Durand Line and the nascent Taliban regime

Just before a day Pakistan was to organise the foreign minister’s conference of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) for the Afghan humanitarian crisis, the Durand Line conflict broke out once again. Afghanistan being the arena of the great game and further, the biggest battleground on earth, has never been at ease for ages. History substantiates that the only thing certain every time after the fall of Kabul is the rejuvenation of the Durand line issue. Durand Line has been a long contentious issue between ever-changing Afghan regimes and Pakistan. The de jure boundary was demarcated by Sir Henry Mortimer Durand (Foreign Secretary of British India) and Afghanistan’s Emir Abdur Rahman Khan. Signed on 12^th November 1893, It was a fully negotiated agreement between both regimes that also was further reaffirmed subsequently by the later Afghan rulers through similar treaties and agreements. Despite Afghan claims of the Durand line agreement being arbitrary in nature, Emir Abdur Rahman’s autobiography states otherwise:

“Wakhan Kafiristan, Asmar, Mohmand of Lalpura, and one portion of Waziristan (Birmal) came under my rule, and I renounced my claims from the railway station of New Chaman, Chaghi, the rest of Waziri, Biland Khel, Kurrum, Afridi, Bajaur, Swat, Buner, Dir, Chilas, and Chitral.”

This clearly shows that the agreed-upon border is a de jure boundary starting from Koh-e-Malek Siah (the tri-junction of Persia, Afghanistan, and Balochistan) to Peshawar and thence to Baroghil Pass and Chitral. This legal acceptability puts all doubts, claims, rumours and allegations to a halt. According to official reports, more than 90% of the fencing has been completed at the 2600km long border. The incumbent “friendly” government has not been that much cordial neither at the border nor in the media. Take the recent statements of Interim Information Minister Zabiullah Mujahid and Taliban’s Defence Ministry’s spokesman Enayatullah Khwarizmi, in which they have reiterated that the “Issue of the Durand Line is unresolved.” Exacerbating the conflict, Taliban forces had also been seen removing the fence and destroying the installations at the border. However, calling the current developments at the border just an attempt of miscreants by the Foreign Ministry can be witnessed as an attempt to keep “maximum restraint”.

The factual position, keeping the foregoing rationale in view, is quite evident that the subsequent treaties signed and ratified by the Afghan rulers nullify the 100-year validation of the agreement. It also negates the claim that the Durand Line was imposed by the British. This can also be substantiated by Article I, Paragraph II of the agreement which particularly states that neither the King nor the British Indian government will exercise any right or interference across the agreed-upon boundary. Another claim that the Line is arbitrary is easily refutable as it follows the well-recognised features and ages-old tribal boundaries except for just two tribes Waziri and Mohmand. Pakistan being a state that emerged from colonial rule also keeps the rights and obligations of bilateral agreements done by its predecessors according to the international law of treaties. Furthermore, Pakistan’s stance on the permanency and legality of the Durand Line has been supported and validated by many British dignitaries in the British parliament. Few to name are Lord Home, the British Foreign Secretary in 1953; and Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan, the British Prime Ministers in 1956 and 1960 respectively.

Just a cursory glance at the history would provide ample evidence in favour of the rationale that many borders have been drawn and redrawn in different eras. The readjustment and realignment of the Durand Line based on historic accounts would be fatal for even Afghanistan itself as it has been ruled for centuries by the monarchies based in India and Pakistan. The realignment of borders on historic grounds in the present era would do no good except for jeopardising the whole current international order and would only cause chaos, confusion and anarchy. Both countries have been in the cyclical loop of border disputes for more than 75 years now. But is this the way forward for the South-South cooperation?

Afghanistan is currently suppressed by multifaceted challenges. Political, humanitarian and governance crises are crumbling the country apart. An evil civil war is on its way if these crises are not tackled with accurate precautions. Certain measures by the global powers and the international community must be taken to avoid any other outbreak of anarchy, otherwise, the satan of terrorism will be at the doorsteps of every bordering country and in every state capital. The US should have put a comprehensive plan into action or should have appointed an iterim government followed by elections instead of the usual blame game and warmongering. The leader of the western block has again left Afghanistan, putting the country and region helpless at the hands of poverty, anarchy and chaos. However, the US still has the chance to avoid the blunder it did after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. It should not forsake Afghanistan again. Instead, it should join its efforts with regional players mainly with Pakistan to ensure that no crisis should break out of the nascent Taliban rule. Pakistan on its part is playing its role wisely and accurately. With the recent OIC summit in Islamabad, Pakistan has particularly asked the member countries and the international community to play their roles in Afghanistan.

With the current shift in Pakistan’s policy from geo-strategic to geo-economics, Islamabad must focus on the elevation of regional cooperation and integration by keeping organisations like ECO, SCO and SAARC in the loop. Afghanistan serves as “As-Sirat” for Pakistan and the region at large to integrate socially, culturally, politically and economically. No peace in Afghanistan means no peace in the region. Beijing is also concerned regarding the current situation of Kabul, as its security is the biggest impediment to President Xi’s (BRI) vision in South Asia. Beijing has already offered its hand to Afghanistan to join the BRI and CPEC by calling it a natural partner at an event in Islamabad. Pakistan has also been working on Peshawar-Torkham and Torkham-Jalalabad roads that would complement CPEC. Afghanistan can achieve its true potential if it set aside the disputes and focus on its poverty alleviation and economic integration of the region. Pakistan is already helping Kabul in this process, both countries can benefit if the bilateral disputes are resolved and peace prevails. Afghanistan can benefit as a transit route and Pakistan as a trading hub, for the countries which want to join the CPEC, specially CARS that are already willing to take part in the economic future of South-South cooperation through the Gwadar port.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 5^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.