Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bugti

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

Why are we having a thread title that refers to Sindhudesh fighters as terrorists? Fix it up and Agno for one, would surely understand. In the site that Agno was a mod earlier, they had a distinction of good terrorists and bad terrorists. So as per them, if the Kashmiris killed Indians, then it cannot be termed as terrorism. When this is the case, the Sindhudesh folks should not be termed as terrorists as suggested in the title of this thread.
That is a misrepresentation of the position I took and continue to hold - deliberate attacks on non-combatants should always be considered terrorism, whether conducted by the Palestinians, Taliban, BLA, Sindhudesh, LeT, US Military, Indian Army or Pakistani Army.
 
Last edited:

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,416
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

That is a misrepresentation of the position I took and continue to hold - deliberate attacks on non-combatants should always be considered terrorism, whether conducted by the Palestinians, Taliban, BLA, Sindhudesh, LeT, US Military, Indian Army or Pakistani Army.
Which one of the Kashmiri groups have NOT attacked non-combatants in your opinion?
 

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
10,569
Likes
25,230
Country flag
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

So I take it you were cheering the 9/11 and Mumbai attacks ....
No he is not cheering for it... ONLY Pakis can be glad if blood of innocents are lost.... he is simply glad that now Pakis are tasting their own medicine of cross-border-terrorism.Now Afgans are shelling Pakis and doing raids and going back without much trouble and Pakis are whining.Pak army is still pointing its guns on the east whereas they are getting banged from the western front. :lol:

Now go and NUKE Afganistan if you can... after all you are a SHUPPA DUPPA POOPPA ISLAMIC NUKE POWER. :laugh:

Good work Afgans btw :lol:
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

The point is a valid one, but for the fact that the Baloch territories occupied by the British under the Treaty between the British Empire and the Khan i Kalat in 1876 and later re-constituted and established in 1879 with acquired Afghan territories as British Balochistan- were merely leased lands under acquit-rent to the British empire, whose provincialism was limited to British control over their administrative affairs and garrisoning of troops, but not to the delimitation of their boundaries. This status of permanent lease to the British empire had not lapsed or been amended by any subsequent Treaty, except for a unilateral British action after the Second Afghan War, to reconstitute these Baloch territories- Turbat (Makran), Kheran, Zhob (Fort Sandeman) and Lasbela, alongwith acquired Afghan territories (under the 1879 Gandamak Treaty): Sibi, Pishin, Shorariid, Duki, Qilla Abdullah, Qilla Saifullah, and Shahrig as the province of British Balochistan. It was this unilateral reconstitution of the territories in 1887 as the province of British Balochistan, against the agreements made with the Khan i Kalat (to which the Sirdars were also party) to reserve jurisdiction on their foreign and constitutional affairs, that enabled the British (following your argument) to draw the Durand Line between the territories they occupied (British Balochistan) and (a not entirely sovereign) Afghanistan in the first place. Article 3 of the 1876 Agreement- which was the last agreement to be signed by the Khan of Kalat and the British with respect to their sovereignty vis-à-vis each other- exemplifies the relationship between the Kalat and the British states: "Whilst on his part, the Khan of Khilat agrees to bind himself, his heirs, his successors and his sirdars, to observe faithfully the provisions of Article 3 of the Treaty of 1854, the British Government on its part engages to respect the independence of Khilat and to aid the Khan, in case of need, in the maintenance of a just authority and the protection of his territories from external attack". In which case, the Durand Line Agreement of 1893 was invalid, because at least one of the parties (British Balochistan) was not represented by all of the elements (the British + the Baluchis) that constituted it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage.........And while you argue that Pakistan ignored 'the legitimacy and applicability of the Indian Independence Act, that called for the full and final resolution of ownership by a territory's lawful ruler', you ignore the fact that India herself followed the same path in invading and annexing Junagadh, whose accession to Pakistan under the Independence Act was clear to India, as seen by the diplomatic cables sent by India to Pakistan protesting the accession.
I do not know if it is deliberate misrepresentation or complete ignorance that drives you Pakistanis on the Junagadh (and Hyderabad) issue, but it was understood (and accepted) by both sides in 1947 that one of the primary bases on which the princely states were to choose to accede to either India or Pakistan was geographical contiguity. There could not be "islands" of India within Pakistan and vice versa.

Kashmir is a totally different case because it was contiguous to both India and Pakistan, hence the ruler had complete freedom to choose which state to accede to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

In which case, the Durand Line Agreement of 1893 was invalid, because at least one of the parties (British Balochistan) was not represented by all of the elements (the British + the Baluchis) that constituted it.
This got me thinking about another aspect of this argument - the tripartite aspect of the agreement would only be an issue from the perspective of the supposed third party (representatives of Balochistan), if that third party chose to contest the Durand Agreement. The British obviously took the position that they had the right to demarcate the border on behalf of Balochistan. The Afghans, at that point in time, could have refused any agreement on the demarcation of the border with the British, citing the absence of representative from Balochistan - they didn't. The agreement therefore could only be considered invalid if Balochistan contests it on the basis of having been excluded from the agreement, and that too only if they could successfully argue that the British did not have suzerainty over Balochistan to engage in foreign relations on behalf of Balochistan at that point in history.

Balochistan, as we obviously know, is not an independent State, is recognized by the UN and the international community as legally being a province of Pakistan, and therefore cannot contest the validity of the Durand Agreement - which means, unfortunately from the Afghan perspective, that the Durand Agreement is both legitimate and valid, which is why the Afghans have never tried, nor have any intention, to take their case to the UN or any other international institution for arbitration.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

I do not know if it is deliberate misrepresentation or complete ignorance that drives you Pakistanis on the Junagadh (and Hyderabad) issue, but it was understood (and accepted) by both sides in 1947 that one of the primary bases on which the princely states were to choose to accede to either India or Pakistan was geographical contiguity. There could not be "islands" of India within Pakistan and vice versa.

Kashmir is a totally different case because it was contiguous to both India and Pakistan, hence the ruler had complete freedom to choose which state to accede to.
'Understandings' do not have any legal basis unless codified as part of the agreements governing relevant events, in this case the Indian Independence Act. East Pakistan itself was an 'Island of Pakistan surrounded by India on three sides and an ocean on the fourth'. Junagadh, with its access to the Arabian Sea, was in no different a geographic position, which made its ruler's accession to Pakistan completely legitimate and valid. An accession that India chose to completely ignore in its own irredentist drive.
 
Last edited:

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

'Understandings' do not have any legal basis unless codified as part of the agreements governing relevant events, in this case the Indian Independence Act. East Pakistan itself was an 'Island of Pakistan surrounded by India on three sides and an ocean on the fourth'. Junagadh, with its access to the Arabian Sea, was in no different a geographic position, which made its ruler's accession to Pakistan completely legitimate and valid. An accession that India chose to completely ignore in its own irredentist drive.
Even more nonsense. Your comparison of East Bengal to Junagadh shows that you don't understand the basic distinction made in the Indian Independence Act between "princely states" and "Muslim majority areas" not part of princely states that were supposed to be part of Pakistan. In the case of princely states, the princes were supposed to take a decision to accede based on the wishes of their people as well as geographic contiguity considerations. In the case of the Junagadh, 96% of the subjects were Hindus and geographically, it was contiguous with India rather than with Pakistan. The obvious option for accession hence was India. Same applies to the case for Hyderabad which Pakis like to trot on about time and again.

In the case of Kashmir, the issue was more complicated. While the majority of the people were Muslim, the state was equally contiguous to both India and Pakistan. In addition, the Muslims were concentrated in 1/3rd (north and west) of the state while 2/3rds of the territory was host to Hindu and Buddhist populations. Hence the decision was not so simple was the Junagadh case.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/...ashmir/070_kashmir_learning_from_the_past.pdf

The British left it to the princes to decide the future of their territories but in effect pursued a policy of territorial contiguity. Where princely states were surrounded by territory that would become part of the Indian Republic, their rulers were pressured to join India. This was the case with the princely state of Hyderabad situated in the very heart of India, which desired first to be independent and then part of Pakistan. Eventually its ruler was coerced into joining India. Likewise, with the Kingdom of Kalat, in what is now the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, where the ruler, the Khan of Kalat, sought independence and then to join India. Eventually, he was pressured to join Pakistan.

Real controversy would arise not necessarily in circumstances where the princes were of a different religion to the majority of their subjects, but where the princely state was so geographically located as to hold out the possibility of joining either state. Such was the case of Jammu and Kashmir.
India took this principle of geographical contiguity seriously and refused to consider the request of accession of the Khan of Kalat as well as the Nawab of Bahawalpur to India. Jinnah on the other hand, acted as the sleazy, power hungry politician that he was and interfered with the political unification of India while trashing the same principle when it came to Kalat.

http://www.jinnaharchive.com/articles/accprincestates2.htm

Even among the 12 states located within the geographic limits of Pakistan, at least two rulers initially attempted to keep away from Pakistan. Mountbatten quoted in an aid-memoir that "a large state-Kalat-approached the Government of India for political relationship, but was refused; and unofficial overtures from Bahawalpur [for acceding to India] were similarly discouraged". 9 The Muslim League was not looking into the merits of each of these cases and their political hold over the prospective areas of Pakistan appeared to be loose.
 
Last edited:

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

No. The Afghan contention is that the Durand Line Agreement, supposed to be Tripartite, and in fact originally composed as tripartite (when the British Govt presumed it would be possible to coerce an agreement out of the sirdars and the Khan i Kalat) was invalid because it conveyed the proposition that the British had the right to negotiate and demarcate borders on behalf of the Balochistan province (in contravention to the Treaty signed and standing as of 1876, the last treaty signed) when, in fact it didn't.

Since the Balochis are now governed by the Pakistanis, who for their sovereign and territorial interests reiterate the validity of the Durand Line, the point is also moot.

In fact, the Afghans' claim to the invalidity of the Durand Line (and by extension to Pakistani lands on this side of the Durand Line) includes parts of Balochistan (that were later consolidated into the FATA), as well as of course the Khyber Pakhtunkhawa, as also parts of the present province of Punjab: Mianwali, Multan, Bahwalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan (ever since these were integrated into the Punjab following Yahya Khan's One Unit doctrine).

The Afghans also allege that the British coerced the Afghan Amir into signing the agreement, when Abdul Rahman Khan could neither read not understand English, although this claim is more tenuous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage

The following text from the British-Kalat treaty of 1854 would appear to strongly suggest that the British did have suzerainty over Kalat/Balochistan, including the power to conduct negotiations with foreign entities without any need to consult with the rulers of Kalat/Balochistan:

"That the former offensive and defensive treaty concluded in 1841 by Major Outram between the British government and Nasir Khan II chief of Kalat was to be annulled That Nasir Khan II his heirs and successors bound themselves to oppose to the utmost all thee nemies of the British government and in all cases to act in subordinate co operation with that government and to enter into no negotiations with other states without its consent

That should it be deemed necessary to station British troops in any part of the territory of Kalat they shall occupy such positions as may be thought advisable by the British authorities


That the Baluch chief was to prevent all plundering on the part of his subjects within or in the neighbourhood of British territory

That he was further to protect all merchants passing through his territory and only to exact from them a transit duty fixed by schedule attached to the treaty and that on condition of a faithful performance of these duties he was to receive from the British government an annual subsidy of Rs 50,000"


So, as I argued previously, the British engaged in the demarcation of the Durand with Afghanistan with an understanding on their part that they had clear legal authority to do so, without involving the rulers of Kalat/Balochistan. The Afghans apparently thought the same since they never objected to the absence of the Kalat/Balochistan rulers, and ratified the treaty multiple times in the subsequent decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Known_Unknown

Could you point out to me where exactly the principle of geographic continuity was codified into the Indian Independence act as being a requirement for a ruler considering accession to one State or another?

Secondly, was 'geographic contiguity' defined in the Indian Independence Act as meaning 'land mass contiguity only', because Pakistan's position was that the she had contiguity with Junagadh through the sea, much as West Pakistan and East Pakistan had contiguity through the ocean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

blank_quest

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
2,119
Likes
925
Country flag
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

was 'geographic contiguity' defined in the Indian Independence Act as meaning 'land mass contiguity only', because India's position was that the she had contiguity with Balucistan through the sea, ?? :confused:
 

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

was 'geographic contiguity' defined in the Indian Independence Act as meaning 'land mass contiguity only', because India's position was that the she had contiguity with Balucistan through the sea, ?? :confused:
If you are asking whether the principle applied to Junagadh (in the context of its accession to Pakistan) could have been applied to the State of Kalat (in the context of a hypothetical accession of Kalat to India), then yes, it could have been argued that India and Kalat had 'geographical contiguity through the Arabian Sea'.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

Nowhere does the Treaty of 1854 state the British Government would have the right to determine or demarcate the boundaries of the state of Kalat or any of its leased territories. That is an exceedingly fallacious gratuitous interpretation on your part. The Treaty of 1854 only says this:

"...and in all cases to act in subordinate co operation with that government and to enter into no negotiations with other states without its consent ."

"That should it be deemed necessary to station British troops in any part of the territory of Kalat they shall occupy such positions as may be thought advisable by the British authorities "


[quoting from you above]

- forbidding the state of Kalat to enter into negotiations with foreign countries without British consent* and granting the garrisoning of British troops there, as already mentioned, for such duration as those pieces of land remained leased.

*I presume you know the geo-political background to this.

Moreover, the province of British Balochistan, whose contours the British took it upon themselves to determine in violation of Article 3 of a subsequent treaty, came into existence only with the Treaty of 1876: between Sandeman and the Khan i Kalat (the last Treaty signed)- which explicitly mentioned the independence of the state of Kalat and all of its leased territories:

"...the British government on its part engages to respect the independence of Khilat, and to aid the Khan, in case of need, in the maintenance of a just authority and the protection of his territories from external attack, by such means as the British Government may at that moment deem expedient."


That the British had no jurisdiction to amend the borders of the Kalat state or its leased territories is also witnessed in the fact that the British originally composed the Durand Line Agreement in tripartite form (taking into consideration the sirdars and the Kalat Khanate) when it pressumed their quiescence was guaranteed and their yielding forthcoming, but later amended it to one just between Amir Abdul Rahman and the British Government when they realized it was not.

It is also seen, to a less extent, in the fact that the British continued to pay quit-rent to the state of Kalat, even after amending its boundaries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage

The language of the treaty that I quoted, "and in all cases to act in subordinate co operation with that government and to enter into no negotiations with other states without its consent", makes clear that Kalat was subordinate to the British - British Suzerainty over Kalat, and the treaty of 1876 does not negate the language above (despite the sops to 'Independence') and in fact references the treaty of 1854.

The language of the treaty of 1854 in effect gives the British a veto over Kalat's foreign policy, which in effect means that Kalat's foreign policy, including boundary agreements with other States, was to be run by the British.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

Again that is a fallacious and gratuitously broad interpretation of the Treaty. The Treaty of 1854 makes no referrence to Suzerainty or principality/demesne. Given that relations between the frontier states and the British were often tenuous, in light of the ongoing geo-strategic war for influence, any absorption of the territory as sovereign dominion would have necessitated a treaty explicitly saying so. Of course, in delimiting the borders of the British Balochistan province (which never existed at the time of this Treaty- which you say made the state of Kalat subordinate to the British), the British would argue as you did- even though their prevarications and actions were consonant with one who understood that the Balochis were party to the dispute. Moreover, the Treaty of 1854 was subject to the Treaty of 1876- the final treaty- which explicitly recognized the "independence" of the Khan of Kalat and the subordinate states, for which the British continued to pay acquit-rent. No amount of haranguing or obfuscation will change that.


The argument stands:-

  • The province of British Balochistan- which the British delimited in 1893- did not exist at the time of the Treaty of 1854. Since the province of British Balochistan did not exist at the time of the Treaty of 1854, and since no subsequent amendment to the Treaty was made, its borders could not have been delimited under this Treaty.
  • The Treaty of 1854- which granted no powers of Suzerainty to the British by any acceptable definition- was subject to the Treaty of 1876, which explicitly recognized the independence (partisan claims to sops notwithstanding) of the Khan of Kalat and of the occupied-leased Baloch territories.
  • The Durand Line Agreement was originally constituted in Tripartite form- the British having recognized the Baloch key claim to their own boundaries- and later construed as bipartisan agreement- when the support of the Sirdars and the Khan i Kalat was not forthcoming- between the British and a very amenable Amir Abdul Rahman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage

There is nothing fallacious or gratuitous about my interpretation of the treaty of 1856 - the language is clear, and it subordinates Kalat to the British in matters of Foreign Affairs - the language itself in the treaty of 1854 states so clearly "and in all cases to act in subordinate co operation with that government and to enter into no negotiations with other states without its consent". How would your interpretation of the language quoted differ from mine?

In addition, not only does the treat of 1876 'reaffirm the treat of 1854', the treaty of 1876 specifically references 'Article 3 of the treaty of 1854':

Treaty of 1854:
Whereas the course of events has made it expedient that a new agreement should be concluded between the British Government and Meer Nusseer Khan Chief of Khelat the following Articles have been agreed on between the said government and His Highness

Article 1 The Treaty concluded by Major Outram between the British Government and Meer Nusseer Khan Chief of Khelat on the 6th October 1841 is hereby annulled

Article 2 There shall he perpetual friendship between the British Government and Meer Nusseer Khan Chief of Khelat his heirs and successors

Article 3 Meer Nusseer Khan binds himself bis heirs and successors to oppose to the utmost all the enemies of the British Government in all cases to act in subordinate co operation with that Government and to enter into no negotiation with other States without its consent the usual friendly correspondence with neighbours being continued as before
Treaty of 1876:

Whereas it has become expedient to renew the Treaty of 1854 between the British Government and Naseer Khan Khan of Khelat and to supplement the same by certain additional provisions calculated to draw closer the bonds of friendship and amity between the two Governments the following additional Articles are herewith agreed upon between the Right Honorable Edward Robert Bulwer Lytton Baron Lytton of Knebworth in the County of Hertford and a Baronet of the United Kingdom Viceroy and Governor General of India and Grand Master of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India on behalf of the British Government on the one hand and His Highness Meer Khodadad Khan Khan of Khelat on the other

Article 1 The Treaty concluded between the British Government and Meer Naseer Khan Khan of Khelat on the Hth of Muy 1854 is hereby renewed and re affirmed

Article 2 There shall be perpetual friendship between the British Government and Meer Khodadad Khan Khan of Khelat his heirs and successors

Article 3 Whilst on his part Meer Khodadad Khan Khan of Khelat binds himself his heirs successors and Sircars to observe faithfully the provisions of Article 3 of the Treaty of 1854 the British Government on its part engages to respect the independence of Khelat and to aid the Khan in case of need in the maintenance of a just authority and the protection of his territories from external attack by such means as the British Government may at the moment deem expedient
Again, note the very specific reference in Article 3 of the treaty of 1876 to Article 3 of the treaty of 1854. Kalat gave up its right to conduct foreign affairs independent of the British, and therefore the Durand Agreement did not have to be a tripartite agreement that required the involvement of the rulers of Kalat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Agnostic Muslim,

Your interpretations is, in every sense, fatuous and gratuitous. Here's why:

  • Your interpretation of foreign affairs is taken to include 'territorial delimitation'. Which itself can only be construed after dominion reconstitution. At the time the Treaty of 1854 was signed, and at the time of the Treaty of 1876, the province of British Balochistan was simply leased-occupied territories for whom acquit-rent was paid, and not principalities/demesne. Baloch consent would have been legally mandatory, even if perfunctory from the British viewpoint, for such a territorial delimitation to take place. As we see, the British tried to acquire that acquiescence, but having realized it was a fruitless task, unilaterally re-composed the Durand Agreement to a bi-partisan accord, preempting Baloch participation.
  • You ignore Article 3 of the subsequent 1876 Treaty which explicitly states: "[...]the British Government on its part engages to respect the independence of Khelat and to aid the Khan in case of need in the maintenance of a just authority and the protection of his territories from external attack." How would you define the term: independence?
  • The Treat of 1854 only states: "that there shall he perpetual friendship between the British Government and Meer Nusseer Khan Chief of Khelat his heirs and successors" [Article 2] and that: "Meer Nusseer Khan binds himself bis heirs and successors to oppose to the utmost all the enemies of the British Government in all cases to act in subordinate co operation with that Government and to enter into no negotiation with other States without its consent" [Article 3]. Article 3 implies, contrary to your fallacious interpretation, that the Kalat Khanate did have authority to enter into negotiations with foreign powers, but with British consent. It also states that the Kalat Khanate may act, but in subordinate co-operation, to the British. Here, the Kalat Khanate and its British leased-occupied territories were made non-entities to the agreement.
  • You ignore the facts and evidences on the ground: that the British composed the Durand Line Agreement in 1893, after re-asserting the independence of the Kalat state, as a tripartite agreement and then purged that agreement when cooperation was not forthcoming. Why was there an abstersion of that agreement, if the Kalat State (and the sirdars who were also party) were not, in fact, valid participants of the agreement?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

This documentary, by the way, is a must watch:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnostic Muslim

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
517
Likes
144
Re: Afghanistan Sheltering Taliban and Sindhudesh Terrorists, after Bu

@Rage

'Independence' does not guarantee 'sovereignty' and it does not automatically imply 'Independence in ALL affairs of a State':

Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory.

While no specifics on the degree of 'Independence' Kalat would enjoy are provided in the treaty, the treaty, with its reference to the subordination of Kalat to the British on the subject of Foreign Affairs, makes quite clear that Kalat's 'independence' did not extend to foreign affairs.

I am not familiar with the abstersion of a tripartite Durand Agreement, but assuming that was the case, attempting to involve, unsuccessfully in this case, multiple parties in an agreement does not change the fact that the British, under the treaties of 1854 and 1876, did not need legally Kalat's involvement in the Durand Agreement. Again, the language of the treaty is clear, Kalat was 'subordinate' to the British Government in matters of external affairs. Kalat could not propose a solution that the British did not agree with, while there was no such restriction on the British.

The British legally neutered Kalat while pacifying/misleading them through the use of the term 'Independence' - not only did they subordinate Kalat to the British Government in matters of foreign affairs, they also codified their role as the final arbiter in domestic disputes between the Khan and various Sardar's. The whole business is an excellent illustration of the manner in which the British were able to exert control in regions across the word through coercive diplomacy backed by their economic and military power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top