Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Pashtun Issue is Root Cause of Kashmir, 911, and Afghan Conflicts

Discussion in 'International Relations' started by sanman, Oct 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sanman

    sanman Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    119
    Pakistan constantly blames India for everything it does, and claims that all its problems are due to its dispute with India over Kashmir. Pakistan even claims that its attempts to subjugate the Pashtuns through its support for the Haqqanis and Taliban are again due to India and Kashmir. The reality is that it's exactly the other way around - it's due to Pakistan's quest to subjugate the Pashtuns that it launched a war against Kashmir in 1948. As a matter of fact, all of Pakistan's conflicts, whether its older conflict with Afghanistan, or its more recent growing confrontation with the USA, are due to Pakistan's attempts to dominate the Pashtuns, out of its fear that they might seek independence.


    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 an historical 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 repulse 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 worries 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 it feels are owed to it from sovereignty, but 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 rally toward that cause.


    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 Washington policymakers 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.
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    Nice article
     
  3. ManuSankar

    ManuSankar Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    588
    Nice article.Please post the source too..
     
  4. vikas jat

    vikas jat Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    88
    give the source of this article
     
  5. Hammad Khan

    Hammad Khan 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    45
    Rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  6. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Seems a bit off,
    but what the Heck !!! :biggthumpup:
     
  7. Aboveall

    Aboveall 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    35
    ROF to you too. Truth hurts.
     
  8. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Pashtun Issue?
    Freeking lol!!!

    Am reading through this as a Paksitani Pashtun, this should be interesting....:rolleyes2:

    yes Durand line doesn't exist much today either, many Pashtuns in A'stan and Pakistan still don't recognize the border.

    Source for this article please??? It is clearly misunderstood as to what Pakistan's motives were and the Pashtun's views and perspectives.....

    During the 47-48 war, pashtuns were willingly fighting for Kashmir to be part of Pakistan, they were patriotic to the new Islamic majority state.

    Inf act my own grandfather from Nowshera recalls pashtun tribesmen from villages and other parts of the frontier, rallying there, they had 329s, they which they fired in the air and shouted Pro Pakistan slogans before going off to the border to fight.

    Afghanistan was not land of the Pushtuns, never was, it had no real borders, all sides of tribesmen and unrecognized, un-marked borders, for them to claim a land as theirs that they believed belonged to no-one is very hypocritical, besides, majority of Pashtuns never opposed becoming part of Pakistan, these borders are not recognized today either..... seems to me that no-one is bothered by them.

    what the hell???

    Pushtuns may have followed suit, so they went and fought their own possible future.... makes total sense... (sarcasm).
    Pashtuns never recognized borders set by the British, under a Muslim majority country that gave them a province to which they could appoint leaders, it was unlikely that they try and rise up against a an significant piece of paper marking a supposed border....

    this whole theory is flawed.

    No... it's simple.... you need to put 2 + 2 together....

    Pakistan has a larger population of Pashtuns, border is open and free, many in A'stan despise Pakistan, many in Pashtuns in Pakistan are cut off from the rest of Pakistani society (although the gap is being filled more and more).

    From the Pashtuns I've met in Pakistan, they are patriotic, and don't associate themselves with Afghaistan as a state, at most they would associate the Pushtuns of A'stan to them and not the other way round.

    WTF? I mean really??? WTF!?!?!

    Give me the source for this BS, please.....!

    Communist A'stan was nothing to do with Pakistan, arming of Pushtun happen when illegal communist occupation in the form of the Soviets entered A 'stan, supported by the no good communist b@stards at the time....!

    Even the ones in A'stan who had supported communism later realized what monster it was after 1978......

    As for the Islamist deal.....

    It's a direct cause of 10 years of occupation, A'stan was ruined.
    Lack of education meant that people turned towards extremism, lack of prospects and a very common and fimiliar enemy.

    Lack of education is the SOLE cause of this problem not Pakistan!
    Utter BS.... A'stan was liberated, but Pakistan had nothing do with the initial during the late 80's....
    Pakistan had no choice but to support Pashtun Taliban, since Pakistan had a huge Pashtun population and since it saw no demon in them.

    Lack of education and Warmongering was to blame, not Pakistan.


    FLAWED!!!! hahaha! :lol:
    I caught you out here mate....


    Pakistan promised to help US take care of Al-Qaeda....

    The US' WOT was meant to be a war of reconciliation, intead it was a war of revenge.... I quote Mr Bush here...

    'You are either with us, or against us.'

    It is their fault for turning the Pashtun populous and Taliban against them, Taliban were never their enemy, Pakistan promised nothing against the Taliban un officially till 2004 and officially by 2007.

    ^^^debunked in previous points....
    just more summarizing of the BS above.

    Very flawed knowledge of both Pakistani and Pashtun perceptive, I smell an Indian news outlet!!!

    Pashtuns (Some ) I agree don't recognize Pakistani authority... but what is your point? they live by tribal law.... they didn't don't' recognize the laws of the British, Afghan, Pak..... nothing new, nothing anti-Pakistan.

    You say this BS, yet Pakistani Pashtun culture is widely seen as Pakistani both in and out of Pakistan.
    Check out the army recruitment figures for KPK, they beg do differ with the BS in this article.

    This is not even worth replying to, new form of point, same BS.

    Hell! if Washington's policy makers got it right after 88' most of the problems in the region would be pretty much solved.


    Overall.... very biased, in-accurate and a repetitive article.

    anywho....

    Debunked!
     
  9. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    His 'rofl' is justified my friend, much of the article is utter none-sense!

    @thread starter

    source please....? this should be interesting....
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011
  10. sanman

    sanman Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    119
    I wrote the article. None of the responses from Junglee-buuz make any sense. He just seems to be artificially hyping his own reply.

    It is indeed necessary to understand that the Pakistanis have been deceiving themselves for over half a century on what motivated their leaders. The fact that the Pashtuns were sent to attack Kashmir (as recognized by the UN resolution itself) can't be some random coincidence. Why wasn't it the Sindhis, Punjabis, etc? It's because Pakistan was grappling with bigger problems with the Pashtuns, and that's why they had to distract them with a war over Kashmir.

    Junglee-buuz doesn't understand that on September 30, 1947 (BEFORE KASHMIR CONFLICT EVEN EXISTED) that Afghan govt voted against admitting Pakistan into the United Nations. This vote is a fact of history, and cannot be erased by all the ROFLs in the world. We can see that the dispute over Pashtun territory undeniably pre-dates the Kashmir dispute.
     
  11. sanman

    sanman Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    119
    Exactly - you're only reinforcing my point.




    That's because Jinnah deliberately and preemptively sent them to fight in Kashmir, in order to distract them from their own ethnic nationalism, which naturally posed a threat to Pakistan. You're not contradicting anything I said.

    Hah, you must not read or watch much Pakistani news, if you haven't heard the numerous warnings by various Pakjabi politicians, saying that Indian/American/Israeli/whoever's "designs on northwest areas must be kept in check"
    Clearly, they're quite bothered, contrary to what you say.

    Afghanistan was certainly founded by Pashtun rulers.



    Silly, you're claiming that Pashtuns would give up their existing identity for Punjabi rule. You seem to forget that Pashtun national movements already existed then. Next you'll be telling me that it's unlikely that Pashtuns would also rise up against the British, when it happened many times. Look at the strong support for renaming of nonsense "NWFP" name to "Pakhtoonwa"




    The fact that many Pashtuns are cut off from Pakistani society reflects the fact that they are naturally a separate people apart from Pakistani society.
    Of course Afghans (both Pashtun and non-Pashtun) despise Pakistan, for creating legions of fanatics to invade their country.


    You'd be surprised how many Pakistani Pashtuns have contacted me to express their agreement, as I've posted my article across the internet. (This forum is only one place where I've posted it.) So many of them are angry at what Pakjabis have done to their people and their culture, trying to promote only fanaticism and thuggery among them. The response that I've gotten from so many Pashtuns tells me that I'm on the right track.

    You won't understand, of course, because as you yourself have admitted, Pashtuns are cut off from your "society".

    Again, Pakistan was very worried about the impact of Afghan Communist policies on the sensitive Pashtun and Baloch dominated areas of Pakistan.



    During the war against the Soviets, Pak Army/ISI insisted that Americans be allowed no ground role in support of the mujahedin. Pak Army/ISI insisted that they be the only ones to arm/train/support the mujahedin, and that Americans would have to stay at arm's length, providing arms and funds via Pakistan. Pak did that so that it could select only the worst and most fanatical types to give support to, because they would do its bidding, while it marginalized the moderates.

    Even during the current dispute between US and Pakistani authorities, the Pakistani side continues to demand a "return to Reagan rules", which are again defined as US maintaining a hands-off arm's length distance from operations on the ground, leaving it only to Pakistan to run the operations. Again, this just proves how Pakistan has been the spoiler. Many Pashtuns have written to me about this point, agreeing with me that Pak Army/ISI deliberately went out of its way to support fanatical extremists, which only harmed their community and culture.



    Again, Pakistan went out of its way to foster extremism and marginalize moderates, in some cases even killing them using these same thugs.



    Straw man - how do you believe WOT was meant to start out through reconciliation?? Bush's quote came right at the start of the war! You're badly contradicting your own assertions.

    Taliban were already being sanctioned by the US before 911 for hosting Bin Laden, who was an identified enemy of the US, having already conducted previous terror attacks.

    Again, no wonder you pakistani are so bewildered by international reaction to your behavior. You simply don't have a grip on reality, or any understanding of history, or the world.

    What's very obvious was that AlQaeda made a deal with their Taliban hosts, helping to assassinate their enemy Masood, in exchange for Taliban's green light on launching a major terror attack against the US.


    Pakistan, like the British before them, has deliberately continued the practice of "tribal law" as means of retaining medieval conditions in these areas, which helps the Pakistani state to camouflage any repression they need to carry out to eliminate any anti-state elements.

    Sorry, but Pashtuns aren't Pakjabis, and I've been contacted by many "Pakistani" Pashtuns who tell me so.
    But you wouldn't understand, since again you admit you're "cut off" from them.



    No, it's precisely because Washington has been so accommodating to the spoiler of the region - Pakistan - that so many problems have been perpetuated.



    Sorry man, but you've done nothing but toot your own horn. Your position now looks even more ridiculous than before you replied. Now you further look like a guy who howls "BS! ROFL! WTF!" and then thinks he's made a convincing argument just from that. It reflects poorly on you.

    Sorry Junglee, but I'm happy to say that I continue to be contacted by more and more Pashtuns who've read my article and express their support for me in writing it. You see, they don't want to be dragged down by you Pakjabis on your sinking ship. The fact that you're so ignorant of the feelings held by so many Pashtuns shows just how cut off you really are from them. All you've done is to build myths by repeating them over and over to yourselves again. Over time, you've simply degenerated into believing your own lies.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    Good reply.. nothing more left for me to say
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page