Mr. Husain Haqqani, Ashley J. Tellis
{
"authors": [
"Husain Haqqani"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"Afghanistan",
"Pakistan"
],
"topics": []
}REQUIRED IMAGE
The Wind Blows Another Way at the Durand Line
Haqqani recommends that an American-brokered accord between Pakistan and Afghanistan to end the latent dispute over the Durand Line, coupled with international guarantees to end Pakistan’s meddling in Afghanistan, might be the basis for durable peace and friendship between the two Muslim states.
Source: The Indian Express

Musharraf and most Pakistani officials blame India for the deterioration in Islamabad’s ties with Kabul. But Karzai, Mujaddedi and the majority of Afghan parliamentarians now criticising Pakistani policy do not have a history of close ties with India. They lived as refugees in Pakistan between ’79 and ’88 when it served, with US help, as the staging ground for the guerrilla war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
India maintained cordial ties with the pro-Communist Kabul regime during that period. Pakistan’s extensive hospitality for millions of Afghan refugees strained Pakistani society. But the Afghan Jihad was justified by Pakistan’s establishment on grounds that it would create goodwill among Afghans and buy Pakistan influence across its northwestern border for years to come.
How did Pakistan manage to lose the goodwill generated by its support of Afghan refugees and Mujahideen during their anti-Soviet struggle? The answer can be found in the near-obsession of Pakistan’s establishment with extending its influence into Afghanistan. Pakistan should have been content with having friends in power in Kabul after the fall of the pro-communist regime in ’92. Instead, its intelligence community adopted the attitude of British officers of the 19th century.
Afghanistan’s frontier with British India was drawn by a British civil servant, Mortimer Durand, in 1893 and agreed upon by representatives of both governments. After Pakistan’s independence from Britain in 1947, Pakistani leaders assumed that Pakistan would inherit the functions of India’s British government in guiding Afghan policy. But soon after Pakistan’s independence, Afghanistan voted against Pakistan’s admission to the UN, arguing Afghanistan’s treaties with British India relating to Afghan borders were no longer valid since a new country was being created where none existed at the time of these treaties.
Although India publicly did not support the Afghan demand for “Pashtunistan”, Pakistan’s early leaders could not separate the Afghan questioning of Pakistani borders from their perception of an Indian grand design against Pakistan. They wanted to limit Indian influence in Afghanistan to prevent Pakistan from being “crushed by a sort of pincer movement” involving Afghanistan stirring the ethnic cauldron in Pakistan and India stepping in to undo the partition of the subcontinent. Pakistan’s response was a forward policy of encouraging Afghan Islamists that would subordinate ethnic nationalism to Islamic religious sentiment.
Pakistan’s concern about the lack of depth in its land defences led to the Pakistani generals’ strategic belief about the fusion of the defence of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan’s complicated role in Afghanistan beginning well before the Soviet invasion of 1979 and through the rise and fall of the Taliban can best be understood in light of this desire.
Karzai and other Afghan nationalists remain unwilling to accept Pakistan’s vision of Afghanistan as a subordinate state. Afghanistan maintains lose ties with India and expects to pursue an independent foreign policy. Pakistan has offended Afghans in the past with attempting to dictate their policies and by positioning itself as a major player in a contemporary version of the Great Game. Now, however, it also runs the risk of upsetting the US, which is militarily present in Afghanistan and has significant stakes in ensuring its stability.
Since the beginning of 2005, casualties in Afghanistan have been rising. The Taliban insurgency is weak and not yet as threatening as the challenge in Iraq. But Afghan insurgents are clearly getting arms, money and training. The Taliban are also recruiting new members and undertaking bolder attacks such as the one against Mujaddedi.
Intelligence-led covert operations invariably have unexpected consequences, often described as “blowback”. Pakistan and Afghanistan must defuse current tensions and build an open, diplomatic relationship in place of the Great Game legacy of intrigue and violence. A fence between Afghanistan and Pakistan is unrealistic, as is the complete separation of the two countries’ shared history. An American-brokered accord between Pakistan and Afghanistan to end the latent dispute over the Durand Line, coupled with international guarantees to end Pakistan’s meddling in Afghanistan, might be the basis for durable peace and friendship between the two Muslim states.
About the Author
Former Visiting Scholar
- India and Pakistan: Is Peace Real This Time?: A Conversation between Husain Haqqani and Ashley J. TellisReport
- America's New Alliance with Pakistan: Avoiding the Traps of the PastOther
Mr. Husain Haqqani
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie China
- Renewed Clashes on the China-India BorderCommentary
Can China and India disengage from contested territories along the border?
- +1
Paul Haenle, Ashley J. Tellis, Han Hua, …
- India’s New Crypto Proposals Should Worry Virtual Currency FansCommentary
The government extends the uncertainty with its two new taxes and digital rupee.
Anirudh Burman, Priyadarshini D.
- Beneficial Currency EcosystemCommentary
China and Pakistan should strive to build a RMB closed-chain cycle based on capital exports and trade returns.
Lu Yang
- How the United States Should Deal With China in PakistanArticle
The Trump administration holds a decidedly critical view of China’s infrastructure initiatives in Pakistan. Although there is much to criticize in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the administration’s fixation on commercial and economic issues threatens to distract U.S. policymakers from deeper concerns.
Daniel Markey
- What Trump’s Trip to India Means for ChinaCommentary
India manages a delicate balancing act between the United States and China, but in several key areas, the three giants could advance shared interests.
Lu Yang