Comment by Riaz Haq on February 13, 2018 at 9:40pm

Pak-Afghan%20Historu.pdf 

The Forgotten History of
Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations
by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Tara Vassefi

http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Article-Gartenste...

It was Afghanistan rather than Pakistan that chose to make this border dispute, and the issue of Pashtunistan, so central to the two
states’ relations.

At the outset, Afghanistan was the only country to vote against Pakistan’s admission into the United Nations, justifying this vote with the argument that Pakistan’s northwest frontier “should not be recognized as a part of
Pakistan until the Pashtuns of that area had been given the opportunity to opt out for
independence.”12 Pakistan was admitted despite Afghanistan’s objections. But thereafter
Kabul launched a series of low-level attacks against Pakistan, maintaining some degree
of plausible deniability throughout (as Pakistan would later do when non-state actors
that it sponsored struck at India, Afghanistan, US forces, and others).
George Montagno, who served as a visiting professor of American history at the
University of Karachi, has noted that for years after Pakistan’s creation, Afghan agents
operated within the Pashtun areas, “distributing large amounts of money, ammunition
and even transistor radios in an effort to sway loyalties from Pakistan to Afghanistan.”13
Another of their obvious goals was to build support for an independent Pashtunistan.
At the same time that Afghanistan worked to build support within Pakistan’s Pashtun
areas, it also escalated its attacks into Pakistan proper.
Pakistan claimed that on September 30, 1950, its northern border was attacked by
Afghan tribesmen, as well as regular Afghan troops, who crossed into Pakistan 30
miles northeast of Chaman in Baluchistan.14 It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel
this low-scale invasion, and its government announced that it had “driven invaders
from Afghanistan back across the border after six days of fighting.”15 For its own
part, Afghanistan claimed that it had no involvement in this attack, which it said was
comprised exclusively of Pashtun tribesmen agitating for an independent Pashtunistan.
But given Afghanistan’s later use of irregular forces dressed as tribesmen, Pakistan’s
claims that the aggression had emanated from Afghanistan’s government seem credible.

Comment by Riaz Haq on February 17, 2018 at 9:58pm

History of #Pakistan -#Afghanistan Ties; Afghan War End-Game; #AsmaJehangir Tribute. #India #GreatGame #UnitedStates #Taliban #AlQaeda #terrorism #ISI #DirectorateS #SteveColl #Pashtun http://www.riazhaq.com/2018/02/history-of-pak-afghan-ties-afghan-wa... …

Munich [Germany], Feb 18 (ANI): Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa has claimed that Pakistan does not have any organised terror outfits on its soil.

Addressing the Munich Security Conference (MSC) 2018 in Germany on Saturday, General Bajwa said, "Today, I can say with pride and conviction that there are no organised camps on our side of the border. However, presence of terrorists of various hues and colors cannot be ruled out. We still have their active and sleeper cells and they are hiding in mountains, border towns and 54 refugee camps, besides some major town and cities."

The army chief also stated that Pakistan still hosts approximately 2.7 million refugees from Afghanistan "whose concentration is regularly used by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Haqqani network to recruit, morph and melt".

Bajwa refused to blame the Kabul administration, and claimed that of the last 130 terrorist attacks in Pakistan's border areas last year, 123 were conceived, planned and executed from Afghanistan.

"We understand their [Kabul's] predicament and therefore we do not blame them, but instability in Afghanistan is also hurting us badly. And it is happening despite the presence of the most powerful alliance in Kabul," he said.

The Army Chief also urged the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to conduct, audit and introspect to find out the causes of the standoff.

"We defeated Al Qaeda, the TTP and Jammtul Ahrar while their safe havens still exist in Afghanistan at a mere fraction of resources employed at the other side of the border. Instead of blame game it is time for the NATO to conduct and audit and introspection to find out the causes of this stalemate," he added.

The three-day MSC, which commenced on Friday, is scheduled to end today.(ANI)

Comment by Riaz Haq on March 3, 2020 at 7:38pm

Ex #Indian Diplomat: The prospect of peace in #Afghanistan is real — and #Pakistan is the key player. It is the finest hour of Pakistan’s statecraft since the country’s creation in 1947. Ghani’s government will collapse the moment the #US ends its funding https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/the-prospect-of-peace-in-afghanist...

Sirajuddin’s mainstreaming (with U.S. acquiescence) is a guarantee for Pakistan that India’s influence with the Afghan security agencies will be terminated and its capacity to inflict damage on Pakistan’s national security interests will be rolled back. The U.S., arguably, has no quarrel with the legitimacy of Pakistan’s security concerns in this regard.

Pakistan’s main objectives are threefold: a friendly government in Kabul so that peace and tranquility prevail on the Durand Line; strategic depth vis-a-vis India; and a regional security paradigm where the U.S. geo-strategy remains critically dependent on Pakistani cooperation for a foreseeable future.

Pakistan’s trump card is that it is the only credible guarantor on the horizon who can reasonably assure the Western world that Afghanistan will not again become the revolving door for international terrorism. Trust Pakistan to play this card optimally.

The peace dividends are already appearing for Pakistan to garner. On February 27, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced the agreement to allow Pakistan to access $450 million out of a $6 billion bailout package. So much for the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force’s gray lists and blacklists of “Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories.”

-------------
The chasm between illusion and reality in politics remains perennial. Wars seldom ended according to the script of peace agreements. The fall of Saigon in April 1975 ending the Vietnam War, with defeated Americans hastily retreating in helicopters from the rooftop of their embassy, was not anticipated in the Paris Peace Accords of January 1973 that were painstakingly negotiated by Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese politburo member Le Duc Tho.

Therefore, the U.S.-Taliban peace agreement signed in Doha on February 29 must be put in proper perspective. Indeed, there can’t be two opinions that the curtain is coming down on what U.S. President Donald Trump called the “endless war” in which America squandered away over a trillion dollars and lost thousands of lives with no victory in sight. Equally, without a doubt, this is the finest hour of Pakistan’s statecraft since the country’s creation in 1947.

The odds may seem loaded against the dawn of peace in Afghanistan. After all, it is a hopelessly fragmented country, desperately poor with a subsistence economy where opium production is the principal source of income, a critically important geopolitical fulcrum for the Eurasian supercontinent (full of very valuable resources and also a pipeline route for oil and natural gas) and, most importantly, a playpen for al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

No doubt, each of these variables will surge in the coming weeks and months. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has already put a question mark on the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners from prison, which has been an important precondition that finds specific reference in the Doha pact.

However, in such pacts, what is more important is often what is not mentioned.

Comment by Riaz Haq on March 17, 2020 at 11:23am

Exclusive: #US #SpecialOps aviator reveals #BinLaden mission details for the first time: #American Chinook helicopter on its way back from Abbottabad was engaged 3 times by a #Pakistani F-16. #Pakistan felt like “metropolis United States". #Afghanistan https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/03/17/legenda...

Crossing into Pakistan was emotional for everyone.

“You know, it’s almost like there’s a road sign, ‘Stop, take a picture of Welcome to Pakistan.’ Even the crew members in the back, were like, ‘We’re in, right? Pakistan?’ And I’m like, ‘Yep’,” Englen said.

The deeper they flew into Pakistan, the more it felt like “metropolis United States,” with power lines, towers, cultural lighting. The contrast was stark: they were in a completely different country, much more prosperous than Afghanistan.

"You could see lights coming off and on,” said Englen. “You could tell that we are waking up Pakistan, because this is not normal. An aircraft flying at roughly 11:30 to midnight is not normal, because they (Pakistan military aircraft) don’t play at night as much as we do. In fact, at all, sometimes.”

While the local populace was aware something was up (and began tweeting and calling 911), the special operations aviators weren’t getting indications that the Pakistani military or the Air Force was keen on what they were doing.

“But, it’s paramilitary, so we just knew that eventually they would. We made it to the objective without really causing too much of a ruckus over the 911 calls. (But,) once we crashed the aircraft, within the first 30 seconds of the mission, then that’s when we really woke up that entire valley,” Englen said.

Hearing “Black Hawk down” over the radio changed everything.

Englen’s single Chinook raced across Abbottabad to pick up the ground force and air crew, arriving within 10 minutes of the call.

As he landed under the mushroom cloud of the exploding Black Hawk, the flight lead and planner was pissed off.

“I think crashing a helicopter on one of the most important missions of our generation, and later being asked by the director of the CIA (Leon Panetta), ‘Why the hell did you crash?’ I think that’s enough said,” Englen stated.

“It was hotter than expected for the MH-60 crews, and it had more fuel than expected. And they’re throwing on more last minute ground force. So, that (Black Hawk) crew — that had the famous last words to my two MH-47 (Chinook) crews before leaving Jalalabad of, ‘Just get us gas, bitches’ — had miscalculated, and came into that courtyard and lost effective lift,” Englen explained.

“Now, in retrospect, we could have done it with two Chinooks, the entirety. And more than likely — I don’t want to ever second-guess anybody —but in this condition, we would not have crashed, because we (the Chinooks) have the lift,” Englen said.

On the objective, his crew chiefs on the ramp, hopped out do a head count.

"They've got to get the headcount right, to make sure (we've) got the right amount of fuel. Plus, remember, we had people already on board, and this 800-gallon fuel tank inside. So there wasn't a whole lot of space (on board)," Englen explained.

While they were loading up inside, the Chinook was vulnerable.

“There’s nobody to protect us (the aircraft and crew) while we’re on the ground. Ever. When we’re on the ground, it’s just us,” he said. “So just hit the stop watch.”

They were on the ground for probably a minute and a half. It sounds like nothing. But for special operations aviators of the 160th, that’s an eternity.

“We like to be 10 to 15 seconds. Because, I mean, how long does it take operators to run on the back of a Chinook? That’s how long it should take,” Englen said. “But when they’re having to deal with grabbing things and carrying things (like bin Laden’s body bag, and everything seized from the compound), it changes everything.”

The mini-gunners, or door gunners, were scanning. They kept an eye on their sector. They saw civilians from the neighborhood around the compound come in from the right side towards the commotion, and kept an eye on them.

“It’s a little bit different of an environment. There is no ‘enemy’ in Pakistan, other than those that were inside the compound. So, even if we were shot it, it would be hard to even return fire. Not this type of objective. The rules of engagement are much different (than Afghanistan),” Englen explained.

“Ok, we’re loading the last guys,” the crew chiefs communicated with Englen, who started pulling a little bit of pitch.

“I had to anticipate and load the engines. Because I knew we were going to be extremely heavy,” Englen explained.

Turbine engines are running at a constant speed — about 6000 rpm (revolutions per minute). If they are loaded too quickly, they can bog down a little bit.

As soon as the last ground force was on the aircraft, the crew chiefs came in right behind them and ramped up.

"When we pulled out, I yanked the guts out of the engines and we were at max power. I mean, we were at the maximum weight that the aircraft could hold," Englen explained.

Exfil

Englen’s Chinook headed back to Jalalabad, Afghanistan, while the remaining Black Hawk (Chalk-2) headed to the refuel site about 30 miles north of Abbottabad.

The other Chinook had set up prior to the Black Hawk coming in, shutting the aircraft down and running the fuel hoses out.

“So, that’s time for the Chinook to get there, time it to shut down, time to refuel, close up the refuel hoses, start the aircraft and head out. It takes a little bit of time,” Englen said.

That meant they were sitting on the ground vulnerable inside a sovereign nation, after invading its airspace and assaulting a compound. The Chinook was on the ground for probably 20 to 25 minutes.

Meanwhile, Englen’s lone Chinook on its way back was engaged three times by a Pakistani F-16. Because he’d anticipated and planned for that, he was able to defeat and evade the fighter jet.

“It was as an electronic fight. A missile never left the rail. So I was able to evade him electronically. That’s all I’ll say. But, he was searching and hunting for me, and three times came very close to actually launching a missile,” Englen said.

He'd done that before with other fighter jets on other missions.

"That's why we were picked for this mission. And, I was one of the few who trained 160th crews how to do that," he added.

Regardless, they were still jinking and jiving, flying nap-of-the-earth.

"We pulled every technique and tactic out of the book. And it worked," he said.

The risk was different, depending on who you asked.

On the actual bin Laden compound, the risk to the ground force was high (which is why comparisons were made to it being like “just another night in Afghanistan,” where operations occur multiple times a night).

While the risk to the airframes was fairly low on the objective, it was extremely high during the other nearly four hours of flying.

"It was not typical. That risk would be typical of the early days of Iraq, when we had air defense and we had to use electronic warfare tactics," he said.

Nevertheless, crossing back into Afghanistan was an unusually good feeling.

“We felt safe,” Englen said, “Which is a totally weird thing to say about (a war zone) in Afghanistan.”

Exhuming UBL

As soon as they landed at Jalalabad, a C-130 transported the team and Englen to Bagram Air Base to help exhume the body of Osama bin Laden.

"Take it out of the body bag, inspect and take samples and things like that, to verify," he clarified.

They put him back in the bag, and took it out to the Marine MV-22 Ospreys.

“We had a gunny sergeant who was pissed off like you wouldn’t believe. Because they were out there running — full rotors turning for like two hours waiting for us,” Englen said.

The Marine air crew hadn’t been read into what they were doing there, or where they were going. As Englen and ground force members brought the body bag out to them, they expressed some frustration.

He tried yelling at me, you know, just, ‘What the F, why are we here, what’s going on?’” Englen recalled.

Englen just put his hand on that Marine gunny sergeant, and pointed at the body bag.

“'You know who that is?' I said. And, he looked at me, and I go, ‘That’s Number One.’ And there, he just snapped a salute, immediately changed his tone,” Englen said.

The Osprey air crew immediately pulled the ramp up, and off they went. They flew with an escort, all the way up to the USS Carl Vinson and buried bin Laden in the North Arabian Sea.

Comment by Riaz Haq on July 10, 2021 at 12:37pm

#Biden: "....the likelihood there’s going to be one unified government in Afghanistan controlling the whole country is highly unlikely" #Afghanistan #Taliban #Daesh #ISIS #Pashtun #Tajik #Uzbek #Hazara #Tribal
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/0...

You know my record. I can tell by the way you asked the question.

I opposed permanently having American forces in Afghanistan. I argued, from the beginning, as you may recall — it came to light after the administration was over, last — our administration — no nation has ever unified Afghanistan. No nation. Empires have gone there and not done it.


I believe the only way there’s going to be — this is now Joe Biden, not the intelligence community — the only way there’s ultimately going to be peace and security in Afghanistan is that they work out a modus vivendi with the Taliban and they make a judgment as to how they can make peace.

And the likelihood there’s going to be one unified government in Afghanistan controlling the whole country is highly unlikely.

Comment by Riaz Haq on July 16, 2021 at 9:13am

Writer Fateh-ul-Mulk Ali Nasir argues in this TFT piece that #Afghanistan has illegally annexed #Badakhshan and #Nuristan regions of #Chitral in contravention of the #Durand agreement with the #British #Indian government in 1893. Both belong to #Pakistan

https://www.thefridaytimes.com/chitral-and-the-durand-line/


Clause (3) of the Durand Agreement states, “The British Government thus agrees to His Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees, on the other hand, that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur, or Chitral, including the Arnawai or Bashgal Valley.”

-------------------

Chitral’s relationship with Afghanistan has been a complex one. It is impossible to examine Chitrali history and culture without seeing influence from Badakhshan, Wakhan and Nuristan. Chitral is at least as connected to northeastern Afghanistan as it is to Gilgit-Baltistan, in many ways perhaps more so to the former. In this analysis we will not be discussing ancient history, but the relations between the post 1747 Durrani State of Afghanistan and Chitral State, particularly after the British Protectorate had been established and the British Raj started to handle Chitral’s external affairs. The Durand Line, in particular, is a heated issue but one aspect which is totally neglected by both Afghanistan and surprisingly, Pakistan, is the fact that two erstwhile regions of Chitral which had expressly been mentioned in the Durand Agreement as falling within the political sphere of the British Raj, have been annexed by Afghanistan in contravention to the treaty!


--------
Surprisingly, British India took Chitral’s territorial integrity seriously and did not cede the Upper Kunar Valley or the Bashgal Valley of Kafiristan (now Nuristan) to Afghanistan

----------------------

Two very important points are made here. The first being that Afghanistan accepted that the Upper Kunar Valley (Arnawai) and Eastern Nuristan (Bashgal) are parts of Chitral and thus outside of Afghanistan, and that secondly, they would not interfere in these regions. The Afghans broke both of these promises within two years of signing the treaty by conquering and converting to Islam the ancient indigenous polytheistic people of Bashgal and by occupying two Chitrali forts in the Upper Kunar Valley, Narai and Birkot. The British turned a blind eye to these events as they occurred during the tumultuous year of 1895, when Chitral itself was about to break away from the British sphere of influence. Chitral subsequently became a princely state and thus lost any capacity to conduct foreign relations. Chitral was forced to cede further territory in Kunar when the village of Dokalam was handed over to Afghanistan. The people of the Bashgal Valley, though, continued to look to the Mehtar as their traditional leader and during the Third Anglo-Afghan War, Chitral tried to reassert its control over Bashgal and Upper Kunar when the Bashgal tribesmen welcomed the Chitral forces in Gawardesh and Kamdesh and pledged allegiance to the Mehtar. The Chitralis also recaptured Birkot in Kunar. The British, though, refused to recognize these actions and chose to reestablish the status quo antebellum. In other words, the British chose to disregard the treaty that they themselves drafted, but there is no reason why the successor state, Pakistan, must continue to do the same!

Comment by Riaz Haq on August 6, 2021 at 9:45am

Carter Malkasian does not agree with Ghani's, Karzai's and some #Americans' contention that Pakistan is the key and/or sole factor in Taliban prevailing over Afghan govt/US forces in Afghanistan. In fact, he strongly refutes it. Please reached attached clips

https://twitter.com/haqsmusings/status/1423648201316335618?s=20

Over time, aware of the government’s vulnerable position, Afghan leaders turned to an outside source to galvanize the population: Pakistan. Razziq, President Hamid Karzai and later President Ashraf Ghani used Pakistan as an outside threat to unite Afghans behind them. They refused to characterize the Taliban as anything but a creation of Islamabad. Razziq relentlessly claimed to be fighting a foreign Pakistani invasion. Yet Pakistan could never fully out-inspire occupation. A popular tale related to me in 2018 by an Afghan government official illuminates the reality:

An Afghan army officer and a Taliban commander were insulting each other over their radios while shooting back and forth. The Taliban commander taunted: “You are puppets of America!” The army officer shouted back: “You are the puppets of Pakistan!” The Taliban commander replied: “The Americans are infidels. The Pakistanis are Muslims.” The Afghan officer had no response.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/06/afghanistan-war-m...

Let’s take Pakistan, for example. Pakistan is a powerful factor here. But on the battlefield, if 200 Afghan police and army are confronted with 50 Taliban or less than that, and those government forces retreat, that doesn’t have a lot to do with Pakistan. That has to do with something else.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-legacy-afghanistan-past-present-an...

Comment by Riaz Haq on August 7, 2021 at 8:23am

#Russian Envoy Kabulov: "it seems that when those in Kabul who are supposed to protect their land from the Taliban fail to do that, they start searching for someone to blame and always consider Pakistan to be a suitable scapegoat.” #Afghanistan #Pakistan https://tribune.com.pk/article/how-russia-and-pakistan-are-supporti...

Russian Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said last week that “Pakistan, along with Russia and almost all neighbouring countries, is interested in Afghanistan returning to normality and becoming a reliable trade and economic bridge connecting Pakistan and Eurasia.” He then added that “Sometimes it seems that when those in Kabul who are supposed to protect their land from the Taliban fail to do that, they start searching for someone to blame and always consider Pakistan to be a suitable scapegoat.”

Several days later, The Express Tribune cited its sources to report that Pakistani National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf and Director-General ISI Lt. General Faiz Hameed told US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan that Russia is also interested in supporting the Afghan peace process and preventing the on-going civil war there from worsening. That same day, Russia’s publicly financed TASS – its most reputable English-language media outlet which only reports facts and not any interpretations thereof like RT and Sputnik do – ran a story about The Express Tribune’s report in order to raise awareness among their audience of this friendly gesture.

Taken together, these three developments are noteworthy in the sense that they show how much Russia and Pakistan are politically supporting one another on Afghanistan. The Eurasian Great Power is nowadays officially critiquing Kabul’s tendency to exploit Pakistan as a scapegoat in Afghanistan. At the same time, Islamabad is reportedly reassuring Washington of its Russian rival’s peaceful intentions in that same country. This represents a milestone in the Russian-Pakistani rapprochement since it’s the first time that both countries have supported the others’ interests in Afghanistan in the face of third-party criticism.

It’s veritably the case that Kabul regularly uses Pakistan as a scapegoat the same as Washington has previously claimed that Russia has ulterior motives in Afghanistan (e.g. last summer’s Russia-Taliban bounty fake news scandal). That said, few could have expected Russia to officially defend Pakistan from Kabul’s scapegoating just as few could have expected Pakistan to reportedly defend Russia from the US’ suspicions about its intentions. This just goes to show how rapidly Russian-Pakistani relations are improving in recent years, accelerated as they are by their shared interests in Afghanistan.

Observers also shouldn’t overlook the importance of TASS reporting on the Express Tribune’s story about how two of the top Pakistani security officials defended Russia during their latest trip to the US. The publicly financed Russian outlet was presumably so impressed that it wanted to share this good news with their audience in order to inform them of how far Russian-Pakistani relations have come in such a short time. Their story can go a long way towards positively reshaping perceptions about Pakistan and helping others move beyond out-dated Old Cold War-era stereotypes about that South Asian country.

The takeaway from all of this is that it’s time for more experts to pay attention to Russian-Pakistani relations, especially the positive impact that they’ve had on the Afghan peace process. Many influential folks have been ignoring this for far too long to the detriment of their analyses’ accuracy. Their work will always remain incomplete without incorporating this important diplomatic dimension into the insight that they share. It’s impossible for anyone of importance to ignore this relationship any longer if they have professional integrity. At the very least, Russia’s and Pakistan’s defence of one another in the face of third-party criticism is newsworthy.

Comment by Riaz Haq on August 11, 2021 at 7:44am

It is generally believed that most people in Pakistan's northwestern areas support the Taliban because of their own inclination toward Islamism, but the reality is somewhat different. It is true that the Islamist group is liked by many in the region, but the number of people who oppose the Taliban and the Pakistani state's alleged support to the outfit has also increased manifold in the past two decades.


https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-why-liberal-pashtuns-are-supporting-...

Most of these ethnic Pashtuns are wary of a never-ending war in their region and blame both the Taliban and Islamabad for the devastation in their areas.

As the Taliban are gaining strength in Afghanistan, liberal Pashtuns fear it is just a matter of time before Islamists make a comeback in Pakistan's northwestern areas, too.

There are already reports of Pakistani citizens holding Taliban flags and chanting Islamist slogans at rallies in areas close to the Afghan border. Islamic clerics in various parts of the country are also soliciting support for the Afghan Taliban and calling for donations.

This comes amid rapid Taliban advances in Afghanistan ahead of the complete withdrawal of NATO troops by September.

Opposition to the Taliban
Progressive Pashtuns recently held a convention in Charsadda, a town in Pakistan's northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan.

They denounced the Taliban's assaults on Afghan forces.

They also condemned the United States' Doha deal with the Taliban , saying it practically legitimized the militant group.

The convention, which was composed of leading Pashtun nationalist parties, intellectuals, academics and left-leaning political workers, called for an immediate cease-fire across Afghanistan to pave the way for peace talks.

The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), an anti-war group, has also held massive rallies in several parts of the province in the past few weeks. The PTM has condemned the Taliban and expressed its support for the Afghan government.

Support for Ashraf Ghani
Said Alam Mehsud, a PTM leader, believes that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan would suffer immensely if the Taliban managed to take over Kabul. "We support President Ashraf Ghani's government because it is legitimate. The Taliban are Pakistani mercenaries who want to topple an internationally recognized government," he told DW.

"The Taliban destroy schools, stop women from working, hand down inhuman punishments and kill innocent civilians. How can we support them?" he said.

On the contrary, Ghani's government, according to Mehsud, carried out several development projects in Afghanistan. The human rights situation has also improved under his administration, he added.

Bushra Gohar, a Pashtun politician and former lawmaker, agrees with Mehsud. "The PTM and other Pashtun groups are supporting Ghani because our people don't want to see the return of the Taliban's barbaric rule," she told DW.

She said that, despite Taliban advances, Afghans are revolting against Islamists. "We see an uprising against the Taliban in Afghanistan. People are taking to the streets to show support to their government and the security forces."

Samina Afridi, a Peshawar-based political analyst, says Pashtuns on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border want education, human rights and democracy, but the Taliban are against that.

The 'Taliban project'
Pakistani authorities have long accused liberal Pashtun groups, including the PTM, of destabilizing the country at Afghanistan's behest.

The PTM has gained considerable strength in the past four years, drawing tens of thousands of people to its protest rallies. Its supporters are critical of the war on terror, which they say has ravaged Pashtun areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Comment by Riaz Haq on August 11, 2021 at 10:38am

Deep divisions among Afghans came out in the open when the Afghan national identity card was introduced.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-politics/who-is-an-a...

The dispute is over how nationality will be designated on the new cards, with leading figures from some ethnic groups rejecting the term “Afghan”.

The controversy highlights the difficulties of reaching agreement on just about anything in the diverse, faction-ridden country and comes as President Ashraf Ghani, an ethnic Pashtun, is locked in confrontation with the powerful ethnic Tajik governor of a northern province.

Politicians from Afghanistan’s main ethnic group, the Pashtuns, say nationalities should be recorded as “Afghan”. But that is a term that in the past was used to refer to Pashtuns, and members of other ethnic groups object to its use.

“Our ethnicity is our identity and any ID card with the name ‘Afghan’ on it, will never be acceptable to us. There’s no compromise,” said Farhad Sediqi, an outspoken Tajik lawmaker.

“We’d prefer to have ‘Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ on the identity cards and that covers everything.”

President Ashraf Ghani, who is Pashtun, has delayed the launch of the cards and called for a solution.

But tempers are running high and several sessions of parliament called to debate the matter in recent weeks have ended with exchanges of barbs and threats.

One Pashtun member of parliament, Saheb Khan, warned the assembly he would fight to the death against anyone who did not accept the word Afghan on the ID cards.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page