Pashtun Issue is the Root of Kashmir and Other Regional Conflicts

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by sanjay, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. sanjay

    sanjay Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    186
    In 1839, the British Empire sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.

    In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.

    When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India - it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947 and is a fact.

    In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repel the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.

    Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it fears can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.

    When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.

    After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Bin Laden's AlQaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.

    When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.

    Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries - first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.

    At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.

    Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights owing to it from sovereignty, and wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.

    Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.

    The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states - Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab - would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.

    Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country - indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another - they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.

    Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation - but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.

    If only the international community could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.

    The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.
     
    KS, utubekhiladi, arshi and 7 others like this.
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    ^^ Great article. Can you please post the link as well? Thanks.
     
  4. sanjay

    sanjay Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    186
    What article? This is my post, written by me!

    I have posted it in various forums around the internet, and gotten lots of positive reactions, so I am posting it here too.

    I feel that we Indians are too weak and spineless in stating our case over our crazy aggressive neighbor, so I decided to state it myself.

    I suggest that we all make our arguments along similar lines, wherever we post on the net.
     
  5. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Good post sanjay, you should also add that Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan aka Badshah Khan aka Frontier Gandhi was severely supressed and oppressed by the PA establishment as well. Here was a person not only one of the greatest freedom fighters of undivided India but also probably one of the greatest Pashtun leaders of all time. A person who had a non-violent army of 100,000+ people and millions of sympathizers. His Khudai Khitmatagar did their utmost to protect non-muslim neighbours living in their area in the time of the partition. His influence was so great that when he was taken to Jalalabad for his burial in 1987 during the civil war taking place there, all factions agreed for a cease fire for 4 days as a mark of respect. Not to mention he was a major voice imploring his people that the so called "Jihad" in Afghanistan against the Soviets was nothing but a Fasad that will destroy them.

    But unfortunately the PA/ISI establishment was so scared of this man that he was put under prison for longer than he was put in prison during the British rule. He was malinged as a Soviet or an Indian agent for the crime that he loved his people. If Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was given a free hand to do his work of upliftment here, we would have seen a more educated a liberated Pashtun people achieving their full potential. But unfortunately, they have been used as cannon fodder and been maligned as extremist/tribals/violence prone and what not.
     
    A chauhan, hit&run and Oracle like this.
  6. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Good article.

    You should post it to newspapers so they might print it.
     
  7. chex3009

    chex3009 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    161
    Location:
    IL
    Very Good Article Sanjay.

    You should seriously think that this article indeed reach far away and educate people regarding the larger issue.
     
  8. peacecracker

    peacecracker Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    292
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    India
    good article. but, pukthoon people are never considered Desi and they have problem in integrating with Pakistani nation IINM. they want to have a nation Pukhtoonkhwa including current Afghanistan. Bulouchistan also has a majority of Pukhtoon's and Both Bulouchistan and Khyber-Pukhtoonkhwa Provinces Pakistan have will chose to leave that Nation unless for the Islamic fraternity.

    Regarding Such a New Nation of Pukhtoons - My Belief is these are Nomadic Tribesmen Who will Continue waging War on Pakistan even if Pakistan secede from Pukhtoonkhwa,FATA regions. They are very medieval in their thoughts after I read about their Barbaric Eye for an Eye Ideology(Pukhtoonwali).

    OTOH, Our part of Kashmir, has a large number of Pathans too who may have entered after the Pakistani Quest for Kashmir in 1948.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  9. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    3,351
    Good article Sanjay Nice perspective.
     
  10. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    Congratulations, very well written Sanjay. With your consent can I post it elsewhere? Would ofcourse cite the source :D

    Regards,
    Virendra
     
  11. sanjay

    sanjay Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    186
    Yeah, sure, post it wherever you want. I feel we should make our case whenever and wherever we can.
     
  12. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    4,563
    Location:
    Raipur
    Eye opener post !! must be published over various forums in the Internet, i never read these facts before! Sanjay! Thanks mate !
     
  13. Solid Beast

    Solid Beast New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    63
    ][[]][][[][][][][][][][][
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2011
  14. Solid Beast

    Solid Beast New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    63
    ][][][[][][][]][][[]]][
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2011
  15. sanjay

    sanjay Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    186
  16. bhogta

    bhogta Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    17
    I think they want Kashmir so they can control rivers. This is the main reason in my pint of view.
     
  17. arshi

    arshi Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    mumbai
    very nice article ...thanks for sharing it here
     
  18. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,283
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Very thought provoking Sanj, well done. But where does India come in this picture? Yes we want a broken up Pak and should assist in that, what else? Kashmir is a different case altogether. Disintegration of Pakistan would be the first step towards integration of entire J&K.
     
  19. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Good article. A different approach to an old problem.

    But sanjay you are not quite on the money in saying that Pakistani Pashtuns still consider them Pashtun first and then Pakistani.

    The Pashtuns in the settled areas like Peshawar have long been integrated fully into the Pakistani society and the cause of Pashtunistan is vocally opposed even by them. The Pashtuns from the Settled Areas have a healthy representation in politics and a very good representation in the Armed Forces. So asking them to secede is next to impossible.

    But the idea of Pashtunistan (or we are different from Panjabis) is still prevalent among the mountain tribes - the tribesmen of FATA who see themselves Pashtun first and the rest next .If there is any chance of rebellion/secession its from them and not the Pashtuns from settled areas.

    Coming to Balochs - its a whole different ballgame.Unlike the Pashtuns they have managed to keep the idea of an independent Balochistan alive throughout generations except ofcourse some sell outs given the forceful circumstances under which the Kalat Khanate was invaded and forced into Pakistan and the subsequent ill-will towards the Panjabis that has erupted in the form of insurgencies right from 1948 till now.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2011
  20. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    You nailed it. Nothing more nothing less.

    They cannot afford to have such a precious commodity as water to be controlled by their arch-rivals, especially if that river water is the life line of your nation.
     
  21. smartindian

    smartindian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    Mysore, Karnataka, India
    welcome Mr. friend of all failed state. and is that your point /code word to show your anger
     

Share This Page