A practical and realistic roadmap for Pashun unification

[Toramana]

Although, my time is very constrained, I want to spare few moments to this very important topic.


As the recent events have demonstrated, the question of Pashtun unification was not as important as it is today. The British-imposed colonial divisions and the resulting loss of political power have cost us dearly in terms of human asset as well as material well-being. One consequence of the division is the prolongation of our tribal social structure which has hampered nation-building in Pashtuns and which would have broken down were our lands united and had an extensive economic and cultural activity taken place between Pashtuns. Another consequence is the large-scale destruction we Pashtuns faced in the proxy wars that foreign powers fought on our land to pursue their regional and global political agenda.


It is a common fact that the kind of national feeling a community needs to maintain its internal cohesion requires a core region, which can sustain its culturally and economically most productive population and urban centers and where its political power-class can prosper and be active. In Pashtuns, if there are any such regions, they are Peshawar Valley starting from Indus and extending as far as Ningarhar-Laghman-Kabul, and Kandahar-Queta Valley stretching from Helmand to Sibbi. The Durnad Line has divided these regions, like a human body is cut into two, effectively putting an end to any role these valleys could have played in enabling the Pashtuns to develop, organize, and rise as a politically united and sovereign nation and claim its due place and status in the region.


What is the future of the region and what does it hold for us, Pashtuns?


As is obvious, the geopolitical order that was built around the bipolar world-structure has collapsed. With that has also gone the false pride of Pashtuns to be the owner of a state i.e., Afghanistan. The ominous signs are, there are two adversarial or more appropriately antagonist powers on the rise in the neighbourhood of Pashtuns; a politically re-juvenile and culturally hegemonic Tajak/Farsiwan power in the north and equally expansionist and aggressive Indian Muslim power led by Punjbis in the south. Would Pashtuns become sandwiched between these two powers and surrender their sovereignty to them for one or two more centuries? Or can Pashtuns rise to the situation and reclaim their due status and role in the region?


Pashtuns already have lost influence to these two groups and have only a grossly diminished representation in the power structures and institutions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Another persistent threat if the division of Pashtuns continued is the possibility of foreign powers to use Pashtun land again for their global or regional political agenda and turf wars. This division enabled the British Empire, and later its global heir, the US, to use Pahtun muscle and land to counter and defeat a globally assertive Russia. What is the guarantee that these powers i.e., US, etc. wouldn't use Pashtun land and people again to encircle and bleed China in Sinkiang? If Pashtuns couldn't have a political power center and elite that has a clear and unified vision, how could Pashtun interests be arbitrated/negotiated in the regional power dispensation and their future secured of uncertainty and instability due to "great-powers" politics/rivalry?

These are questions I ask of PF members. Specifically, what is a realistic and practical roadmap for the ultimate Pashtun unification?

[Wrayun]

I agree with the premise of your statements, though there are certain things I like to point out.

The British, or for that matter any other power/empire, have tried to domestic us and tried to diminish our tribal structure. The credit for prolongation of our tribal society goes to no other than us, the Pukhtoons. The resistance that came against any sort of implementation of modern citizenry midst Pukhtoons came from the Pukhtoons. It is not an easy process to get rid of a structure around which a people have built their entire society ie. laws, customs, ethics, economics, knowledge, and government. Independent and free societies like that of the Pukhtoons are annoyed by change, especially if it is strange and foreign. Naturally, Pukhtoons have and will fight against it.

Change only happens gradually, a very slow process. It can never happen through force, and speaking of force, we are talking about forcing none other then Pukhtoons here. This trait was/is evident in almost all tribal societies that faced invading global powers. But, unlike others, the Pukhtoons have this natural tendency to drop all enmities when it comes to resisting outsiders amongst themselves, and unite against external forces as a single entity. This single quality has saved Pukhtoons from the fate that many other tribal societies experienced, from the Americas, to Africa, and the Middle East. In other societies, the lack of such unity against foreigners resulted in their enslavement and domestication, the polarization of their heritage, and the extinction of their identity. I am against tribalism, but I can’t deny the crucial role it has played in helping and maintaining Pukhtoonyat. But I agree it has to be done away with, and promotion of Pukhtoons as citizens of nation, instead of members of a tribe, should be promoted.

Based on personal observation, the only time so-called Pukhtoons undermine Pukhtoon national interests is when they are disassociated from Pukhto, (the language and the culture). Whether that disassociation is a result of external forces (migration) or conscious convictions (conditioning), doesn't matter, the goal is to implement radical concepts alien to Pukhtoons. We witness that such Pukhtoons who serve outsiders, all have one thing in common, their lack of love Pukhto (or if there is any, it superficial romanticism), and their love for external philosophies and ideas at the expense of Pukhtoonyat. They suppress…or claim to promote, Pukhtoon Nationalism and interests, all the while in ways that are in complete contrast to what Pukhtoons actually believe and aspire to. The target is always Pukhtoon sensitivities and culture in their endeavours, whether that be banning the melodies of Rabab, the performing of Attan, or attempting to "liberate" our men and women under the empty slogans of freedom (while no one have fought for FREEDOM like the way Pukhtoons have, EVER!).

The selfish (and treasonous) extremists from all sides are tearing the fabrics of Pukhtoon society apart, each pleasing their own unique masters.

Specifically, what is a realistic and practical roadmap for the ultimate Pashtun unification?

The unification of Pukhtoons is only possible when Pukhtoons realize that the only thing that matters today is their own sovereignty, their own independent homeland and unification with their own ethnic brethren. What matters is what the masses amongst the Pukhtoons want, not what some individual scholars/entities of external ideals would like the Pukhtoons to subscribe to i.e. deobandism, jihadism, wahabism, secularism, liberalism, or communism. Pukhtoons have their own ism, that is Pukhtoonism, and Pukhtoonism has a place for all these other ism's. Pukhtoons are conservatives about some aspects of life, and liberal about others. That is what needs to be understood. They can't and shouldn't be forced to yield to one single set of beliefs. When ever that has happened, it has back-fired.

The need of the hour is Pukhtoon scholars, educators, and leaders that can derive a law, a system, based on what Pukhtoons want, what the Pukhtoon people aspire towards. Pukhtoons need a government that represents the Pukhtoon PEOPLE, not the people of foreign lands and what they hold morally valid and applicable. A system, an ideology, based on Pukhtoon morals and principles. We need the promotion of ideas and values that Pukhtoon elders, forefathers, and national leaders prescribe to. It is due to a lack of such a comprehensive policy based on Pukhtoon national and cultural sentiments that has forced Pukhtoons in supporting different extremes. Even though they might not agree with what these extremes represent in their entirety, Pukhtoon are politically divided due to certain aspects that they agree to within these certain ideologies.

I like to point out that any approach towards unification can’t be a biased one. True Pukhtoon, loyal sons, will hold everyone equally responsible. We can't tolerate double standards and hypocrisy, because if such claims can be directed towards those who are trying to represent Pukhtoon interest, they'll loose all credibility as neutral and balanced parties. It is important that everyone is equally criticized, religious or irreligious. Pukhtoons though simple people can see right through nonsense. They have to be treated as "adults" on all sides when being addressed. You can't sugar coat Parsiwan/Loy Afghanistan while Punjaabis/Loy Pakistan = equal bad & vice versa. You can't critize the religious while ignoring the follies of the irreligious & vice versa. Pukhtoons appreciate qualities that embodies sincerity. That is the only way to win them.

Last, Arabs, Parsiwan, Punjaabis, or Westerners can't be blamed for our shortcomings. We can't always play the victim card and continue to moan about foreign conspiracies and agendas without first addressing our own faults. We can't hope for a homeland that compromises other peoples national or ethnic aspirations. You can't have an Afghanistan where Pukhtoons are exclusive "Afghans" while others are just citizens, that is nonsense, and no one will agree to it. You can't blame Pakis, or Punjaabis, while a section of our own society is at fault for continuously selling itself short as proxies for the right price. We can't have a LOY ANYTHING while curbing the right of self-determination of others. We have to hold on to, and demand, what is truly ours. Try to achieve what is practically achievable instead of being lost in nostalgia of the empire of yesterdays.

When certain members frequently blame Punjoos, Ayrabs, Parsiwans, Amrikaans etc. for our misery, all I see is the poisoning of our young minds, where we are not encouraging responsibility, rather we are making them lazy by putting blame on others. I would say that this is the primary reason why Pukhtoon nationalist parties and leaders have failed. Besides the fact that it makes Pukhtoon look like an arrogant bunch of closet fascists, we also take away personal responsibility from our people by giving them scapegoats. When we address the religious lot, that hey, don't blame Jews or Kafirs for your shortcomings, do something. We should apply that logic when it comes to Pukhtoon Nationalism. Don't just entirely blame Parsiwan or Punjaabis for our shortcomings, do something!

It is one of the primary reasons that leads me to believe that people are not serious about "unification", instead they wish to settle scores and vendettas with their usual tirades.

[Toramana]

Wrayun, tribal social structure is not something Pashtuns wanted of their own volition. Every social sturucture arises in the first place as a result of the natural conditions in which a community lives and the ways of production possible in that environment. With the passage of time, vested interests and status-quo (as the maliki or mashari system in Pashtun tribal structure) become associated with it and is resistant to any change in the existing structure. Such structure and status-quo can be broken down only with an enhanced level of economic activity (which alters the political power structure of the society) brought about by new ways of production.

In Pashtuns, the tribal social structure prolongated because of the political order imposed on Pashtuns by foregners. The gravest crimes done to Pashtuns are the British who divided Pashtuns in many pieces (each living under different political system) halting economic relations to get established between various Pashtuns, ---relations which could have brought down the antiquated and disfunctional tribal structure in Pashtuns and transformed their society.

Peshawar Valley is prime example of how tribal relations melt down to give way to new set of relations based on new economic (non-aggrarian) bonds and social ties, when a society is allowed to be internally dynamic/mobile. People are increasingly becoming indifferent to or unconcerned about their tribal affiliations when they move to live togethor in urban localities or when they interact more extensively among themselves.

Anyhow, thank you for responding to this post. Hope you contribute further.

[Toramana]

The purpose of this thread is to look into the following questions.

(1) Is unification of Pashtuns necessary?
(2) Do the ground/objective conditions allow it?
(3) Would any advantage accrue from the unification?

Kindly, deliberate upon it from the angles above and provide your arguments in support of or against the unification. In the last, we should be able to conceive a realistic roadmap if the unification were considered to be desirable.

[Shehbaz Khan]

Interesting thread and a very summarized post by Wrayun.. I am looking forward for some more members and their replies

[tor_khan]

^ Thank you Jasmine and Wrayun.

Our identity lies in our language.

Based on personal observation, the only time so-called Pukhtoons undermine Pukhtoon national interests is when they are disassociated from Pukhto, (the language and the culture). Whether that disassociation is a result of external forces (migration) or conscious convictions (conditioning), doesn't matter, the goal is to implement radical concepts alien to Pukhtoons. We witness that such Pukhtoons who serve outsiders, all have one thing in common, their lack of love Pukhto (or if there is any, it superficial romanticism), and their love for external philosophies and ideas at the expense of Pukhtoonyat.

Bacha Khan was a man in a million. He foresaw much of this, but I take inspiration from the words he spoke on his deathbed. Having asked to be buried in Jalalabad, he looked up his family as they were gathered around him and reminded them that, "One day, this* will all be one."

Never forget his words.

*the Pashtoon lands

[Toramana]

Hi Wrayun, I appreciate your reply to my post and agree with much of its contents especially with regard to what you have said about the untenable position we take and double standards we employ when we look at the issues Pashtuns are facing in Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, there are some observations I'll make here about your views on issues we are discussing.

I agree with the premise of your statements, though there are certain things I like to point out.

As for as settled areas of Pukhtunkhwa are concerned, you may be right. The British did things that contributed to the breakdown of tribal social structure in Pashtuns. For example, the road network they laid down, the canal system they constructed (in Peshawar Valley), the educational institutions and structure of governance they established, etc. all laid down the ground for social transormation in Pashtuns in settled areas.

But what they did in FATA/PATA on the contrary? They divided the whole areas into 7+ tribal agencies with each agency representing a tribe. Moreover, in each agency, they appointed a jarga comprised of loyal Maliks hand-picked by the political agent, who was a representative of the British govt. Virtually, no development work was carried out in FATA and political reforms/activities were banned in agencies. You would be astonished to know that they were resistant to political reforms in Pukhtunkhwa as well until pushed by Indian National congress. Political process obviously is important for national integration because it involves(and unites) people accross social and political spectrum.

They also divided Pashtun lands insulating one Pashtun from another.
Overall, they did what suited their interests. In some areas, they did political and economic reforms but in other areas, they blocked these reforms. They were flexible in their handling of Pashtuns and in their approach to achieve their objectives doing things geared towards the perpetuation of their colonial hold.

[Toramana]

Change only happens gradually, a very slow process. It can never happen through force, and speaking of force, we are talking about forcing none other then Pukhtoons here......

Yes, change happens gradually/incrementally but at some point it becomes quantum/qualitative if not disrupted/arrested either by internal factors or external forces and if allowed to propagate and expand. Ultimately, it brings down the social order and values out of mode with contemporary (economic) trends and way of life.

Remember, tribal social structure is the reminiscent of the semi-nomadic or early aggrarian age and cannot fullfill the needs of modern times. True, rapid change is dangerous and can cause social-political upheavels but slow change (or very gradual change ) is equally risky as we saw in the case of Suar Revolution where the frustration with slow reforms forced a section of Afghan society to revolt and topple the monarchy causing the destruction we see today. So reforms should be done at an adequate pace.

I see (and this is my personal opinion) no virtue in Pashtun tribal society and it has done Pashtuns no good. The earlier it and the values associated with it go, the better it is for Pashtuns. Iam quite sure, given a decade of peace, stability, and development in Pashtun areas, it will fall aflat.

The problem with Pashtuns is, even the gradual change gets arrested (or sometimes even gets reversed) every few decades when foreign powers bring their wars of global or regional competition or, more appropriately, mutual attrition (British, Russian rivalry etc.) to Pashtun Land (Remember when Brezinkski said we would give USSR its Vietnam or we should fight Russians till last Afghan).

[Toramana]

And I don't totally agree with the view that Pashtuns mostly/entirely are responsible for what has happened to them. Yes, Pashtun political and intellectual elite didn't provide the quality of leadership (both Mohammadzais; Mohammadzais of Kabul as well as Charssada) and vision during the later phase (last days) of British colonial rule required to negotiate the fate of Pashtuns with British as Indian Muslims and Hindus did. Bacha Khan (Abdul Ghafar Khan) idealistically pursued (a utopian) union with India not cognizant that the Hindu leadrship would do what is in their interests.

Yes Pashtuns couldn't reform themselves due to the peculier conditions nature has imposed on them i.e., an ultra-strategic location, hard terrian, uneven geography, and above all, an invasion route and gate-way status between South and Central Asia. Foreign powers and ambitious conquerors have always sought their land. But I accept your contention that if Pashtuns couldn't reform themselves to respond to challenges and threats effectively, why should have other powers bothered.

Right now US or for that matter India or Punjabistan wouldn't care a bit if millions of more Pashtuns die if it serves their purpose to continue spreading chaos in Pashtun areas. In this sense, the onus lies entirely on Pashtuns.

[Toramana]

Admin Khan responded by saying



Toramana my question to you is do you want to unify under Afghanistan?

Kandahary, nice question and at the same time, I must admit it is a difficult question to answer as well. Also, nice comment on the issue of Pashtun unification from admin Khan although I didn't see this post before in order to respond to it.


As for my view on unification with Afghanistan, I don't want to look at the unification issue as a matter of personal choice. What is important , are the views of great majority of Pashtuns on either side of the Durand divide. We some Pashtuns, who probably being over-sentimental about the unification issue and preservation of Pashtun identity, start having unrealistic expectations from each other about ways/means of achieving the unification but it is important that we also take into consideration the different shade of opinion about the issue.


For example, you would see many Pakhtunkhwa Pashtuns who are either unconcerned about the issue or in extreme cases, like Punjab-worshipers Luffy and Shabaz Khan, want even the Pashtuns of Afghanistan to pay homage to Pakistan as some kind of a holy Islamic state (after the first one in Madina 1400 years back) in embryonic stage that must expand to take other Muslims e.g., Afghans and Kashmiris under its fold. Then there are people on the other side of the spectrum of Pashtun political opinion, who think Pashtuns' interests can best be advanced and their identity better preserved if they are united under a Pashtun exclusive state. Now such kinds of expectations/wishes are probably unrealistic.


But there are unrealistic expectations on the part of Pashtuns from Afghanistan as well e.g., most of them want Pashtuns of Pukhtunkhwa to severe their relations with Pakistan abruptly and re-anchor themselves to their ancestral land i.e., Afghanistan, a home of all Afghans/Pashtuns. Now this is unrealistic too because what has been done by almost two centuries of political and cultural manipulation cannot be undone in one moment or day.


And I will say one thing more. Ahmad Shah Baba established the Afghan Empire and state but the later Durranis could not integrate the eastern tribes effectively into the Afghan state structure or Afghan society. The most the Durrani kings would do to maintain contact with the eastern tribes would be to live in the winter capital of Afghanistan i.e., Peshawar for a few days/months and occasionally go on hunting expedition into Khattak or Yousazai areas. The eastern tribes didn't feel any profound impact of the Afghan/Pashtun state on their lives in terms of political empowerment, economic improvement, or civic transformation. The Durrani kings couldn't give the eastern Pashtun tribes any bigger stake in the presumably first Pashtun state. The contact of the state with the eastern Pashuns was also very short-lived (1763-1801).


When the British came, they, being efficient administrators and crafty and cunning statesmen, knew what to do about Pashtuns in order to make the NORTH-WEST frontier of their Raj secure from the cultural and political implications of the tribes proxity to Afghanistan. Through a modern state system, including modern institutions, they integrated the eastern Pashtuns into the Raj by replacing their language with Urdu-Hindi and giving them stake in the Raj's bureaucracy. Then its heir, the Pakistani state, applied its own mechanation to repressively robbing Pashtuns of their history and heritage. Today, the situation is, a person of Mardan can make it to Islamabad in a short time. It is just one hour journey on motorway.


Now two hundred years is a long time that has pretty deeper impact. One can well imagine how much of cultural and political manipulation might Pashtuns have gone through at the hands of those who were constantly in fear of losing Pashtuns and wanted to strengthen their grip over them.


Having said that, now I will tell you what do I think about Pashtun unification under Afghan name. Ideally, I will like Pashtuns to be unified in a Pashtun majority state extending from Hindukush to Abaseen. But I know, that would not be acceptable to many Afghans. Even if Pashtuns of Pakistan decide to part ways with Punjabis, etc., Pashtuns of Afghanistan would not like to disassociate from Tajaks and other minorities. The memories of once Pashtun-dominated Afghan state and the desire to achieve that status back are too strong and overpowering for Pashtuns of Afghanistan to make any radical decision regarding unification. Then there is also involved the interest of the (Persian influenced) Pashtun elite of Kabul who wouldn't easily forego their turf.


The other option is unification under Afghanistan. But the point the eastern Pashtuns would like to be clear about is, what for? Is our objective to dominate the ethnic minorities through the re-establishment of an imperial like system and enter into another phase of fierce/intense rivalry with the minorities or to benefit from the diverse cultural and economic potential of the region by entering into a healthy relationship with our neighbours while preserving our identity, culture, and political sovereignty? Is the unification possible at all keeping in view the vigilant minorities that are jealously guarding their newly acquired liberty and the interests of their powerful foreign backers? I don't say the idea is not workable but for this to happen, fear of minorities to be dominated by Pashtuns would have to be allayed through some political arrangement that gives them substantial autonomy.


That is why I say a realistic roadmap that would bring about gradual unification of Pashtuns without causing an upheaval in the region is necessary. Such an arrangement must take into account objective realities like the divergence of opinion in Pashtuns regarding the center of their political loyalty as well as the genuine fears and apprehensions of our ethnic neighbours and concerns/interests of global-regional powers.

[Azmal]

A very Pakistani-centric analyst….From what I hear no Farsiwan wants control of Pashton area but only self determination…and share in power. Afghanistan president, defense minister and intelligence director are all Pashtons.
Second i would like a definition of Fasiwan..does it include the Pashton by blood but Farsi by languages people?
Third, when was we Pashton ever a nation? We always complain and blames others but then its us who betray our own as Khalqis betray and killed Sardar Shayed M Doud, as Pakistani-Pashtons destroy Afghan state, as Mullah Omar is fighting against Pashton Karzia.
I once read about this British envoy to China who in 18 century wrote back to British court that Chinese are hard worker, honorable and brave people, but unfortunately they don’t know their interest.
We as Pashton first need to define our interest and then try to make most agree on those interest. Today all of our leaders are promoting others interest and our people are dieing.

[Azmal]

I agree with the premise of your statements, though there are certain things I like to point out.

The British, or for that matter any other power/empire, have tried to domestic us and tried to diminish our tribal structure.

hu? By create the dagger in belly of Afghanistan so called FATA with political agents which will promote not only tribalism with collective punishment and collative regulation...the forward policy of British Raj which amazingly the Pakistani government continues since her inception. I bet PATA and FATA which means keeping the people backward under the garbage motto of Azaad Sarhaad…the Azadi to shoot at your uncle for having higher Qalia wall then you…or killing your Toorboor.

[Wrayun]

A very Pakistani-centric analyst….From what I hear no Farsiwan wants control of Pashton area but only self determination…and share in power. Afghanistan president, defense minister and intelligence director are all Pashtons.
Second i would like a definition of Fasiwan..does it include the Pashton by blood but Farsi by languages people?
Third, when was we Pashton ever a nation? We always complain and blames others but then its us who betray our own as Khalqis betray and killed Sardar Shayed M Doud, as Pakistani-Pashtons destroy Afghan state, as Mullah Omar is fighting against Pashton Karzia.
I once read about this British envoy to China who in 18 century wrote back to British court that Chinese are hard worker, honorable and brave people, but unfortunately they don’t know their interest.
We as Pashton need first need to define our interest and then try to make most of as agree on those interest. Today all of our leaders are promoting others interest and our people are dieing.

lol....old habits die hard huh khyaali saib? I can't see how you can deduce from this whole thread that it is "Pakistani-centric"...just because people don't buy your Utopian dreams doesn't automagically render them into Paki supporters. It is best to sometimes to state what you stand for instead of belittling a discussion, handicapping it by triggering key notes and words i.e. PAKISTANI CENTRIC, to emotionally blackmail viewers. Though I give credit to these young minds, they are not drones, they can read what is being said and make their own damn minds.

ps, say my hello to mushina khor, I heard she retired.

[Azmal]

lol....old habits die hard huh khyaali saib? I can't see how you can deduce from this whole thread that it is "Pakistani-centric"...just because people don't buy your Utopian dreams doesn't automagically render them into Paki supporters. It is best to sometimes to state what you stand for instead of belittling a discussion, handicapping it by triggering key notes and words i.e. PAKISTANI CENTRIC, to emotionally blackmail viewers. Though I give credit to these young minds, they are not drones, they can read what is being said and make their own damn minds.

ps, say my hello to mushina khor, I heard she retired.

I think you should change your behavior. You seem to have internalized the propaganda waged by others against Pashtuns to serve their vested interests. I have give my reason why its Pakistani-centric..if you can refute it then go a head..im all ears.

ps. Your confusing me with someone else.. you should ask your Bahi jaans from Khyberwatch Hujra...they know me very well...so were people form FB.. although i have recently disable my fb account due to some personal reasons.

[Wrayun]

The purpose of this thread is to look into the following questions.

(1) Is unification of Pashtuns necessary?

Is breathing necessary? Because without unification Pukhtoons will not last much longer. Pukhtoons are in deep water, unification is the last breath of oxygen that can save this drowning nation. Pukhtoon circumstances dictate unity now more than ever. Pukhtoons must unite across all platforms otherwise global players, which include Pukhtoon neighbors, will dismantle and assimilate whatever is left of them. Unity is very important for Pukhtoon national security, prosperity, and to maintain Pukhtoon heritage. Divided Pukhtoons are easy pray, they are being exploited from all sides. The cat and mouse game shifts from region to region, across the borders, before Pukhtoons can do anything about it. For Pukhtoons to come out of their predicament they need many things...a few to note...centralized governance, security, and a cohesive intelligence confederacy that will protect Pukhtoon affairs from external influences. None of that is possible without unification.

Pukhtoon situation is best described by the analogy: headless chicken. The body is missing it's head, it's running around in circles....and unless the body unites with the head, it's going to bleed to death.

Some of the symptoms of Pukhtoon division:

No centralized authority, economy, media, defense structure, institutions etc. Two different financial systems under two different governments have paralyzed Pukhtoon economics. Pukhtoon resources exploited by governments that are under non-Pukhtoon rule, leaving Pukhtoons with leftovers. Hard to counter external influences and proxies due to limitations presented by such division. Pukhtoon areas have become heavens for undesirables that are using Pukhtoon land and people for their own global causes. Pukhtoon culture and language jeopardized by institutionalized alien languages and cultures. Pukhtoon generations deprived of their history and heritage while habituated into admiring fictitious leaders, history and nationalities. Pukhtoons purposely deprived and isolated from the rest of the international community etc. etc.

(2) Do the ground/objective conditions allow it?

Theoretically, yes....in practical sense, no. Pukhtoons need psychological unity before they can physically unite. By that I mean, what do Pukhtoon want, and what is possible? We have secularists against the religious, the loyal Pakistanis vs the proud Afghani, and the in betweens etc. all of this needs to be addressed. Sacrifices have to be made. Right now it seems that Pukhtoons are not ready to make such sacrifices. Any rush toward unification can possibly result in chaos for Pukhtoons. For everyone to unite under a single platform we would need communications and networking from all sides. The first step in achieving that is through an independent media. What do we have to show for that....? nothing, nada...

(3) Would any advantage accrue from the unification?

One can refer to the above "symptoms" of Pukhtoon division....to start with, they will all be cured after the cause (division) of said symptoms is removed. The biggest advantage of it all: the world would become a safer place not just for Pukhtoons but everyone else as well, particularly the region.