Daily Times

The former UK Foreign Minister David Miliband in his article “How to end the war in Afghanistan” claimed that “Neither the UK nor the US started the war in Afghanistan.” Then who did? Miliband is either ill-informed or deliberately not telling the truth. Either way, this is not an unusual claim by the British throughout their history of colonisation.

Afghanistan has been at war for the last 30 years. With the Soviet invasion of 1979, Afghanistan was a pawn between the USSR and the US in the Cold War era. The Americans not only supplied arms and armament but also a heavy dose of the Saudi brand of Islam through Pakistan, promoting jihad (now a bad word in the US). General Ziaul Haq, the ruler of Pakistan at that time, claimed himself a follower of a similar brand of Islam. The leaders of the Mujahideen were on the payroll of the Saudis and Americans, including Osama bin Laden. Later, the foremost villain in the eyes of the Americans was bin Laden and his organisation al Qaeda, set up by the CIA. When the Americans left Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the Soviet army, the Afghans were cooked in their own juice. Huge amounts of arms awash in the country turned the Mujahideen into warlords, throwing Afghanistan into chaos. It was the Taliban that gave Afghanistan stability and security, but who also produced major problems in implementation of their brand of Islam trying to take the country back to the 9th century.

Now that the ‘Free World/’international community’ is ready to quit Afghanistan by next year, we need to think of Pakistan’s future policy regarding Afghanistan. We hear of many contradictory versions of the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s FATA in 2014. Most of the advice is from sources that have little knowledge of the history of the area and its ancient culture. Pakistan’s immediate concern is the Pakistani Taliban (over 40 groups), some of whom are responsible for suicide attacks and bombing of military and civilian targets. Some people are downright naive with no knowledge of the area. They claim that Pakistan can talk to the Taliban only when they ‘lay down their arms’! They do not realise that guns are a part of their family heirlooms and cannot be thrown away at the whims of some babu in Islamabad.

The US has allowed the opening of the Taliban office in Doha. The Pakistani press has gone viral claiming that Pakistan was responsible for this earth-shaking change in US policy. Let us be clear Pakistan has no role to play in Afghan Taliban policy and is still groping in the dark regarding Pakistan’s Taliban policy at the national level.

As usual I have to get you back in time to look into the future. We all know that Afghanistan was the only country that opposed the entry of Pakistan to the United Nations in 1947. Why? The reason is simple. The Durand Line (similar to the McMahon Line of 1914 between British India and Tibet) was drawn by Sir Mortimer Durand and Amir Abdur Rehman in 1893 to demarcate spheres of ‘interest’ between Afghanistan and British India. The actual survey was done between 1894 and 1896. It was never conceived as a border, since it cut across the Pashtun and Baloch tribes on either side, hence leaving a porous ‘border’ where families crossed over on either side with impunity. For the tribes the ‘border’ did not exist. The Pakistan government accepts the Line as an international border but has little control over it. Successive Afghan governments, to rev up anti-Pakistan sentiments, exploited this situation. At one stage, the slogan of Pashtunistan by successive Afghan governments was in vogue. For the Afghans their kings used Peshawar as their summer capital up to the 1820s before being taken over by Sikh forces and later by the British.

Having driven across Afghanistan three times in the 1960s and 1970s, I felt distinct Afghan hostility towards Pakistan. In contrast they had a soft spot for India. The situation has not changed today. It would be naive to think that Pakistan can keep India out of Afghanistan.

Our western border called the Durand Line (2,640 km) will remain the bone of contention between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This will merge our Afghan and FATA policies. Present and future Afghan governments shall use the Durand Line to raise tribal sentiments on both sides of the Line. The Afghans, Taliban, tribes and other citizens want the invading army of the Free World/international community out of their country. Historically, the Afghan tribes are highly insular and do not tolerate foreign interference. Pakistan’s champions are not acceptable to the Afghans. Mahmood of Ghazni and the Mughal Emperor Babar are still not considered as Afghan heroes. They are still dubbed as foreigners and their graves badly neglected in contrast to the impressive mausoleum of Ahmed Shah Abdali.

Although the agreement expired in 1993, for the foreseeable future the Durand Line will not become the border and we should accept the reality. From this point, Pakistan’s Afghan policy should move forward. Compared to Afghanistan, Pakistan has a robust army and air force, which the Afghan government cannot challenge. Pakistan cannot invade Afghanistan across the Line for political reasons and ground realities. At best, we should continue the age-old British policy. Pakistan’s policy of a friendly government in Afghanistan by promoting some warlords is a bad option and shall backfire. The best way forward today is to keep a friendly face towards Afghanistan and postpone the border issue to some date in the future.

At the moment, Pakistan has serious issues with the Taliban of FATA and their cohorts. This peaceful tribal belt exploded after 2004. There are different reasons for this violent reaction from peaceful people. Basically, Pashtuns are proud people and have a strong sense of revenge. US drone attacks compounded the situation even though there was minimal resentment among the Pakistanis across the country. The bomb blasts and suicide attacks in the cities of Pakistan evoked little sympathy for the Taliban cause. It is not surprising that the Taliban discontinued these bomb blasts in the cities.

(To be continued)

The writer is a freelance columnist