

It was just in 2001 when US once again planned to bring back Afghanistan to 80s era attacked it, and once again Pakistanis are paying for your ill-planned policies.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Don't try to run away like you always does with your's posts like this.
Again FATA or Waziristan hardly make all of NWFP and even these areas are not under full militant controls. As i said before by your logic more then half of India is not under their control thanks to 26+ strong insurgencies.

I am not running away.

I am being polite since this is a Pakistani forum.

In actuality, NWFP is a total chaos and very anti Pakistan.

You worry about Pakistan and let India break up.......in fairy land!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Which is incorrect. Use your perfect vision to find a link as to how or where this 100 year limit fits into the Durand Line Treaty.

Maybe, but worth checking the Hong Kong Treaty and the Chinese claim on McMohan Line. The line of argument of the Afghans is similar to the Chinese!

 

[salman nedian]

In actuality, NWFP is a total chaos and very anti Pakistan.

No NWFP is not anti Pakistan. This is a ridiculous statement; the foreign elements are destabilizing the situation and who knows that they are being funded by foreign Powers. we are doing operation in Swat but the real problem is in Afghanistan we need to eliminate the root cause (i.e. US occupation and Indian influence)

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

I am not running away.

I am being polite since this is a Pakistani forum.

In actuality, NWFP is a total chaos and very anti Pakistan.

You worry about Pakistan and let India break up.......in fairy land!

Well actually NWFP is fine and hardly anti-Pakistan, in fact the NWFP peoples are probably the most nationalistic Pakistanis. The areas where the militants hide are FATA or Waziristan which doesn't make all of NWFP. And you being polite, what does this mean?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In actuality, NWFP is a total chaos and very anti Pakistan.

Salim please!

This is an oft repeated argument from you (and other Indians) - as of yet unsubstantiated, and when you do attempt, the situation in Swat and Waziristan is quoted as validation - indicating a disconnect with the region, its political structures and the subregional breakup of attitudes/culture.

MOD EDIT: The thread is about the Durand Line - Everyone please refrain from dragging in militancy in India or elsewhere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Salim,
I have also been unable to find any sort of "Time Limit" in the treaty, so from where exactly does the "100 year" argument come from?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Salim,
I have also been unable to find any sort of "Time Limit" in the treaty, so from where exactly does the "100 year" argument come from?

I am not stating.

The Afghans are stating.

I presume they are drawing a parallel with the Hong Kong Treaty, which by inference from the Article, is similar to the Durand Treaty.

The Hong Kong port was on a 99 year lease.

In so far as the McMohan Line and Durand Line, the Chinese claim is of unequal treaty and the Afghans are claiming that the Afghans did not sign the Pashto version and they did not know English!

 

[S-2]

I've noted reference to 100 years as well in a couple of dubious places but not in the treaty. My understanding is that there's some legitimate basis to a tri-lateral contention that functionally excluded Baluchistan instead of simply bi-lateral.

If a bi-lateral treaty, it seems world court opinion would uphold the present status as marked and indefinite in it's application.

"Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are "passed down" to successor independent states"

From wikipedia but seems sound nonetheless, if premised as a bilateral agreement. I haven't read Col Mahmood's paper yet. He may touch on it.

 

[roadrunner]

Maybe, but worth checking the Hong Kong Treaty and the Chinese claim on McMohan Line. The line of argument of the Afghans is similar to the Chinese!

The Durand Line is not The McMuhan Line, NWFP is not Hong Kong. There was no lease or 100 year agreement.

 

[S-2]

From Col. Mahmood (Page 27)-

"4. Expiration of Agreement after Lapse of Hundred Years

The controversy about the validity of the Durand Line is also being promulgated because it is argued that the agreement lapses after a hundred years of its signing. According to Afghan thinkers, the Durand Agreement had a life of hundred years, and, as such, lost its legal standing in 1993. Thus, they demand that areas of Pakistan be returned to Afghanistan, similar to how Hong Kong was returned to China. Pakistan stood firm that neither the Durand agreement makes any mention of any time period, nor it is [sic] validated under any international law. The National Documentation Center of the Cabinet Division of Pakistan holds the original text of the Durand agreement, which was acquired from the Oriental and India Office Collections, (British Library), London. The examination of the documents both agreement as well as the translation of Amir Abdur Rehman’s speech sets no time limits for the expiration of the agreement. In addition, none of the books, authentic articles, and miscellaneous sources consulted confirms any mention of any time limit for the validity of the Durand Line agreement. The Durand line agreement therefore has no expiration limit, and the interpretation of a hundred year expiration is neither legally nor politically tenable in this day and age."

It really is a good treatise.

 

[Neo]

Durand Line Agreement
November 12, 1893​

Whereas certain questions have arisen regarding the frontier of Afghanistan on the side of India, and whereas both His Highness the Amir and the Government of India are desirous of settling these questions by friendly understanding, and of fixing the limit of their respective spheres of influence, so that for the future there may be no difference of opinion on the subject between the allied Governments, it is hereby agreed as follows:

1 - The eastern and southern frontier of his Highness’s dominions, from Wakhan to the Persian border, shall follow the line shown in the map attached to this agreement.

2 -The Government of India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of Afghanistan, and His Highness the Amir will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of India.

3 - The British Government thus agrees to His Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees, on the other hand, that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur, or Chitral, including the Arnawai or Bashgal valley. The British Government also agrees to leave to His Highness the Birmal tract as shown in the detailed map already given to his Highness, who relinquishes his claim to the rest of the Waziri country and Dawar. His Highness also relinquishes his claim to Chageh.

4 - The frontier line will hereafter be laid down in detail and demarcated, wherever this may be practicable and desirable, by joint British and Afghan commissioners, whose object will be to arrive by mutual understanding at a boundary which shall adhere with the greatest possible exactness to the line shown in the map attached to this agreement, having due regard to the existing local rights of villages adjoining the frontier.

5 - With reference to the question of Chaman, the Amir withdraws his objection to the new British cantonment and concedes to the British Governmeni the rights purchased by him in the Sirkai Tilerai water. At this part of the frontier the line will be drawn as follows:

From the crest of the Khwaja Amran range near the Psha Kotal, which remains in British territory, the line will run in such a direction as to leave Murgha Chaman and the Sharobo spring to Afghanistan, and to pass half-way between the New Chaman Fort and the Afghan outpost known locally as Lashkar Dand. The line will then pass half-way between the railway station and the hill known as the Mian Baldak, and, turning south-wards, will rejoin the Khwaja Amran range, leaving the Gwasha Post in British territory, and the road to Shorawak to the west and south of Gwasha in Afghanistan. The British Government will not exercise any interference within half a mile of the road.

6 - The above articles of' agreement are regarded by the Government of India and His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them in regard to the frontier; and both the Government of India and His Highness the Amir undertake that any differences of detail, such as those which will have to be considered hereafter by the officers appointed to demarcate the boundary line, shall be settled in a friendly spirit, so as to remove for the future as far as possible all causes of doubt and misunderstanding between the two Governments.

7 - Being fully satisfied of His Highness’s goodwill to the British Government, and wishing to see Afghanistan independent and strong, the Government of India will raise no objection to the purchase and import by His Highness of munitions of war, and they will themselves grant him some help in this respect. Further, in order to mark their sense of the friendly spirit in which His Highness the Amir has entered into these negotiations, the Government of India undertake to increase by the sum of six lakhs of rupees a year the subsidy of twelve lakhs now granted to His Highness.

H. M. Durand,
Amir Abdur Rahman Khan.

Kabul, November 12, 1893.

Khyber.ORG :: Durand Line Agreement, 1893