For example look at the continous to and fro about the Durand Line. Is it
artificial? Yes indeed it is. But is artificial like all the other lines in South Asia if not the entire Third World. Have you seen the lines in Middle East. UAE, Saudia Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Iraq all are Arab but are dissected by European lines mostly drawn post WW1 undr the Sykes-Picot Agreement. One people, one language, one region, the Arabs were sliced and diced in
dozen states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement
Coming to South Asia almost every bordr was either drawn by British or Russian or by both working together. Non is native or natural - whatever that means as by definition every border is unnatural because we only have one planet. One earth. Here are the lines in South Asia [below] with their names most acquire from the English officials who drew the lines.
You will notice that almost every border was drawn by British/Russians with little to no leave given to the natives. They [Europeans] drew the lines according to their own interests of the time. Yet today for some reason everybody wants to make much song and dance about the Durand Line. If and this is simple logic the Durand can be questioned then every other line can also be questioned. The entire South Asia would dissolve into sea of anarchy.
The argumant peddled about Durand that it divides one ethnic group is also applicable with as much vigour to the rest. The Anglo-Russian Boundary Commission Line running along the Amu darya on the northern Afghan border divides Tajiks in Afghanistan from Tajiks in Tajikistan. Abdullah Abdulla by rights should be resident of and asking to be part of greater Tajikistan. The same applies to Dostum and his Uzbeks who should be part of Uzbekistan. This also applies to Turkmenistan and Turkmen of Afghanistan. Then you have issue of Mongol Hazara in Hazarajat in central Afghanistan who should be given their own Shia state. Ditto for Nuristanis.
Those who keep harping on about Duran ignore this reality. I have also said same to Indians. The Ladakhi people of J & K are a Tibeten people are visibly are Chinese. They should by rights go to China. The Johnson Line should be dissolved because British forced it on the natives. Right now there is a stand off between the Chinese and Indians. The people in that region are Tibeto-Burmans and similar to Chinese. Should they not be considered a Sino people therefore McMahon Line should be dissolved. All this would lead to anarchy.
Ut is for this reason and pragmatism that we build up what we have. Not descend into chaos. Of course there is always a way of changing lines and that is military force. But in age of nuclear weapons I don't think that is very easy option to consider.
It is for this reason I find it hypocritical for people to talk non stop about Durand Line but entirely ignore all the rest of
artificial lines in South Asia.
The hostility of Pakistani nationalists towards the word 'Afghan'
There is no hostility inmy discourse with the word "Afghan". On many occasions I have educated people here that "A" in P
akistan stands for "Afghan". However as you have already stated that today (2017) that term carries tow meaning (i) historical as ethnoym and (ii) modern as a nationality. The problem as you very well know Mian Babban and there is no way around this that there is for right or wrong of it (with regret) lot of hostility between Afgan state and Pakistan state which is often reflected in their respective people. So it is possible under this hostile climate people are going to throw invectives against Afghanistan within the meaning of (ii). How else are they supposed to express their thoughts since that term carries both meanings.
It's like people cuss Americans. You know Brazil, Mexico, Canada are also in the Americas. But when they cuss Americans they mean the USA.
