Latest news with #Pathans'
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
India's Afghan policy and how it will impact the Pakistan security challenge for New Delhi
Pakistan is likely to be India's primary security challenge for the next 25 years, requiring a response that extends beyond military measures. India must implement a comprehensive geopolitical strategy to address the issues of 'Pashtunistan' and the Durand Line, which have fragmented Pashtun regions for 132 years. 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
India Today
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- India Today
Exclusive: Shehzad Khan opens up about strained relationship with father Ajit
Shehzad Khan, son of iconic Bollywood villain Ajit, recently opened up about the difficult and emotionally distant relationship he shared with his father. In a raw and revealing conversation with India Today Digital, Shehzad didn't hold back as he recalled the pressures of growing up in a strict household and the weight of being Ajit's son. The 'Andaz Apna Apna' actor said, 'Let me tell you, my grandfather was in the Nizam's army, so my father was raised in a very strict, military-style environment, and so was I. Naturally, he was a strict father too. I'm sharing something very close to my heart. The relationship I had with my father was similar to the one Ranbir Kapoor and Anil Kapoor had in the film Animal-very strained, very tough. He never praised me. Not once. Instead, he would always point out my flaws. 'Why are you like this? Why are you like that?' I just kept enduring it, telling myself that one day, God would stand by me." One of the harshest moments he recalled, was being told outright by his father that he wouldn't support his dream of being an actor. "He once told me, 'I will never make a film for you, not even a phone call. In fact, if possible, don't even say you're my son. 'Work hard and make your own path.' And I said to myself, 'He's forgotten he's talking to a Pathan - we are also Pathans' children. I'll face everything head-on.'And he meant it. Even when he met filmmaker Nasir Hussain, who was related to Ajit, he didn't use the connection. "I remember meeting Nasir Hussain sahab, who was a relative of my father from Shahjahanpur. Even then, I didn't write on a chit that I was Ajit's son. I sat there with my portfolio for about 45 minutes, waiting for my turn. When I told him I wanted to work with him, he said, 'We've already finalised the hero.' His office was huge, just opposite Mehboob Studio. He pointed and said, 'See that boy - today the whole city knows him as Aamir Khan.' I replied, 'If I can't be the hero, make me the hero's friend or the villain - give me something.' He said, 'Okay, some roles as the hero's friend are coming up, will call you.'"Shehzad further added, "I was told to write my address, so I wrote on a piece of paper, and when Naseer Saab saw he said, 'Looks like Hamid Miya's address!' Then he asked, 'What are you doing there?' I was about to say I was staying as a paying guest, but instead, I told him I was Ajit's son. He was shocked and angry. He said, 'Why didn't you tell me earlier?' I said, 'Even then, you would've given me the role of the hero's friend.'" On a concluding note, Shehzad mentioned, 'My father was a very good actor and also a very good human being, but he was a very strict father."
