Talk:Durand Line

Vandalism

At 09:10 UTC on December 21, 2006, Afghanhot made a large number of changes to this article which included the removal of categorisation and addition of text from an article titled The Durand Line purported to be from the website [1]. First and foremost, articles of such nature should never be added in full to WP, particularly as this likely could give rise to violations of WP:COPY. Secondly, the nature of the changes suggest that they were made in a manner which violates WP:VAND. Changes have been reverted, and a warning has been placed on the user page for the user in question. Page will be monitored for 14 days on my watchlist to see if further inappropriate changes occur. thewinchester 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Durand line is as legitimate as most international boundary agreements

You read only the 1893 part. It appears that you've not read the scores of detailed pages, signed by dozens of Afghan and British representatives, mappers, and surveyors, from the 1894-95 boundary demarcation and surveying expeditions. This demarcation, similar to those recently done by many of the Arabian peninsula countries, was done with the full knowledge and agreement of the Afghan government and signed by their representatives. Every little nullah, mountain range watershed, and other boundary details were outlined and agreed upon. DLinth

If that's the case then why Pakistan always asks the leaders of Afghanistan for approval of placing a fence on its territory? Does the United States asks Mexico for approval of putting up a fence on its southern borders? Does any other country do this?

Have you seen all of the press reports over the past week where Musharaff says, "We don't need AF or any other nation's approval to build a fence just on our side of the border."? .--User:DLinth 19:05, 5 January 2007(UTC)

By the way, you forget the fact that British-India violated all the terms of the 1893 Durand Line agreement in 1919, when they invaded Afghanistan (see Third Anglo-Afghan war). After the 1893 Durand Line agreement was signed, the British decided to invade Afghanistan in 1919, violating the terms of the agreement and also losing the war. After the Third Anglo-Afghan war, the Durand Line agreement became Void and is no longer valid. Besides this, there are other reasons to believe the agreement no longer being valid. Pashtun Nov. 28, 2006

The Afghan government claims the Durand Line has expired in 1993.--Afghan Wireless 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The Afghan govt has never made that claim, knowing that it is false. See US and British experts in http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-2-2004_pg7_23 and http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-9-2005_pg7_12 Many websites do make the claim, such as "fake governmental-appearing" pages like www.affghanistans.com . --User:DLinth 19:04, 5 January 2007(UTC)

I've read the complete Durand Line agreement and I don't think it is an agreement of any kind, it's rather an early and temporary proposal of a deal. The agreement is very poorly made and very short, 6 or 7 sentences long, with only one person's signature from Afghanistan's side. I clearly see what the Afghans are challenging, and that is the authenticity of the Durand Line agreement. This is perhaps the reason what haunts Pakistanis the most and puts fear in them.

Knowing all the facts, I believe the Afghans can "at any time" claim their territories and there is not much Pakistan can do. I disagree with the statement on the article's front that every nation of the world recognizes the Durrand Line. Those nations only recognizes the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as it is shown on most maps of the world, which is a common thing to do. Most nations of the world are fully unaware of the Durrand Line agreement. King

Reply from a Pakistani Pakhtun: The Pakistani govt asks Afghans for permission to fence the border because Pakistanis are dumb and too much into "Muslim brotherhood". There is no need to ask the Afghans for permission to do anything inside Pakistan, including fencing the border.

Regarding the comment from the fellow named "King", the Durand Line became the border of the Pakistani state in 1947. The original agreement also remains valid. Afghans can claim anything, their mouths are under their control, but the land is now Pakistan with the consent of the people living there.

Unknown Paki Pakhtun, this is not about what Afghan civilans who come here to edit articles say. This is about what is going on between the government of the two countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Whatever User:King stated is his own opinions about the Durrand Line and he did not claim to be an Afghan. From media reports, Afghanistan's government claims that the Durrand Line agreement had expired in 1993,

Not true. The Afghan govt has never made that claim, knowing that it is false. Many websites do make the claim, such as "fake governmental-appearing" pages like www.affghanistans.com . --User:DLinth 19:04, 5 January 2007(UTC)

while Pakistan's government claims it is still valid. So there is a dispute over the border between these 2 countries. Only a 3rd party can help resolve this dispute. If the territory belongs to Afghanistan, then it's their territory. If not, then it's not. Saying stuff like "Afghans can claim anything, their mouths are under their control" is an insult to all Afghans, which is not a good thing to do. You Pakis should respect your Muslim neighbors (Afghans), if you really are Muslims as you claim. If not, then Allah will be angry with you. --NisarKand 18:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, troubles started with the creation of territories presently called "Pakistan", The sooner we re-incorporate these areas back into their Motherland "India" the better would be the outcome for all parties involved. Clearly, Afghan government would find a more reasonable partner in the Government of India to redress this huge Historical theft of territory by a Colonial Power. Need I point out that the same people in the territories currently called "Pakistan" who preaches the "Liberation of Palestine" should be reminded that the application of the same concept to the Durand Line Conflict would requires the restitution of all Tribal Area Territories back to Afghanistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.182.219.158 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Reply to above: The trouble is the greed of Afghans and Indians for Pakistani land. Additionaly, its Pakistani, not "Paki".

Comments without categories

This is awesome !

I am not removing the claim that Baloch are asking for independence and to unite with the Afghans since it is true.

A fellow named Mir Azad Baloch as put a ton of garbage into this article. I am removing it.

To Mr Azad Baloch: Next time use your real name, desist from insults and write facts. This online encyclopedia is not the property of your worthless Sardars.

Yes Mr. I say Balochs want to merge with Afghanistan. I have nothing to say about Baluchs. I am only talking about Pushtuns living in Pakistan.

Pashuns are not Pakistanis. Afghans are Pashtuns. The word "Afghan" was mentioned since the Islamic periods and onwards...refering to Pashtuns...which was way before the nation Afghanistan coming to existence. So the word Afghan does not mean someone from Afghanistan...but refers to Pashtuns. Only 15% of the people in Pakistan are Pasthuns. I am Pashtun from Afghanistan and I have a great desire to make the 15% Pashtuns living in Pakistan to merge with us in Afghanista, as we see them as our bothers. But if the Pashtuns in Pakistan want to be ruled by a Punjabi as their ruler is perfectly fine with me.--NisarKand 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: Pakhtun means Pakhtun. Pakistani Pakhtuns have no interest in joining Afghanistan.

POV

More POV by NisarKand! This article is once again filled with unsourced information and false claims, such as the Afghan legend that "Afghanistan defeated the United Kingdom twice" ... I have never seen ANY reliable scholarly source for this claim! Tājik 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Afghanistan defeated the British not twice but 3 times. Since you are uneducated, you probably think that British defeated Afghanistan I assume? British invaded Afghanistan 3 times and were forced to withdraw...that's considered defeating them. In the first invasion...the entire British (about 16,500 or more...including Indians) were killed on their retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad. In the second invasion...the British again retreated and withdrew from Afghanistan. In the last war (in 1919...between British India and Afghanistan), British clearly raised a white flag (sign of retreat or defeat) and signed documents (the treaty of Rawalpindi) at Rawalpindi, which is a city now in Pakistan. By the way, articles in Wikipedia are never finalized because they are always under editing. I will be more than happy to gather all the references needed for this article, as you can see this information is available at many encyclopedias and government libararies.--NisarKand 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so i've been in the background watching this article since it came up while I was doing some work as part of the recent changes patrol. The issues of NPOV are starting to escalate within this article and we now need to bring it to a resolution as soon as possible. I am prepared to step in as a third party to the matter, particularly since I have no connection to the regions covered by this article and can look at it from an outside perspective. My goal is that both Tajik and NisarKand can come to some form of consensus to deal with the NPOV issues that have arisen. In order to kick this off, can I please ask each of you to give a brief and factual summary of your issues with the article so we can take it from there. I would hope we can have this issue resolved promptly, however if this cannot be done I will be more than happy to escalate it up the chain to bring about a resolution. I don't want to protect this article, but if this is what it takes to come to a factual and neutral stance on the article so be it. thewinchester 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is fine for now, there isn't much to add or edit because most important things are already mentioned. The Durand Line is simply a border made in the past and the people on both side of the border do not recognize it. User:Tajik has a habit of going around to every article I edit and place bad remarks about me. Trying to give me a bad name so that others don't trust my edits, which I simply go by what news sources report and place that report with the attach news sources. User:Tajik has issues and I don't know what his/hers exact problem is with me? From the first day I began editing articles on Wikipedia (begining of October 2006) until today, he is the ONLY person messing with me and my edits. By the way, I am ethnic Pashtun from Afghanistan and this Durand Line deals specifically and directly with Pashtun people, has nothing to do with ethnic Tajiks. Since there was nothing in particular disputed, I decided to remove the disputed tag.--NisarKand 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's been read. Tajik - when you read both my initiation of review by an outside party and NisarKand's comments, can you please look at them from an objective POV and not as anything else. Can you please respond with your key concerns about the article and your issues with it and I will review them as soon as they are posted. thewinchester 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, NisarKand - can you please leave the POV tag in place until the dispute has been resolved. I don't think it's appropriate or beneficial for you to remove it. It's best left to an outside party to action after this dispute has been either resolved or closed off. thewinchester 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite multiple requests for participation in a POV discussion, Tajik has refused to participate. I am therefore calling the POV dispute in this article dead and will allow NisarKand's edits to stand unless challenged by anyone else who has plausible debate and information to add to the matter. thewinchester 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the discussion here?! Just look at the discussion below: I (and Tmbseye) have expressed our views. NisarKand is pushing for extreme Pashtun-nationalist POV - totally unsourced. NisarKand does not have ANY sources for his claims, and he was even cought twice putting fake sources to his claims, giving the impression that his POV is somehow "sourced". He was banned twice because of racism - including his multiple attacks on my user-page and his racist comments against Tajiks ("Tajiks are rats").

What do you want me to comment on?! This entire article is POV. It is unsourced, and the few "sources" that are given in the text are not scholarly, but references to "Pajhwok News", an Afghan national news-paper known for its anti-Pakistani stand. What else do you want me to comment on?! Tājik 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the facts in the article, which you have constantly avoided doing. You have not shown any information which backs up your oft-repeated claim of it being unsourced and one sided. To use an Australian colloquial phrase "put your money where your mouth is" and back up your claims. I've strongly advised you already to not place the dispute tags on this page - and you've done so without any discussion in talk. thewinchester 13:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just go through the dicussion. With all due respect - you seem to lack the ability to read! Just take a look at my discussion with User:Tombseye and the references to the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica. If you have problems accepting scholarly sources, it's your problem. Tājik 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard of this edit: see WP:CIVIL. ....... The article Durand Line is POV, it is based on unsourced Pashtun-nationalist POV (including the "fairy tale" about Afghanistan's "3 glorious victories against the British"; the truth is: Afghanistan lost 2 of them, and was able to regain its independence with Russian help in the 3rd one!). Besides that, Balouchestan has NEVER been a part of Afghanistan. At the time of the Durand Line, Balouchestan was already a part of British India. Before that, it was an independent fiefdom of Balouch Khans. Tājik 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, let's sort this out, o'k? I agree with theWinchester and am impressed by his even-handed approach. 1) Your claim (immediately above) that Balochistan has never been a part of Afghan. makes no sense.....If you read the current version(s), it says it was part of British India. Agreed? Then please stop acting "citation needed" there. 2) I do agree with "citation needed" for the line: "the Afghan tribes whom the British feared and may have tried to disunite." A bit non-NPOV to me. Hopefully someone can provide documentation on that. 3) And in my last edit I changed the line that seems to bother you the most to "After reaching a virtual stalemate in two wars against the Afghans" From my research and as per Tombseye's well-reasoned comments below, I find that much closer to the truth. Let's remember that probably 90% of the inhabitants for centuries along the Durand Line route are Pashtuns, and all Pashtuns (I met quite a few when I was there last year) are not like NisarKand, and their views must be included in a NPOV manner. And the Durand Line did and does divide those people in a very definitive manner. And the most Britain could claim in those first two wars collectively is a stalemate. Finally, your "controversial" tag, as you can see, is not one that is allowable except on the talk page...it should be the "unbalanced" tag. What do you think.....Are there other specific passages ("Facts in the article" as theWinchester says) that you believe are unbalanced?

DLinth 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no "stalemate" between the British and the Afghans. Many people - most of all Afghans - confuse the words war and battle. The Afghans indeed won 2 battles - one being the famous Battle of Maiwand, the other one was an Afghan attack on British civilians. However, Afghanistan clearly lost 2 wars. As a consequence, Afghanistan had to give up 50% of its territory and accept British masterhood over its foreign (and internal) affairs. When the British established the Durrand Line, their main object was not the devision of the Afghan lands. It was part of the Anglo-Russian contracts that Afghanistan (and parts of Persia) were accepted as "buffer-zones". This is the ONLY reason why Afghanistan remained a (semi-)independent nation. This article is way too much concentrated on the "Pashtun lands were devided" story and leaves out the complex Anglo-Russian politics during the "Great Game". Tājik 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

O'k, I hope that we can let this article "stabilize" now, as I hope you agree based on your last edit where you changed nothing (other than adding the "citation needed" to the 2 wars line.) You also seem to agree with most of Tombseye's "stalemate" explanaton immediately below. As per your excellent focus above, I'll add a "see 'Great Game' article" note there in addition, and then let's just let it be, yes? You know, those "Great Game" and "First Anglo-Afghan War" and "European influence in Afghanistan" articles are where most of this "victory vs. stalemate" debate should reside, not under "Durand Line", agreed? (All three of those well sourced articles make it clear that the retreats of 1841-2 and 1880-1 by the British dictate that the term "stalemate" at the most is appropriate to characterize the British success, albeit their setting up of "puppet governments" for which they controlled foreign affairs may be considered a "victory" of sorts.) I think that the Durand Line article should mostly focus not on all this, but on the history, geography, location, etc. of the line itself, leaving the Great Game and Anglo-Afghan wars for the articles with those names, o'k? Thanks, Tajik. DLinth 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Afghan wars

It depends upon how one looks at these conflicts, BUT victory between the two sides is not quite simple. Encyclopedia Iranica is an excellent source that succintly explains the Anglo-Afghan wars. In the first war, the British entered and occupied Afghanistan, but were unable to hold it for long. The Afghans did not regain Peshawar so this is not a victory so much as a stalemate even though the British were forced back ultimately, but not before they had done much damage to Afghanistan. The 2nd war resulted in Afghanistan formally giving up claims to its eastern regions (now part of Pakistan) AND they gave up control of their foreign affairs to the British who also kept a military presence in the country. The final war was somewhat more like a victory as Afghanistan did achieve independence from the British and regained control of its foreign affairs etc. Thus, I think it doesn't really make any sense to claim that Afghanistan "won" so much as held the British at bay as it was able to avoid being incorporated into British India (a fate that the Pashtun regions in the east were not able to do though the tribal areas were never fully under British control). The Third War is really the only one in which the Afghans "won". Tombseye 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Tombseye. As always, you are a great help. Only one small addition:

In the 3rd Anglo-Afghan War, Afghanistan was defeated in battle. However, due to an excelent diplomatic strategy, the Afghans managed to convince the British that independence was the best solution. They threatened Britain with Russian help, i.e. that Kabul will establish closer alliances with the Russians. This gave Afghanistan it's independence (at the coast of more than 50% of its former territory), but - at the same time - it also ment the "influx" of Russian influence. It was the beginning of predominant Russian influence in Afghanistan that - 50 years later - led to the communist take-over and Soviet invasion. Tājik 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true Tajik. I was going for brevity, but the Russian influence aspect is true. The wars were often humiliating to the British because of how they weren't able to accomplish their goals, BUT Afghanistan suffered quite a bit and lost a lot (as you point out).

I would also add quickly for the people who are 'proud' of their ancestors' history (Nissarkand), that our job is not promoting nationalism, but putting out accurate information. I realize people want to read what they want to read, but this is an encyclopedia and terms like "win" are highly subjective anyway. A lot of Afghans died and their traditional homelands divided so I'm not sure how much of a victory these wars were. They were more or less stalemates with neither side really getting what it wanted. Tombseye 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am myself from Afghanistan, and I know that many Afghans like to exeggerate the "glories" of their forefathers (or what they interpret as glories). The truth is that - from the very beginning - Afghanistan was plagued by wars, racism, religious hatred, and extreme backwardism.

A very sensitive issues are the Anglo-Afghan Wars. Afghans like to make up all kinds of "great victory" stories, an almost all of them are nothing but nationalistic phantasies. At the end of the Anglo-Afghan Wars, Afghanistan was the clear loser - and especially the Pashtuns - were the clear losers. Afghanistan lost 50% of its territories, the Pashtun tribal areas were devided (until today, 2/3 of the Pashtun population lives in the former British colony), countless Afghan families were deported to Australia or Guyana, Afghanistan became landlocked, etc etc etc.

The British did not succeeed in taking over Afghanistan, but that was certainly not an achievement of the Afghans, but the Russian pressure put on the British. Like so many other countries, Afghanistan became a typical political tool of the Great Game.

I really do not understand what NisarKand is trying to achieve. We should simply accept the truth, and promote the truth. Tājik 14:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all true. "Victories" or perceived victories all come with a heavy price and while the British used Indian troops as cannon fodder and killed lots of Afghans, the worst thing they had to endure was the humiliation of not succeeding completely (just partially), something they had gotten used to. We're gonna have to make some changes to this article at some point definitely and bring back some objectivity. Tombseye 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Mr. Thomsbey simply can’t accept the fact that a poor country like Afghanistan has indeed defeated the aggressive British Empire. This is the same ignorance which led the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. You guys have to understand and know the culture of Afghanistan; Afghans have never bowed for any occupying force. Britain was defeated 3 times very pitifully; do you think they would have left, if they weren’t forced to do so? Afghanistan is the only country which regained its independence by its own through military struggle. You have forgotten the British soldiers’ dead bodies scattered from Kabul to Jalalabad, and you still claim it was only a battle? A battle with 16500 casualties! Britain then took its revenge by cutting Baluchistan and Pashtunistan from Afghanistan because it was a great humiliation for an Empire like Britain. Don’t be emotional because Britain was defeated by Afghans! Whether UK`s or US`s government recognize the Durand Line or not is not important, the fact is that Pashtunistan and Baluchistan belong to Afghanistan as long as this planet rotates. Most of Pashtuns and Baluchs, who know the history, know their origin and love their motherland, will always long to rejoin the land of their fathers and grandfathers. You should know that most of the current conflicts around the world are based on problems deliberately left behind by colonial forces like Britain. Pakistan was born by Britain and of course the motherland will stand behind its offspring but God stands with those who tell the truth! Britain had no right to divide India (cutting Punjab and Sindh) and make a new country at first place after sucking its blood for almost 200 years, it should have left the way it had come. By the way Brits call their land Great Britain, but I see no greatness if you colonize countries (which mean death, torture, rape, imprisonments…), which only brings suffering. Greatness is gained by promoting peace and stability not hatred and division…

Topic status & Kalat State

Since the Durand Line deals with the demarcating line and international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, I suggest this topic be also added to WikiProject Pakistan as well.

Some of the latter paragraphs I have seen tend to show more of the Afghanistan viewpoint without sufficient backing whatsoever and revisiting the 1893 agreement, as well as the greyish stature and history of the Khanate of Kalat, which some people put it as something which guaranteed Balochistan independence and making it something separate and special from the Indian Independance Act of 1947 is something a bit too difficult to believe given the status of Jammu & Kashmir and Hyderabad Deccan that were even more prominent princely states and yet they had to choose or were forcibly made to choose which country to join. It doesnt add up seeing the Khanate of Kalat being anything different as NO princely state was allowed independance - as far as I know - so essentially the Khan of Kalat had to choose and he went against the act and hence gave Pakistan legitimate claim of taking action, similar to what India did in Jammu & Kashmir, Junagadh, Hyderabad Deccan and many many other princely states. Why all the finger pointing on Pakistan then ?

I suggest more research in these matters as both issues arent completely black & white, rather with heavy shades of grey prevalant. Peace to all Suprah™ 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)