“The problem with this is that it requires the destruction of Pakistan, so I am not sure that the Pakistani government would agree to it.”

You say the “Pakistani government”. What is that? I assume you mean the Military Inc in Pakistan, right? Let’s keep the facts straight. Those years of civilian rule in Pakistan’s “history” can be counted on ten fingers.

Mirwais

As I recall from some old geography class or other, borders in the dim and distant past were largely defined by geographical features, mountains, rivers, that sort of stuff. Folk were happy back then. All this new fangled construction of borders on the basis of a good bottle of port in the Garrick club is, probably, where it all went wrong. If you look at the Canadian / American border for instance, and reading in time from right to left, you can see some understanding of geographical features, until the second bottle of port went down, when the border pursues a straight line for thousands of miles. Lazy, or drunk cartographers. Blame it all on the map makers. I used to like the phrase, “The map is not the country”, but I’ve come to believe, the map is the country.

And we want Berwick on Tweed back.

“I mean don’t you wonder how the Taliban can so easily pop over the rather(amazing euphemism here) “porous” border whenever the fancy takes them?”

The Pakistani army are ineffective in that resepect, but are still seen as interfering- the worst of both possible worlds. A least a set border would reduce some of this coming and going.

“you’re essentially viewing the Pashtuns as some pawns in some great strategic game without any consideration or even basic knowledge of the culture or the people. They can have a state because it’s to our benefit: we can allow the lines to be redrawn on the map again.”

My point was that while many ethnic groups are calling for their own homeland, the Pashtuns’ desires are doubly important because of the civil wars and nuclear weapons in that region. There are British troops in Afghanistan, so we are involved in that region’s security too.

Actually “trying” to operate in or near would be much more accurate. Those areas are still probably the “freest” in the world in terms of lack of state control. I mean don’t you wonder how the Taliban can so easily pop over the rather(amazing euphemism here) “porous” border whenever the fancy takes them?

Plenty of ethnic groups want their own homeland (Basques, Kurds and so forth). My article was about the geo-political/strategic factors, and why it would be a good idea for other nations to support this proposal.

No, no, no, no. I think this is the core reason why you’ve offended people in this thread with your attitude: you’re essentially viewing the Pashtuns as some pawns in some great strategic game without any consideration or even basic knowledge of the culture or the people. They can have a state because it’s to our benefit: we can allow the lines to be redrawn on the map again. Maybe from your lofty vantage point that’s all that matters, but things look different from the perspective of those you’re looking down upon who perhaps aren’t as greatful for your beneficience as you think.

“No, areas like Waziristan and other border areas are currently completely outwith the rule of Pakistani law and beyond the reach of the army too.”

They used to be, but those are the areas that the Pakistani army are operating in or near now.

“Personally if I were to try and make the case for a separate Pashtun homeland, or at least the incorporation of a big chunk of what is now Pakistan into Afghanistan I would have started off with these “secondary” issues, showing the popular support the Pashtunistan concept had rather than saying oh but this is really convenient for the rest of us– tho you didn’t even really make that argument well.”

Plenty of ethnic groups want their own homeland (Basques, Kurds and so forth). My article was about the geo-political/strategic factors, and why it would be a good idea for other nations to support this proposal.

Sonia:

“I didn’t think you were about to rush over there tomorrow ( well i don’t actually know where you are..) and put your plan into action.”

Heh. Perhaps I am already over there now, using my tape measure to carefully mark the new borders while Pashtuns shoot at me.

“if you are going to talk about plans and theories on a public forum, presumably you were looking for some opinions back! ( and I was supplying mine)”

Of course- it would be incredibly boring otherwise. I did not mean in the slightest to imply that nobody should criticise it.

“That said, however, it is very important at the start of any plan ( if it is a real plan, and not just some theorising for the heck of it), everyone needs to keep implementation in sight.”

I have come to realise more of the shortcomings, but it was meant to be a practical plan (or at least not an impractical one).

“I think if you asked a lot of londoners, you might find some think the north of the river/south of the river divide is enough to warrant their own territory! londoners can be deeply parochial.”

I reckon that it is a bit more of an North-South-East-West divide now.

“Like i said on the other thread, you can justify any ‘intervention’ as being ‘good’ and ‘going to make things better, stop civil wars’ therefore we ought to go for it.

Heck dropping a nuclear bomb was justified that way so there we go.”

I still think that intervention in some situations is justified.

like i said on the other thread, you can justify any ‘intervention’ as being ‘good’ and ‘going to make things better, stop civil wars’ therefore we ought to go for it.

heck dropping a nuclear bomb was justified that way so there we go

that said, however, it is very important at the start of any plan ( if it is a real plan, and not just some theorising for the heck of it), everyone needs to keep implementation in sight. No business planner would do otherwise, i fail to see why social planning should be any different. ( or military planning!) I was merely pointing that out, which I’m sure you realise too.

jff – “he whole of that Himalaya range is covered in a quilt of tribes – each in their own valley – perfoming blaspheamous religious and tribal rites” – yep, a quilt is a good description.

No, areas like Waziristan and other border areas are currently completely outwith the rule of Pakistani law and beyond the reach of the army too. As regards the tribes, erm, well they are based around tribal lines, which are strong enough in many cases to overrule any ethnic affiliations they may have as Pashtuns.

Obviously I would not propose the creation of Pashtunistan if I thought that the Pashtuns were against it. My whole article was about the problems created by them not having their own homeland. If it transpired that few Pashtuns wanted a homeland, then I would never support it.

It’s an obvious statement to make: but shouldn’t you have investigated questions relating to how popular the sentiment for a separate Pashtunistan state was among Pashtuns, how many non-Pashtuns live in the area you’ve earmarked for the state and to which extent they would agree to being part of a state ethnically defined as belonging to the Pashtuns, how integrated, how Pakistani Pashtuns in Pakistan regard themselves, etc,…, before you made the case for the state? Or are these considerations only secondary, much less important than the geo-political strategic issues you’ve outlined in your article?

Personally if I were to try and make the case for a separate Pashtun homeland, or at least the incorporation of a big chunk of what is now Pakistan into Afghanistan I would have started off with these “secondary” issues, showing the popular support the Pashtunistan concept had rather than saying oh but this is really convenient for the rest of us– tho you didn’t even really make that argument well.

“Another link from Wikipedia for you to read, regarding the “Jeay Sind” movement.”

Thanks. I had never heard of them, though I knew that there was anti-Punjab feeling throughout the rest of Pakistan. The article read like a press release though, so I suspect that their support is overstated.

“You see, this is part of the problem. I’m not claiming India was a paradise with regards to territories not under Muslim rule, but the very fact that you think that the average non-Muslim ruler in the subcontinent was by default “vicious, corrupt and intolerant” speaks volumes about your perspective and the associated assumptions. I have to wonder exactly what sources of reference & information you are basing these ideas on.”

I was just trying to explain that I did not regard Muslim rulers as any better than non-Muslim rulers. Most rulers were to some extent vicious, corrupt and intolerant, whatever their religion or location. Corrupt because they misspent money, and vicious and intolerant because of the restrictions that they put on their people.

“Have you done some thorough background reading on the biographies of the Sikh Gurus yet, as suggested several weeks ago ? If not, then you may want to hold-fire on attempting to second-guess the motivations behind Guru Arjan’s actions until you have a thorough understanding of everything the Gurus stood for and preached, and their own behaviour as a consequence … At the very least, I hope it starts to give you some insight into the moral calibre of the Gurus and the ideals they embodied.”

I am a great admirer of the Sikh gurus and Sikhism itself, especially Guru Nanak, who founded a religion dedicated to ending the violence between various religious groups by pointing out that there is not one right path to God. Saying that Guru Arjan was executed for rebellion is not meant as an insult to the man, rather an interpretation of a contentious historical event.

“If Jahangir really was “enlightened” in the true sense of the word, he would not have executed Guru Arjan (or anyone else) for “rebellion” regardless of the standards of his time.”

Rulers who cracked down on those they saw as a threat to the state could still be enlightened. In this country today, if someone gave shelter and money to one of its foremost enemies they would be jailed for a long time. My point is, and always has been, that Guru Arjan gave material aid to Khusrau, who was attempting to overthrow his father. Thus, by the standards of the time, this was an act for which execution was justified. I am not agreeing with the decision to execute the Guru, but explaining it.

“However, I hope all this is proving to be an educational experience for you.”

It is, and I am glad that there are informed commentators here.

“I don’t think giving Bin Laden and his friends a “safe haven” from which to continue their so-called jihad against the rest of us is a very good idea.”

But at the moment they are able to run wild. A defined border could at least be patrolled more effectively.

“I do not think Rumbold’s ideas and viewpoint are remotely motivated by anything malicious, arrogant or underhanded.”

I do appreciate that Jai. I love arguing with people, but would hate them to think that my arguments were based on malice.

You probably do mean well,

Just for the record I do agree completely with Jagdeep on the above. I do not think Rumbold’s ideas and viewpoint are remotely motivated by anything malicious, arrogant or underhanded.

Is Sind really likely to secede? I probably have underestimated the strength of Pakistani nationalism mind.

Another link from Wikipedia for you to read, regarding the “Jeay Sind” movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeay_Sindh_Qaumi_Mahaz

Quote: “The movement, which demands the creation of an independent Sindhu Desh has a strong base among student and the emerging middle class.”

I know that many Muslim rulers were just as, if not more, vicious, corrupt and intolerant and the average non-Muslim ruler in the sub-continent.

You see, this is part of the problem. I’m not claiming India was a paradise with regards to territories not under Muslim rule, but the very fact that you think that the average non-Muslim ruler in the subcontinent was by default “vicious, corrupt and intolerant” speaks volumes about your perspective and the associated assumptions. I have to wonder exactly what sources of reference & information you are basing these ideas on.

However, I will continue to argue that Jahangir was an enlightened ruler, and that Guru Arjan was executed for helping Khusrau rebel against his father.

I mean no disrespect to Sikhs, but if you spend your life being told that Guru Arjan was martyred for his beliefs and then someone argues for a different historical interpretation, you are not going to be too receptive to it.

Bare in mind that disagreeing with the party line on Guru Arjan does not count, because that is a perfectly legitmitate historical argument.

Have you done some thorough background reading on the biographies of the Sikh Gurus yet, as suggested several weeks ago ? If not, then you may want to hold-fire on attempting to second-guess the motivations behind Guru Arjan’s actions until you have a thorough understanding of everything the Gurus stood for and preached, and their own behaviour as a consequence.

I recommend you read through the following link for a detailed overview of the events leading up to Guru Arjan’s execution, including his dialogue with Jahangir. Whether you view this as a historically legitimate description of what happened is of course entirely up to you. At the very least, I hope it starts to give you some insight into the moral calibre of the Gurus and the ideals they embodied.

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-gurus/sri-guru-arjan-dev-ji-4.html#1

If Jahangir really was “enlightened” in the true sense of the word, he would not have executed Guru Arjan (or anyone else) for “rebellion” regardless of the standards of his time. And bear in mind that for many Sikhs, the Gurus set the bar for ideal kingship, considering that from Guru Hargobind onwards they were literally temporal monarchs as well as spiritual leaders for their followers.

You may be right on that. As I said before, I underestimated the strength of feeling.

Somewhat suprising, considering that the greater proportion of British South Asians (namely Indian and Pakistani Punjabis) belong to groups which were directly impacted by Partition. There are plenty of people around from the grandparents’ generation who are survivors of those events, or at least individuals from the South Asian-born “parents’ generation” whose families were affected. Hell, even Sanjeev Bhaskar talked about the impact of Partition on his own family at length in his recent BBC2 series. However, I hope all this is proving to be an educational experience for you.

Yes, and my argument was that America might have give up chasing them if it wants peace in the region.

I don’t think giving Bin Laden and his friends a “safe haven” from which to continue their so-called jihad against the rest of us is a very good idea.

“Rumbold, you’re pretty clueless to be honest on this issue, and everything else when it comes to South Asia that you’ve posted on. You probably do mean well, and that’s what is so sad.”

I would consider that (nice but dim) a highly patronising statement if I did not know that you were trying to be kind, so I appreciate it. Wrong on everything else to do with South Asia? Quite a broad statement there. Care to provide any examples? Bare in mind that disagreeing with the party line on Guru Arjan does not count, because that is a perfectly legitmitate historical argument.

In hindsight I think that my proposal for Pashtunistan was wrong- this is what is so great about Pickled Politics, you get a wide range of informed views. And you critiqued my argument very well Jagdeep. However, I am not sorry that I proposed it, as it provoked an interesting discussion.

Anas:

“Firstly the Pakistani govt has very little control over many of the tribal areas in NWFP so why would the tribes who live there relinquish their current high level of autonomy and sacrifice that to become part of a state — especially given that Pashtun culture is very much tribally based with tribal affiliations being stronger than ethnic ones?”

They used to have a high level of autonomy until the Pakistani military moved in. That is the point. The tribes are based around ethnic lines though, are they not? So to a certain extent ethniticy and tribe are one and the same.

“Last time I went to Rawalpindi I saw Pashtun/Afghan refugees living out on practically every street and a lot of them work as domestic servants. Given the state of Karachi where there’s been brutal violence for decades between the “natives” and Muslim refugees from the partition of India, I’m sure if Pashtunistan were to happen then regardless of the fact that it’s Muslim v. Muslim, the South Asian propensity to communal savagery wouldn’t take to raise its head (remember also the bloody anti-Shia violence that is commmon in Pakistan). The founding of Pashtunistan may well mean the forced removal, i.e., ethnic cleansing, of many Pashtuns from other areas of Pakistan as retribution.”

You may be right on that. As I said before, I underestimated the strength of feeling.

“At the end of the day you have to ask, how many of the people concerned, the Pashtuns in Pakistan/Afghanistan, actually want this, or does that not matter, if Pashtunistan is strategically convenient for the West? The point being what if most Pakistani Pashtuns do not want it and Rumbold doesn’t even consider that possibility. It reminds me of bb’s comment above about the separation of Iraq, again, I would ask what percentage of Iraqis actually want it?”

Obviously I would not propose the creation of Pashtunistan if I thought that the Pashtuns were against it. My whole article was about the problems created by them not having their own homeland. If it transpired that few Pashtuns wanted a homeland, then I would never support it.

“Finally the line about “letting a few guilty men escape”. I’m sorry, but isn’t the presence of these men the reason Afghanistan, a sovereign nation, was INVADED IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?”

Yes, and my argument was that America might have give up chasing them if it wants peace in the region.

Strangely enough, even if the Pashtuns don’t count, there is still one one Jew (probably the only one) living in Afghanistan, the tenacious Zablon Simintov:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablon_Simintov

Firstly the Pakistani govt has very little control over many of the tribal areas in NWFP so why would the tribes who live there relinquish their current high level of autonomy and sacrifice that to become part of a state — especially given that Pashtun culture is very much tribally based with tribal affiliations being stronger than ethnic ones?

Secondly if NWFP broke away then this would undoubtedly catalyse secessionist movements in other parts of Pakistan, especially Balouchistan, and for that simple reason the Pakistani govt would never allow it, i.e., what’s to stop it becoming an EVEN more coherent country.

Thirdly the point Jai made about Pashtuns living in other parts of Pakistan is correct too. Last time I went to Rawalpindi I saw Pashtun/Afghan refugees living out on practically every street and a lot of them work as domestic servants. Given the state of Karachi where there’s been brutal violence for decades between the “natives” and Muslim refugees from the partition of India, I’m sure if Pashtunistan were to happen then regardless of the fact that it’s Muslim v. Muslim, the South Asian propensity to communal savagery wouldn’t take to raise its head (remember also the bloody anti-Shia violence that is commmon in Pakistan). The founding of Pashtunistan may well mean the forced removal, i.e., ethnic cleansing, of many Pashtuns from other areas of Pakistan as retribution.

Actually the Wikipedia article on Pashtunistan is worth quoting:

Considering the fact that Pashtuns live in every province of Pakistan, and that the Pakistan Army – the most influential body in Pakistan – is made up of 30% Pashtuns, many Pashtuns feel they have considerable influence in Pakistan and see it as their homeland. These pro-Pakistan Pashtuns claim to be the majority and point to democratic elections in Northwest Frontier Province as proof of this. They are highly sensitive to the idea of Pashtun separatism or Pashtunistan…

Furthermore, Pashtuns have one of the highest birth rates in Pakistan, and their representation in the country is expected to increase considerably over the next few decades further increasing their representation in the country. Pashtuns in Pakistan have also migrated heavily to other provinces within Pakistan with the city of Karachi in the province of Sindh now having the largest urban population of Pashtuns in the world (estimated at four million). There are also sizeable pashtun populations in Lahore (one to two million) and in Islamabad/Rawalpindi. Pashtuns virtually dominate the transport industry in Pakistan and are actively involved in business and trade throughout the country but particularly in areas outside of the traditional Pukhtunkwa areas

At the end of the day you have to ask, how many of the people concerned, the Pashtuns in Pakistan/Afghanistan, actually want this, or does that not matter, if Pashtunistan is strategically convenient for the West? The point being what if most Pakistani Pashtuns do not want it and Rumbold doesn’t even consider that possibility. It reminds me of bb’s comment above about the separation of Iraq, again, I would ask what percentage of Iraqis actually want it?

Finally the line about “letting a few guilty men escape”. I’m sorry, but isn’t the presence of these men the reason Afghanistan, a sovereign nation, was INVADED IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?

“Rumbold, don’t take this personally. If I’m wrong, I apologise, but you’re white aren’t you?”

Yes. Or pinkish/beige, to be more accurate.

“Along with your comments on Jehangir your commentary on South Asia is breathtaking in its iignorance and lack of understanding.”

I see now that I have grossly underestimated the psychological impact of partition on South Asians and for that I apologise. However, I refuse to accept that simply because I come from another country I cannot offer any solutions. The solutions may be wrong, but to pretend that the current situation is acceptable is just wrong. Who is ‘allowed’ to offer suggestions then?

As for Jahangir, I suspect that I have approached him from a more rational and historical position than you. I mean no disrespect to Sikhs, but if you spend your life being told that Guru Arjan was martyred for his beliefs and then someone argues for a different historical interpretation, you are not going to be too receptive to it.

Jai:

“You are aware that the “resentment” was a two-way street, correct ? It wasn’t just a case of “those nasty Hindus and Sikhs” deciding to victimise Muslims and driving them out of “their” territories on the newly-formed Indian side of the border?”

Yes, but I see why you said that. Re-reading my comments I might have (unintentionally) given the impression that oppression of Muslims was the only game in town. Sorry.

“With regards to Pashtuns currently domiciled in Pakistan outside the NWFP, I think you severely underestimate the level of resentment and retribution that would be triggered against them within the rest of the Pakistani population if the NWFP broke away from the rest of the country. Furthermore, Pakistanis will not want to see their nation dismembered, especially as the loss of the NWFP would quite possibly escalate the secession of Sind and Baluchistan.”

Is Sind really likely to secede? I probably have underestimated the strength of Pakistani nationalism mind.

“I would perhaps not choose words as strong as Jagdeep has, but with all due respect I do think your perspective on Muslim history, culture and psychology in that part of the world is rose-tinted and somewhat one-sided.”

I do not think so. I know that many Muslim rulers were just as, if not more, vicious, corrupt and intolerant and the average non-Muslim ruler in the sub-continent. I also do not think that the transplanted Persian culture was superior to the indigenous one. However, I will continue to argue that Jahangir was an enlightened ruler, and that Guru Arjan was executed for helping Khusrau rebel against his father.

As I said to Jagdeep, I have seriously underestimated the strength of feeling about partition. Sorry.

In fact, the Pashtuns were hardly touched by partition.

Further to my previous comment, let me re-emphasise that by “many of the same groups”, I was also specifically referring to the inhabitants of the rest of modern-day Pakistan. Partition was a very, very big deal for them and huge numbers were impacted by it.