Pakistan wants Afghanistan as a Slave?

[khushal]

Well LZ this was the same point I have been making for a year now. When you couple this to the fact that a large portion of the population is jingoistic, even amongst Pashtuns that adds to the probability of a powder keg situation. This simple admission of reality is all I asked for. So you basically admit that an expat government goal will make it a key point to needle Pakistan and you provide the restatement of the historical reasons for Pakistan to be paranoid. So then if you recognize these ground level realities why not address pakistans very predictable response? I mean expecting them to ignore real national security threats is absurd. It's as absurd as thinking assad of Syria will just cede allawite superiority just because Sunnis comprise a majority... Or that Israel will cede land just because norm finkelstein wrote a book. Nation states act predictably.

Nation states do act predictably but the US as a nation state is in a unusual predicament. The US aids an institution(ISI) that aids an organization(Taliban) that kill its soldiers and all parties know exactly whats going on.

Since Pakistan was created by the Brits solely as an obsticle to prevent a South Asian Super power from naturally forming like it had in history. An obsticle that was put in place to prevent the oil and mineral rich central asia and oil rich persian gulf resources from naturally reaching the Worlds biggest market which lies in south asia which would be its natural destination. Instead all those resources are being diverted and used by people in lands thousands of miles away to an unnatural destination. The Mughul Empire was the worlds richest and had the worlds highest GDP for hundreds of years. the British Empire made no secrete that India was its prized asset.

Would the fall of Pakistan (which is the wests number one asset used as an obsticle to funnel resources from central asia and the persian gulf) affect the strategy or equation that was put in place by the brits. Eliminating a Rougue Pakistan (who is openly aiding in killing US soldiers and most likely had a hand in giving sanctuary to OBL who brought down the US most prized buildings and attacked the headquarters of the worlds most elite military), would still not be beneficial and is far important to keep as an obsticle until another obsticle is put in place first. The 911 attacks nor the constant killing of US soldiers west of the durand line still does not trump of how important pakistan is to the real prize which is to keep world domination by diverting resources from its natural owners.

Pakistani generals know that they are more important to the west than the west is to them. they are in a position to tell the west that pakistan can give sanctuary to OBL and still demand money from the US and the US is more than willing to pay up. They can tell the US that pakistan will continue to aid the taliban in killing US soldiers and still demand payment and the US is more than willing to pay up. The US knows this and the Pakistani general knows this and some how the US generals are desperatly trying to change the equation and the pakistani generals are desperatly trying to keep the equation as is.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

As long as there is a Pakistan, there will be no peace in Afghanistan until and unless Kabul is controlled by Pakistani puppets. This is an undeniable fact. An independent Kabul government will exploit the inherent contradiction in Pakistan's ideological basis and will reclaim its territory and people. It will employ India's help to pressurize Pakistan. In retaliation, Pakistan will destabilize and weaken Afghanistan, reducing it to the status of a dependency or an all-out satellite.

This is an inconvenient truth for many Pakistanis, who, after a decade of Zia, are taught to view the world as al-Islam versus al-kuffar and that all Muslims are somehow one 'nation', even when Pakistan supports the atheist Chinese as they massacre Uyghur Muslims or when the Pakistani army is dispatched to Jordan to slaughter Palestinians. The post above proves my point.

Therefore, there can never be peace between Afghanistan and Pakistan until one completely subdues the other. These are the regional dynamics here.

truth

[abassinafghan]

I mean expecting them to ignore real national security threats is absurd. It's as absurd as thinking assad of Syria will just cede allawite superiority just because Sunnis comprise a majority... Or that Israel will cede land just because norm finkelstein wrote a book. Nation states act predictably.

the point is we have been here first , they are just a creation of anglo saxons , to serve their interessts.

and even in their hey days , when taliban ruled , they didnt let off the choke but secured their position and spread the fairy tale of muslim brotherhood .

and we see again how they are playing the double standard game .

[Karachi]

I think its more than time to accept the will of the Afghan people and let them make their own decisions. Pakistan needs to understand that we cannot influence the will of the Afghan people.

However this does not mean that a mutualistic relationship cannot exist between the two countries.

I agree but I dont think pakistan will do this, the mentality of ISI generals is some thing beyond regular people will understand, to them they view afghanistan as pakistan's 5th province, just listen to Zaid Hamid, he basically represents what majority in ISI think.

[roadrunner]

1) Peace on whose terms? The population might not care but state-level politics never cease to function. States vie for power and influence. A population is a mere element of a state. Political science 101.

Your 'political attitude' is one of the main contributors to the destruction of Afghanistan and the endless cycle of violence.

2) I never said that pro/anti Pakistan/India elements should be eliminated. I merely explained a phenomena in the light of Afghanistan's and Pakistan's history from 1947 to 2012, especially keeping in view the 1947 UN admission vote, the 1947-79 politics of transit trade, Sardar Daud's era of "Pashtunistan", Bhutto's response to it and the continuing tug of war for foreign supremacy in Kabul.

You implied it very clearly, allbeit implicitly. Read what you wrote again. anti Pakistan elements will be overrun by pro Pakistan elements, therefore no peace. Pro Pakistan elements will be unjust. Therefore an endless cycle of violence is your goal. Your attitude is not uncommon in the pashtun nationalist expat diaspora.

Don't worry admin khan, Im not replying to you tit for tat or otherwise; there was nothing relevant or interesting to respond to.

[khushal]

I agree but I dont think pakistan will do this, the mentality of ISI generals is some thing beyond regular people will understand, to them they view afghanistan as pakistan's 5th province, just listen to Zaid Hamid, he basically represents what majority in ISI think.

Afghanistan is beyond the control of Pakistan or the US. When it was under Taliban control, it was a threat to the US and any US friendly regime since organized groups trained and planned the overthrow of their respective governments. This scenerio directly threatens pakistan since it has created a reaction from the US that has made pakistan unstable.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Nation states do act predictably but the US as a nation state is in a unusual predicament. The US aids an institution(ISI) that aids an organization(Taliban) that kill its soldiers and all parties know exactly whats going on.

Since Pakistan was created by the Brits solely as an obsticle to prevent a South Asian Super power from naturally forming like it had in history. An obsticle that was put in place to prevent the oil and mineral rich central asia and oil rich persian gulf resources from naturally reaching the Worlds biggest market which lies in south asia which would be its natural destination. Instead all those resources are being diverted and used by people in lands thousands of miles away to an unnatural destination. The Mughul Empire was the worlds richest and had the worlds highest GDP for hundreds of years. the British Empire made no secrete that India was its prized asset.

Would the fall of Pakistan (which is the wests number one asset used as an obsticle to funnel resources from central asia and the persian gulf) affect the strategy or equation that was put in place by the brits. Eliminating a Rougue Pakistan (who is openly aiding in killing US soldiers and most likely had a hand in giving sanctuary to OBL who brought down the US most prized buildings and attacked the headquarters of the worlds most elite military), would still not be beneficial and is far important to keep as an obsticle until another obsticle is put in place first. The 911 attacks nor the constant killing of US soldiers west of the durand line still does not trump of how important pakistan is to the real prize which is to keep world domination by diverting resources from its natural owners.

Pakistani generals know that they are more important to the west than the west is to them. they are in a position to tell the west that pakistan can give sanctuary to OBL and still demand money from the US and the US is more than willing to pay up. They can tell the US that pakistan will continue to aid the taliban in killing US soldiers and still demand payment and the US is more than willing to pay up. The US knows this and the Pakistani general knows this and some how the US generals are desperatly trying to change the equation and the pakistani generals are desperatly trying to keep the equation as is.

Valid points Khushal. The issue with your explanation is that its referred to as "Pan Islamism" here. Its well recognized that there are multiple, potentially uncoupled players in the game. The Generals made a lot of money in the USSR war as well and built bungalows galore from what I understand. Refer to my discussion with Abbassina for any further delving into the issue should you want to discuss this some more.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the point is we have been here first , they are just a creation of anglo saxons , to serve their interessts.

and even in their hey days , when taliban ruled , they didnt let off the choke but secured their position and spread the fairy tale of muslim brotherhood .

and we see again how they are playing the double standard game .

Abbassin,

My personal, but hitherto unbefore documented view is that Afghan dominance is paramount. I agree with you there. But I also think it is important to be impartial and realistic and pragmatic when assessing a colleague or adversary.

Take for instance your comment about Pakistan being an Anglo creation. Sure, no doubt... a series of states around the world are just that... carved out of a former British Empire into nation states. But the reality of Afghanistan's own boundaries and to some extent, its internal matters over the past century were also "anglo creations." In fact, isn't one of the arguments utilized by Amanullah's supporters that Nadir Shah stole the takhth through intrigue with the British? For that matter, Shah Shuja was a clear and admitted British implant. AbdurRahman also signed on the dotted line to secure his borders.

I agree with you that the difference lies in the response... the Afghan people and a number of their leaders were brave and never submitted to these intrigues.

But if this simply came down to a discussion of lets find out who has the moral imperitive, then it would be easy. In such situations, Israel would disappear, Kuwait and Iraq would have had no conflict... and Pashtuns would be united on 1 single stance.

I find it confusing that a whole group of people call the only real guns firing at the Pakistani army (H Mehsud) as puppets etc.... yet they point to a few stupid youtube videos to somehow prove that Pashtuns in Pakistan are held against their will and are hostage like some damsel in distress. There is just no evidence to support this view.

So then if one accepts Pakistan as a reality that is not going away, Lavanaay's commentary is very upfront and honest in this way. I am glad to see such a balanced and objective discussion occur. But I am merely asking him to complete the thought because up to now the argument from the expatriots has been:

1) (Shoulder shrug): Hey we are just the victim... we love Pakistan and Pakistan just isn't giving us Islamic brotherly loving in return... we just cannot figure out why (head scratching occurs next)
2) History started in 1980

The evidence from diplomatic journals and open source evidence does not support this. If we look at Pakistan and Afghanistan as two nation states that exist, and we play by Soldat's rules and use the UN as the arbitor of existing borders, then we have a dilemma.

In any bar fight or fight in general the judge will ask: who threw the first punch?

It is incontrovertible that Afghanistan's successive governments
1) Attacked the new nation state during the vote LZ mentioned
2) Subsequently when the nations ignored their objection they armed Kharot tribal militias to make the first armed incursions into Pakistan.

Those are acts of war.

So then the retort I have heard here is: Freaking Paki (as if I had an inferiority complex enough to care about such drivel) why support Palestine ... its Afghan land.

Note that I never said I did not agree that the Pashtuns would be better united and not under any one's elses banner.

But to compare the land situation to Palestine or Sudan is a huge injustice and really kills brain cells. As noted, the Pashtuns of Pakistan are major supporters of that nation state until proven otherwise. The great difference in the Baloch insurgency versus the Pashtun efforts is clear evidence enough. The Palestinians view themselves as occupied and separated... the Pashtuns of KP do not. They do not view Karzai or Kabul as their lawful capital.

Do I wish it were otherwise? Yes. Am I willing to live a fantasy fiction life? No.

So basically the strategy is completely flawed in terms of addressing Pakistan. Pakistan hold together a motely array of ethnicities simply by using the idea that: its all for one and one for all, ie. its us against these local enemies.

Have their adversaries given reasons to escalate the paranoia narrative? Yes absolutely and coupled to Pakistani incompetence, thats a dangerous situation for the country. The pure idiocy of how the East Pakistan drama unfolded (100% Pakistan's fault relative to the election results) and Indias role in augmenting this process is proof positive of this. The idea that India is some benevolent and local unconcerned Raj Gupta/Deepak Chopra rising power that has purely left Pakistan behind in the dust and is unconcerned about is naive. Indias major military journals refer cleary to the adversarial relationship and India's view that devastating incursions into India generally have come from Central Asia. LZ appears to allude to this.

So the only two ways Pakistan is falling is:
1) If it continues to tear itself apart by instigating a civil war on its soil (something Imran Khan appears to grasp).
2) If its narrative no longer holds the people together

Afghanistan should always have approached the Pakistani problem via pathway 2. The current generation ought to think about it and do the same. Think about it: Pakistan is not America. When America lost Vietnam and was forced to reflect on its internal matter, infrastructure expanded and money was spent at home. Currently only 5% of the GDP is the US is spent on these war related matters. The Pakistani people will be forced to wake up to a reality where their Generals and their government have spent an inordinate amount of resources on the military (hence why military officials are given so much unexplainable respect there to the point of a military position being seen as a luxury job). Without the outward enemy to remain fixated on, a Sindhi, a Baloch, a Pashtun, a Kalash, a Karachite, a Lahori will wake up to find that they were being bamboozled.

Instead, the commentary that LZ has provided has clearly demonstrated the greatest state supporters of Pakistan currently are: the US with its monetary contribution, Afghanistan and India by being the adversarial glue that unites the public in a conspiratorial mindset like a post 9/11 effect.

One has to be smart, honest, and strategic when it comes to dealing with enemies. Remember, Pakistan and Pakistanis perpetually view themselves as caught in a war for survival. If you have two men in a fist fight and one thinks he is going to die if he loses the fight, who do you think will be fighting harder and potentially with a more definitive strategy?

[Shehbaz Khan]

As long as there is a Pakistan, there will be no peace in Afghanistan until and unless Kabul is controlled by Pakistani puppets. This is an undeniable fact. An independent Kabul government will exploit the inherent contradiction in Pakistan's ideological basis and will reclaim its territory and people. It will employ India's help to pressurize Pakistan. In retaliation, Pakistan will destabilize and weaken Afghanistan, reducing it to the status of a dependency or an all-out satellite.

This is an inconvenient truth for many Pakistanis, who, after a decade of Zia, are taught to view the world as al-Islam versus al-kuffar and that all Muslims are somehow one 'nation', even when Pakistan supports the atheist Chinese as they massacre Uyghur Muslims or when the Pakistani army is dispatched to Jordan to slaughter Palestinians. The post above proves my point.

Therefore, there can never be peace between Afghanistan and Pakistan until one completely subdues the other. These are the regional dynamics here.

As long as there is Pakistan there will be no peace in Afghanistan? Kha!!
Like Pakistan repeatedly said that a stable Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan (And it certainly is looking at the current situation of Pakistan after the Afghan wars). Reclaim it's territory? From whom? They can easily go for a refrundum again and ask the people who they want to live with and you know the answer?

Zia is nothing, most of the Pakistanis look down at him ..

[roadrunner]

there you heard it from a real pashtun. you'll need to wait a century or two or sound a bit more sensible before you convince them to join.

[abassinafghan]

@ doctor barakzai

you like to research the roots of everything than i advise you to research the root of pakistan and the roal of ismaeli shuias who follow aga khan ,

their role in establishing the muslim leauge and their history how they were kicked out together with the brits out of afg .

their role in the british raj and their role in establishing of pakistan .

i assure you , you will see things different ...

i agree realities are odd , but that should not be an excuse , for forgetting the truth .

do you really think that the brits and the usa , would allowed pakistan to get nukes , if they were a threat to their interessts ? or if they would not follow the lead ???

and even today , which country on earth , let alone nuclear power , allows foreign countries to operate beneath its borders ,murdering people ,breaking every international law ,and then denieng it ???

independence looks alittle bit different , political as economical .


countries have got interessts and as long one country is weak , it will fall prey to others especially in a corner of the earth ,were most countries are dependent on others by their own .

pe america ou hind e sor na razigi walle be muge sor razigi .

our development dependets on a stable and sure access to the sea , no the afghan flag dont have to be errected over kufrabad ( as much as i wish ) and our flag dont have to wave over gawandar , but the flag of a free balochistan ,which has got good relations with kandahar or kabul , is essential for our´existence .

because the pakis will block the roads as soon they see developments which they dont like , it dont have to be indians it dont have to be any other political threat , just look back at 2007 when they stopped the transit of corn and wheat .

we can not allow our selfes to be choked , because our political weakness lies in our economical weakness , our economical weakness lies in our nonexistent access to the sea .

we are not compareable with europe or swiss , as i said before , central asia is not europe ...

[DaMalakandGhar]

Abbassin,

My personal, but hitherto unbefore documented view is that Afghan dominance is paramount. I agree with you there. But I also think it is important to be impartial and realistic and pragmatic when assessing a colleague or adversary.

Take for instance your comment about Pakistan being an Anglo creation. Sure, no doubt... a series of states around the world are just that... carved out of a former British Empire into nation states. But the reality of Afghanistan's own boundaries and to some extent, its internal matters over the past century were also "anglo creations." In fact, isn't one of the arguments utilized by Amanullah's supporters that Nadir Shah stole the takhth through intrigue with the British? For that matter, Shah Shuja was a clear and admitted British implant. AbdurRahman also signed on the dotted line to secure his borders.

I agree with you that the difference lies in the response... the Afghan people and a number of their leaders were brave and never submitted to these intrigues.

But if this simply came down to a discussion of lets find out who has the moral imperitive, then it would be easy. In such situations, Israel would disappear, Kuwait and Iraq would have had no conflict... and Pashtuns would be united on 1 single stance.

I find it confusing that a whole group of people call the only real guns firing at the Pakistani army (H Mehsud) as puppets etc.... yet they point to a few stupid youtube videos to somehow prove that Pashtuns in Pakistan are held against their will and are hostage like some damsel in distress. There is just no evidence to support this view.

So then if one accepts Pakistan as a reality that is not going away, Lavanaay's commentary is very upfront and honest in this way. I am glad to see such a balanced and objective discussion occur. But I am merely asking him to complete the thought because up to now the argument from the expatriots has been:

1) (Shoulder shrug): Hey we are just the victim... we love Pakistan and Pakistan just isn't giving us Islamic brotherly loving in return... we just cannot figure out why (head scratching occurs next)
2) History started in 1980

The evidence from diplomatic journals and open source evidence does not support this. If we look at Pakistan and Afghanistan as two nation states that exist, and we play by Soldat's rules and use the UN as the arbitor of existing borders, then we have a dilemma.

In any bar fight or fight in general the judge will ask: who threw the first punch?

It is incontrovertible that Afghanistan's successive governments
1) Attacked the new nation state during the vote LZ mentioned
2) Subsequently when the nations ignored their objection they armed Kharot tribal militias to make the first armed incursions into Pakistan.

Those are acts of war.

So then the retort I have heard here is: Freaking Paki (as if I had an inferiority complex enough to care about such drivel) why support Palestine ... its Afghan land.

Note that I never said I did not agree that the Pashtuns would be better united and not under any one's elses banner.

But to compare the land situation to Palestine or Sudan is a huge injustice and really kills brain cells. As noted, the Pashtuns of Pakistan are major supporters of that nation state until proven otherwise. The great difference in the Baloch insurgency versus the Pashtun efforts is clear evidence enough. The Palestinians view themselves as occupied and separated... the Pashtuns of KP do not. They do not view Karzai or Kabul as their lawful capital.

Do I wish it were otherwise? Yes. Am I willing to live a fantasy fiction life? No.

So basically the strategy is completely flawed in terms of addressing Pakistan. Pakistan hold together a motely array of ethnicities simply by using the idea that: its all for one and one for all, ie. its us against these local enemies.

Have their adversaries given reasons to escalate the paranoia narrative? Yes absolutely and coupled to Pakistani incompetence, thats a dangerous situation for the country. The pure idiocy of how the East Pakistan drama unfolded (100% Pakistan's fault relative to the election results) and Indias role in augmenting this process is proof positive of this. The idea that India is some benevolent and local unconcerned Raj Gupta/Deepak Chopra rising power that has purely left Pakistan behind in the dust and is unconcerned about is naive. Indias major military journals refer cleary to the adversarial relationship and India's view that devastating incursions into India generally have come from Central Asia. LZ appears to allude to this.

So the only two ways Pakistan is falling is:
1) If it continues to tear itself apart by instigating a civil war on its soil (something Imran Khan appears to grasp).
2) If its narrative no longer holds the people together

Afghanistan should always have approached the Pakistani problem via pathway 2. The current generation ought to think about it and do the same. Think about it: Pakistan is not America. When America lost Vietnam and was forced to reflect on its internal matter, infrastructure expanded and money was spent at home. Currently only 5% of the GDP is the US is spent on these war related matters. The Pakistani people will be forced to wake up to a reality where their Generals and their government have spent an inordinate amount of resources on the military (hence why military officials are given so much unexplainable respect there to the point of a military position being seen as a luxury job). Without the outward enemy to remain fixated on, a Sindhi, a Baloch, a Pashtun, a Kalash, a Karachite, a Lahori will wake up to find that they were being bamboozled.

Instead, the commentary that LZ has provided has clearly demonstrated the greatest state supporters of Pakistan currently are: the US with its monetary contribution, Afghanistan and India by being the adversarial glue that unites the public in a conspiratorial mindset like a post 9/11 effect.

One has to be smart, honest, and strategic when it comes to dealing with enemies. Remember, Pakistan and Pakistanis perpetually view themselves as caught in a war for survival. If you have two men in a fist fight and one thinks he is going to die if he loses the fight, who do you think will be fighting harder and potentially with a more definitive strategy?

True to your Pan-Islamist allegiances to the purist state and Akhwani connections to its ideological elite like Hamid Gul (kidding ), you have sought to give an interpretation to LZ statement that is the exact opposite of what he implies i.e., there is no way Pakistani and Afghan states can co-exist without one devouring the other. This is because the reasons of animosity between Afghan and Pakistani states are more in the cultural-ideological contradiction (at least from the point of view of Pakistani ideological elite) than in territorial or political dispute. Afg and India define themselves historical states; Pakistan on the contrary an ideological state.

The existential paranoia of Pakistani state stems from the lack of any natural basis of its statehood and thus its vulnerability vis-a`-vis India, Afghanistan, and indigenous communities e.g., Pashtuns, Baluchis, Sindhis, Urdu-speakers, even Punjabis, etc., which are historical entities defined by common culture, ethnicity, and geography unlike Pakistan, which is an artificial entity. The only thing that gives its nationhood legitimacy and secures it vis-a-vis India as well as provides it with a mean to suppress (and exterminate) indigenous identities and replace them with Punjabo-Mahajar Culture (Indic Muslim Culture) is religion. What is it seeking in Afghanistan is primarily cultural depth not just political and strategic depth. By integrating (all) Pashtuns through subversion of their culture and its replacement with Indic Muslim Culture, the elite of Pakistan in their thinking are eliminating the threat to its nationhood once for all. The problem with Paki elite is not Afghanistan not accepting the Durand Line. It is rather Pashtun ethnicity transcending the border. Even if Afg accepts the Durand Line, Pakistan is not going to spare Afg until it reduces it to the status of a satellite state or makes it its fifth province.

The rest what you say are blatant miss-statements and deliberate mis-identification of the root causes of the issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan e.g., you mention Afghanistan`s opposition to Pakistan in UN as a reason of Pakistan policy to Afg forgetting that Pakistan has so far fought 4 wars against India all provoked by Pakistan.

I wonder whether one can be so disloyal to one`s own people and land and loyal to an enemy state-------whether one can descend so much in ideological and political slavery. By the way, is your family in any way connected to that of Fida Younas-- (kidding no hard feelings).

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

As long as there is Pakistan there will be no peace in Afghanistan? Kha!!
Like Pakistan repeatedly said that a stable Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan (And it certainly is looking at the current situation of Pakistan after the Afghan wars). Reclaim it's territory? From whom? They can easily go for a refrundum again and ask the people who they want to live with and you know the answer?

Zia is nothing, most of the Pakistanis look down at him ..

The day Pakistan was created, Afghanistan was finished. There is no room for 2 islamic states between Persia and Hindustan. One must subdue the other.

Fence the Durand, keep the Mughals at Torkham

[khushal]

In any bar fight or fight in general the judge will ask: who threw the first punch?

It is incontrovertible that Afghanistan's successive governments
1) Attacked the new nation state during the vote LZ mentioned
2) Subsequently when the nations ignored their objection they armed Kharot tribal militias to make the first armed incursions into Pakistan.

Those are acts of war.
?

From Afghanistan view point the act of war was the creation of pakistan itself because it automatically involved land grab. The Kharoti tribal militias that made incursions into Waziristan you speak of was more of a matter between the tribes that had land disputes with each other. Before that incursion, there were Masud and Wazir tribesmen that made incursion deep into afghanistan all the way into the Panjshir valley back in 1930. From Afghanistans view point, it is their land they made incursion into. From PAksitans viewpoint, FATA is an autonomous territory and Pakistans flag has never risen on those areas.

[MostafaM]

As long as there is Pakistan there will be no peace in Afghanistan? Kha!!
Like Pakistan repeatedly said that a stable Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan (And it certainly is looking at the current situation of Pakistan after the Afghan wars). Reclaim it's territory? From whom? They can easily go for a refrundum again and ask the people who they want to live with and you know the answer?

Zia is nothing, most of the Pakistanis look down at him ..

1. Stability on Pakistan´s terms is not in the interest of then Afghan people.

2. Referendum?
Why should there be a referendum in a country that is not known to be one of the most democratic states in the world if the legality of it´s creation is in question?

Pakistan is the successor state to British India and according to international law it is obliged to the treaties between British India and other states.

The "free areas", the modern day FATA and KPK, shall remain free or their status needs to be subject to a new round of consultations between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Duran Treaty is nullified by one other point, too: the Khanat of Qalat was sidelined when the Durand Treaty came into existence although half of the border that is regulated by that treaty lies on the territory of the Khanat of Qalat.

The Baluch king was forced to accept to merge with Pakistan but that doesn´t take the illegality of the treaty itself away.

So, my dear Apologetic-Paki-Pathans.....no one asked you to join anyone. I don´t even think that a viable Pashtun nation needs Pakified people like you who would always be a huge risk factor for treasenous acts inside a legitimate Afghan state.
Stay in Karachi, do your business and STFU.