The question of an independent Khorasan state —Musa Khan Jalalzai

[asif86]

The question of an independent Khorasan state —Musa Khan Jalalzai

The three decades of civil war in Afghanistan caused state failure, linguistic conflict and the ethnicisation of politics. After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, Afghanistan experienced new patterns of ethnicisation, discrimination and violence. The brutal rule of the Taliban from 1996 to 2001 scattered the ethnically embroiled mosaic of the country, undermined the ethnic balance and divided the nation into small pieces. This irresponsible method of governance empowered the voices of those politically alienated ethnic groups who finally demanded the division of Afghanistan along ethnic lines.

Their demand of territorial autonomy and decentralisation of power has received massive support in the northern and central parts of the country. Their leaders, like General Rashid Dostum, Ismail Khan, Atta Muhammad, General Fahim and others are in favour of such a system to defend their political autonomy. After the fall of the Najibullah regime in 1992, they kept intact their military might to keep their territories free of rival groups. As these ethnic warlords received a lot of military and financial support from neighbouring states, they dared to demand greater autonomy, to the extent of changing the name of Afghanistan.

The idea of decentralisation that they proposed was opposed by the majority of parliamentarians. Afghan technocrats believe that decentralisation can move in the opposite direction, or toward separation and secession. They also understand the process of decentralisation and the consequences of the disintegration of the state. In their understanding, a territorial decentralisation plan is not implementable while in an ethnically divided society like Afghanistan, decentralisation could be destabilising, leading to secessionism.

The question is, if we accept the idea of federalism or decentralisation for a moment, one thing is clear: this will further strengthen regional warlords and their capture of regional state structures as foreign military intervention has already changed the traditional balance of power among ethnic players. Today, ethnic groups are more powerful than in the past.

Another problem that enrages civil society in the country is that the leaders, warlords, war criminals and commanders who committed serious war crimes enjoy the political and military support of NATO and the US. They receive money and weapons and enjoy protection. Afghans consider these regionalist and separatist warlords a big challenge for the process of nation building in their country. There are hundreds of political, religious and ethnic problems, which are becoming precarious challenges for the future of Afghanistan. Some issues are decades old, never addressed by the Afghan rulers, and some have newly emerged. Similarly, the lack of modern education, research, political and democratic institutions, reforms and a legitimate functioning state has mainly caused the present wrench.

Sometimes a columnist can become confused among this irksome wretchedness and ask which one is most important to write on. The recent debate on the sanguinary demand of an independent Khorasan state has caused woes for the Karzai regime and its Pashtun partners. Though the demand for an independent Khorasan state has never been considered so strong and sacrosanct before the fall of the Taliban regime, foreign intervention strengthened the resolve of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities to violently pursue their political agendas. Ten years ago, Tajik groups re-introduced themselves as the direct descendants of the Aryans and claimed that all Persian-speaking people belong to them. Having associated with this interpretation of history, they want to establish an independent Khorasan state and believe Afghanistan is the country of the Pashtuns and not the Afghans.

In their understanding, the demand for Pashtunistan itself is the denial of united Afghanistan and they say that the Pashtuns themselves want the partition of the country in terms of an independent Pashtunistan state. They regret supporting Pashtun political demands in the past because their recent demand for an independent Khorasan receives no support from their Pashtun brothers.

The first formal debate about the Khorasan independent state, according to a Benawa news report, started on the funeral of a Tajik, Syed Khalil, in Kabul last week. Supporters of a Khorasan state within the Afghan government, including Information Minister Dr Syed Makhdoom Raheen, former KHAD chief Amrullah Saleh and Vice President General Fahim, were leading the debate. Before going into the political background of the issue, I want to elucidate some historical facts about the Khorasan state and its geographical location in a few words. Historically speaking, Khorasan is the ancient name of today’s Afghanistan. Emperor Babur has written in his memoirs that Indians used to call all non-Indians Khorasanis.

The big cities of Khorasan, according to this group, were Mashhad, Nishapur, Herat, Ghazni, Kabul and Balkh, Merv, Samarkand, Bukhara and Khiva, Khujand and Panjakent. From the 4th to 9th centuries, they believe, a large portion of today’s Afghanistan was known as Khorasan and all four capitals of the state (Herat, Balkh, Merv and Nishapur) are now parts of Afghanistan and Central Asia. The non-Pashtun communities in Afghanistan claim that Khorasan was located in northern Afghanistan, northeast Iran and parts of southern Central Asia. Tajiks were the overwhelming majority and rulers of Khorasan.

During the Afghan jihad, separatism had never been an issue and no ethnic group ever demanded the partition of Afghanistan on an ethnic basis. Neither Pashtuns nor non-Pashtuns accept the partition plan. Neighbouring states like China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan have their own political and economic interests in Afghanistan, but none of them support the partition plan. Keeping in mind that competing ethnoscapes collide, the Panjsheri mafia and their Tajik partners propose that the country be divided into three parts: Khorasan, Pashtunistan, Hazaraistan.

There is another presumed threat of Balkanisation that experts expect after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. This was revealed for the first time by Robert Blackwill, a former US ambassador to India. Another proposal comes from some quarters in the north that partition would prevent a full-scale return of the Taliban. Supporters of independent Khorasan believe that there was no such country with the name of Afghanistan until Russia and Britain decided to create it as a buffer state in 1893. To what extent they are right or wrong I am not sure, but as a student of Afghan history I think this interpretation of historical facts is wrong. Yes, Ahmad Shah Durrani, as they say, was born in Multan but he is the man who established the Afghan state in 1747. Moreover, the issue of Balkanisation will not work in Afghanistan and Pakistan will never allow such a partition plan. During the last three decades of civil war, several attempts at division failed and no Afghan government ever succumbed to the partition plan. In my opinion, such a plan for partition can backfire and fuel inter-ethnic wars.

http://www.dailytime...31-3-2011_pg3_2

[salahuddin]

Tajiks are no direct descents of Aryans. Tajiks were immigrants to the land. I am sure someone can explain it better than me. Tajiks are more turkic looking than your typical Aryan stock. Plus a Independent Khorasan, will lead to an huge Taliban/Alqaeda influx. Plus Khoarsan is what Taliban are using in their videos and policies instead of Afghanistan or a Pashtunistan.

Taliban oppose Pashtunistan but support an Arabised name such as Khorason.

[graveyardofempires]

Someone tell these people that Khurasan is a sharia state.LOL
i guess these individuals such as dostum will be the first to see justice.

Khurasan in these times means Loy Afghanistan.

[Khidr]

Asking Pashtuns what their views of Afghanistan being disintegrated and a Khorasan being reborn from the non-Pashtun West, Center, and North is equivalent to asking Punjabis of Pakistan what their views on Pashtunistan, Baluchistan and division of Pakistan is, or asking Cetnik Serbs in 1990 what their views on the disintegration of Yugoslavia.


It’s a no brainer that Pashtuns will be against it, for obvious ethno-centric hegemoney reasons. So Brother Timbaktu's views have to be understood within that context. Khorasani Nationalism is not synomous with only Tajiks but it is a broad seculur inclusive pure territiorial nationalism. My personal dissagreement with the idealogy is due to its heavy handed seculur leanings and the fact that like all Nationalist idealogies, it's too narrow in perspective for my liking.

[Khidr]

Anyways, the real interesting point here is the paradigm shift within the Pakistani political establishment. This article by Mr Jalalzai is a perfect (albeit one example) of what I believe is a broader paradigm shift in regards to Pakistan’s view and acknowledgement of Afghanistan's diverse ethno-linguistic plurarity.

My university is one of the more "prestigious" universities in my country and so it has a large international Pakistani student’s cohort. A young and Oxford educated Pakistani politician was the guest of the Pakistani club and he had come to give a speech in regards to Pakistan and War On Terror. I was invited by my Pakistani friend (btw he happens to be a pro-Pakistan “Pathan” lol) to attend. After his speech, my friend who knew him, introduced him and I, and told him I’m Afghan and mentioned my city of origin. To my surprise he knew my city’s history very well, and proceeded to greet me in broken Farsi.

We had an interesting 20-30 minute political discussion after dinner, I had kept most of my cards close to my chest but he appeared very open and stated at one point something along these lines:

“I think our government made a critical and unjust mistake in looking at the whole of Afghanistan through our NWFP lenses, we recognize now that we have to look at Afghanistan through two or even three lenses and respect the political rights of Persian speakers, but you also have to understand what Ahmad Shah Massoud did not understand, that Southern and Eastern Afghanistan are intrinsically linked to Pakistan’s stability and identity.”

It was a most interesting and illuminating discussion.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

This is a matter of great shame for Pashtuns. One part of the Afghan state has been surrendered to the descendants of the slaves and concubines of Babur and the fate of the other is being mulled over by Persian-speaking Turks. No Afghan should forget that our ancestors secured the boundaries of Afghanistan with their blood and steel from the Amu Darya in the north to Kalat in the south and from Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif in the west to Attock in the east. That is the core of the Afghan state, the peripheries being Mashhad, Kashmir, Sind, Punjab, etc.

Anyone who considers himself an Afghan should make it his duty to ensure the territorial integrity of his nation. There are hundreds of thousands of Pashtuns who have been settled in the northern areas of Afghanistan since time immemorial and if these criminals (Dostum, Ismail Khan, etc) get their way, there is going to be a bloodbath.

In their understanding, the demand for Pashtunistan itself is the denial of united Afghanistan and they say that the Pashtuns themselves want the partition of the country in terms of an independent Pashtunistan state. They regret supporting Pashtun political demands in the past because their recent demand for an independent Khorasan receives no support from their Pashtun brothers.

"Pashtunistan" only means (or meant) the re-merger of the Pashtun belt (FATA, KP, northern Balochistan) with the motherland, Afghanistan, so that the tribes, clans and families that were divided by foreign powers can once again come under the umbrella of the same state.

There is a huge difference between merging Tajikistan with Herat and claiming the Afghan territory that was lost to the British in 1893. The former is secession while the latter is a case of reclaiming lost land.

Beradar Khidr Hussain, you guys are doing it all wrong. If you want Khorosan or Khoristan (the land of sisters lol) or whatever, you have to realize that the easiest way to dupe Pashtuns is by using religion. It works flawlessly. Do you not see how some forum members so vehemently defend Pakistan (the state of Utar Pradeshis and Punjabis who were afraid of Hindus)? Haven't you seen the Taliban supporters here? And the ISI supporters? They've all been duped into abandoning their Pashtun political identities and rights and coming into alliances with people who want nothing but their downfall - all thanks to some good, old-fashioned religious manipulation. And they've been trained to shout 'kafir' at anyone who talks about the Pashtuns' right of self-determination. It's the perfect crime almost. (Sorry, fellow Pashtuns, I just gave away our biggest weakness).

[Khidr]

This is a matter of great shame for Pashtuns. One part of the Afghan state has been surrendered to the descendants of the slaves and concubines of Babur and the fate of the other is being mulled over by Persian-speaking Turks. No Afghan should forget that our ancestors secured the boundaries of Afghanistan with their blood and steel from the Amu Darya in the north to Kalat in the south and from Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif in the west to Attock in the east. That is the core of the Afghan state, the peripheries being Mashhad, Kashmir, Sind, Punjab, etc.

Anyone who considers himself an Afghan should make it his duty to ensure the territorial integrity of his nation. There are hundreds of thousands of Pashtuns who have been settled in the northern areas of Afghanistan since time immemorial and if these criminals (Dostum, Ismail Khan, etc) get their way, there is going to be a bloodbath.





"Pashtunistan" only means (or meant) the re-merger of the Pashtun belt (FATA, KP, northern Balochistan) with the motherland, Afghanistan, so that the tribes, clans and families that were divided by foreign powers can once again come under the umbrella of the same state.

There is a huge difference between merging Tajikistan with Herat and claiming the Afghan territory that was lost to the British in 1893. The former is secession while the latter is a case of reclaiming lost land.

Beradar Khidr Hussain, you guys are doing it all wrong. If you want Khorosan or Khoristan (the land of sisters lol) or whatever, you have to realize that the easiest way to dupe Pashtuns is by using religion. It works flawlessly. Do you not see how some forum members so vehemently defend Pakistan (the state of Utar Pradeshis and Punjabis who were afraid of Hindus)? Haven't you seen the Taliban supporters here? And the ISI supporters? They've all been duped into abandoning their Pashtun political identities and rights and coming into alliances with people who want nothing but their downfall - all thanks to some good, old-fashioned religious manipulation. And they've been trained to shout 'kafir' at anyone who talks about the Pashtuns' right of self-determination. It's the perfect crime almost. (Sorry, fellow Pashtuns, I just gave away our biggest weakness).

Awwwww that speech ALMOST brings a tear to the eye...

It's not about fooling anyone through religion by making them think being a devout Muslim means puting on a Sayaaf style beard, or by Communism by making them think puting on a thick Shah Nawaz Tanai moustache means you're a devout Comrade.

It's about everyone geting what's their just right and their's. No Pata Khazana style forgeries.

I must say that your story of Afghans securing the borders of the "Afghan State" from Amu to wherever through their blood, is hella romantic. But it's far from reality.

The borders of your "Afghan state" was given to you in return for subserviance to the British Colonialists to the East, the Tzarists Russian Imperialists from the North, and the Qajar Turks from the West. Are you going to deny that your Afghan State was born the same day that the unholy eastern border Durrand Line (and northern and western border) was set up?


Comrade, You are not going to beleive me, a "Persian Speaking Turk"?

Fine, then read this paper of your Prophet Frederick Engels (I'm sure you will beleive him) on Afghanistan as recently as 1857, prior to the birth of your Afghan State, where he describes and distinguishes very clearly between "Afghanistan" and land full of "Persian Speaking Turks" that is Kohistan (Shamali), Balkh aka today Northern Afghanistan

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...stan/index.htm


It lies between Persia and the Indies, and in the other direction between the Hindu Kush and the Indian Ocean. It formerly included the Persian provinces of Khorassan and Kohistan, together with Herat, Beluchistan, Cashmere, and Sinde, and a considerable part of the Punjab. In its present limits there are probably not more than 4,000,000 inhabitants. Beside the Hindu Kush, which is a continuation of the Himalayas, there is a mountain chain called the Solyman mountain, on the south-west; and between Afghanistan and Balkh, there is a chain known as the Paropamisan range, very little information concerning which has, however, reached Europe. The rivers are few in number; the Helmund and the Kabul are the most important. These take their rise in the Hindu Kush, the Kabul flowing cast and falling into the Indus near Attock; the Helmund flowing west through the district of Seiestan and falling into the lake of Zurrah.

[Khidr]

If the territorial integrity of Northern Afghanistan is a personal matter for all Afghans as you claim. Then you would agree with me also that the territorial integrity of NWFP and FATA and Baluchistan is also a personal matter for the Punjabi Pakistanis?
Stay consistent Comrade.

[Khidr]

Afghanistan as a nation state in its current/boundaries did not exist prior to 1897. To link the Afghanistan of post 1897 to the Abdali Empire of 1747 is erroneous, misleading and a revisionist portrayal of history.

The cross-national and brief 30 year old Abdali empire disintegrated soon after its founder’s death and even areas today within the national boundary of ‘Afghanistan’ regained autonomy. i.e. Balkh became a loose fiefdom which looked more to the Amir of Bukhara, Badakhsan became independent, Shamali provinces became a quasi-fiefdom nominally allied with the Barakzai Shah of Kabul. The paper from Frederick Engels in 1857 shows a clear distinction between Afghanistan and the areas which are today Northern Afghanistan.

The Abdali Empire was not and is not viewed in as a ‘Afghan Empire’. Its coins were minted to refer to the central region under its authority as Khurasaan and its leader you Baba assumed the title of ‘Amir e Khurasan’ for himself.

This is in stark contrast to the post 1897 modern state of Afghanistan, where ‘Kings’ of the modern state of Afghanistan referred to themselves as ‘Kings’ of Afghanistan, their territory as Afghanistan and their citizens as Afghans (the latter in fact only took on During Amanullah’s Khan reigns in 1926).

The eastern border (Durrand Line) did divide Pashtuns, but it also gave birth to the state of Afghanistan State. It also divided Shia-Farsiwans in the West from their ethnic and religious brethren in Iran. It divided Turkmens and Uzbeks in the North-West pockets, Tajiks in the North and some Baluch in the South-East. There was and is a “Durrand Line” not just in the east of Afghanistan, but in the west and north of Afghanistan too.

Yes, there are pockets of Pashtuns in Qundoz, and Baghlan, just like there are pockets of Tajiks in Kandahar, Nangarhar, Gardez and Asadabad. Hazaras are also Zabul. Whilst Logar and Wardak are ethnically mixed. However this does not negate the fact that today there is a definite ethno-linguistic and political division of the country roughly mirrored by the Hindu-Kush mountains.

In summary Comdrade,

Afghanistan and your home country Pakistan, are both creations of colonial politics of the time. Their borders are both artificial and superficial. It is not I who is in the business of forcing my ethnic hegemony over others through Islam. I support the right of all people to live as they wish. Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan have every right to create their own state and call it Pashtunistan or Afghanistan or Attanistan.

However, you can’t expect to include non-Afghans/Pashtuns areas in your Pashtunistan just “because your daddy says he sacrificed his blood to attain” it.

The rights of Tajiks, Hazaras, Baluch of Baluchistan (which I find hilarious when you guys include their area Baluchistan as part of your “Afghanistan”) are no less or more than Pashtuns.

[randolph85]

khidr,

most, if not all muslim nations have had their borders manipulated by imperialist euros. what u say about afghanistan prior to 1897 could be said about iran as well. that doesn't mean iran didn't exist prior to euros stripping away its territories. no territory in present day afghanistan or afghanistan of the 19th century was given to it by euros, as in one point or another these territories were conquered/won/annexed by the afghan state prior to euro involvement.

[gadoonwal]

khidr husain sb,could you pls bring a proof to support your claim where ahamd shah baba assumed the titie of ,,king of khurasan,,(not the irani fake source).
The present day khorasan and Sistan provinces of iran were part of your khorasan not just the northren afghanistan.Even if you creat khorasan a persain state you will divide your iran too which is the mother of all persains.
Many of the uzbiks and tajiks are recent migrants to the north but not all of them.


All of the why the persain of afghanistan wants khorasan when the govt is fully in their hands?

[gadoonwal]

imam abu khanifa was ,,kurd,,
The iranians and farsiwans named every famous person of this region persain or tajik.
JAMAMLUDIN AFGHANI WAS FROM KUNAR and a syed pashtun still iranain call him tajik.
That show they are stealing others,s histroy cus they do,nt have one to feel realy proud of it.

[fzpz]

Khidr, how do Pak-Tajikistan relations affect the perceptions within Tajiks of Afghanistan? As i see it, country to country relations between the two are improving exponentially, in addition to the fact that Pak is going to engage all parties within the current entity of Afghanistan. Sounds like my interactions with certain people got through to their head. Pak as a political entity has no intrinsic reason for conflict with the tajiks/uzbeks/hazaras.

You mentioned Khurasan being a territorial entity. One cannot deny the religous/imperial conotations of Khurasan, and how much it means to people outside the territorial/ethnic fold of Khurasan (including the Islamists).

[Toramana]

We had an interesting 20-30 minute political discussion after dinner, I had kept most of my cards close to my chest but he appeared very open and stated at one point something along these lines:

“I think our government made a critical and unjust mistake in looking at the whole of Afghanistan through our NWFP lenses, we recognize now that we have to look at Afghanistan through two or even three lenses and respect the political rights of Persian speakers, but you also have to understand what Ahmad Shah Massoud did not understand, that Southern and Eastern Afghanistan are intrinsically linked to Pakistan’s stability and identity.”

It was a most interesting and illuminating discussion.

When Sardar Daud overthrew King Zahir Shah government in 1973, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto visited US immediately and on return boosted that he had made Pakistan a corner-stone of American foreigh policy. Subsequetly, ISI Afghan Desk was activated and contacts within Afghan polity tapping into its religio-ethnic diversity were initiated. Burhaniddin Rabbani was the first to answer the call. After that, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto would menacingly point to ethnic divisions within Afghanistan whenever Afghan government would mention Pashtun or Baluch pre-dicament in Pakistan (until hanged by the Punjabi, General Zia-ul-Haq).


The purpose of the above discussion is to bring home the point that it is not the first time Pakis have gauged/weighed the usefulness of Afghan diversity in the context of the regional and domestic politics. But there is a limit to that exploitability set by the demographic, political, and strategic significance of Pashtuns, as many as 50 millions and spread between Hindukush and Attock. No amount of ideological or political mechination can guarantee the long-term stability of the region or consolidate Pakistan's fabricated identity until Pashtuns share in power commensurate with their size in both the states is secured.


Any thing less, is going to arouse such a nationalistic backlash in Pashtuns, which would be impossible for the Oxford educated Punjabi neo-chauvinist Imran Khan to contain.

As for Afghanistan history as a state, at no point of time since its establishment by Ahmad Shah Baba did it cease to exist or got liquidated as a political entity although it might have gone through various transformations (territorial, political, etc.). I find it hard to agree with you on this point.


But I admit, the ground reality is such that Afghanistan cannot be revived in its old form. That is what I usually underline to my Pashtun brethern on both sides of the divide. Pashtuns are in no way dependent on Afghanistan's north. Neither Afghanistan's north or the states in the broader Central Asia are a good model for Pashtuns in the sense of anything modern or emulatible whether democracy, economic development, human rights, education, etc.

What we need in Central-South Asia is a political settlement that would enable various nationalities to retain their native identities and cultures yet interact with each other for mutual benefit and prosperity of the broader region.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Good debate going on here


This is why ethnocentrism never works in providing a propserous and balanced society as it pits one ethnicity against the other and cultivates false feeling of entitlement on much the same grounds that Khidr had mentioned.

Despite the pompous and erroneous claims of Pashtun Nationalists who tout Abdali as a Patriotic Nationalist. Abdali's model is entirely different from an ethnocentric Model as he unified with Tajiks , Balouch, Uzbeks and others for a common cause; call it what you want, political stalwart, clever agenda. His system was based on Islamic Ties than ethnic or tribal ones. Under this banner he did not refer to himself as leader of Afghanistan but in fact leader of Khurasaan. Although the word Afghanistan was in use since the time of Babur (see Baburnama for details); it was never a central National Government, but just a generic term in reference to lands posssessed by inhabitants. Khurasaan was of course itself originally a reference to a generic regional area itself in the Sassanid times; under Abdali it became an actual defacto Central Government. The Father of the Central Government of Khurasaan is Abdali. It wouldn't be unreasonable to presume that Abdali's motivation for establishing Khurasaan was motivated by Prophetic references, otherwise, why use such a name which was originally merely a generic geographic reference?

The concept of an ETHNIC NATION STATE is purely a European-Imperial invention; obviously to sow sedition between peoples.

Randolph correctly assessed however that the problem of the creation of Afghanistan and it's imperial origins as with Pakistan is not exclusive to them. The Whole of asia is a product of the carving of territories of Asia, this includes Iran, which was formerly called Persia, Tajikistan by the Russian Imperialists and almost all of the Middle East which was under the Ottoman Khilafah.

Nationalists of ALL VARIETIES: this includes Tajik/Perso-Nationalists who hide under banners of Iran-Zamin or Khurasaan-Zamin, or Pashtun Nationlists with Loy Pashtunistan, Kurdish Nationalists, Arab Nationalists; all present farcical, fractured or slanted portrayal of history and terminology for their own agendas. The Fact is Khurasaan never belonged to Tajiks, to Pashtuns , to Uzbeks or Arabs but rather was a multiethnic society based on Islamic Ideals which belonged to everyone.

the problems we are facing today is precisely because ethnocentric divisions or sectarian conflict has put everyone at odds, and constantly trying to stake at each other; rather than working cooperatively Under a commion banner and cause. Even amongst Pakistanis, the reason such animus exists despite the apparent "Muslim Facade" is ethnic disparity. It's time to suppress ethnic bias or ethnic centered ideologies. If this situation has been created the only way is to undo the situation; and concentrate on religious identity not ethnic.