Connect with us

South Asia

The Durand Line Issue

Hareem Aqdas

Published

on

The Durand Line is a 2,200-kilometre debated border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was set up in 1893 between Sir Mortimer Durand, a British negotiator and respectful hireling of the British Raj, and Abdur Rahman Khan, the Afghan Amir, to settle the constrain of their individual circles of impact and make stride discretionary relations and exchange between the two nations. Afghanistan was considered by the British as a free state at the time, in spite of the fact that the British controlled its remote issues and discretionary relations. The single-page assertion, dated 12 November 1893, contains seven brief articles, counting a commitment not to work out obstructions past the Durand Line.

 A joint British-Afghan boundary overview took put beginning from 1894, covering a few 1,300 km of the border. Built up towards the near of the British-Russian “Great Game”, the coming about line set up Afghanistan as a buffer zone between British and Russian interface within the locale.

The line, as somewhat adjusted by the Anglo-Afghan Settlement of 1919, was acquired by Pakistan in 1947, taking after its independence. The forced Durand Line cuts through the Pashtun tribal ranges and assist south through the Balochistan locale, politically partitioning ethnic Pashtuns, as well as the Baloch and other ethnic bunches, who live on both sides of the border. It demarcates Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan of northern and western Pakistan from the northeastern and southern areas of Afghanistan.

From a geopolitical and geostrategic viewpoint, it has been depicted as one of the foremost unsafe borders within the world. Although Pakistan recognized the Durand Line as an international border, it remains to a great extent unrecognized by Afghanistan. In 2017, in the midst of cross-border pressures, previous Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that Afghanistan will “never perceive” the Durand Line as the international border between the two countries.

The Durand line remains a bone of contention between the two nations and a primary reason why Afghanistan and Pakistan have yet failed to establish cordial relations. Afghanistan claims a chunk of the KPK and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan on the basis that it was acceded to Pakistan, though it was originally a part of Afghanistan, with people dwelling on each sides having the same culture, language and way of life etc.

What is very clear is that relations between the two states have been tinged with hostility ever since Pakistan became an independent state in 1947. There are mainly two interrelated, historical reasons for this: the problem of the “Durand Line” — the shared but disputed border of the two countries; and Afghan support for the “Pakhtoonistan” movement in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP)

The questions is answered by both nations with a bias towards their respective national interest in mind, both Pakistan and Afghanistan claiming areas divided by the Durand line as their legitimate part.

Major accusations of Afghanistan over the Durand line are: its legitimacy period has terminated; it was in the original agreement between the British and the Afghans claimed its validity only for 100 years, which has expired. Nevertheless, neither Afghan government, nor the foremost dynamic advocates of this see have ever displayed any plain instrument demonstrating their claim. Nor do we discover, upon looking at the pertinent archives, i.e. the Durand Line assertion and the rest of the records confirmed until 1896 by the individual committees for assurance and boundary of the British-Afghan border, any arrangement confining the term of the understanding to 100 year time. It is undoubtedly a riddle how this supposition might spread over the nation without being addressed at all.

Another claim of Afghanistan in the de-legitimizing the boarded is that the assertions relating to it collapsed when the British exchanged powers to Pakistan. The agreement was done with British India and not with Pakistan. This was a main reason that Afghanistan was one of the very few countries that opposed the addition of Pakistan in the UN- since it alleged it of illegally annexing Afghanistan’s territory.

One more accusation to not accept the boarder comes as the understandings were persuasively forced upon Afghanistan-it is ethically unmerited- is certainly an issue worth encourage talk and contention. In any case, whereas one may concede the dispute to be fair and genuine, it remains deficiently to refute the status of the Durand Line as an international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Durand Line understanding of 1893 isn’t the sole point of reference in border assessment. At slightest other four assertions (of 1905, 1919, 1921 and 1930), which had the assent of both sides, must be counseled. Clearly, Afghanistan cannot claim that all of the afterward four assertions were concluded in a coercive environment, particularly the Kabul 1921 understanding for foundation of neighborly commercial relations, which not as it were marked but approved in 1922, and beneath which disobedience was traded by the agents of both states in Kabul.

The boarder is not rejected by any other party of the world except Afghanistan itself, making the Afghan case further weakened.

No matter how much Afghanistan retaliates over this matter, the Durand line is widely accepted as an international boarder and the afghan claim will likely not bear fruit. The Afghans should rather hold the British accountable for the “so said” unfair distribution and not Pakistan, since Pakistan did not decide into this matter at all but was a decision purely made between the Afghans and the British- rather battle the British towards their claim and not make this a political issue more than a legitimate claim.

Researcher at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad and student of International Relations and Politics at Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Sino-India Emerging Rivalry: Implications for Stability of South Asia

Tahama Asad

Published

on

India and China, both heirs to ancient civilizations, have emerged today as the two most powerful and influential Asian nations in terms of their economic clout and geopolitical standing in the international arena. The two countries recognize the need to eliminate enduring mistrust between them and have been focusing on building a rational partnership underpinned by China’s pragmatism. However, despite the recognition that cooperation may be in their mutual interest, this will be easier said than done. India-China relations have always been complexing with multifaceted regional and global dimensions, which have complicated their bilateral relationship. Even as India and China have crossed a long road from being friends to adversaries to rational partners, a factor which has been constant in the conduct of their affairs, is the that they are neighbors who have as much to gain from each other as to fear from the other. Both the states clearly understand that cooperation could work to their mutual advantage and benefit. Any conflict between the two countries would not only jeopardize their national security but would also have serious implications for their regional and global security perspectives. Tensions along the India-China border high in the Himalayas have again flared up the situation between both the countries. Thousands of soldiers from both sides have been facing off just a few 100m from each other in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley. China has objected to India building a road through the valley connecting the region to an airstrip, possibly sparking its move to assert control over the territory along the border that is not clearly defined in places. India and China engaged in a similar standoff for 73 days at Dokhlam, at the other end of their disputed border in 2017, when Indian troops were mobilized to counter what was seen as moves by the Chinese side to expand its presence along the border with Bhutan. The situation was later defused through diplomatic channels

In political realism, power is the capability to make another state do something it would not otherwise do and vice versa. What makes a state powerful is its capability to influence the other. The South Asian region is home to one fourth of the world’s population which is the least economically unified regions in the world. Intraregional trade remains well below its potential due to historical political tensions and mistrust because of cross-border conflicts and security concerns. Since the advent of the 21st century, China has been conducting multi-dimensional cooperation with all the South Asian countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). China’s major interests in South Asia include promoting stability in both Pakistan  and Afghanistan in order to curb the influence of extremists, to facilitate trade and energy corridors throughout the region that China can access, and to increase its presence in the Indian Ocean Region . India fears that China’s investment in South Asian ports not only serves its commercial interests, but also facilitates China’s military goals. India perceives the Chinese presence in South Asian countries as a design to thwart what was once considered as India’s sphere of influence.

China has so far been successful in influencing South Asia because of many factors. One of the major reasons is that China has managed to project itself as a neighbour that would not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries least of all in the internal affairs of its friends and partners. In the light of its “Good Neighbourhood” policy, China’s increased diplomatic and economic engagements in South Asia are aimed to enhance its strategic influence in the region. China is focusing on construction of a chain of airfields and ports at Gwadar-Pakistan, Hambantota-Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Chittagong-Bangladesh  has part of its “String of Pearls” strategy, which also includes China’s influence in South China Sea, the Strait of Malacca, the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. India, on the other hand has been trying to consolidate influence over its smaller South Asian neighbours other than Pakistan and holds almost complete sway over the SARRC setup. Defining Indian strategic environment, former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee once stated, “India’s strategic environment extends from the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca, across the entire Indian Ocean, including Northwest Central Asia and Afghanistan, East Asia, China and Southeast Asia. Our strategic thinking must be extended to these horizons Line”.

The changing alliances and power equilibrium among the United States, China, India, and Pakistan bear key implications on the inter-state rivalry and the consequent crisis dynamics in South Asia. Since the introduction of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy 2018, mutual suspicion and hostility between India   have intensified. There is a shift in the regional dynamics with the United States and India being on one side and Pakistan-China on the other. These changing dynamics will have significant implications for U.S. policy toward South Asia and crisis management down the road. Previously, the US had rendered constructive support in Pakistan-India crisis management. This role was taken up due to US perception of India-Pakistan’s relative power balance. However, US strategic interests in Asia Pacific region. Since Pakistan finds itself unable to serve as China’s balancer against India in the region, the immediate solution in Chinas calculus has been to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity and potential for economic growth and stability through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a fusion of infrastructure projects and funding aimed at reviving Pakistan’s economy. The CPEC will also serve China’s own strategic interest to reach out to the world through the shortest trade corridor offered by Pakistan due to its geopolitical location.

It is widely believed across the Chinese political circles that Indian aggression in the region is generally triggered by China’s support to Pakistan. India’s increasing inclination and reliance on the US has resulted in a heightened aggressive regional outlook of Prime Minister Modi. For instance, India’s revocation of Article 370 followed five months after India-Pakistan- brinkmanship resulting from the Pulwama crisis. The Indian decision to break the occupied state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories had directly challenged the territorial claim of Ladakh by China. China’s support to Pakistan is not perceived as China’s good will but as a concession extracted due to India’s might. Therefore, India might make even more encroachments on the LAC if China’s support for Pakistan increases. However, the change in China’s policy orientation regarding South Asia’s crisis management does not suggest that China will actively expedite or facilitate a crisis in the region. Traditionally, China has resorted to mediation for Pakistan-India crises. China can be helpful under a situation when US treats crisis management in the region as a significant priority and Chinese cooperation as an inevitable factor. But Beijing’s relations with Washington have deteriorated in the past few years. Beijing has been seeking to highlight issues of convergence that can lead to cooperation with US to improve bilateral ties. In case the US wishes to mutually manage a crisis in the South Asian region, Beijing might be open to cooperation. However, it is also expected that China might not assist in seeking a solution that would continue to capitalize on US need for cooperation. In the light of the current great power competition between US and China, crisis management in the South Asian region might be another case of collateral damage.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Crisis of good governance

Mujtaba Qureshi

Published

on

Good governance is one of the significant aspect of government in an country. Fair governance provides parallel  opportunities, ensure rule of law, equal distribution of resources, accountability of affairs, efficient institutions, decentralization of powers, etc. On the contrary, bad governance give birth to gigantic issues and problems. As a result, ordinary people bear the burnt of inefficiency, mismanagement, and short-sightedness of the government of the day. The state of governance in Pakistan remained worse in past, but corona virus pandemic had made it worst of all the time. From nowhere, it seems better rather everything is going out of control.

During the time of crisis, national government do its utmost effort to provide relief to the vulnerable in country. It came to service of the people irrespective of political affiliation, race, color, and creed. Thus, distribute the dividend among them in fair and square. But, this depends upon the efficiency and potential of the government then it can come to rescue them. Otherwise, over burden them by adopting the exclusive policies.

Mishandling of the ongoing corona virus pandemic echoes the sorry state of governance in country. From the very first day when virus related cases are identified, government hardly paid the heed to warnings by World Health Organization (WHO), showed meagre interest to the calls by health experts. Owing to this reluctance, contagion spread nook and cranny of the country within no time. It also failed to coordinate the provinces to formulate a unified policy to contain the virus. Overall, it has affected more than 2 lac people, and caused few thousand deaths in country. Sadly, WHO has warned authorities to speed up testing as actual number of the cases is confirmed. The recent decrease in reported cases is due to low number of testing. So, Pakistan is still to touch the peak in coming days. although, it seems people at the helm of affairs are unmoved even after WHO warnings.

Moreover, worsening economic crisis is another addition into annals of poor governance in country. Globally, pandemic has brought all economies at standstill, Pakistan is also not exception. Amid the virus, lockdown has paused inflow and outflow of trade in country. Resultantly, recent economic growth is moving downward. It is estimated -0.4 growth rate in last fiscal year. According to International Monetary Fund (IMF), economic growth in next fiscal year will be -1.5 percent. on the other, World Bank (WB) predicted -2.6 percent. Apart from it, Pakistani authorities are showing – 0.4 percent growth rate in next fiscal year. Public debt had increased to 88 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). External debt and liabilities stood at USD 76.5 billion. Apart from it, about Rs. 800 billion loss was simply on account of revenue collection. Moreover, the first  audit report of the incumbent has unveiled irregularities and corruption to the tune of Rs.270 billion in 40 government  departments and ministries under its tenure. However, incumbent government came in power on the pretext of accountability, justice, and elimination of corruption. But, all in vain, things are getting more worse and worse after every passing day.

Further, sugar and wheat crisis in last month had exposed the lofty claims of people centric government. Despite the ban on wheat export imposed in July 2019, the government allowed exports of 48,000 tons, which fueled the price hike in the country. It reveals how much powerful and influencing are the mafias. Imran Khan led government formed committee to probe the crisis. Findings of the committee were shocking as it included people who are part and parcel of the government. The report of the committee brought on surface that billions of the rupees were made by creating shortage, and also factory owners gain billions in subsidy for export  of sugar. Here, at the very outset government failed to overcome the crisis, failed to control the shooting prices in local market, and to make matter worse subsidize export of both items even there was ban on it.

After the mismanagement of sugar and wheat crisis, then came fuel crisis across the country. Previously, reduction in fuel prices to the tune of Rs.74 per liter was fallowed by sharp decrease in oil demand and consumption at global level due to lockdown amid corona virus. Gradually, oil started to disappear from oil stations, hue and cry increased, but no adequate action was taken by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA)  to overcome the crisis. Against the mandatory stocks of 21 days oil reserves that Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) are legally bound to maintain, the country was left with meagre reserves. The crisis intensified by the beginning of the June as country wide stocks decreased. Indeed, government has admitted that it was an artificial shortage, produced and managed by the OMCs. Undoubtedly, fuel shortage is over now when government has increased price of fuel up to Rs.26 per liter. It is only the masses who are bearing the brunt of crisis after crisis, even during this hard time of corona virus. however, government is doing nothing, except blaming hidden mafia for all economic misshape in the country. Thus, lacking efficient and people centric policies in country which ensure relief and assistance to face the pandemic.

What it needs to restore the good governance in country, through strong and independent parliament which make laws for citizens well-being, supremacy of the rule of law to ensure accountability across the board, de-politicization of state institutions in order to eliminate the culture of favoritism, exemption, and undue rewards and subsidies, public-private partnership to foster economic growth and development in country as well as making infrastructure better, human resources development through training institutions, and last but not least zero tolerance for corruption at all level.

Continue Reading

South Asia

How the reservation system of India is defining a new era of human rights violation

Published

on

India at the time of its independence made a provision to reserve around 22 per cent of the seats in education and government jobs. The lawmakers did this with an intention to uplift the socially marginalised class of the society (which includes Dalits and the tribals) but with the time this system raised some serious concerns. These concerns did not come until the application of another 27 per cent of reservation provided for the other backward class (OBCs) of the society. The move was completely motivated by political earnings and raised the total reservation from 22 per cent to around 50 per cent.
 
Here, one of the problems with this system is that anyone who comes from the reserved section can take admissions and jobs with very fewer marks as compared to the unreserved class of the society which somehow jeopardizes the quality of education and industry. Moreover, a very low cutoff mark for the reserved candidates is victimising with those who fight in unreserved class. Now many of you are wondering how it can be decided that someone would fight in the reserved category or not. The answer is simple and straight if someone takes birth in Dalits, OBCs and tribal’s family then he can enjoy the facility of reservation. It totally depends on your birth. Also, this system claims around 60 per cent of the Indian population. Alas, the low cutoff for these reserved category people is sinking the talent of the country in sadness. Now, Imagine a system which produces a pool of teachers who scored in negatives in their exams. This is exactly what’s happening in India. In one of its largest states Rajasthan, many candidates got selected by just scoring in negatives. These teachers who were not able to score even zero marks are teaching maths and science in the government schools and colleges. Even for the top engineering colleges students with an unreserved class have to score four times as compare to the reserved class students. This disparity and segregation is killing the young gifted brains and prefers the worst.  In IITs, which produces top engineers of the world, the last year cutoff for the unreserved category is twice to the reserved category students. This means if perversely, you took birth in any of the unreserved class then you are supposed to score as twice or sometimes thrice the students of the unreserved class. Ominously, this highly convoluted system dooms the talent of the country.  

This is why many of the meritorious and highly compatible students are not able to take admissions in the top science and technology colleges. This trend recapitulates in Jobs and also in some contractual services. The bureaucracy of India is not working fine. Everything is in chaos, thanks to the reservation system. The major dent which this system has done on India is the destruction of science and technology. The reserved seats in space agency like ISRO and defence sectors are pushing India backward. In a result of this, still, India has to depend heavily on the foreign powers in an order to satisfy its technological needs. Whereas, its bystander China is leading a way forward in terms of science and technology even though both countries have nearly the same proportion of the men power.

Due to heavy reservation and the worst application of this system, many of the bright students move to Europe or in the United States. Adding to this, one of the states Tamil Nadu has a reservation ceiling of 69% in Jobs and education. This is pushing students of the unreserved class to move out of the state or even from the country. Sundar Pichai, Ceo of google’s parent company Alphabet is the best in explaining what I am trying to say. Sundar Pichai is an IIT graduate and has its roots from the Tamil Nadu but heavy reservation and fewer opportunities drove him to the United States.

Apart from the issue of talent flushing, it is also under-representing the unreserved section of the society. In Tamil Nadu, one of the unreserved class is Brahmanical society who lost their representation due to disturbing reservation policies. Jotting down that this society is one of the leading educated society but reservation brings down their talent as well as their representation. Not only reservation, but this unreserved class is also suffering from the suffocating caste-based policies of the government. Due to their social structure, they are obliged to pay more for the government services as compared to the reserved section.
 This unreserved class is like the slaves of the colonial era who have to pay more for the services and in return received humiliation. The amount of humiliation can be calculated by this that a poor student from an unreserved category has supposed to pay thrice to the rich student of a reserved class. Moreover, the voice of these unreserved class people in India has no social status as many of the Dalit writers and activists who come from the reserved category is disseminating false and irrelevant information about the Brahmins, Rajputs and Baniyas who belong to the unreserved section of the society. The bombardment of these scripted articles comes from the mainstream media outlets where these Dalit writers accentuated more on propagating false writeups.

However, a small section of reserved society also wants some changes in the existing structure of the reservation. In spite of all these things, some leaders from the Dalit society has made their caste-based political organizations who engage in abusing Brahmins and the people from the unreserved section. The amount of hate and violent thoughts they are carrying can be anticipated by a report prepared by a Delhi based news portal, Falana Dikhana. This portal exposed their one of the highly recognised leader Chandrashekhar Azaad who used to write sexual, offensive and hateful words for the female tweeter users who belongs to the unreserved class. The comments were made by the official verified account of the Dalit leader. In its series of reports, Falana Dikhana tells the truth of these Dalit leaders and how their nexus is working in abusing the Brahmins and the unreserved class of the society.

The condition of unreserved class in India is just like a slave. Whether its to take admissions, paying fees or to take jobs they are compelled to suffer. They die daily, not once but at every moment. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Science & Technology1 hour ago

FLATOD-19 – Flexible Tourism Destinations: An innovative management tool for visitors and destinations

In the time of Covid-19 epidemic, the destinations of any kind, around the globe, must consider the probability of never...

Southeast Asia3 hours ago

Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia amid the rising tide of secessionism in the region

Secessionist tendencies in Indonesia’s province of West Papua have recently been attracting a great deal of attention from experts and...

Europe5 hours ago

Origins of Future discussed – Vienna Process launched

The first July day of 2020 in Vienna sow marking the anniversary of Nuremberg Trials with the conference “From the...

Middle East6 hours ago

Al-Kadhimi’s government in its first test

On June 26, 2020, Iraq’s prime minister, Mostafa al-Kadhimi (MK), demanded the counter-terrorism forces head to a place located on...

Americas8 hours ago

Socio-Economic Implications of Canadian Border Closure With U.S.

After doing a  detailed analysis of situation emerging from the closure of the border between    Canada and  US, it could...

Green Planet10 hours ago

Green Politics: What Drives Us and What Drove Us?

Authors: Aaditya Vikram Sharma and Anurag Mishra In the previous installment, the authors discussed the ‘discovery’ of damage to the...

South Asia12 hours ago

Sino-India Emerging Rivalry: Implications for Stability of South Asia

India and China, both heirs to ancient civilizations, have emerged today as the two most powerful and influential Asian nations...

Trending