Afghanistan And Pakhtuns' Destiny

[muhsina]

This article is a master piece. I must say this is a contribution to the archives of history.However I would like to opine on the following:

1) The real issue of Pashtuns is in Pakistan as Pakistan is a federation [hence the historic lands of Pashtuns, Baloch, Sindhi and Punjabis nations make it a state]. This is not true about Afghanistan which is a unitary state.

2) Talking about the state for the Pakhtun race is not a wise idea for Pashtuns as they already have a state where in they are in majority [Afghanistan]. They just need to strengthen Afghanistan and contribute to its integrity and progress so that it might be able to claim its territory back from Pakistan in the long run.

3) The real issue of Pakhtuns is in Pakistan wherein their rights are sabotaged and resources are exploited by a majority through its organized institution called army and its agencies. Pakhtuns need to win back their autonomy from the state of Pakistan and get their rights.

4) There have been kings and monarchs among Afghans /Pakhtuns across the Durand line who did not act in the larger interest of Pakhtuns / Afghans however Kings and Monarchs never represent people. Their vices and virtues are just their individual acts which might be good as well as bad. The afghan nation has nothing to do with any type of hatred for the Pakhtuns of occupied Pakhtunkhwa.

5) All energies should be invested to transform Afghanistan from a tribal society to an industrial society with a republican structure instead of highlighting the nostalgic fantasies of past which are becoming irrelevant more and more with the passage of time.

6) This is the time when Afghanistan is in a transition phase and we cannot expect ideal endeavors for the bright future of just one ethnic group - though a majority one -Pakhtuns in Afghanistan rather we need to defend and strengthen our historic motherland from the conspiracies of the outsiders and infiltrators and the follies and naivety of our own people.

7) The major problem which defines the whole scenario in the current day Afghanistan, in my opinion, is to pinpoint our foes whether they belong to the same religion as do Afghans or whether they are our neighbors or countrymen but propagating and pursuing anti progressive and anti Afghan agenda in the garb of various sacred labels like religion or religious brotherhood or umma etc.

8) Any person or group or country which wants to use the soil of Afghanistan for the realization of some utopian ideal or dream or to safeguard their national interest at the cost of Afghan destruction CANNOT be the friend of Afghans and has to be pinpointed.

[ijaz yousafzai]

What do you think should be our long-term goal and how do you propose it be implanted into our souls?

This is visibly a short question which invites a long answer. We had a hot discussion on this in Khyberwatch under the topic, " What do you support and why?". You can retrieve this lovely debate from the archive if you wish.

[ijaz yousafzai]

Talking about the state for the Pakhtun race is not a wise idea for Pashtuns as they already have a state where in we are in majority [Afghanistan]. They just need to strengthen Afghanistan and contribute to its integrity and progress so that it might be able to claim its territory back from Pakistan in the long run.

Very witty observations. Let's take them one by one;
Iit's a very " patriotic" assertion.
Pakhtuns are confronted with the blatant jeopardy of punjabization in Pakistan and persianization in Afghanistan. The rulers of Afghanistan ( do not )and did not sincerely wish to retrieve back its territory from Pakistan, It, therefore gave lipservice to Pakhtunistan stunt, instead. The core issue is , as how to harness the Pakhtuns' national might and political sagacity to get a sovereign state where they are not yoked under the supermacy of another segment.

[ijaz yousafzai]

Yusufzai wrora are you the author of this masterpiece?

Yes, I'm the author.

[muhsina]

Pakhtuns are confronted with the blatant jeopardy of punjabization in Pakistan and persianization in Afghanistan.

Sir, I agree with the former and have reservations over the later. For the former the Pakhtun nationhood is the solution as in Pakistan its not that we own it and our power is at stake. On the contrary in Pakistan the survival of our language and culture due to urdufication and our political ineffectiveness due to punjabisation is at stake. This is NOT the case and status in Afghanistan where Pashto is one of the official language and secondly Pashtuns are in majority and politically effective too.

The rulers of Afghanistan ( do not )and did not sincerely wish to retrieve back its territory from Pakistan, It, therefore gave lipservice to Pakhtunistan stunt, instead.

I have answered this genuine expected apprehension.To quote:

4) There have been kings and monarchs among Afghans /Pakhtuns across the Durand line who did not act in the larger interest of Pakhtuns / Afghans however Kings and Monarchs never represent people. Their vices and virtues are just their individual acts which might be good as well as bad. The afghan nation has nothing to do with any type of hatred for the Pakhtuns of occupied Pakhtunkhwa.

I hope it addresses your concern.

The core issue is , as how to harness the Pakhtuns' national might and political sagacity to get a sovereign state where they are not yoked under the supermacy of another segment.

This is neither practically possible, nor wise and recommended to have such a state carved out from the existing Afghanistan and Pakistan. In case of Pakistan, while it might make sense to cut out our land from the clutches of Punjabi tyranny and imperialism to get freedom but how any sane person can suggest the same for Afghanistan which is already a Pakhtun majority state?

Instead of making ourselves capable and competent to give a natural politico-intellectual leadership to the rest of Afghans , how could a person who knows the abc of statecraft suggest that as we cannot win our lost leadership from a minority hence why not to separate the majority from the minority and create another state only for the majority. How could you guarantee that the same incompetent majority which could not become competent due to having competition will become so in the absence of any competition?

Secondly why would Pashtuns think of not rewarding any non Pashtun Afghan from minority in any institution of Afghanistan or give him or her due respect and reverence if the person deserves it.


If a Pashtun is a sellout [like haqqani and gulbadin] and a non Pashtun safeguards and defends the national interests of Afghanistan why would Pashtuns like their fellow sellout just becuase that person is a Pashtun and hate the real son of the soil though s/he is non Pashtun?

[khyaal]

I'll try to write a response but it will take some time. I got least impressed by this article. In my view the initial part is simply truism or the obvious history and the inferences drawn from it are mostly rash like when he talks about the indifference of afghanistan during the pashtun's war against the British in the occupied Pakhtunkhwa. There he ignores the weaker afghan military and also the lack of direction of the resistant movements which were mostly local and compeltely uncoordinated. The khudai khidmatgaaran opted for the third option when they had already lost the game due to lake of vision, becuase their whole early struggle was directed at keeping india intact and not winning their own freedom as pashtun/afghan nation. Terming the restoration of loy afghanistan a mere utopia, mr. ijaz simply forwards his own rule for history, while till this time we don't know any such rule through whic we could predict the future of a nation or of the world.

[khyaal]

My main aim in starting the thread (Pakhtun, Afghan & Pathan), was to generate a healthy debate conducive to fixing future goals for the Pakhtuns and to discuss pertinent issues lurking in the minds of the Pakhtuns regarding their future perceptions and course of action.

Yes it is a good suggestion. But it needs sincerity with this lofty cause and a right strategy.

I believe that if the agenda for the future and the intrinsic objectives are not clearly spelled out, then the passion to move forward cannot get momentum and determination. Pakhtuns have been in the vanguard of each and every political movement of the 19th and 20th centuries in the sub-continent and Central Asia but despite rendering tremendous sacrifices, they failed to achieve any cherished political and national gain because the long-term goal was not properly specified and implanted in their souls.

It was the Great Game and we were facing an out of proportion military might of the British which took away with it even empires like the Ottoman and Mogul ones. Pashtuns then had a very small population (perhaps less than 5 million) and they did beyond their capacity to deter the British Super power to take complete control of their land.

They formed the strong nuclei of Alaptagin’s, Subaktagin’s,Mehmud Ghaznavi’s and Mughal’s triumphant armies but they remained merely headless opportunists interested only in the booties.

It was the norm of the day and Pashtun/Afghans were no exception. Didn't the newly converted Muslims in non Arab regions fought for the expansion of the Arab empire? Even Christians fought alongside the Arab in war against Persia.

Later, they offered a heroic struggle for the freedom of the Sub-continent, but when they achieved it by ousting the British colonialists, they suddenly found themselves in a blind alley as the “Pakhtun national goal” was never clarified to them in explicit terms,( --will be dealt with in a subsequent article), and hence they could only replace the White Masters by the Brown Sahibs. Our so-called Pakhtun nationalist leadership has been resorting to obscure terminology and vague discourses about the destiny of the Pakhtuns, switching over stances, somersaulting and hood winking the simple Pakhtuns.

I don’t know which Pashtun leadership you are talking about but we have fortunately found leaders who know better than most so-called pashtun intellectuals.

I believe that we have reached a cross road where we need to make decisions “now or never”. In the prevailing international and regional political scenario, Pakhtuns are under sharp focus of international and regional political actors but before they are carried away by the brewing storm, they need to wake up to the occasion and harness their fate themselves. They, now desperately need to stop playing as mere mercenaries in the hands of the aliens without thinking of their own national interests and the future of their progenies. I firmly believe that strong nationalist sentiments are deeply engraved in the grains of the Pakhtuns, which need to be streamlined, focused, converged and put in a direction leading to a well-defined tomorrow of the Pakhtuns. This thread as the motive was has agitated several sharp questions, which will be addressed in the succeeding paragraphs, in the limited ambit of my meager understanding. I would first venture to define the historical geography and demography of the Pakhtunland (Pukhtun Watan), described in the annals of history to move this debate further.

Yes indeed this time that they should wake up now.

Pakhtunland has been mentioned by the historians and its own people as Roh and Pakhtunkhwa. Most of the parts of today’s Afghanistan, which are held by non-Pakhtuns, were previously inhabited by the Pakhtuns. Kabul, predominantly a Pakhtun city of the yester year has turned Persianized.

So in your view that you call as persianized people should be expelled from kabul? You think these people have occupied parts of this land? How you came to this conclusions. Perhaps you are taking it for Peshawar, Naushehra, Kohat cants with huge luxurious military colonies.

The Khakhay tribes of the Pakhtuns were major citizens of Kabul at the times of Mirza Ulugh Beg, who was raised to the throne of Kabul by the Yusufzais. Herat has been a major seat of the Abdali rulers, till they were dispossessed by the Iranian sovereign Nadir Shah Afshar. Laveek Pakhtuns held Zabul to Ghazni and Ghazni to Gardez and Mahvee Suri Pakhtuns were firm in Siestan to Ghori up to the celebrated era of Amir Karor, the first known Pakhtun poet and sovereign.

So in your opinion these farsiban forcefully displaced those khakhay tribes from Kabul?

Sir Thomas Holdich observes that Ghor was a vast territory spread from Hind to Iran and from Oxus to Hurmuz. Changez Khan destroyed the social structure of Ghor, annihilating the old inhabitants, Suris and Ghazalis etc, and replaced them with his subjects - the Mongols, whose descendents, the Hazaras have held now the vast land of Ghor and changed its name to Hazarajat. Ghazni was swept by Sultan Mehmud and his father Sabuktagin. His court historian, Utbi has abusively narrated Mehmud’s high handedness on Afghans inhabiting the surroundings.

So Afghans should expel these communities from Afghanistan and this too at this critical juncture where they need more unity than opening more battle fields?

The Uzbeks migrated to Afghanistan as mercenaries in the forces of Tamer lane. Tajiks consist of Turk and Persian progenies, who do not have a single ethnic origin but have a common lingual bond of Parsiban-Dariban.

Uzbeks are Turkic people and not Persian and their bond to dominate or nullifying Pashtuns influence, might be the result of your personal insecurity. By the way Tajik is not ethnicity it is just a label (initially a derogatory one).

With all the demographic disfiguring, still the Northern and Western provinces, like Samangan, Baghban, Kandoz, Takhar, Budakhshan, Balkh, Jozjan Faryab, Badghais, Herat and Farah have a majority of the Pakhtuns, constituting 39% of the population, according to WAK Foundation’s statistics (1996 ) and having majority than any single ethnic group in these (so-called non-Pakhtun) provinces.

These issues have already been discussed at length in various forums and the figures you have quoted if correct should remove your apprehensions.

Pakhtuns played in the hands of the self-centered sovereigns like Sabuktagin, Mehmud ghaznavi, Moghals etc, as self seeking mercenaries devoid of a shred of the Pakhtun national aspiration.

National consciousness is a very recent phenomenon, of the 19th and 20th centuries. It was not uncommon back them to join armies for ones livelihood. Even German unification in the 19th century under Bismark was maneuvered.

It was Mir Vais Neka, for the first time that kindled Pakhtun national fervor in the hearts of the Pakhtun in 18th century AD, some eighty two years before the French Revolution (1789 A.D). He defeated safavid power with the might of Pakhtuns muscles and established the first Pakhtuns national sovereignty in Kandahar in 1709 AD. His able son Shah Mehmood Hootak extended his domain to Asfahan and forced Shah Hussain Safavi to put his crown in his feet. The Hotaki sovereignty only lasted for 32 years, when Nadir Shah Afshar of Persia, defeated Shah Hussain Hotak and held the Pakhtunland.

We all already know this.

After the murder of Nadir Shah Afshar by his own bodyguards in his army camp in 1747 AD, one of his Afghan commanders Ahmad Khan parted way with the Persian Empire and marched towards Kandahar with his Afghan contingent.

And Nadir shah Afshar also became a victim of the palace intrigues though he suffered this fate due to his psychotic illness. Place intrigues were common in those days.

He was appointed as the King of Afghans by a Jirga consisting, solely of the Afghan (Pakhtun) elders at Sher-e-Surkh in the suburb of Kandahar and thus “Afghanistan” ( named so later),came into being under the Afghan king Ahmad Shah Abdali. Historians have identified the boundaries of the contemporary Afghanistan during the reign of Ahmad Shah Abdali, as having River Oxus to the North, Arabian Sea to the South, Karman to the West, Sirhind and Tibet peaks to the East, with its capital at Kandahar. Except some expansions, Ahmad Shah Baba succeeded in carving out a Pakhtun state, which has been the historical abode of the Afghans (Pakhtuns) for thousand years and was called Aryana in the ancient historical record.

Kashmir, Sindh and Punjab were the colonies of Afghanistan and were not included in the mainland Afghanistan. But your ethnocentric version is no more applicable in the modern world where even a **** and Indian could become member of the British parliament.

It is of immense political interest to note that only Pakhtun elders took part in the Jirga, which appointed Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani) as the King (Mashar). The prominent among them were, Haji Jamal Khan, the elder of Barakzais, Noor Mohammad Khan, the elder of Ghalzais, Mohabat Khan, the elder of Popalzais, Musa Khan, the elder of Sakzais and Nasrullah Khan, the elder of Noorzais. The proceedings of the Jirga continued for 9 days at the graveyard of Sher-e-Surkh, where a recluse Sabir Shah Malang was living in a mud hut in the graveyard. He was not part of the Jirga, but miraculously, he plucked an ear of wheat from the nearby field and put it as a semblance of crown in the turban of Ahmad Shah Durrani, after he was appointed by the Jirga as the Mashar .

The immensely interesting point was not that he was selected by Pashtun elders. The important thing was that he was elected by a Jirga through the consensus of all the tribes. It was the democratic way which makes this event most important.

Lamentably one of his sons and a successor, Taimur Shah was more Persianized and apart from a Yusafzai wife, his all other nine wives were non-Pakhtun. He, not only shifted the capital from Kandahar to Kabul, but he also promoted Dari at the cost of Pashto and relegated Pakhtun culture. Parsi was the language of the Court and Pakhtun nobles were encouraged to switch over to Persian and Qazalbash ways of life. His ministers and advisors were mostly non-Pakhtun and a Qazalbash was his personal bodyguard, who wielded overwhelming influence. He (Taimoor Shah) kept Peshawar as his winter capital.

As for as I know he shifted the capital due to a family feud with a formidable Pashtun tribe (sorry i forgot the name of the elders of the tribe). Farsi then was the lingua franca of the whole region. Even Mughuls used to use it as the language of the court. The reason was the intellectual influence of the Persian scholars.

Amir Yaqoob Khan was made handicapped and Afghanistan made crippled by the British under the shameful Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 AD. Yaqoob Khan left Khyber, Michni, Thall, Kurram, Sibbi, Pishin to British government for an annual subsidy of 60,000 pounds and forfeited his authority over his external affairs in favour of the British.

But you should not forget that the British had already occupied the whole of India with hundreds of millions of population and such a treaty was still a lot respectable compared to the subjugation of the whole non-violent Indian population and looking at the much mightier enemy and a weaker afghan state with a very small population as compared to that of the Indians and the rest of the occupied territories in other parts of the world.

One of the scions of Barakzai rulers, Amir Abdur Rehman sold out 30% of his Pakhtun land and 40% of Pakhtuns to British India, on 12th Nov, 1893 AD, under the infamous Durand Agreement and thus the winter capital of Afghanistan, Peshawar and other eastern Pakhtun areas were broken away officially from Afghanistan and made part of the British India up to the hilltops of Khyber and Bolan.

But you should keep this in mind that Amir Abdur Rahman khan was given the throne of kabul by the British while they brought him from exile. Besides if you have read Siraj ut Tawarikh where he has confessed that the agreement was the only the solution otherwise they could intrude much further and even could occupy the whole of Kandahar and other afghan cities. I believe he was completely right here since Chaman border lies a few kilometer from kandahar.

Peshawar was the splendid winter capital where Shah Shuja had, once received the British envoy Manstuart Elphinstone and Amir Dost Mohammad Khan was seen in his majestic splendor by Alexander Burnes, another British representative, but now the Winter Capital was torn apart. Sikhs conquered it in 1833 due to cowardly withdrawal of Sardar Azim Khan, which was officially lost to Sir Mortimer Durand by the Afghan Ruler. The subsequent Afghan rulers endorsed the Durand Treaty in the years, 1905, 1919 and 1921 AD.

You again forget that a scant pashtun/afghan population was facing a hugely formidable enemy with the most advanced military backed by hundreds of thousands of British Indian Army. And history has witnessed the division of Germany after their defeat in the 2nd world war.

The dominant Parsiban lobby in Afghanistan has always discouraged the idea of re-amalgamation of Afghanistan’s lost Pakhtun territories in the fatherland, now held by Pakistan.

This is simply your opinion.

Amir Abdur Rehman was satisfied for enjoying a peaceful rule, though in a crippled and dismembered Afghanistan. He brokered peace with his neighbor by making the Eastern Pakhtuns as cheap scapegoat. The later Afghan rulers did not seriously bother about their lost territories and people. They kept at bay from the affairs of the Eastern Pakhtuns, except keeping a few stipend holders in the tribal belt.

It was not solely the incompetence and greed for throne of the Amir, he had been forced to sign the agreement.

The mass migration (Hijrat) of the Pakhtuns in Pakhtunkhwa in 1920, in favor of the Usmanid Caliphate of Turkey, has brought awesome tales of indifference and aloofness from the Afghan government of the time. When the Eastern Pakhtuns returned from Afghanistan, they were in shambles and all their belongings and even their women-folk, were forcibly snatched away from them. Bacha Khan was also a young refugee among the migrants. When he called on the king of Afghanistan, Ghazi Amanullah Khan, an interpreter was engaged during the talks ironically between the two Pakhtun stalwarts, because the Pakhtun king could not speak Pashto.

It was ridiculous that a nation were protesting against the fall of the Ottoman Empire while they themselves were subjugated British Indians. So instead of resisting against their own slavery they were crying over the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And for your information it was a time when Ghazi Aman ullah khan had newly introduced to restructure and reform afghan society and this group of fundamentalist Indian Muslims could hamper the whole process of modernizing afghan society. So they were advised to go back. But later on Ghazi Aman ullah khan was punished for reformation movement.

And to add to this, it was Ghazi Amanullah khan who established Pashto as the national /official language of Afghanistan.

The Pakhtuns spearheaded a war of independence against the British colonialists in British India, but the afghan rulers kept aloof. Faqir of Ipi, a Torikhel Wazir and a consummate guerilla tactician, led a pierce armed up-rising against the British, which was suppressed by savage British operations, lasted from 1936 to 1938 but the Afghan rulers kept deaf and dumb.

Their resistance and efforts were uncoordinated and Afghanistan by that time could not afford another war with the British.

The person of Faqir of Ipi was so formidable that George Cunningham the Governor of NWFP, had to admit as reported by Charles Miller in his book, Khyber, in his words, “He (Faqir of Ipi) is not only implacable but also completely incorruptible…..who would rid me of this turbulent priest”. A similar fate was meted out to Haji Sahib Taurangzai’s armed insurgence in Mohmand Agency in 1935. The British launched a major punitive operation against the Mohmands by using aircrafts, armor and heavy artillery but the Afghan rulers never raised any protest.

Only resistance from faqir Ipi couldn't bring liberation for pashutn nation, it needed coordination and simultaneous uprising of the whole pashtun nation to the east of the Durand line. These local mutinies though were intense but they couldn't subvert the British rule though it proves the heroic nature of Pashtun/afghans.

The Red-Shirt Movement was constrained to turn its face to Gandhi as the Afghan government had been following an evident evasive policy and it was avoiding harnessing the muscles of its lost population to square the deal with the British usurpers.

Like what the afghan government could do which it couldn't?

The Afghan government refrained from inflicting an avenging blow to the declining British power in the Pakhtunland, despite a window of opportunities was opened to it. Fraser Tytler recalls,”…Even in the darkest days of 1940 (2nd world war), the king (Zahir Shah) and his advisors faced the imminent prospect of the breakdown of the British Empire, and having considered the situation, reaffirmed their neutrality.

But the declining British wasn’t so weak to be expelled from the British India through an attack by the much weaker Afghan Army. Apart from that, it was afghanistan’s principled stance to remain neutral. Even after the formation of the Capitalist and Communist block it instead joined NAM while Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO.

It was a fine gesture at one of the darkest moments in British history”. More humiliating was the fear of Afghan rulers when they evicted the German diplomats from Kabul, against the wishes of the people, on a single ultimatum from the British government.

The actual reason of our continuing slavery was the non-violence strategy of khudai khidmat gaar movement. Ironically, later on Pakistan exploited Pashtuns' ferocious nature and sent them to capture Kashmir for Pakistan and thus expanded the territory of the enemy.

Since pashtuns to the east of the Durand Line were at the helm of affairs; much depended on them and not on the afghan government, because Pashtuns had already opted for the non-violent means for their liberation, so they only needed the right strategy to free their nation. But unfortunately it was their very strategy which was gravely flawed.

After inking of the Durand Line Agreement, a large scale insurgence against the firingis was unleashed in 1896 AD by the Salarzais, Momands, Sapis, Afridis, Orakzais, Waziris, Masoods, but the Afghan government did not care to gear the tide against its enemy. At the same time Umara Khan Jandoli, who was called the Afghan Napoleon by his arch rivals, the British, led armed campaigns against the colonialists but he was also not abetted by the Afghan rulers in the closest proximity.

These uncoordinated battles couldn't win us freedom and Afghanistan was militarily not strong enough to help as well as keep its own independence and that was a wise decision on its part.

Political analysts think that if the Afghan government had started “Quit Pakhtunistan” movement on the pattern of “Quit India” movement, which was started by the Congress in 1942-43, a ripe time when the British power in the Sub-continent was vulnerable due to its entanglement in the imbroglio of the Second World War, then the scenario might have had different in 1947, when the British were leaving the Sub-continent.

But the Quit India movement was started by the native Indian leadership and not by some neighbouring country, and it was the lack of vision of Pakhtun leadership who could have started the Quit Pakhtunistan movement which they didn't and instead struggled to keep India united.

The pity was that Afghan government had no plans and desire about its lost territories and Pakhtun population. They were only interested in a “peaceful” seclusion.

Afghan state was a tiny entity as compared to the whole of India, and above all the wealth and finances the Indian business community they possessed by that time were a major factor in perpetuating their political struggle. I believe even if Afghanistan had interfered, it couldn't bring any substantial change.

If we analyze the reluctance of Afghan rulers of claiming back its lost territories and people, we come across some bitter and startling realities. The harsh fact is that the Afghan rulers did not wish to retrieve their lost territories and population on two counts;

The Eastern Pakhtuns were more politically conscious and had been anti-imperialists, therefore the despotic Afghan Rulers considered them detrimental their dictatorial rule as they could sow the seeds of political awareness in a United Afghanistan, where politicking was banned..

Here you coined your own premise and attributed reluctance to Afghan rulers and deemed it on your own as harsh fact. This might just be your perception. You wished them an outright war with the British which it already had fought three times and which caused Afghanistan to freeze politically and weaken economically because war needs immense financial resources.

- The hegemonial lobby of Parsiban-Dariban aristocracy and bureaucracy impeded to get the Eastern Pakhtuns back in the fold as this move was to result in tilting more the demographic and social structures in favor of the Pakhtuns, which could disturb the status quo.

What farsiban dariban lobby? Perhaps you are extrapolating Pakistani model everywhere. In Pakistan such hegemonic institutions have constitutional even ultra constitutional indemnity. Apart from that Pakistani army is the strongest political wing to safeguard the interests of Punjab.

The Afghan envoy to the United Nations, Mr. Hosyn Aziz voted against the membership of the newly-created country, Pakistan to the UN. He made a statement in the General assembly that the Pakhtuns should be given right of self-determination to choose between, either joining Pakistan or to be independent but he did not utter a word to urge joining their fatherland, Afghanistan .

The demand should have come from Khudai khidmatgaar movement which unfortunately merged with Indian National Congress and lost the golden opportunity. Khudai khidmatgaaran were at the helm of affairs and they should have known what to do next. It was their lake of vision which resulted in our subjugation to the brown Punjabi masters.

The negative vote was mysteriously withdrawn on 23rd October, 1947 and Pakistan was admitted in the family of the United Nations.

But in August 1947 Bacha khan himself met with Jinnah and retracted from the Banu Resolution.

Before that a farce referendum was imposed on the Pakhtuns on 20th July, 1947 by the British viceroy Lord Mountbatten, asking the Pakhtuns to choose between India and Pakistan. The Khudai Khidmatgars boycotted the referendum, as they declared that the issues were of no concern to the Pakhtuns in the absence of a third option of “Azad Pakhtunistan”. S. Fida Yunas (Ibid), adds, “…Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan said that the frontiers Pathans had their own distinct history and culture, and this could not be preserved unless they had full freedom to maintain and develop their own institutions. They, therefore claimed that the plebiscite should not be on the basis of a choice between Pakistan and India but there should be a third alternative of an independent Pakhtunistan….a state of their own ….as they feared the domination of the Punjab”. Shahsawar Sangarwal observes in “Da Afghanistan Da Tareekhi Jughrafeye Sarangwalay”, “The Afghan government kept silent on the question of referendum in 1947.

In my view even if they had protested they couldn’t compel the British to change their decision except to record their protest, because the occupied pashtun land had a vital strategic importance for their would be client state Pakistan.

If Afghan government wanted the Eastern Pakhtuns could be enfolded with, either peaceful means or by the use of force. Afghanistan had a regular disciplined army and the new Pakistan was dependent on the British-Indian army which was under the process of transition, therefore it was unable to offer resistance”.

This is not quite true. Pakistan till 50’s had British Army Officers and the full support of the British government because we all know that Sir Zafarullah (the security expert) and Jinnah long before the creation of Pakistan had offered full assurance to the British of their loyalty and their services. Pakistan’s exploitation of the Tribal people to capture Kashmir for them is an ample proof that the non-violence strategy was a very flawed one and through armed struggle Pashtuns could have won their own independence instead of fighting as Pakistani mercenaries.

The learned analyst believes that such passive attitude of King Zahir Shah was a great historical crime. Another Afghan political observer, Ghulam Mohammad Zarmalwal, opines in his work, “Afghanistan,-Tar Wrostee Afghana”, “Afghan government has been playing games with its Pakhtun population by rendering only lip-service to the cause of Pakhtunistan, by merely naming a Chowk and observing a Day, housing a few political exiles, and doing nothing more”.

Pakistan remained a loyal stooge of the British and the whole Capitalist world. Even in 1952 (or perhaps 1954) Pakistan staged a coup to dethrone king Zahir shah which showed the immense influence of Pakistan, a legacy of the British, in Afghan affairs since Pakistan’s creation.

Syed Qasim Rishtia (Khaterat-e-Siasi), recalls the proceedings of a Kabul’s high-powered meeting on Pashtunistan attended by Sardar Shah Mehmood Khan, Sardar Shah Wali Khan, the entire cabinet, some officials of foreign ministry and press and describes as to why a claim on the Pakhtunland was given up by Kabul as deliberated on in the meeting. The proceedings of the meeting stated “The land has been separated from Afghanistan almost one hundred years ago. The people of that area have lived under different conditions and led a different style of life. A new relationship for them would not be easy…..The people, particularly of occupied Pushtunistan are politically awakened, have a semi-democratic political organization, are educationally more advanced in the North-Western Province and Quetta than the people of Afghanistan. In all probabilities if such a demand was put to them, it will be rejected out rightly by them…...

And they were right in their apprehensions because we have suffered a complete self alienation and have been subjected to high degree of de-culturation. It was the duty of our Pashtun leadership to have kept us informed of our Pashtun/afghan identity, our own history and our peculiar cultural traits and should have perpetually reminded us of our afghan nationhood which is quite separate from the official Indian identity imposed on us by the British and later on by Pakistani rulers. But sadly our leadership failed to do so.

One Mohsin Feroz who was the Director of the Bakhtar Agency, he put forward a simple and short formula, saying, “The resolution of the problem of Pushtunistan is only a march (war- attack). The formula was not received well and many, in fact, even laughed at it”.

We didn’t need Afghanistan for that; we could have done it ourselves had we been guided properly and with a vision.

The last 28 years of living in “exile” with the Eastern Pakhtuns in the after matter of the Saur Revolution, did not result in appropriate socializing of the Lar and Bar Pakhtuns to squeeze mental distance and to dismantle social barriers. No encouraging trend of inter-marriages developed among the “Lara Ao Bar” Pakhtuns in a span of time which sociologists believe, was sufficient to bring about mutual integration on the re-union of the lost brethren.

This wrath was brought upon our motherland again by our myopic Pashtun leadership who calling the Proxy afghan war as the battle between two giants; Soviet Union and the US which wasn’t the whole truth. In fact Pakistan had an ultra agenda of capturing the whole of Afghanistan in which they had almost succeeded but our leadership from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa kept silent.

[khyaal]

Actually Ijaz saib certainly has invested a lot of his time and efforts in preparing his article. Unfortunately it left me in sense of shock and despair and on the whole its theme projected feelongs of negativity. In this time of crisis the best strategy would be to raise the morale of Pashtun/afghan nation and not to push them in despair. To be fair there were only tiny Afghans nation and Turks who stood before the strong tide of the Britisih imperialism.

The article was more demoralising than inspiring Pashtuns/afghans for action and unity and above all the author is in search of creating enemies inside the home. The whole article was about what is bad in Pashtun/afghans rather than search for good within them and their history.

In the end I'd say"A wise enemy is better than a foolish friend."

[lalala]

Very witty observations. Let's take them one by one;
Iit's a very " patriotic" assertion.
Pakhtuns are confronted with the blatant jeopardy of punjabization in Pakistan and persianization in Afghanistan. The rulers of Afghanistan ( do not )and did not sincerely wish to retrieve back its territory from Pakistan, It, therefore gave lipservice to Pakhtunistan stunt, instead. The core issue is , as how to harness the Pakhtuns' national might and political sagacity to get a sovereign state where they are not yoked under the supermacy of another segment.

pashtuns are an integral part of Afghanistans culture, what you call "persianization" is a false lie. The fact that these elements exist within Afghanistan is just another bit of Afghan culture. Do you think you will ever achieve a purely Pashtun nation? why would you even want such a thing? Is there any nation on earth where only one ethnic group exists? I think what some buffoons call "persianization" is simply being urban and educated.

punjabization on the other hand is a sickening reality. unlike various Afghans within Afg of whatever ethnic group and language with whom Afghans share common ethnic ties and shared cultural aspects we have nothing in common with punjabis and their desi culture.

now the greatest threat to Afghanistan and Pashtuns is punjabis, their culture and their state threatens to destory Pashtuns and Afghanistan alike.

[ijaz yousafzai]

Actually Ijaz saib certainly has invested a lot of his time and efforts in preparing his article. Unfortunately it left me in sense of shock and despair and on the whole its theme projected feelongs of negativity. In this time of crisis the best strategy would be to raise the morale of Pashtun/afghan nation and not to push them in despair. To be fair there were only tiny Afghans nation and Turks who stood before the strong tide of the Britisih imperialism.

The article was more demoralising than inspiring Pashtuns/afghans for action and unity and above all the author is in search of creating enemies inside the home. The whole article was about what is bad in Pashtun/afghans rather than search for good within them and their history.

In the end I'd say"A wise enemy is better than a foolish friend."

Wrora!
Histroy is a great teacher. Wise men learn from their history and they should not close their eyes to their past on one pretext or another. They should see where their incestors have made mistakes. Your long and tiresome rejoinder to my post, holds little substance. In fact if you go again through my Article, you will find out most of your replies.I have admitted in the first paragraph of the post that Pakhtun leadership of the time ( the Khudai Khidmatgars) only concentrated on the struggle for getting freedom from the yoke of Firingis and did not take stock of the Pakhtuns'goal in post independence.For that matter, I am skeptical of Khudai Khidmatgar's merger with the Indian National Congress, which swallowed the identity of this Movement. I am of the opinion that an alliance with the Congress would have been a viable option, which would have helped in preserving the peculiar Pakhtun tint and their future strategy. I agree that the Pakhtun leadership lacked vision in this respect and it was a big blunder. We should not be ashamed to admit our blunders. Similarly we should not justify, absurdly the foolies committed by the Afghan rulers to the Pakhtun cause, which you have tried in your long illogical rejoinder. I also carry the same opinion that some Afghan rulers were embroiled in the situation but more precisely entangled in their lust to cling to the throne to get into " Forced Treaties" with the strong super power of the time but it was what destiny held for the Pakhtuns, which can not be justified and which gave a severe blow and setback to Pakhtun nationalism and Pakhtun integration.Pakhtuns who shared common ancestors and common history, were divided in several compartments, which changed their political psyche. This is but our harsh and bitter history, which you can not vomit.Fools in their leisure, can only shut their eyes towards harsh realities. There is no pessimism in the article and no despair but an urge to fix our goal and endeavour to get it,without repeating the blunders of the past. I am sorry you have taken a jaundiced impression of the perceptions advocated in the article and your rejoinder speaks of a person having notable paranoia. Get through the contents again with a cool mind and i am confident you will get most your replies. Pa Dranavee

[ijaz yousafzai]

Sir, I agree with the former and have reservations over the later. For the former the Pakhtun nationhood is the solution as in Pakistan its not that we own it and our power is at stake. On the contrary in Pakistan the survival of our language and culture due to urdufication and our political ineffectiveness due to punjabisation is at stake. This is NOT the case and status in Afghanistan where Pashto is one of the official language and secondly Pashtuns are in majority and politically effective too.

Lets be fair with ground reality. Punjabization of Pukhtun culture in Pakistan and Persianization in Afghanistan is a twin edged dagger which is mutilating the Pakhtun culture. Pakhtuns are a brute 62% majority in Afghanistan but regrettably only 55% population speak Pashto according to WAK Foundation Census, as Pakhtuns are being swallowed by the Parsiban culture. Yet a notable percentage of Pakhtuns lose their language every year which is a dangerous trend. The government run electronic media in Afghanistan is the mouth piece of Parsiban culture. Punjabization in Pakistan and Persianization in Afghanistan are equally dangerous usurping enemies for Pakhtun nation. The atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance against their Pakhtun compatriot during their triumphant march in the wake of American protection, is an eye opener for those who still dream of assimilation of different nationalities.

[khyaal]

Lets be fair with ground reality. Punjabization of Pukhtun culture in Pakistan and Persianization in Afghanistan is a twin edged dagger which is mutilating the Pakhtun culture. Pakhtuns are a brute 62% majority in Afghanistan but regrettably only 47% population speak Pashto according to WAK Foundation Census, as Pakhtuns are being swallowed by the Parsiban culture. Yet a notable percentage of Pakhtuns lose their language every year which is a dangerous trend. The government run electronic media in Afghanistan is the mouth piece of Parsiban culture. Punjabization in Pakistan and Persianization in Afghanistan are equally dangerous usurping enemies for Pakhtun nation. The atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance against their Pakhtun compatriot during their triumphant march in the wake of American protection, is an eye opener for those who still dream of assimilation of different nationalities.

could you please define what is parsiban culture?

[ijaz yousafzai]

could you please define what is parsiban culture?

Get to the streets of Kabul and you witness it. Switch on the goverment run electronic media ( Aryana , Toloo, ART tv ), and you watch it.

[ijaz yousafzai]

Ijaz I tried searching for the source that says we are 62 percent but I could not find it.

The figures have been taken from WAK Foundation Census of 1996. These figures have been referred to by Dr. Sohail Inshah in his celebrated work "PUKHTANEE QAAMI JORAKHT" (Pakhtun National Composition)

[muhsina]

Ijaz sb

While your observation and the resulting concern about the diminishing Pakhtun culture or Persianisation is valid however may I opine that you have not mentioned the cause and hence diagnosis of the problem and at the same time you did not pay serious attention to my points which implied that:

It is not the linguistic or cultural issue which Afghans are facing today but rather the weakness of the Afghan state.

This contemporary state of affairs necessitates to prioritize the establishment and stability of the state institutions as well as safeguarding Afghanistan against the internal and external conspiracies to move it through the post war period.

The language and culture issue no doubt is important but is secondary as compared to the integrity and sovereignty of the state. It is like a person is dying and you need emergency measures to help him survive instead of deciding whether he speaks French or German.

In my opinion the solution to the Afghan problem and the cause of her woes is politico economically weak Afghan state.

We need to admit that farsiban are relatively progressive minded while Pashtunsare conservative. Whatever progress has been made in the current challenging situation is majorly due to the farsiban being in power.

Unfortunately the Pashtuns see all the ills in not sticking to religion to which when they stick then they get stuck and push the Afghans and themselves a century backwards instead of moving them forward hence helping the agenda of Pakistanis/Punjabis who want to see a weak and unstable Afghanistan so that they can dictate their terms to her and keep it a defacto client state.

Secondly Pasthuns don’t have the capacity due to lack of education and lack of proper institutionalization and the reason is weak nature of the Afghan state. Hence all our endeavors should be made to make the state of Afghanistan strong so it can perform its functions like educating its people, opening new vistas of opportunity, mechanization, industrialization, building ,construction, rehabilitation, security, welfare etc.

In these circumstances the language and culture of those who adopt themselves with the changing world and accept the challenges of the modern age can only survive.

It is when you have political power and state backs you that your language culture and civilization prospers. Without strengthening the state which is the source of power, just academic ethno centric analysis are of value to academia but it has a very slow pace of accelerating the progress of a language which is just one element, though an important one, in the life of a nation and their state.

Last but not least the atrocities committed by one ethnic group against another are a product of the tribal nature of afghan society with a weak judicial system of justice. Once the society moves from tribal phase and institutions get stronger then the same atrocities will just transform to political rivalry and a competition for political power which is nothing bad.