India's Afghan policy and how it will impact the Pakistan security challenge for New Delhi
The Durand Line, established in 1893, was meant to mark British influence, not serve as a border. Pakistan's 1947 recognition of it as an international boundary has weakened Pashtun identity and created lasting regional instability. Afghanistan has firmly contested the legitimacy of Pakistan's claims, asserting historical sovereignty, stemming from the tribal aspiration for Pashtunistan and the Pathans' desire for direct access to Hindustan.
These issues have been pivotal in the Afghan national agenda since Mohammad Daoud Khan became Prime Minister in 1953, leading to increased tensions in the 1950s and 1960s as Afghanistan supported Pashtun nationalist movements in Pakistan.
The Pashtunistan movement, aimed at establishing an independent state or integrating into Afghanistan, was led by the National Awami Party and the Awami National Party, with notable leaders including Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, known as 'Sarhadi Gandhi'.
During the Cold War, Daoud sought US military assistance, but Washington imposed conditions on a $25 million arms sale, including payment in cash and the abandonment of Kabul's claim to Pashtunistan. The State Department signalled the seriousness of these conditions by marking a copy of the note for the Pakistani Ambassador in Washington.
Pakistan undermined the US-Afghan relationship by inciting tribal revolts against Kabul, with the CIA collaborating with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In 1956, the US recognised the Durand Line at the SEATO conference, leading Afghan leader Daoud to align with Moscow. The Afghan Loya Jirga subsequently called for Soviet military support, prompting Moscow to back the Pashtuns' right to self-determination, aided by Nikita Khrushchev's visit to Kabul.
In the 1960s, the Soviets supplied arms to the Pathans to counter Chinese support for Pakistan. Both the Soviet Union and Iraq supported the Pashtunistan cause, while India remained an observer despite the Pathans' fight for independence from British rule. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgars rejected joining Pakistan in 1947, advocating instead for an independent Pashtunistan. Bacha Khan expressed his feelings of betrayal to Gandhi, saying, 'You have thrown us to the wolves'.
India's diplomatic efforts mostly provided moral support, reinforced by Pashto and Balochi broadcasts on All India Radio (AIR) that focused on cultural and informational content. However, there was little action taken to address the oppression faced by the Baloch and Pashtun people under Pakistan's governance or to support their right to self-determination.
Indian diplomats, lacking crucial insights, viewed the Pashtunistan issue from a Western perspective and worried that instability in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) might lead to a Soviet threat. While New Delhi formed an exiled Tibetan government for the CIA, it did not support the United Pakhtoonistan Front (UPF), established in 1967.
Despite this lack of direct support, the Pashtun movement continued under the leadership of the Red Shirt and National Awami Party (NAP) through the 1960s and 1970s. Pakistan aimed to influence the Pathans by integrating tribal leaders into the state, resolving the issue by the 1970s. The NWFP was renamed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2010.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Ziaul Haq and ISI Chief Hamid Gul spearheaded the 'Afghan Jihad' against the Soviet Union, propagating a misleading concept of 'strategic depth' to undermine Pashtun nationalism. They turned Afghanistan into a terrorism hub, establishing over 120 training camps for around 30,000 jihadists along the border with Pakistan.
In 1992, Pakistan's ISI stopped supporting the Mujahideen and established the Taliban to dilute the principles of Pashtunwali ghayrat with a Pakistani interpretation of Islamic values, allowing Pakistan to obscure the issue of Pashtunistan.
In 1976, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto proposed releasing National Awami Party (NAP) leaders in exchange for Daoud Khan's recognition of the Durand Line, but this issue remained unresolved after their removal in 1977 and 1978. No Afghan government has recognised the Durand Line as a boundary, with the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) claiming that Afghanistan's borders extend to the Indus River in the 1990s. This issue resurfaced after 9/11, when Presidents Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani both refused to acknowledge its legitimacy.
The narrative of 'Pakistani oppression' unites the Afghan people, paralleling the challenges posed by the NAP in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) in Balochistan. The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), led by Manzoor Pashteen, calls for an end to Pakistan's rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, while factions of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are adopting a nationalistic focus, with leader Noor Wali Mehsud vowing to fight for independence.
The TTP rejects the Durand Line's legitimacy and conducts cross-border raids, leading to Pakistani airstrikes on TTP hideouts in Paktika Province in 2024. Pakistan's strategy to undermine Pashtun nationalism is faltering, and as the Taliban moves out of Rawalpindi's control, the ISI may support another Pashtun faction to replace them.
The recent shift in Washington's position alongside 'Operation Sindoor' marks a significant change in India's strategy, moving away from a US-centric approach towards a more independent policy for Afghanistan. The Taliban's strong condemnation of the April Pahalgam massacre shows Kabul is no longer cooperating with Rawalpindi. India's engagement with Kabul, irrespective of the regime, is a positive development. Strengthening ties with Afghanistan is vital for India's interests in Pakistan, Central Asia, China, Iran, and Russia. Additionally, Turkey's strategy of using Pakistan to counter India in Eurasia complicates matters.
The main challenge India faces is not the Taliban, but Pakistan's influence and the manipulation of Pashtun identity, which threatens its territorial integrity. India should capitalise on its renewed relations with Kabul to connect with the 60 million Pashtuns across the border and discuss potential reunification. As the US remains pro-Pakistan, India must craft a new Afghan policy that goes beyond humanitarian aid to address the Pashtunistan issue and re-examine the Durand Line's validity, which has been contested since 1992.
India's Pashtun policy should respect historical contexts to promote Pashtunwali and the traditions of the Pathan people. Instead of a military approach, India should leverage its geopolitical strengths to address the unique security challenge posed by Pakistan. This strategy could involve reintegrating the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) into Afghanistan, liberating Balochistan, and reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit-Baltistan. Such steps would represent a crucial policy shift for New Delhi.
The writer is a senior fellow at Delhi Policy Group
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Rolls-Royce still vying to codevelop India's stealth jet engine: Alex Zino
Rolls-Royce says India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement will positively impact both its civil aviation and defence businesses in India Bhaswar Kumar New Delhi Listen to This Article Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the United Kingdom (UK) in July saw the signing of the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta), the adoption of Vision 2035 to steer bilateral strategic relations over the next decade, and the finalisation of a defence industrial road map. Against this backdrop, Alex Zino, executive vice-president (business development & future programmes for UK & international markets), and global head of government relations, Rolls-Royce, spoke to Bhaswar Kumar about how these developments would help the British aerospace and defence company scale up operations in India. Zino also confirmed the company still remains in
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Scott Anderson captures US' hubris, Iran's revolution in exceptional detail
For most Americans, the hostage crisis was the revolution's defining event NYT KING OF KINGS: The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation By Scott Anderson Published by Doubleday 481 pages $35 In September 1979, Michael Metrinko, the pugnacious political officer at the US Embassy in Tehran, was back in the US for a brief vacation when he was surprised to receive a summons to a high-level meeting at the State Department. For the previous several months — indeed, several years — Metrinko had been the Iran mission's black sheep, wholly out of step with the official flow of upbeat information from the country. That flow had been dead wrong. The US diplomats and intelligence officers charged with managing relations with Iran had not just missed the first signs of the Islamic Revolution; they had suppressed reports that it was coming. By September, the supposedly invincible shah had abdicated. Mobs ruled the streets. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had returned triumphantly from exile in France and installed himself in Qom. Yet the experts at the American Embassy were still playing a hopeful tune. Metrinko knew better. One of very few fluent Farsi speakers at the Tehran mission, he was better attuned to the depth of Iranian anger toward America. His pointed dispatches had earned him a dressing-down by the clueless ambassador, William Sullivan. Nevertheless, someone at the State Department had decided to give Metrinko his moment. He arrived at the meeting early, with notes, only to be asked to leave before it began because he lacked the appropriate security clearance. He protested that he had been specifically invited — to no avail. A little more than a month later, Metrinko became one of 52 American diplomats, embassy staffers, and military personnel, and a handful of civilians, held hostage for 444 days in Iran by a radical Muslim student group. The story of Metrinko's aborted meeting, recounted in Scott Anderson's King of Kings, his masterly new account of the Iranian revolution, illustrates the stubborn American blindness that hastened the shah's demise and helped the mullahs prevail. For most Americans, the hostage crisis was the revolution's defining event. An unprecedented and prolonged public exercise in humiliation, it riveted the nation for more than a year, dashed Jimmy Carter's bid for a second presidential term and ushered in the Reagan era. But in Iran, as Anderson shows, it was the final act in a much larger and more consequential drama. The fall of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the slight, pompous, pathetically dithering Shah of Shahs, or King of Kings, 'brought an abrupt end to one of the most important economic and military alliances the United States had established anywhere in the world,' Anderson writes. 'The radically altered Middle Eastern chessboard created by the revolution has led directly to some of America's greatest missteps in the region over the past four decades.' Propped up by a succession of presidents, the shah was an American creation first and last. His story is another sad chapter in the long history of self-defeating, misguided US meddling in the internal affairs of less powerful nations — Cuba, Nicaragua, and Vietnam already by 1978. In the case of Iran, US involvement meant toppling a constitutional monarchy (albeit an imperfect one) and supporting an increasingly capricious autocrat. Cold War priorities provided the initial impetus — containing the Soviet Union — but in time that motivation devolved into an ugly greed fest, as the shah, prized for his weakness by his masters and fabulously rich with oil money, developed an irrational appetite for new weapons systems. The shah had lived his life in a make-believe world, its fantasy enforced by a security apparatus, Savak, that terrorised anyone who refused to play along. With all sensible, independent voices silenced, deliberate misinformation, conspiracy theory, and superstition rushed into the vacuum. The most compelling voice in this haboob was the angry fundamentalist ranting of the exiled Khomeini. His sermons moved hand-to-hand under Savak's nose on cassette tapes, diligently collected by the CIA, most never listened to or transcribed. By early 1979, the storm incited by those sermons blew away the Peacock Throne, American influence and any hope for popular rule. This is an exceptional book. Scrupulous and enterprising reporting rarely combine with such superb storytelling. Anderson leavens his sweeping and complex chronicle with rich character portraits: Of the Shah and his discerning wife, Farah (whom Anderson interviewed); the harsh, cruel Khomeini; the bullheaded, ignorant Jack Miklos, the deputy US chief of mission and the shah's biggest 'cheerleader'. Yet the figure who stands out most is Metrinko, who took the trouble to learn Farsi, which enabled him to hear what Iranians said, and he paid attention to what he saw. Asked why he had foreseen what so many of his colleagues missed, he told Anderson, 'Because the guys in the political section of the embassy who were supposed to keep watch for this kind of stuff were lousy at their jobs. Is that overly harsh? I think it's deserved.'
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
Tipu Sultan laid foundation for KRS Dam, says Karnataka Minister Mahadevappa
Last Updated: Mandya (Karnataka), Aug 3 (PTI) Karnataka Minister H C Mahadevappa on Sunday said 18th Century AD Mysore ruler Tipu Sultan laid foundation for the Krishna Raja Sagar dam in Srirangapatna. Karnataka government's water resource department website says the construction of K R S dam was commenced in the year 1911 during the reign of then Mysore king, Krishna Raja Wadiyar Bahadur, and completed in the year 1931. Renowned civil engineer and Bharat Ratna awardee Sir M Visvesvaraya developed the project, it says. The dam is built across the Cauvery River near Kannambadi village in Srirangapatna taluk of Mandya District. At an event on Sunday, Mahadevappa said, 'Tipu Sultan was the first who laid the foundation stone (of the dam) but nobody has the courage to say this. B R Ambedkar has said that those who don't know history cannot create history." Elaborating further, he said there was a mosque on one side and a temple on the other, where Azan (call for Islamic prayer) and the temple bell rings would go simultaneously and Tipu Sultan would listen to both. According to the Social Welfare Minister, Sultan had eradicated Devadasi system, pioneered land reforms and introduced sericulture in India for the first time. 'He was the towering freedom fighter who fought against the colonial British rulers," Mahadevappa said. PTI GMS ADB (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 03, 2025, 20:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
