Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jun 1961 - “Pakhtoonistan” Dispute. Pakistani Allegations of Afghan Incursions.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jun 1961 - “Pakhtoonistan” Dispute. Pakistani Allegations of Afghan Incursions.

    Keesing's Record of World Events (formerly Keesing's Contemporary Archives), Volume 7, June, 1961 Pakistan, Afghanistan, Pakistani, Afghan, Page 18172 © 1931-2006 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
    Jun 1961 - “Pakhtoonistan” Dispute. - Military Operations in Frontier Areas. - Pakistani Allegations of Afghan Incursions.
    Fighting occurred in the Bajaur area of the Pakistani frontier with Afghanistan (north of the Khyber Pass) in September 1960 and again in May 1961. The Pakistani Government announced that it had
    repelled Afghan incursions on its territory allegedly carried out with the support of the Afghan Army, while the Afghan Government alleged that the Pakistani armed forces were engaged in operations against discontented Pathan tribesmen.
    Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been strained for a number of years as a result of Afghanistan's demands for the establishment of an independent Pathan State of “Pakhtoonistan” or “Pushtunistan.” Diplomatic relations between the two countries were broken off in 1955 but resumed
    in September 1957; King Zahir Shah visited Karachi in February 1958, and an agreement on the improvement of transit facilities for Afghan goods through Pakistan was signed on May 29, 1958. In the later months of 1959, however, relations again deteriorated; the Pakistani Government protested
    in September of that year against broadcast speeches by King Zahir Shah and Sardar Mohammed Daud Khan (the Afghan Premier) reaffirming Afghanistan's support for the establishment of “Pakhtoonistan,” and on Nov. 23, 1959, made a further protest against unauthorized flights overPakistani territory by aircraft believed to have come from bases in Afghanistan.
    The Afghan Foreign Minister, Sardar Mohammed Naim, visited Rawalpindi on Jan. 10-12, 1960, at President Ayub Khan's invitation, for talks aimed at easing the tension between the two countries. Although no communique was issued, the Pakistani Foreign Minister (Mr. Qadir) said the talks had been “very frank and cordial” and that it was agreed that there should be more frequent contacts between leaders of the two countries. Afghanistan's claims were openly supported by Mr. Khrushchev in March 1960, leading to a suggestion by Mr. Qadir that there should be a referendum among Pathans
    in Afghanistan to decide whether they wished to join Pakistan [see page 17323]; this suggestion was rejected by Sardar Naim.
    As a result of the dispute, the Afghan Government refused to renew visas for Pakistanis living inAfghanistan, and the British Foreign Office confirmed on July 18, 1960, that the British and U.S. Embassies in Kabul were no longer able to retain Pakistanis on their staffs. Mr. Qadir stated onAug. 4, 1960, that Pakistan had sent a number of Notes protesting against maltreatment of Pakistanis
    in Afghanistan.
    Details of the various incidents on the frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan were as follows:
    (1) In a statement on Sept. 28, 1960, Mr. Qadir alleged that Afghan troops supported by a few tanks had been concentrated on the border west of Bajaur; that the Afghan Government had called up nearly
    
    70,000 reservists; and that the Afghans were “reported to be claiming that they have the support of a certain big Power in the execution of their designs.” Mr. Qadir said that some elements of
    an Afghan lashkar (armed band of irregulars) stationed near the border had infiltrated into Bajaur but were forced to withdraw by Pakistani tribesmen, who had inflicted heavy casualties on the intruders.
    Kabul Radio strongly denied Mr. Qadir's allegations on Sept. 29, asserting that his statement was intended to “divert public opinion” from what was going on there and to “cover up” the fact
    thatPakistani troops had been sent to the areas “against the wishes of the local population.” ThePakistani Government lodged a strong protest in Kabul on Oct. 5 against the “hostile concentration of Afghan regular and irregular forces on the Pakistani border for the past three weeks,” and against the alleged infiltration by Afghan tribal militiamen, which was stated to have taken place on Sept. 23-24.
    (2) In March 1961 Kabul Radio broadcast a series of statements alleging that Pakistani forces were carrying out repressive operations against the Pathans, including repeated and extensive bombing attacks in the Bajaur area. An article published in Pravda on April 3 under the signature “Observer” (believed to be the pseudonym of a high Soviet official) alleged that eight Pakistani divisions, supported by tanks and aircraft, were active in the Pathan areas, bombing villages and causing substantial casualties. The article reaffirmed the Soviet Government's support for the Afghan demand for Pathan self- determination, and declared that “the situation emerging in the direct proximity of our frontiers is not a matter of indifference to us.” Sardar Mohammed Daud Khan arrived in Moscow onApril 4 for talks with Mr. Khrushchev.
    The Pakistani Government admitted on April 6 that bombing operations had taken place in the Bajaur area early in March. Lieut.-General K. M. Sheikh (Minister for States and Frontier Regions) said that two houses had been bombed 24 hours after residents of the area had been warned to leave, because they were being used as a headquarters and ammunition dump by a certain Badshah Gul. The latter had been acting as an Afghan agent for the distribution of arms, ammunition, and money among the tribesmen of Bajaur, and had been repeatedly warned to leave the area; he and his two accomplices had now gone
    to Afghanistan.
    (3) At a press conference in Peshawar on May 21, Lieut.-General Sheikh stated that Afghan forces had attacked two Pakistani posts at Miskinai and Sangpura in the Bajaur area on May 19-20, and
    that Pakistani Air Force planes had gone into action on May 21 and destroyed machine-gun and mortar positions from which the attacks had been carried out. Afghan troops equipped with mortars and machine-guns had also infiltrated into Pakistani territory in three places in the Bajaur area; these troops had been repulsed, and prisoners had confessed that over 1,000 Afghan troops had infiltrated
    into Pakistan. As Afghanistan did not manufacture arms (Lieut.-General Sheikh went on) they must have been supplied by some other country. Mortars and ammunition bearing the markings of that country had been seized, in addition to handbills, posters, and letters which proved that “Afghan authorities were issuing instructions for sabotage and creating discontent among the people of Pakistan.”
    
    The Minister also stated that 20 Afghan agents had recently been arrested in the Peshawar and Mardan districts; they had confessed during interrogation that they had been commissioned by
    theAfghan Government to kill Pakistani officials and start terrorist activities in Pakistan, and had been promised “handsome rewards.” Lieut.-General Sheikh added that the situation in the border areas was now completely under control and that the areas concerned were calm and peaceful.
    It was subsequently announced on May 26 that Pakistani aircraft had on the previous day attackedAfghan machine-gun positions which had opened fire on them near the border, silencing the guns and killing some of the gunners. It was also announced that certain areas in Bajaur had been declared prohibited for one month.
    President Ayub Khan stated on May 21 that while in the past there had been raids by irregulars fromAfghanistan, the Afghan Government had now for the first time used Army troops in a border incident. In a further statement on May 23 he said that Afghanistan had recently received large quantities of Soviet arms, commenting that the border situation was becoming serious as the great Powers were showing interest. He declared that the people of the areas concerned did not want the setting-up of any “Pakhtoonistan,” adding that trouble was being fomented among “the disgruntled and the poor.”
    The President subsequently disclosed in an interview to the New York Times that U.S. representatives had asked the Government of Pakistan whether the latter had used “Americanequipment” in
    ejecting Afghan elements from her territory; he had replied that “if our territory is violated we would spend our time dealing with the enemy rather than putting the American weapons in cotton wool.” Lieut.- General Sheikh repeated on June 11 that Pakistan would use not only jet bombers but all types of weapons in her possession to repulse any aggression from across the Durand Line, adding that if there were any “fresh machinations from across the border” the AfghanGovernment would have to “face the consequences.” It was reported by Pakistani military sources that a heavy concentration of Afghan troops had taken place along the Durand Line after the lastPakistani air action.
    Mr. Qadir announced on Oct. 8, 1960, that Nawab Shah Jehan Shah (70), ruler of the border State ofDir (north of Bajaur), and his son Khan Jandul Khan, ruler of Jandul State, had been arrested and deposed.
    Mr. Qadir said this action had followed the “careful appraisal of many accusations of double dealing” brought against the two rulers “by the people and leaders of the tribal area while they were engaged in repelling the recent Afghan aggression.” He added that the Nawab of Dir and the Khan of Jandul, “while outwardly joining with other chiefs and leaders with whom they had long-standing enmities to repel external aggression, were making secret attempts to take advantage of the fact that those who were dealing with the aggression had become more and more vulnerable internally. These attempts did not succeed because their own people turned down these overtures with contempt.” The people of Dir, Mr. Qadir said, had been “agitating for a long time against the tyrannical rule of the Nawab,” against whom they had unsuccessfully rebelled in 1958.
    
    In a statement in April 1961, Lieut.-General Sheikh announced that the Pakistani Government had decided to set up an advisory council in Dir, consisting of 20 elected members, to advise the new Nawab—the eldest son of the deposed ruler—on administrative matters. The Government was also reorganizing the revenue administration of Dir, had approved road and afforestation projects, and had established a new hospital and opened a number of schools.—(Government Press Information Department, Karachi - Pakistan High Commissioner's Office, London - Times - Daily Telegraph - Guardian - Soviet Embassy Press Department, London) (18126 A)

    "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
    I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

    -Ferdowsi.

  • #2
    I came across this. Its pure gold.
    "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
    I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

    -Ferdowsi.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think this issue Pakhtoonistan issue prove to be worst for Afghanistan..I believe mass majority of people didn't back this..

      Comment


      • #4
        There is a bunch of old threads that already have this. This issue has been debated to death. Find the old threads and add to it. This forum had many intellectual active members back in the day from all ethnic groups.

        Comment


        • #5
          Khushal, you're an old user... why do you think they ran away? Too much **** slinging?

          Comment


          • #6
            No, most of the things you guys say have been debated to death from every angle. They left because no one is adding any new angles to it. Most of things you guys say have no logic, its kinda like that "kin" comment you made to Admin Khan.

            Comment


            • #7


              Two part series debate by Saleem Safi, a Pakistan Pakhtun anchor, where Afghans and Pakistanis debate their problems with each other.

              One thing you'll notice in the debate is that the Pashtuns on either side, follow their own state's narrative. If they are Afghans, they say Pakistan is causing problems for them. The Pakistani Pashtuns say it's Afghanistan's fault for getting pally with India. So the two sides are clearly blinded by their own state narrative. Also, to add to this, these are not some Peshawari (urbanised) Pashtuns who some Afghans accuse of being 'Punjabi-ised' or 'slave of Punjabis', the majority of the Pashtuns in this debate are from FATA.

              The Pakhtoonistan issue in my humble opinion is far gone. It's like Sindhudesh. There was probably something there once upon a time, but now, no one in either Sindh or Pakhtunkhwa wants independence from Pakistan. Gilgit-Baltistan is the only insurgency in the world, whose end goal is to join rather than separate from a federation. Baluchistan is probably the only province with separatist sentiments.

              Comment


              • #8
                Khushal, I've been through very few past threads. Doesn't look different at all. It's the same back and forth. Some of the same people even.

                Speaking of which, one of the first conversions me and you had involved you fabricating knowledge and saying something like "actually, anthropologists have concluded the soft dialect is original". Well dude, that thread is very recent. You are always welcome to provide us a source for this. The specific journal/book would be nice. Honestly... even a name would be good. Just spell out the first few letters and we can guess the remaining. Lol any clue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Porus View Post
                  Two part series debate by Saleem Safi, a Pakistan Pakhtun anchor, where Afghans and Pakistanis debate their problems with each other.

                  One thing you'll notice in the debate is that the Pashtuns on either side, follow their own state's narrative. If they are Afghans, they say Pakistan is causing problems for them. The Pakistani Pashtuns say it's Afghanistan's fault for getting pally with India. So the two sides are clearly blinded by their own state narrative. Also, to add to this, these are not some Peshawari (urbanised) Pashtuns who some Afghans accuse of being 'Punjabi-ised' or 'slave of Punjabis', the majority of the Pashtuns in this debate are from FATA.

                  The Pakhtoonistan issue in my humble opinion is far gone. It's like Sindhudesh. There was probably something there once upon a time, but now, no one in either Sindh or Pakhtunkhwa wants independence from Pakistan. Gilgit-Baltistan is the only insurgency in the world, whose end goal is to join rather than separate from a federation. Baluchistan is probably the only province with separatist sentiments.
                  First thing I noticed was both sides having a dialogue in Urdu, facepalm.

                  Now, I know that it was on Geo News and these Afghan students could speak broken Urdu but it would have made more sense and resulted in a better discussion if it was in Pashto with Urdu/English subtitles.

                  Anyway, the discussion didn't really get anywhere as both sides were whining about each other. We need to move on from this deadlock of who is to blame for what and both sides should accept their respective govermemts' wrong policies, whether it is strategic depth or pakhtunistan issue.

                  I agree that Afghans are yet to realise fully how much Pakistani nationalism is ingrained into Pashtuns in Pakistan and the time of Pashtunistan slogans is gone. Having said that, the unity of Pashtuns is not a lost cause. In the globalised world we live in, borders are more meaningless than ever. It doesn't mean Afghanistan should recognize Durand Line as that would betray Afghanistan's historical stance on the issue but Afghans need another approach to this issue by slowly building ties between both sides and reassuring Pakistan that Afghan soil will not be used against Pakistan as long as Pakistan staus in line and look for strategic depth through othdr means than supporting proxies in Afghanistan.


                  I would argue that Pakistan will benifit from unification of Pashtuns because for one it will get rid of hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan and secondly, it will ensure a friendly regime in Kabul who will give Pakistan strategic depth without firing a bullett. The only loss might be the loss of Pakistani identity based on two nation theory and more focus on ethnic identities with the fragmentation of Pakistani state but it might actually be a blessing in disguise for Sindhis, Punjabis and other groups who have had to give up their ethnic identity for the sake of Pakistani national identity. Tajiks of Afghanistan might ask for similar thing if Pashtuns get united and I am not opposed to it as long as the borders are open and Pashtuns are not descriminated against and are able to use their mother tongue freely.

                  This might seem blasphemous to Pakistani and Afghan nationalists but fluid, open borders and focus on ethnic identities is the way of the future. Something along the lines of EU style Union between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kashmir would be ideal.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shapur View Post
                    This might seem blasphemous to Pakistani and Afghan nationalists but fluid, open borders and focus on ethnic identities is the way of the future. Something along the lines of EU style Union between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kashmir would be ideal.
                    This is what the mullahs preach and it is not the way of the future. Man has been trying to do that for a very long time. The problem has always been that corrupt individuals slither their way in and use the system for their own personal gain that eventually leads to bankruptcy.

                    Power is in numbers, you need to join populations rather than divide from them. Nationalism is against this principle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Shapur View Post
                      First thing I noticed was both sides having a dialogue in Urdu, facepalm.

                      Now, I know that it was on Geo News and these Afghan students could speak broken Urdu but it would have made more sense and resulted in a better discussion if it was in Pashto with Urdu/English subtitles.
                      Afghans speak better Urdu than Pakistanis give them credit for. But I agree, the discussion should've been in Pashto, with perhaps Urdu/English subtitles.


                      I agree that Afghans are yet to realise fully how much Pakistani nationalism is ingrained into Pashtuns in Pakistan and the time of Pashtunistan slogans is gone. Having said that, the unity of Pashtuns is not a lost cause. In the globalised world we live in, borders are more meaningless than ever. It doesn't mean Afghanistan should recognize Durand Line as that would betray Afghanistan's historical stance on the issue but Afghans need another approach to this issue by slowly building ties between both sides and reassuring Pakistan that Afghan soil will not be used against Pakistan as long as Pakistan staus in line and look for strategic depth through othdr means than supporting proxies in Afghanistan.
                      I think secretly the Afghan government does recognise the line, Amrullah Saleh has said a number of times that he has told the Pakistanis not to make the border irrelevant, and stop allowing terrorists to go into Afghanistan.

                      But this puts Pakistan in a precarious situation because I think the state feels that it can't take action against ALL terrorists. As much as Nawaz would like people to believe that, the National Action Plan has been a farce. It's like having a taster at a restaurant for a meal that's not even on the menu. There has to be political will on the Pakistani side for anything solid to take place. Although Afghans and Indians believe that the Pakistani establishment has the power to rid the country of terrorism (and they're right), they can't do that themselves. Now that we have some form of a democracy, there has to be some political will on the civilian side to match the brute force that Pak Army can use. If the Pak Army decides to do it itself, the government will collapse and the military will takeover once again. I don't think even the military wants to have a coup this time.

                      I would argue that Pakistan will benifit from unification of Pashtuns because for one it will get rid of hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan and secondly, it will ensure a friendly regime in Kabul who will give Pakistan strategic depth without firing a bullett. The only loss might be the loss of Pakistani identity based on two nation theory and more focus on ethnic identities with the fragmentation of Pakistani state but it might actually be a blessing in disguise for Sindhis, Punjabis and other groups who have had to give up their ethnic identity for the sake of Pakistani national identity. Tajiks of Afghanistan might ask for similar thing if Pashtuns get united and I am not opposed to it as long as the borders are open and Pashtuns are not descriminated against and are able to use their mother tongue freely.
                      I'm for the removal of the two nation theory, but not Pakistan as a Federation. My stance has always been the same: remove the Pakistan ideology, remove Urdu as a 'national' language, and give provinces the right to teach their own language alongside English. I don't however think that Pakistan should disintegrate into different countries. Open borders are fine, so long as there is some control but ethnic disintegration rarely ever goes without bloodshed (as we've seen in Bangladesh). Yes, you've rightly said as well that if we're talking about Pashtun reunification as a state, then we'll also have to address the Farsi speakers who live in Afghanistan. Already Afghanistan leans more towards a Persianate state, as opposed to Pashtun. All official documents are printed in Farsi, popular culture is mostly Persian, and rightly so, Persian is what brings different ethnicities together.

                      This might seem blasphemous to Pakistani and Afghan nationalists but fluid, open borders and focus on ethnic identities is the way of the future. Something along the lines of EU style Union between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kashmir would be ideal.
                      Nationalists are losers, they are what ruin things between Pakistanis and Afghans. This whole region would benefit from open borders and cordial relations.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Shapur View Post
                        First thing I noticed was both sides having a dialogue in Urdu, facepalm.

                        Now, I know that it was on Geo News and these Afghan students could speak broken Urdu but it would have made more sense and resulted in a better discussion if it was in Pashto with Urdu/English subtitles.

                        Anyway, the discussion didn't really get anywhere as both sides were whining about each other. We need to move on from this deadlock of who is to blame for what and both sides should accept their respective govermemts' wrong policies, whether it is strategic depth or pakhtunistan issue.

                        I agree that Afghans are yet to realise fully how much Pakistani nationalism is ingrained into Pashtuns in Pakistan and the time of Pashtunistan slogans is gone. Having said that, the unity of Pashtuns is not a lost cause. In the globalised world we live in, borders are more meaningless than ever. It doesn't mean Afghanistan should recognize Durand Line as that would betray Afghanistan's historical stance on the issue but Afghans need another approach to this issue by slowly building ties between both sides and reassuring Pakistan that Afghan soil will not be used against Pakistan as long as Pakistan staus in line and look for strategic depth through othdr means than supporting proxies in Afghanistan.


                        I would argue that Pakistan will benifit from unification of Pashtuns because for one it will get rid of hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan and secondly, it will ensure a friendly regime in Kabul who will give Pakistan strategic depth without firing a bullett. The only loss might be the loss of Pakistani identity based on two nation theory and more focus on ethnic identities with the fragmentation of Pakistani state but it might actually be a blessing in disguise for Sindhis, Punjabis and other groups who have had to give up their ethnic identity for the sake of Pakistani national identity. Tajiks of Afghanistan might ask for similar thing if Pashtuns get united and I am not opposed to it as long as the borders are open and Pashtuns are not descriminated against and are able to use their mother tongue freely.

                        This might seem blasphemous to Pakistani and Afghan nationalists but fluid, open borders and focus on ethnic identities is the way of the future. Something along the lines of EU style Union between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kashmir would be ideal.
                        1)( In the globalised world we live in, borders are more meaningless than ever. It doesn't mean Afghanistan should recognize Durand Line as that would betray Afghanistan's historical stance on the issue but Afghans need another approach to this issue by slowly building ties between both sides and reassuring Pakistan that Afghan soil will not be used against Pakistan as long as Pakistan staus in line and look for strategic depth through othdr means than supporting proxies in Afghanistan. ) Borders are meaningless but then practically no body allow us to enter any other country except Passport and Visa so in real world borders do exist and are respected..Question here is do afgahnistan accept its border with Tajikistan , Turkemanistan and Uzbekistan and who marks that ? If yes then why ?
                        Both issues are reciprocal to each other not accepting durand line and then reassurance does not get along in my humble opinion afghanistan would gain more if it formally accept the border. As such there is no desire in KP or any other pashtuns areas to merge with afghanistan.They are paksitanis like anybody else and this video proves it.

                        2) The only loss might be the loss of Pakistani identity based on two nation theory and more focus on ethnic identities with the fragmentation of Pakistani state but it might actually be a blessing in disguise for Sindhis, Punjabis and other groups who have had to give up their ethnic identity for the sake of Pakistani national identity This will simply lead to balkanization of country afghanistan can afford this but Pakistan does not. And our people will get nothing by joining a state base on ethnicity. If Nationalism is wrong then ethnic nationalism is worst and leads to more blood shed. If today we agree on this tomorrow we will fight for tribal affinity and the list will continue .My tribe has more pride more right to rule and the vicious circle will continue..We are getting education here jobs good well being (not ideal) but why we revolt against state and make our life miserable..King in past accept this border line and to serve kabul through other part to British.Now the situation is change so this thing is pooping up..Why to create anarchy in country..Solution you are presenting will produce more like Achazkzai..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree with Shapur: that a more neutral language would've allowed each team to articulate their thoughts better.

                          Having said that, the "debate" was a joke. They didn't talk about much. There were a couple of hot chicks in the audience. The Pakistani debate chick was hot, the Afghan ones (both) were ugly.

                          Another key takeaway from the interview is that the Arab style hijab doesn't look great in my opinion. I like the luppatta over the head better.

                          Summary: Debate sucked. 2-3 hot chix. Luppatta > Hijab.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Peacelove View Post
                            Borders are meaningless but then practically no body allow us to enter any other country except Passport and Visa so in real world borders do exist and are respected..Question here is do afgahnistan accept its border with Tajikistan , Turkemanistan and Uzbekistan and who marks that ? If yes then why ?
                            This is a very good point, Saleem Safi once brought this up in an interview with Hamid Karzai. Tajiks and Uzbeks are also divided by a border, but neither Uzbekistan or Tajikistan bothers Afghanistan about Balkh or Badakhshan belonging to them, so is it fair for Afghanistan to do the same with Pakistan?

                            Both issues are reciprocal to each other not accepting durand line and then reassurance does not get along in my humble opinion afghanistan would gain more if it formally accept the border. As such there is no desire in KP or any other pashtuns areas to merge with afghanistan.They are paksitanis like anybody else and this video proves it.
                            Referendum is unnecessary but if Afghanistan asked for it, I'd support it. In the end it'll only prove the point that Pashtuns feel better off in Pakistan than they would in Afghanistan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Elite Pakhtun View Post
                              I agree with Shapur: that a more neutral language would've allowed each team to articulate their thoughts better.

                              Having said that, the "debate" was a joke. They didn't talk about much. There were a couple of hot chicks in the audience. The Pakistani debate chick was hot, the Afghan ones (both) were ugly.

                              Another key takeaway from the interview is that the Arab style hijab doesn't look great in my opinion. I like the luppatta over the head better.

                              Summary: Debate sucked. 2-3 hot chix. Luppatta > Hijab.
                              Girl from Panjshir was pretty >_>

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X