logo
As Afghanistan warmed up to India in the late 1940s, strains with Pakistan began to emerge

As Afghanistan warmed up to India in the late 1940s, strains with Pakistan began to emerge

Scroll.in4 days ago

In November 1949, India's ambassador to Afghanistan sent a letter to the foreign secretary, celebrating the positive shifts in the chilly relations between the two nations.
'As you are aware, the Indian consulates both at Kandahar and Jalalabad have started functioning,' Ambassador Rup Chand wrote. 'I have received reports from the respective Vice-Consuls and it is apparent that the prestige of India has gone high in the eyes of Afghans.'
The thaw in the relations began after India became free. Until then, many Afghans had viewed India with hostility owing to the participation of British-Indian forces in the three Anglo-Afghan Wars. In the second of these conflicts, lasting from 1878 to 1880, Afghanistan lost control of the Khyber Pass and many Pashtun areas, which were handed to undivided India.
India's independence and partition changed two things. It dehyphenated India from Britain. And it transferred the areas seized in the Second Anglo-Afghan War from India to Pakistan, changing the object of Afghans' animosity.
So bitter were Afghans over Pakistan's control of the North West Frontier Province, which is dominated by Pathans, that they tried to keep the country out of the United Nations.
'Afghanistan cast the only vote against Pakistan's admission to the United Nations and Pakistan's leaders are inclined to couple this unfriendly act with Russia's coldness,' The New York Times reported on October 13, 1947. 'Afghanistan also has been bold in advancing her claim to Northwest frontier territories on the ground that Pathans inhabiting these areas on Afghanistan's border are racial brothers of Afghans.'
India's ambassador in Kabul told the vice-consuls in Jalalabad and Kandahar, Narendra Nath and Ram Chand Kalra, to closely monitor Afghanistan's ambitions for the North West Frontier Province. Following the direction, both diplomats dispatched regular reports covering socio-economic and political issues, including the ways Afghans perceived India and Indians.
American involvement
To read their despatches today is to see the historic roots of some of the contemporary events in South Asia. In his letters, for instance, Kalra observed the growing American interest in Afghanistan.
Kandahar at the time had a small American community, consisting mainly of employees of the civil engineering company Morrison-Knudsen. 'They are making roads, dams and other public works,' Kalra wrote. 'This is not exactly known on what terms they are working. It is said they charge a certain percentage over and above the actual expenditure and then the Afghan Government shares a certain portion of the net profit which the company gets in the long run.'
Kalra picked up on a possible link between the American activities in Afghanistan and the Cold War. 'There is a fairly good deal of rumour going round that the object of the Americans is not just commercial but they have political ends in view, i.e. the Americans want to know the strategic points from the military point of view which should stand them in good stead in the event of war with Russia,' he wrote. 'Some go to the length of saying that U.S.A. are financing the Afghan Government for these projects and that there is some understanding on the part of U.S.A. of advancing Afghanistan some loan.'
Kalra said it was 'difficult to get at the truth but one thing is certain that the Americans want to increase their influence in Afghanistan vis-a-vis the other countries, especially their greatest rival, Russia'.
Kalra's reports suggested that Americans had a friendly attitude towards Indians. They seemed to be genuinely happy, he said, when Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru went on his first visit to the United States.
Trade barrier
Not just the Americans, in Kalra's telling, Afghans too were pleased with Indians. When independent India's first diplomatic mission opened in Kandahar, locals welcomed it. 'The Afghans expressed great pleasure on the opening of our Consulate when they came to attend the party given on the 1st instant,' he wrote in an October 1949 report. 'The function was well attended. The Americans with their ladies added to the elegance of the show.'
In the same report, Kalra said Afghans had hopes from India. 'While the top Government officials eulogise the Indian Government and its officers, the middle class is looking to India for rendering them some good in the field of trade whereby the living conditions of Afghan masses would be ameliorated.'
One of the major obstacles to increased trade between the two countries was Pakistan. The military commander of Kandahar told Kalra that Pakistan was not letting Afghan traders send goods to India through its territory. 'The smoothness of trade prevailing in the pre-partition days has been disturbed,' Kalra wrote. 'The difficulties according to some of the traders, I have seen, are manifold. In the first place they have to spend time and money in getting a permit from Karachi.'
Next, the authorities in Karachi tried to convince Afghans to sell their products to Pakistani middlemen, who wanted to monopolise trade from Afghanistan to India. 'The other main difficulty is that the consignments between Afghanistan and India in the names of Hindu traders are often tampered with on the way and the latter have to get them booked in the name of other fictitious traders,' Kalra wrote.
Trade between the countries was also affected by the devaluation of the Indian rupee. Pakistan, which refused to do the same to its currency, created what Kalra called 'anxieties' and 'misunderstandings' through the rumour mill in Kandahar. 'The reported devaluation of Indian currency along with the anti-India propaganda gave impetus to trading with Pakistan,' Kalra said, adding however that this was a temporary phenomenon. A month after India devalued the rupee, Afghanistan followed suit and trade once again picked up.
Secessionist sentiment
Under King Mohammed Zahir Shah, Afghanistan became a supporter of the right to self-determination of Pashtun people. When Pakistan put Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who had made the demand for Pashtunistan, under house arrest, there were protests in parts of Afghanistan.
Kalra kept track of rallies and statements from Afghan leaders in support of the self-determination movement. 'The Pashtunistan issue continues to dominate the political sphere and the movement had made further headway in the fortnight under report,' he wrote. 'A big Jirga of Khanzadgan, Safi and Shinwaris was held at Sheikh Baba Ziarat, in which Mohd. Shueb Jan, after hoisting the Pashtun national flag, delivered a speech on the unscrupulous treatment of Pakistan and their determination to achieve liberation from their domination at all costs.'
This was the time Pakistan began accusing the Indian government of fanning the demand for Pashtunistan. While the correspondence between Indian diplomats in Afghanistan in 1949 seems to suggest that New Delhi was merely observing the situation, it is true that there was support for the cause among ordinary Pashtuns in India.
'The Pathans of Ahmedabad in India held a meeting under Maulana Mohd. Akbar in which all the participants expressed their readiness to do their utmost for the attainment of Azad Pashtunistan,' Kalra wrote in a December 1949 report. 'They also decided to request all the other countries to recognise Azad Pashtunistan. This progress has naturally perturbed the Pakistani authorities.'
A similar meeting was held by Indian Pashtuns at the historic Fatehpuri Mosque in Old Delhi, where it was decided to garner support for the Pashtunistan movement.
Pakistan used the news of these gatherings to step up claims that India was actively supporting the Pashtunistan movement. In its information campaign, a despatch says, Pakistan also spread the rumour that an official named Meher Chand was recruiting for the Indian Army in Afghanistan's border areas with the North West Frontier Province. 'It appears Pakistan will now step up its anti Indo-Afghan propaganda drive in an attempt to turn the Muslim world against Afghanistan for having this friendship with India,' Kalra wrote.
At this tense moment, Indian diplomats in Kandahar, Jalalabad and Kabul looked for signs of military build-ups to see whether Afghanistan would use force to settle the Pashtunistan question. The situation was particularly tense in January 1950 when Afghanistan and Pakistan exchanged strong words. 'Mutual recrimination has almost become an obsession, each calling the other not only undemocratic but also unislamic,' Kalra wrote.
The vice consul added that 'while Pakistan's mainstay is their criticism of Afghans' economic structure and autocratic rule, the Afghans find fault with Pakistan's policy of putting several thousand innocent Pashtuns in jail for their only fault of demanding independent Pashtunistan. In this cold war, there is naturally an influx of wrong and fabricated news items.'
In 1950, Afghanistan was not really in a position to wage a war against Pakistan. So instead it gave moral support to the Pashtunistan cause, with regular radio broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu and Dari calling for self-determination for those living east of the Khyber Pass.
'Some little hope for reconciliation, which Pakistan cherished on grounds of religion, is gone and the gulf has grown too wide to be easily bridged,' Kalra said. He added that Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan's statement that the country 'would not surrender an inch of land east of the Durrand line,' did not go down well in Afghanistan.
Friendship treaty
While the ties between Kabul and Karachi were in a freefall, Afghanistan's relationship with India continued to thrive. On January 4, 1950, the two signed a five-year friendship treaty, mutually recognising each other's independence, agreeing to build cultural relations, and furthering cooperation in industry and agriculture.
'The news was received by the Afghan masses with joy and enthusiasm, but has aroused jealousy and suspicion in Pakistani circles,' Kalra wrote.
Soon after the treaty was signed, a radio telegraph service between India and Afghanistan became operational, with their ministers of communication exchanging messages.
A few weeks later, when India became a republic on January 26, 1950, Afghanistan welcomed the event, with Prime Minister Shah Mahmud Khan sending a congratulatory telegram to Nehru and Kabul Radio broadcasting a special programme. The next day, a celebration was held in Kandahar for the upper classes and important traders. 'Sentiments of pleasure were expressed by one and all on the auspicious occasion,' Kalra observed.
A daily newspaper, Talu-i-Afghan, marked the event with a front page editorial headlined 'India Becomes Republic' that read: 'We have sanguine hopes that the new constitution, which is based on equality and unity will give 32 crores of people of all religions- Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian etc., equal rights, and as is clear from the lives of their leaders, everyone will have rights of all kinds of freedom.'
The editorial said that 'India has the right type of leaders like Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, Abdul Kalam Azad, Sardar Patel and others, it has also vast resources and in a short span of its independent life it has succeeded in creating friendly relations with all the Islamic countries of the East'.
These sentiments guided the India-Afghanistan relationship, keeping them strong and friendly, until the 1970s, when Afghanistan became a major Cold War flashpoint between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC

Business Standard

time16 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim
Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim

Time of India

time18 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim

Donald Trump has reignited controversy with a shocking late-night post on Truth Social, implying that Joe Biden was "executed" in 2020 and replaced by engineered lookalikes. The post contained no context, just a link to a bizarre claim filled with phrases like 'soulless robots' and 'bio-engineered doubles.' While Trump didn't explain further, the internet exploded with divided reactions, critics slammed him as a conspiracy theorist, while loyal supporters echoed the wild claim. The uproar comes days after Trump publicly called Biden 'vicious' and 'not very bright,' urging Americans not to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile, Biden faces a deeply personal battle after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. His team has confirmed it's serious, but treatable through hormone therapy.

Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan

Indian Express

time23 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Framing the narrative war against Pakistan

Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store