Durrand Conference

[Admin Khan]

To read more about it, please click on the link below.

http://www.bu.edu/aias/reports/durand_conference.pdf

[BarakzaiAbdali]

To read more about it, please click on the link below.

http://www.bu.edu/aias/reports/durand_conference.pdf

Salamoona:

Thanks for this; its so very much appreciated. Its interesting because these choice quotes that the report deduced and that I had previously argued here independently. I was referred to as a stooge of Pakistan etc, a sell out Afghan simply for seeing what history and logic have shown and now others are documenting:

"Indeed, Pakistan has been so readily blamed for problems in Afghanistan (some real, some imagined) that politicians fear being labeled soft on the issue. For this reason, governments in Kabul historically have avoided even raising the possibility of compromise in public discussions. The government of President Hamid Karzai has proved no exception."

"The levels of economic development have also diverged considerably. The standard of living for Pashtuns in the settled regions of Pakistan is higher than for those residing in Afghanistan."

"Islamists have undermined ethnic and tribal unity through their emphasis on a global pan-Islamic identity. But Pashtun nationalists have always noted that Pashtun identity is rooted in traditions older than Islam."

"Successive Afghan governments over the next sixty years rejected this position, even though some of Afghanistan's actions have constituted de facto recognition of the line."

"As leaders of a strong state administration, Pakistani regimes do not fear that the outcome of any agreement would jeopardize their political stability. Instead, they are concerned that by agreeing to enter into any discussions with Afghanistan on the border they would open up other issues about which Pakistan remains acutely sensitive internally: its lack of national integration and fear of separatism."

"For Pakistan, the main difficulty is that its own house is not in order. The central government’s growing problems in controlling the FATA region and Baluchistan only entrench its suspicions that discussions about trans-border issues are just a smokescreen designed to empower separatists there."

Regarding my commentary on how the Durranyaan and the Ghilzyaan of Afghanistan (at least the leadership tribes) along with the Wardags, Shinwariyaan, etc have to tread cautiously when attempting to claim the lands of other tribes... the report also supports this:

"In political terms they see themselves as members of stateless societies that owe little or nothing to the national governments that now declare sovereignty over them. Their identity is not constituted in terms of states but in terms of tribes and localities."

Regarding the natural inclinations of the pashtuns and their ethnoreligious tendencies:

"It was the conclusion of the conference that the influence of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups is not a passing phenomenon. Their call for a caliphate system in which there are no national states appeals to the Pashtuns who have long rejected such states for their own non-religious reasons."

Finally, the conclusions of the report:

"Acknowledgment, at least tacit, that the Durand Line has served as an
internationally recognized border for more than a century, whatever the ‘truth’ of its past status. Debates on the history of the agreement and its status during various historic eras have impeded rather than facilitated a settlement. While some changes might be desirable and subject to land swaps, any resulting border is likely to follow the current line very closely and will not result in wholesale transfer of sovereignty."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I cannot wait to see in what clever way the secular nationalists, who have accused me of having blinders on, will link this Boston University report to the ISI/CIA and Pakistani influence! Somehow then, logic, evidence, historical fact, are all in the domain of ISI technology and contrivances.

[Admin Khan]

BA,

I am glad you enjoyed it. I have many more articles that I will share in the future.

What I find interesting is that apparently it was a Qadiyani/Ahmadi who had brainwashed Amir Abdul Rehman Khan in signing the Durrand agreement. Apparently the Qadiyani was serving British interests. With that being said, he exerted a considerable amount of influence on the Amir. In result, Abdul Rehman inked the agreement. What do you think of that? Have in mind, there are reports that the treaty was in English, and Rehman Khan couldn't speak or read English, so he took his advisors word for it and signed it under duress/coercion. I find this quite intriguing, and I look forward to your thoughts.

[roadrunner]

BA,

I am glad you enjoyed it. I have many more articles that I will share in the future.

What I find interesting is that apparently it was a Qadiyani/Ahmadi who had brainwashed Amir Abdul Rehman Khan in signing the Durrand agreement. Apparently the Qadiyani was serving British interests. With that being said, he exerted a considerable amount of influence on the Amir. In result, Abdul Rehman inked the agreement. What do you think of that? Have in mind, there are reports that the treaty was in English, and Rehman Khan couldn't speak or read English, so he took his advisors word for it and signed it under duress/coercion. I find this quite intriguing, and I look forward to your thoughts.

The Durrand Line is interesting.

The 100 year duration, you havent mentioned it, i think is untrue.

I absolutely do not believe the Amir had no idea what he was signing. That is a poor conspiracy theory.

Likewise, bringing Qadiyanis and Ahmadis also weakens your argument because you're trying to generate support for your argument by poking at peoples' sensitivities.

This is what I think. I don't believe Abdul Rahman would willingly have ceded any territory over to the British. I do think he was coerced. Perhaps it was an outcome of one of the Anglo-Afghan wars. The question is, is such a territorial handover legal in warfare. What would your argument be?

[Admin Khan]

Greetings Roadrunner,

How are you? It's been a while!

The Durrand Line is interesting.

I absolutely do not believe the Amir had no idea what he was signing. That is a poor conspiracy theory.

Well, the naive Afghan king certainly "knew" he was signing something but I doubt he knew exactly what he was getting himself into. English has never served as the lingua franca for Afghans. The King spoke Dari/Pashto, so him signing an English document alone raises a red flag. Simply because English was not a language he understood.If I ask you to sign a document in Swahili, I am confident you wouldn't know what your signing either. You being a bit more wise, I am sure you wouldn't sign the document I present you with[without properly comprehending it]but someone like the Amir, who trusted his advisors, fell for the trap which is haunting us up until this day. I think it would be wise to realize or perhaps know that he must've signed the agreement believing it's a "temporary solution". I mean, the aftermath pretty much tells us a lot about his decision. And something important which I believe we should all realize is that Amir Abdul Rehman in no way represented Pashtuns. Also, knowing how the British were really powerful at that time, it was obviously signed under duress/coercion. I mean, this is like Karzai agreeing to permanent US bases.

You said,

Likewise, bringing Qadiyanis and Ahmadis also weakens your argument because you're trying to generate support for your argument by poking at peoples' sensitivities.

First and foremost, I never poked at peoples sensitives. What I have stated, is widely recorded and accepted by Pashtun intellectuals. Latif Qadiani who was introduced by the British to the king, influenced the king to sign the treaty. That act alone is considered the greatest betrayal of Qaidianis in Afghanistan. You have to realize a few important things RR. The British and Ahmadis have enjoyed a pretty good relationship. It would only make sense that the British would request the Qadiani to exert influence on the Kings decision. And the King fell for it. He was probably told something completely different, such as "rent us the land, and we will pay you the time being, it's only a temporary solution, and if you refuse to do it, you will suffer". Nonetheless, It was Amir’s son Habibullah Khan who later stoned him to death.

This is what I think. I don't believe Abdul Rahman would willingly have ceded any territory over to the British. I do think he was coerced. Perhaps it was an outcome of one of the Anglo-Afghan wars. The question is, is such a territorial handover legal in warfare. What would your argument be?

Roadrunner, my argument is quite simple. If Pashtuns of Pakistan want to sing "Jeevay-Jeevay Pakistan" and speak Urdu, and proudly be Pakistanis, I have no problem with that. I believe in equal rights, and freedom of choice. However, I do request a proper vote to be held so the Pashtuns can for once and for all voice their opinion on this important matter. If you have ever visited Southern Afghanistan, and Northern Pakistan, one thing you will realize is that a border hardly exists. The powerful Achakzais, Popalzais, Kakars and Noorzais from Quetta to Kandahar roam through Afghanistan and Pakistan without any questions asked. It is the Pashtun tribes who call the shots, not Karzai or Zardari. If you expect a Pashtun to have some sort of a "legal" document to meet his newphew a few meters away in Afghanistan, then you need to seriously reconsider your ideology. Pashtuns of both sides of the Durand have considered both the Afghan and Pakistani governments as illegitimate. In fact, it would be of your best interest to know that at this point of time, and traditionally, they hardly cared what Islamabad or Kabul had to say. They live their own life, and if you mess with them, the response from both sides of this imaginary line is fierce. A perfect example is Musharrafs failed attempt to fence a border, he witnessed a fierce opposition from both sides of the Durand. Hell, even Karzai went as far as speaking out against it. In result, Musharafs plan failed miserably. Pashtuns have blood ties across this imaginary line, both the Afghan govt, and Pakistani govt can't control them. Ground realities are a lot different RR. There is hardly any marked border anyways, if you take a look at the AFPAK border. There is obviously an important reason behind this. :-)

Best,

-AK

[roadrunner]

Thanks for the long reply. I'm well, still learning, as we all can

Greetings Roadrunner,

How are you? It's been a while!


Well, the naive Afghan king certainly "knew" he was signing something but I doubt he knew exactly what he was getting himself into. English has never served as the lingua franca for Afghans. The King spoke Dari/Pashto, so him signing an English document alone raises a red flag. Simply because English was not a language he understood.If I ask you to sign a document in Swahili, I am confident you wouldn't know what your signing either. You being a bit more wise, I am sure you wouldn't sign the document I present you with[without properly comprehending it]but someone like the Amir, who trusted his advisors, fell for the trap which is haunting us up until this day. I think it would be wise to realize or perhaps know that he must've signed the agreement believing it's a "temporary solution". I mean, the aftermath pretty much tells us a lot about his decision. And something important which I believe we should all realize is that Amir Abdul Rehman in no way represented Pashtuns. Also, knowing how the British were really powerful at that time, it was obviously signed under duress/coercion. I mean, this is like Karzai agreeing to permanent US bases.

I am sure Abdul Rehman would have asked someone with English skills to read it that he trusted. I still think this is a weak argument. A monarch signing things that his interpreter misrepresented is weak imo.

I agree with the other point that he had no right to split the land up. This is one argument of course for democracy.

I agree he was probably coerced.

But the fact is that he did sign it.

You said,

First and foremost, I never poked at peoples sensitives. What I have stated, is widely recorded and accepted by Pashtun intellectuals. Latif Qadiani who was introduced by the British to the king, influenced the king to sign the treaty. That act alone is considered the greatest betrayal of Qaidianis in Afghanistan. You have to realize a few important things RR. The British and Ahmadis have enjoyed a pretty good relationship. It would only make sense that the British would request the Qadiani to exert influence on the Kings decision. And the King fell for it. He was probably told something completely different, such as "rent us the land, and we will pay you the time being, it's only a temporary solution, and if you refuse to do it, you will suffer". Nonetheless, It was Amir’s son Habibullah Khan who later stoned him to death.

Was Abdul Rehman a Qadiani?

The thing is even if this Qadiani did exert influence over Abdul Rehman it is not a strong argument. In this case Abdul Rehman was under no coercive force. He was just persuaded without pressure.

A stronger argument is that Abdul Rehman was coerced into signing because he had a choice. To cede some land, or prepare to be invaded. He chose to cede land. This is coercion. Perhaps it's not legal?

I don't think the Qadiani argument is a good one, because it is common knowledge that Qadianis are not well liked by many Muslims and so bringing them up just means you haven't got a better argument.

Roadrunner, my argument is quite simple. If Pashtuns of Pakistan want to sing "Jeevay-Jeevay Pakistan" and speak Urdu, and proudly be Pakistanis, I have no problem with that. I believe in equal rights, and freedom of choice. However, I do request a proper vote to be held so the Pashtuns can for once and for all voice their opinion on this important matter. If you have ever visited Southern Afghanistan, and Northern Pakistan, one thing you will realize is that a border hardly exists. The powerful Achakzais, Popalzais, Kakars and Noorzais from Quetta to Kandahar roam through Afghanistan and Pakistan without any questions asked. It is the Pashtun tribes who call the shots, not Karzai or Zardari. If you expect a Pashtun to have some sort of a "legal" document to meet his newphew a few meters away in Afghanistan, then you need to seriously reconsider your ideology. Pashtuns of both sides of the Durand have considered both the Afghan and Pakistani governments as illegitimate. In fact, it would be of your best interest to know that at this point of time, and traditionally, they hardly cared what Islamabad or Kabul had to say. They live their own life, and if you mess with them, the response from both sides of this imaginary line is fierce. A perfect example is Musharrafs failed attempt to fence a border, he witnessed a fierce opposition from both sides of the Durand. Hell, even Karzai went as far as speaking out against it. In result, Musharafs plan failed miserably. Pashtuns have blood ties across this imaginary line, both the Afghan govt, and Pakistani govt can't control them. Ground realities are a lot different RR. There is hardly any marked border anyways, if you take a look at the AFPAK border. There is obviously an important reason behind this. :-)

Best,

-AK

I agree with the parts that Pashtun ties across the border are a lot stronger than the border itself. I've heard a lot of silly arguments that Pashtuns on the Afghan side don't like/hate Pashtuns on the Pakistani side + other way. I've always said this is not true. So in short, i agree with that.

I also am not against a referendum. Canada had one, Belgium too. Pakistan could. This is up to the parties involved. But there is no substantial movement that is bothered about this.

I don't agree with this part: "Pashtuns of both sides of the Durand have considered both the Afghan and Pakistani governments as illegitimate." Pashtuns probably don't care what the governments say if it means some sort of cultural sacrifice, but the Pakistani Pashtuns dont regard Pakistans government as illegitimate. Afghan Pashtuns I suspect probably do regard the Afghan government as illegitimate because it has an image of being a western puppet (Pakistan's government might be too, but there's a feeling that Pakistanis really did vote that government in).

[BarakzaiAbdali]

BA,

I am glad you enjoyed it. I have many more articles that I will share in the future.

What I find interesting is that apparently it was a Qadiyani/Ahmadi who had brainwashed Amir Abdul Rehman Khan in signing the Durrand agreement. Apparently the Qadiyani was serving British interests. With that being said, he exerted a considerable amount of influence on the Amir. In result, Abdul Rehman inked the agreement. What do you think of that? Have in mind, there are reports that the treaty was in English, and Rehman Khan couldn't speak or read English, so he took his advisors word for it and signed it under duress/coercion. I find this quite intriguing, and I look forward to your thoughts.

Salamoona,

I had not heard about this Qadyaani. Its an interesting revelation though. The issue will be what the facts on the ground show and the understanding that this is a generational bind we are in. In contrast Turkish Kurds have not been as assimilated into their nation state and have deep insurgent style ties with their Peshmerga brothers across the border.

The key appears to be FATA. I once asked my father in law about whether his Wazir tribe would ever consider switching governmental ties. He noted that if the Wazirs saw their economic incentives change (note the article you provided cites how the FATA economy is now based in Pakistan proper and abroad) this might occur, but even then it would not be to Karzai. The Khan khel of the Ahmadzai Wazirs are the yargu khels and they are vehemently anti Afghan government at this juncture. However, my father in law has the Afghan Passport awarded to his family by the Shah when they helped the Shah deposte Bachaay Saqao.

[Admin Khan]

Thanks for the long reply. I'm well, still learning, as we all can

Learning is the fundamental purpose of this discussion board. We all come here to learn, and to share our ideas.

I am sure Abdul Rehman would have asked someone with English skills to read it that he trusted. I still think this is a weak argument. A monarch signing things that his interpreter misrepresented is weak imo.

If you have a close advisor, asking you to sign it, and how it's "okay" I am sure you would proceed. Have in mind, we are taking about someone like Amir Abdur Rehman Khan, who valued his wealth over his people and was a British installed puppet. This is how I look at it, his close buddies[Qadianis]told him it's a temporary solution, sign the agreement and keep it moving. If you don't sign it, you might face some serious consequences. I think that is pretty much the reason behind his signature, and the aforementioned clearly shows us that he signed the agreement under duress/coercion. I mean, even his advisor gave him the green light. Besides, I doubt he had the guts to say "no" to the same people who installed him as a puppet. That would sort of be like not obeying your master.

But the fact is that he did sign it.

Obviously I would agree. He did indeed a sign it, but the debate is was it his free will. If it was not his free will, that pretty much invalidates the agreement. What I want to know is was it that difficult to provide the same agreement in Pashto or Dari? This is like Obama making Karzai sign some mickey mouse agreement about permanent bases in Afghanistan. I am sure he might sign it, but his choice does not represent the Pashtun/Afghan national choice. It's a sad event, and it's certainly a irremoveable stain for Pashtuns, but all we can do is rejoice, and not tolerate someone who wishes to divide and impose a border. The day Pashtuns of Pakistan vote to be part of Pakistan, Pashtuns of Afghanistan will lay down their claims of "unification". I would never force someone to unite with me. If a Peshawari is happy singing his Pak Sarzameen, who am I to make him sing the Pashto anthem of Afghanistan? One thing you must realize though is Pashtuns were never given that choice, and that is exactly why Pashtun nationalism is prevalent in most parts of the world. Also, I am sure no one would want to join Afghanistan the way it is right now. A referendum should be held once the nation is stable, and prosperous.

Was Abdul Rehman a Qadiani?

No.

The thing is even if this Qadiani did exert influence over Abdul Rehman it is not a strong argument. In this case Abdul Rehman was under no coercive force. He was just persuaded without pressure.

Well, I think you are being slightly unfair here. He was influenced by his advisor, and pressured by a superpower. That is not his free will, and that is obviously pressure. Had he said no, there would have been consequences. What you and I both can say is, he chose his stomach over his ethnic group. It was all planned RoadRunner, I am sure you can agree with me that the British knew it was going to be signed regardless. I mean, Afghans humiliated the British 3 times in war. They realize they couldn't defeat Afghans in war, so they decided to divide and conquer. And I mean, in order for that to be effective, they used the Qadiani to exert influence on the naive king. The king had no choice, and his "advisor" who should have told him about the implications of his signature, sort of pushed him to sign at the x.

I don't think the Qadiani argument is a good one, because it is common knowledge that Qadianis are not well liked by many Muslims.

Well, like I said before, they are involved in this situation and they have played a crucial role in this agreement. It's not like I'm pulling the Qadiani argument/card in a Republican vs Democrat debate RR. They served British interests, and they exerted a considerable amount of influence on the king.

I agree with the parts that Pashtun ties across the border are a lot stronger than the border itself. I've heard a lot of silly arguments that Pashtuns on the Afghan side don't like/hate Pashtuns on the Pakistani side + other way. I've always said this is not true and a load of nonsense. So in short, i agree with that.

Well, people have agendas and they want the Pashtuns in the west to think Pashtuns of Pakistan and Afghanistan hate one another. Obviously that is not true, and I am glad you are aware of that. Truth be told, they possess nationalities of both countries. It's impossible for Zardari and Karzai to find out who belongs to which part of the Durrand line. A Quettawal can pass for a Kandahari and vice-versa.

I don't agree with this part: "Pashtuns of both sides of the Durand have considered both the Afghan and Pakistani governments as illegitimate."

RoadRunner, I wish one day I can actually have a walk with you in Spin boldak or Quetta where you can ask the locals what they think of the Afghan or Pakistani government. Trust me when I tell you this, they consider it illegitimate. Don't be fooled by the few Pashtuns who are in the Pak or Afg government, they don't represent the commoner.

Pashtuns probably don't care what the governments say if it means some sort of cultural sacrifice, but the Pakistani Pashtuns dont regard Pakistans government as illegitimate. Afghan Pashtuns I suspect probably do.

Nope, you are wrong. You and I can go at this for years, but ground realities beg to differ with your views. Take a look at PF, it's dominated by Pashtuns of Pakistan, and it indeed offers a good opinion on what they think of the Pakisatani government. I really wish one day you can visit Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, where you can realize it's the tribes who call the shots, not the governments. It's the Achakzais, Noorzais and other tribes who decides who crosses into Afghanistan and Pakistan[aka the Pashtun heartlands]not Pakistani officials or Afghan officials.

[Admin Khan]

Also RR,
I had wrote you this long essay but by accident, I closed the tab. Yes, I am mad. :-)

[roadrunner]

Learning is the fundamental purpose of this discussion board. We all come here to learn, and to share our ideas.

If you have a close advisor, asking you to sign it, and how it's "okay" I am sure you would proceed. Have in mind, we are taking about someone like Amir Abdur Rehman Khan, who valued his wealth over his people and was a British installed puppet. This is how I look at it, his close buddies[Qadianis]told him it's a temporary solution, sign the agreement and keep it moving. If you don't sign it, you might face some serious consequences. I think that is pretty much the reason behind his signature, and the aforementioned clearly shows us that he signed the agreement under duress/coercion. I mean, even his advisor gave him the green light. Besides, I doubt he had the guts to say "no" to the same people who installed him as a puppet. That would sort of be like not obeying your master.

You need to present this story in much more detail than you're doing.

The second Anglo-Afghan war was 1878-1880. The Durrand line was marked in 1893.

So it was not a surrender that caused him to cede land. What exactly was it?

This is the trouble with your argument. You don't know what was it that coerced Abdul Rehman.

If it was greed, money, then that is a betrayal by Abdul Rehman, but if he had the authority to do what he did, it's difficult to see how it was illegal.

Present some more facts if possible so it can be seen to be a case of coercion (not greed).

Obviously I would agree. He did indeed a sign it, but the debate is was it his free will. If it was not his free will, that pretty much invalidates the agreement. What I want to know is was it that difficult to provide the same agreement in Pashto or Dari? This is like Obama making Karzai sign some mickey mouse agreement about permanent bases in Afghanistan. I am sure he might sign it, but his choice does not represent the Pashtun/Afghan national choice. It's a sad event, and it's certainly a irremoveable stain for Pashtuns, but all we can do is rejoice, and not tolerate someone who wishes to divide and impose a border. The day Pashtuns of Pakistan vote to be part of Pakistan, Pashtuns of Afghanistan will lay down their claims of "unification". I would never force someone to unite with me. If a Peshawari is happy singing his Pak Sarzameen, who am I to make him sing the Pashto anthem of Afghanistan? One thing you must realize though is Pashtuns were never given that choice, and that is exactly why Pashtun nationalism is prevalent in most parts of the world. Also, I am sure no one would want to join Afghanistan the way it is right now. A referendum should be held once the nation is stable, and prosperous.

A Pashto/Dari agreement was provided, but he signed the English one afaik.

I do find the story that the British gave one agreement in English, then another agreement with different details in Pashto a highly improbable conspiracy theory.

But if it's true, surely you can look at the Pashto documents also. They must have been kept.

Such a theory though would invalidate the agreement. But I just don't believe that it is true.

No.

Well, I think you are being slightly unfair here. He was influenced by his advisor, and pressured by a superpower. That is not his free will, and that is obviously pressure. Had he said no, there would have been consequences. What you and I both can say is, he chose his stomach over his ethnic group. It was all planned RoadRunner, I am sure you can agree with me that the British knew it was going to be signed regardless. I mean, Afghans humiliated the British 3 times in war. They realize they couldn't defeat Afghans in war, so they decided to divide and conquer. And I mean, in order for that to be effective, they used the Qadiani to exert influence on the naive king. The king had no choice, and his "advisor" who should have told him about the implications of his signature, sort of pushed him to sign at the x.

This whole story is very very poor. I don't like it one bit. The details seem non-existent.

What did he sign? People say he signed the English document, but read the Pashto one. People say it was for 100 years (not true). People don't even know what coercion he was under. Noone knows anything.

The story is ludicrous. I can't even think why he would want to cede some of this land in peacetime, unless he just wanted the money. In that case he was a traitor, but not really doing something illegal. Unless there was some sort of Constitution or something.

Well, like I said before, they are involved in this situation and they have played a crucial role in this agreement. It's not like I'm pulling the Qadiani argument/card in a Republican vs Democrat debate RR. They served British interests, and they exerted a considerable amount of influence on the king.


Well, people have agendas and they want the Pashtuns in the west to think Pashtuns of Pakistan and Afghanistan hate one another. Obviously that is not true, and I am glad you are aware of that. Truth be told, they possess nationalities of both countries. It's impossible for Zardari and Karzai to find out who belongs to which part of the Durrand line. A Quettawal can pass for a Kandahari and vice-versa.


RoadRunner, I wish one day I can actually have a walk with you in Spin boldak or Quetta where you can ask the locals what they think of the Afghan or Pakistani government. Trust me when I tell you this, they consider it illegitimate. Don't be fooled by the few Pashtuns who are in the Pak or Afg government, they don't represent the commoner.

Nope, you are wrong. You and I can go at this for years, but ground realities beg to differ with your views. Take a look at PF, it's dominated by Pashtuns of Pakistan, and it indeed offers a good opinion on what they think of the Pakisatani government. I really wish one day you can visit Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, where you can realize it's the tribes who call the shots, not the governments. It's the Achakzais, Noorzais and other tribes who decides who crosses into Afghanistan and Pakistan[aka the Pashtun heartlands]not Pakistani officials or Afghan officials.

AK. I don't for one moment trust anyone on the internet or on internet forums. I don't assume they are even Pashtuns on this site, for they may not be.

You could commission a poll for it

[Admin Khan]

You need to present this story in much more detail than you're doing.

Read the handful of articles and books that we have present in our community.

The second Anglo-Afghan war was 1878-1880. The Durrand line was marked in 1893.
So it was not a surrender that caused him to cede land. What exactly was it?

When I made that reference, I was trying to tell you that you can't control Pashtuns/Afghans by fist. The British this time used a more interest tactic which was divide and rule. What exactly was it? Do you need to give a reason to someone who you installed as a puppet?

This is the trouble with your argument. You don't know what was it that coerced Abdul Rehman.

If you take a look at my posts, I already provided many reasons.

1)Influence of his masters
2)Influence of his advisors
3)Influence of his stomach.

If it was greed, money, then that is a betrayal by Abdul Rehman, but if he had the authority to do what he did, it's difficult to see how it was illegal.

Whether he was the authority or not is also in question.

Present some more facts if possible so it can be seen to be a case of coercion (not greed).

Him signing a document in English, as opposed to Pashto.
Him being brainwashed by his advisors, who were obviously British agents.
Him being a puppet, he doesn't represent the Afghan opinion. He sold half of our hearts, and we regret it. That's all.

I do find the story that the British gave one agreement in English, then another agreement with different details in Pashto a highly improbable conspiracy theory.

Yup.

What did he sign? People say he signed the English document, but read the Pashto one. People say it was for 100 years (not true). People don't even know what coercion he was under. Noone knows anything.

What people think doesn't matter. Since it has affected us Pashtuns/Afghan, we will tell you what we think. We are unhappy with it, and we will never permit anyone to force a border between us. That's all there is to it.

The story is ludicrous. I can't even think why he would want to cede some of this land in peacetime, unless he just wanted the money. In that case he was a traitor, but not really doing something illegal. Unless there was some sort of Constitution or something.

The above is false. There was never "peace" and I am not quite sure what part of him being a puppet you do not understand. He wasn't an independent king who decided to rent half his country. If you take a look at my initial post, I have elaborated on most of this, including it's aftermath.

AK. I don't for one moment trust anyone on the internet or on internet forums.

Fair enough. That's how it should be.


I recommend you to take a look at our library and read a few books on the matter, along with the countless authoritative articles on this subject matter.

[roadrunner]

From what I can see the problem lies at MohammedYaqub Khan. He does not appear to have nominated a successor.

Or did he?

[Admin Khan]

From what I can see the problem lies at MohammedYaqub Khan. He does not appear to have nominated a successor.

Or did he?

Yaqub actually abdicated, and he was succeeded by the new ruler[puppet], Amir Abdur Rahman Khan.

[roadrunner]

Yaqub actually abdicated, and he was succeeded by the new ruler, the new puppet, Amir Abdur Rahman Khan.

There was coercion. That much is fairly certain.

I'd just like to know what was the main coercive factor. You've speculated three possibilities. But each has different implications. The overriding factor that made him cede areas of the NWFP are important. But it seems only Abdur Rehman himself knows what it was.