Durand Line Agreement
Separating Facts from Fiction

The POST, Sun, May,7, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Propaganda is viewed as an art of advocacy in mass communication. The advent of internet and access availability to various web sites has enabled the propagandists to not only distort the well documented facts but also to mislead the ignorant. There are many web sites regularly indulging in distortion of historical facts and churning out poisonous propaganda against the chosen targets. One such web site is entitled Afghanistan’s web site. It is indeed difficult to ascertain for layman like this writer whether or not it is an official web site or encouraged by some officials or a private endeavor or operated by an interested third party.

For quite sometimes the above mentioned web site has been carrying a short piece on Durand Line which not only reflects deliberate efforts to distort historical facts but also generates well calculated attempt to malign Pakistan. Two points are specifically mentioned in this web site which needs to be commented upon. First, the Durand Line was established only for 100 years. Second, the Durand Line was agreed upon under duress. The two accompanying maps on the web site also depict totally wrong picture. One map shows both NWFP and Baluchistan under different color along with Afghanistan in separate colors and the other map clearly incorporates both NWFP and Baluchistan into Afghanistan.

To begin with let me state categorically that if we review the circumstances under which the Durand agreement was signed, the fact that stands out is the agreement was not at all signed under duress. The Durand Agreement was singed on November 12, 1983 at Kabul by Amir Abdur Rehman and Sir Mortimer Durand. Cognizant of Russian southward march and fearful of likely the extension of British Indian borders, it was Amir Abdur Rehman who took the initiative and made a request to the British Indian authorities to negotiate and finalize the boundary between Afghanistan and British India.

The circumstances leading to the formal negotiation needs to be spelled out here. Upon Amir’s request the British appointed Lord Roberts to head the boundary mission to negotiate with Amir Abdur Rehman.  Amir was not happy over the appointment of Lord Roberts and regarded it as an unwise choice because of Roberts’s strong open support for ‘Forward Policy’ along with his role in the last Anglo-Afghan war. Although the then Viceroy insisted upon his choice of the person to lead the boundary delegation, Amir was able to manipulate and delayed the negotiation by employing one excuse after another till Lord Roberts retired. He then requested and even suggested the name of Sir Mortimer Durand, the Foreign Secretary, be appointed to lead the negotiating team. The British Indian authorities agreed to Amir’s suggestion and appointed Sir Mortimer Durand to lead the boundary mission.

After detailed negotiations and eventually signing the agreement, Amir Abdur Rehman and his advisers publicly not only declared that they were completely satisfied with it but also thanked the mission for their wise way of settling the boundary issue. Admittedly Amir was unable to get what he desired but he declared that he was content and expressed his satisfaction in no uncertain terms.

It needs to be mentioned here that for more than half a century all rulers of Afghanistan reaffirmed the validity the of the Durand treaty including the immediate successor of Amir Abdur Rehman such as  Amir Habib Ullah and Amir Aman ullah successively. In addition a clear understanding had already been reached regarding the status of NWFP in an earlier Treaty of Gandamak and Amir had already accepted that the then status of NWFP was not negotiable.

The second distortion in the above mentioned web site’s article relates to the argument that the Durand agreement was meant for one hundred years. It needs to be stated forcefully and clearly that there exists no document which categorically states that Durand agreement would expire after the passage of hundred years. Despite the fact the alleged claim has no basis and is viewed as utterly unfounded by many, perhaps it would be appropriate to explore how the international law looks at such cases.

According to International Law a treaty which contains no provision regarding the termination and which does not provide for denunciation and withdrawal cannot be considered for such an action unless both involved parties agree and express their intentions to look into the possibility of denunciation and withdrawal. According to an eminent expert of international law ‘treaties of peace and those establishing territorial boundaries, by their very character, preclude the possibility that the contracting parties contemplated any right of unilateral denunciation or withdrawal on the part of any one of them’.  

Two things are quite clear regarding the Durand Treaty that without expressed intention of both involved parties it cannot be denounced. Secondly the Durand treaty itself does not contain any time frame. Therefore it is not too far fetched to conclude that Afghanistan is not entitled under international law to denounce or withdraw from the Durand agreement and the assertions or actions which it might contemplate or which it undertook through its parliament in 1949 has no validity in international law. If this is true then the question that troubles most of us revolves around the sources of such an interpretation.

As far as the sources of such twisted and distorted versions of historically documented facts are concerned, all evidence seems to point towards either the Afghans or the Indians. For instance articles written by Indian authors (such as Rauf Roashan Sidhu and Jasjit Singh) and put on the web (www.Indo-link.com). Similarly the web site entitled Afghanistan.com or Afghanistan’s web site also put out stressing that Durand treaty has expired after the passage of one hundred years. Despite the concerted efforts of many interested scholars none of them has been able to identify the document on which the duration claim has been made.

For obvious reason it would not be too far fetched to assume that such pieces are put on the web for purely propaganda purposes. The deliberate spread of such notions and distortions are meant to advance one’s own cause and to undermine the interests of the target country are part of the games nations play. Indeed the propaganda has become one of the most important tools of current nature of international relations. It is generally viewed by nations as an integral part of influencing techniques and pressurization mechanism.

Since Pakistan has always expressed its desire to have friendly relations with Afghanistan and have often come to the assistance of Afghanistan, such propagandist pursuits are not very helpful in maintaining friendly ties. Admittedly there exist many irritants which continuously take a heavy tool of constructive efforts. But the proper way to deal with them is through negotiations with a demonstration of full comprehension of each others concerns. While there is no doubt that a vast majority of the Pakistanis would like to have friendly relations with Afghanistan, such propagandist pursuits are not only likely to impede progress towards the attainment of this objective and could take a heavy tool of existing goodwill in Pakistan but cannot be viewed as product of Afghanistan’s friends.    

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.