History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedPakistan’s British-Drawn Borders

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Mehran Baloch View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mehran Baloch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pakistan’s British-Drawn Borders
    Posted: 08-May-2009 at 15:09
Indeed the number of intra-state conflicts and border disputes between many modern neighbours today can be identified in large part to being rooted in the drawing of unnatural borders all over the World by former colonial powers and the failure of some of these newly invented successor states to colonialism to honorably solve such conflicts. It was inevitable that Africa and Indian subcontinent (and its immediate neighbour, Afghanistan and Baluchistan) would be consumed by such conflicts once the Europeans departed. The geography of the Durand line and its present function as border makes it an especially complex problem for Afghanistan's occupation forces. But much like the Taliban who see no border, neither should the Americans or NATO either. Because to the Pashtuns, the border does not exist. They are one nation on both sides. I think it will not be too long before the Americans undo the mistakes of the British and discard this Durand line. A mistake of history, but one that can be corrected in future. 
 
 
 
 
May 5, 2009, 10:02 am

Pakistan’s British-Drawn Borders

By Robert Mackey
INSERT DESCRIPTIONLibrary of Congress A map of the border between Afghanistan (in yellow) and British India (in pink) from 1893, the year the Durand Line was drawn. The Swat Valley was then considered a part of Afghanistan.

In their fascinating account of a series of interviews with a Taliban tactician in Tuesday’s New York Times, Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah point to “one distinct Taliban advantage: the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan barely exists for the Taliban.”

In previous posts on The Lede, we’ve mentioned that Pakistan and the rest of the world believes that Afghanistan ends (and Pakistan begins) more or less where a 1,600-mile line was drawn on the world map in 1893, at the direction of a British colonial officer named Henry Mortimer Durand, who sought to define the outer edge of what was then British India. At the time, the Afghans grudgingly accepted this map, despite the fact that what became known as the Durand Line cut right through Pashtun tribal areas and even villages that they considered part of Afghanistan.

Sir Henry, whose portrait can be seen in Britain’s National Portrait Gallery in London, drew his line with the memory of Britain’s two failed wars against the Afghans fresh in his mind. Not long before, in 1879, during what the British call the Second Anglo-Afghan War, Sir Henry had completed and published an account of “The First Afghan War and Its Causes” begun by his father, Sir Henry Marion Durand. As Sir Henry noted in his introduction to the book (which has been scanned and posted online in its entirety by Google), his father, who died before he could complete the history, “had some special qualifications for the task,” having participated in that first, disastrous attempt to subdue Afghanistan, four decades earlier.

So, as the entry on Pakistan in the Encarta encyclopedia explains, splitting the Pashtun tribes was in some sense the whole point of what is still known today as the Durand Line:

As the British sought to expand their empire into the northwest frontier, they clashed with the Pashtun tribes that held lands extending from the western boundary of the Punjab plains into the kingdom of Afghanistan. The Pashtuns strongly resisted British invasions into their territories. After suffering many casualties, the British finally admitted they could not conquer the Pashtuns. In 1893 Sir Mortimer Durand, the foreign secretary of the colonial government of India, negotiated an agreement with the king of Afghanistan, Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, to delineate a border. The so-called Durand Line cut through Pashtun territories, dividing them between British and Afghan areas of influence. However, the Pashtuns refused to be subjugated under British colonial rule. The British compromised by creating a new province in 1901, named the North-West Frontier Province, as a loosely administered territory where the Pashtuns would not be subject to colonial laws.

In November, 2001, as the United States confronted the Taliban in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Cener and the Pentagon, Vartan Gregorian explained on The Times’s Op-Ed page how the arbitrary line the British colonial administration in India drew through “Pashtunistan” in the 19th century, which still forms much of the modern border, created problems that have still not been resolved in this volatile border region.

As the scholar Barnett Rubin noted in an article in Foreign Affairs in 2007, when the British left India in 1947 and the northwest part of the territory was carved into the new state of Pakistan, the Afghans stopped recognizing the Durand Line as a border:

Afghanistan claimed that Pakistan was a new state, not a successor to British India, and that all past border treaties had lapsed. A loya jirga in Kabul denied that the Durand Line was an international border and called for self-determination of the tribal territories as Pashtunistan. Skirmishes across the Durand Line began with the covert support of both governments.

While the two governments today are not actually fighting a war over the location of the border, the fact that the Durand Line runs right through the traditional Pashtun lands means that Taliban fighters from Afghanistan blend easily into the local population on the Pakistani side of the frontier. Suggestions from Pakistan to stop illegal border crossings by either putting down land mines or erecting a fence have been rejected by Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, who is himself Pashtun.

In January, Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon official, told Bill Moyers in a discussion of American strategy for fighting militants along the Afghan-Pakistan border, calling the Pashtuns who live along both sides of the Durand Line “a tribe,” can be misleading. In an interview, Mr. Sprey said:

It’s not a tribe. It’s a nation. This is 40 million people spread across Afghanistan and Pakistan, you know, who don’t even recognize that border. It’s their land. … There’s 40 million of them. That’s a nation, not a tribe. Within it are tribal groupings and so on. But they all speak the common language. And they all have a very similar, very rigid, in lots of ways very admirable code of honor much stronger than their adherence to Islam.

Pakistan’s other borders were created in 1947 by another British colonial officer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who was made chairman of the boundary commission and given six weeks to carve a Muslim-majority state from British India. As the historian Karl Meyer wrote in his book “The Dust of Empire,” Sir Cyril “was a curious choice,” since he had never previously visited India. In a chapter called “Pakistan: Sins of Partition,” Mr. Meyer explained:

As Radcliffe’s former private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, later remarked in an interview, the chairman had never traveled east and “was a bit flummoxed by the whole thing. It was a rather impossible assignment, really. To partition that subcontinent in six weeks was absurd.”

Hundreds of thousands of people died in the ethnic cleansing that followed the imposition of the new border Sir Cyril drew between India and Pakistan. W.H. Auden made the absurdity of the way the border was created the subject of the poem “Partition,” published in 1966:

Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission,
Having never set eyes on the land he was called to partition
Between two peoples fanatically at odds,
With their different diets and incompatible gods.
“Time,” they had briefed him in London, “is short. It’s too late
For mutual reconciliation or rational debate:
The only solution now lies in separation.
The Viceroy thinks, as you will see from his letter,
That the less you are seen in his company the better,
So we’ve arranged to provide you with other accommodation.
We can give you four judges, two Moslem and two Hindu,
To consult with, but the final decision must rest with you.”

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day
Patrolling the gardens to keep the assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided.

The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget
The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not,
Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.



Edited by Mehran Baloch - 08-May-2009 at 15:11
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 01:47
What you call mistake I call cunning foreign policy.  It's no coincidence that, as you say, from the sub-continent (Kashmir) to Central Asia (Afghanistan/Pakistan) to the Middle East (Kurdistan) to Africa - (i.e.) wherever British paws have tread there has ensued national and ethnic conflicts.  Coupled with the many tens of coups and wars sponsored by London throughout these regions since the official end of the colonial era, right up until the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the picture becomes crystal clear.  


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 11:44
Obviously as the colonial power Britain has some responsibility in this area[1], but for what it did to be deliberate there would have to have been some perceived benefit to Britain from the conflicts in Kashmir, Kurdistan, Afghanistan and so on. What on earth would that be, or have been?
 
[1] If only for not clearing up the conflicts that existed in these areas long before Britain ever arrived.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 15:57
There are many benefits for Britain, for example to sell the arms, nothing makes money like war, especially ones your not fighting in. 
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 18:09
Originally posted by gcle2003

Obviously as the colonial power Britain has some responsibility in this area[1], but for what it did to be deliberate there would have to have been some perceived benefit to Britain from the conflicts in Kashmir, Kurdistan, Afghanistan and so on. What on earth would that be, or have been?
 
[1] If only for not clearing up the conflicts that existed in these areas long before Britain ever arrived.
 
It is the typical post colonial anti-British crud.  They can't solve their problems so it is the fault of people who left 60+ years ago.  It gets old.
 
"Conflicts that existed in these areas long before" were, frankly, not Britain's problem and clearing them up was not generally in Britain's interests.  Those conflicts had to be either managed or kept out of.
 
 
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 20:23
Pikeshot1600 you are right in some degree, but have you ever talked to people from those region in person to see their liberal views on the issue? Britannia was famous as old fox back then (can it be all crap?).
Anfører
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 00:39
Originally posted by Suren

Pikeshot1600 you are right in some degree, but have you ever talked to people from those region in person to see their liberal views on the issue? Britannia was famous as old fox back then (can it be all crap?).
 
Well, I don't know anyone from Kashmir, but who would you have rather had draw the borders?  Russia?  China?  Would they have given a rat's ass about the "liberal views" of the populaion?  I doubt it.
 
Colonial peoples didn't get that luxury.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 04:04
Originally posted by gcle

Obviously as the colonial power Britain has some responsibility in this area[1], but for what it did to be deliberate there would have to have been some perceived benefit to Britain from the conflicts in Kashmir, Kurdistan, Afghanistan and so on. What on earth would that be, or have been?

It allows Britain to exert some degree of control, brings in a balance of power situation, and keeps countries focused locally.
Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the English's Book. Why wouldn't they do it?

I don't consider this to be in anyway anti-British either. They built an Empire that way
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 10:39

In 1893, the British actually gave up large areas of Afghanistan (Balkh and Jalalabad for instance) in return for the present border; one which was actually defendable. All those who say that "the border dose not exist" have very obviously not been there. There are exactly two crossings, at Torkham and one in the south.

The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 10:46

I agree they built an empire more or less that way, and calling Britannia a foxy lady is not without cause. But my question was specific: what, post-Empire, could Britain hope to gain from discord in Kashmir, Kurdestan and Afghanistan?

It certainly didn't do much for the arms industry, since Afghanistan and 'Kurdestan' were too small to be worthwhile, and India and Pakistan were going to be big customers anyway. The important money in the arms business comes from selling to rich countries, not terrorist groups.

And why would Britain want to control such places any more? Britain's only interest in Afghanistan arose from the need to defend the Indian Empire - with the Empire gone, Afghanistan has no significance for Britain.
 
When the Iraqi-Syrian-Turkish borders were drawn, creating (or at least reviving) the Kurdistan problem, much the same applied. As long as Britain retained the influence it had over the states of the Red Sea littoral, there was no other interest in the region: the only oil sources of importance were in southern Iran.
 
Divide and conquer may be the oldest trick in the book, but if you've given up the conquering business you don't need the book any more?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 15:57
Originally posted by gcle2003

I agree they built an empire more or less that way, and calling Britannia a foxy lady is not without cause. But my question was specific: what, post-Empire, could Britain hope to gain from discord in Kashmir, Kurdestan and Afghanistan?

Let us just talk about Kashmir. Brits were getting kicked out of India or were leaving themselves bottomline "jewel in the crown" was getting relinquished.

India's rape economically strengthened British economy. So Britain had a cause to be upset that they were out. Thus Brits were pissed and were waiting for an opportunity to "get back" and sowed a permanent problem in the subcontinent. Kashmir before 1947 WAS NOT AN ISSUE. Infact after 1949 till 1989 Kashmir was again not an issue. Bollywood movies were regularly shot in Kashmir. After Pakistan's ISI sponsored Sikh terrorism was defeated by Indian Govt in Punjab ISI started focussing on Kashmir. And then the Kashmir problem started afresh.

We should remember:
a) Britain forced India's hand in taking the matter to UN immediately after partition.
b) Indian army could have sorted the Kashmir problem in 1947-48 by taking over POK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) if it was not for Nehru/Mountbatten combine.

If we still have doubts about British deliberately creating trouble in India we should try to figure out that in the entire fight for Indian independence why was Jinnah not jailed even once whereas leaders like Gandhi and Nehru incarcerated rather frequently and for long intervals.
 


Edited by ruffian - 10-May-2009 at 16:01
Back to Top
Mehran Baloch View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mehran Baloch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 17:12
Can the admins please make sure that this topic does not get hijacked and turned into an argument about Kashmir? This topic has nothing to do with Kashmir, or indeed even Pakistan's borders with India which are not in dispute as the Panjabi was more than happy to separate from his Hindoo and Sikh cousins and to drive them out of their homes. And also unlike the Pashtuns and the Baluch, the Panjabis are not a nation, never were a nation, and are unlikely to ever become a nation unless Pakistan is one-day reduced to just its Panjab province.
 
Very simply there would be no Panjab had it not been for the Mughal's who designated that part of north-west India as Panjab. But more importantly the Panjab really took shape during the British empire in India (became then known as "the Punjab"). The Panjabi identity began to take root from there. Whereas the Pashtun and Baloch identities are indigenous to its peoples and are hundreds of years old, the collective "Panjabi" identity of the various Indian tribes and castes like the Jats, Gujjars, Rajpoots, Dalits and so on was given to them by the British. The British collectively dubbed all these Indian tribes and castes as "Panjabis" after the name of the province that was created for them. It is an identity as colonially constructed as any Pakistani, Nigerian, South Africa, Jordanian etc etc identity is. One not even based on common language or culture, because the peoples that inhabitted British Punjab did not speak a common standardised language that had its own universal written-form. They spoke related dialects only. This is why the British introduced Urdu to the Panjab and why the Pakistani state continues to make use of Urdu. No peoples in Pakistan but the Panjabis have embraced Urdu as their mother-language, this speaks volumes about the non-existence of a strong and indigenous Panjabi identity. There simply isnt one, at least as far as it concerns Pakistan (it is now the Pashtuns, Baluch and Sindhis who continually label them Panjabis more than a person from Panjab would call himself. Few people from Bahawalpur or Multan for example are likely to call themselves Panjabis). In India one may have now developed because of its Sikhs altho note that from reading their history these Sikh Guru's themselves never even referred to themselves as Panjabis, but as Hindoos/Hindoostanis etc
 
So my point is that the line drawn down the the British Punjab was hardly the division of nation. Yes it deprived millions of their homes and turned them into refugees, but it did not unnaturally divide a people or a nation unlike the Durand line has, unless of course you look at India as whole and want to talk about the division of the Indian nation (or i should say civilization to be more correct).
 
As it relates to Kashmir, that is a problem that cannot be blamed on the British but on the power-hungry Indian and Pakistani state's. So any talk of Kashmir in relation to this topic is nonsense.
 
I will back later to return to the issue of the Durand line and the division of Afghan peoples and the situation of Balochistan in this scenario.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 19:17

There ae enough moderators watching the thread. If it degenerates into Indo-Pakistani name-calling then yes I'll stop it unless someone beats me to it. Whether the British were careless, negligent, wicked, scheming or whatever in their establishment of the Pakistan Afghanistan border however is a reasonable topic, and the facts of the subject quite interesting.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
00historylover00 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote 00historylover00 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 20:37

spartan: Yes they are " borders" But I've been there myself. And u don't need visas passports or anything to get through. Its like going to another state...They just check ur cars if u have guns, drugs or anything. And thats all they do. Once ur in NWFP  it feels like ur still in Afghanistan.

Back to Top
yas245 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote yas245 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 21:44
I wouldnt consider mountains as borders, but rather constraints.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2009 at 00:35
Originally posted by 00historylover00

spartan: Yes they are " borders" But I've been there myself. And u don't need visas passports or anything to get through. Its like going to another state...They just check ur cars if u have guns, drugs or anything. And thats all they do. Once ur in NWFP  it feels like ur still in Afghanistan.

So bloody what? We have never needed a visa to go to Afghanistan or even a passport; you need some sort of valid ID. Kabul used to be a real party town back in the 70's, lots of Pakistanis from Islamabad and Lahore used to go on the GT Road to Kabul for the weekend, until the USSR decided that peace and prosperity were such awful things. We have never needed a visa to go to Iran either or the UAE or Nepal or the Maledives or Egypt or many other countries.
 
Because a border is soft dose not mean it is not there, Pakistan closed the border in 1961. For two years the flow of Afghans was stopped.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2009 at 08:53
Hello to you all
 
The border problem is a direct result of the modern state not the Brits or Americans.
 
In the examples above the border was actually frontier inhabited by independent peoples who neither wanted to join this country or that. Because the lands these people (or tribes) live in was not charted drawing borders when time came was near impossible. Tribes will typicaly chose sides (because they have too) and naturally each tribe will claim more land than it used to own. Another reason for border problems (common in most Arab countries) is that the frontier in uninhabitable desert where no one lives in and was traditionally a neutral grazing ground attended by all tribes. When modern states came problems on who controls these areas appreared and thus differences appeared.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
MarcoPolo View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: Planet Earth
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
Post Options Post Options   Quote MarcoPolo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2009 at 17:09
While there are border passings between Pakistan and Afghanistan such as at Torkhum-Jalalabad, Parachinar and in the south west at Chaman going to Qandahar posted by Customs official. These tend to be mostly for federal trade purposes.  People to people crossings is as easy as taking a few steps.  I remember even when we were children playing in the village, a few times I'd walk over the hill and be in Afghanistan all of a sudden.  The thing was, it didnt look any different from Pakistan and the people where the same as well.  The point is,  people(s) from both Pakistan and Afghanistan have a ''laisser faire'' attitude in that they can cross over quite easily for business, family and holidays.  There never was a reason to institute strict border patrol except during times of hightened political tensions (Daud Khan foreign policy, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Post 911/Miltants @ border, indian consulate sponsored terrorism etc.)  For all intents and purpose, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been inhabited by the same Pashtun people (32 Million in Pakistan and 9 Million in Afghanistan) and there really was no need to make an official border other than one on paper and map books.  Both countries were united as recently as the 18th century when Afghanistan was officially founded as well as all throughout history under different names as well. 
I think the American and Western governments have realized this, infact the US administration now uses the term AfgPak recognizing that for all practical purposes, the two countries are essentially one.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2009 at 14:26
Surely that applies only to north-west Pakistan and south-east Afghanistan? A major problem with Afghanistan seems to be that the peoples of the north and those of the south have very little in common with each other.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2009 at 14:05
Originally posted by gcle2003

Surely that applies only to north-west Pakistan and south-east Afghanistan? A major problem with Afghanistan seems to be that the peoples of the north and those of the south have very little in common with each other.
and may i go further and say another line exists between Punjab and the NW + Baluchistan in pakistan.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.051 seconds.