Talk:Durand Line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed New Version

This article as it stands is absurd awful and irrelevant. The bits of data required in an encyclopedic article about the Durand line are.

What the Durand line is= Answer it is the current border between Pakistan and Afganistam. When the border was demarcated = 1893 at a conference between the X and Y Historical Background= The border between the plains and the mountain had never been settled in historial times. THe mountain raiders from had historically threatened and raided into the plains for at least the last thousand years. British policy as to establish a loosely governed buffer zone to prevent raiding. Attitude of the Afghan eg what did the Afghans think when It was negotiated. Afhanistan was at this point treatoned on three sides The Russian empire was expansionist to the north with significant forces in Russian lobbying for war water access while the Persians believed they had a historical claim to much of western afganistan. Only the British having withrawn at the conclusion of the second Afghan war and fought the Anglo Persian War to defend Afghanistans western borders were regarded in Kabul as providing an effective counterweight. Is there a current dispute The answer has to be no on a governmental level. The treaty was fully negotiated and the border was very precisely demarcated. Pakistan took on all of the obligations and rights of British India at independence. Is there a Pashtun movement to reopen the issue? Yes and in one paragraph it coul be explainen that although the border is geographically consistent it divides the Pashtun lnaguage speaking community.

Anyone want to write this?--Persiflage1962 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible intro POV

I have not modified the article, but would like to highlight one dubious-sounding bit.

"The dividing line was drawn intentionally to cut through the Afghan tribes whom the British feared and may have tried to disunite[citation needed],"

This sounds very dubious, and the absence of a citation is telling. The point of British policy was to try to stablise the border somewhere – anywhere, really --, in the interests of security. There were two possibilities; along the line of the river (which left the provinces open to constant raiding) or somewhere in the hills (where there were always going to be more hills in front, unless the Forward Policy was adopted and the line of the watershed was held).

The idea that the British 'feared' the Afghan tribes is strange; the British could and did stamp very hard on these whenever they felt sufficiently annoyed to do so. What they were really concerned with was Russia, and the possibility of a Russian invasion of India, led by a force of cossacks. The tribesmen were merely a nuisance. (A look at Col. Algernon Durand's "The making of a frontier", which is online, indicates all of these points; likewise Churchill's "The Malakand Field Force", Younghusband "The story of the guides").

Was the Durand line really concerned with the tribesmen as such at all? Did they mind whether some of them at any given moment were on one side or the other; so long as they *were* on one side or the other? I don't see much evidence of it. The tendency of the tribes to nip over the border during punitive expeditions and the willingness of the Amir to support attacks on British troops all ensured that wars with Afghanistan were inevitable. But the British would far rather have had the Amir in Kabul than the Russians.

The British regarded all of these wars as a necessary and expensive evil, which they would rather have avoided. Their policy in the area is simply one of attempts to find a frontier for British India that actually worked. Pakistan has had the same problems and for the same reasons; but as a Moslem state and so not actually perceived as a religious enemy (remember the Fakir of Ipi?) has been far better placed to address them. Roger Pearse 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued POV Issues

This article continues to be flooded by bias and people pushing specific points of view regarding the subject matter. I will continue to review these, and revert where necessary.
If you are intending to add content, I cannot stress enough what is highlighted in the above boxes. Come into the talk page and discuss your changes here first. Let the community work with you to nut it out and when it looks like there's a consensus point of view with a neutral point of view, then we can make further changes. I don't like having to revert nine changes in a single swoop, but if that's what it will take to keep this article at some reasonable level of neutrality then so be it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

At 09:10 UTC on December 21, 2006, Afghanhot made a large number of changes to this article which included the removal of categorisation and addition of text from an article titled The Durand Line purported to be from the website [1]. First and foremost, articles of such nature should never be added in full to WP, particularly as this likely could give rise to violations of WP:COPY. Secondly, the nature of the changes suggest that they were made in a manner which violates WP:VAND. Changes have been reverted, and a warning has been placed on the user page for the user in question. Page will be monitored for 14 days on my watchlist to see if further inappropriate changes occur. thewinchester 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Durand line is as legitimate as most international boundary agreements

You read only the 1893 part. It appears that you've not read the scores of detailed pages, signed by dozens of Afghan and British representatives, mappers, and surveyors, from the 1894-95 boundary demarcation and surveying expeditions. This demarcation, similar to those recently done by many of the Arabian peninsula countries, was done with the full knowledge and agreement of the Afghan government and signed by their representatives. Every little nullah, mountain range watershed, and other boundary details were outlined and agreed upon. DLinth

If that's the case then why Pakistan always asks the leaders of Afghanistan for approval of placing a fence on its territory? Does the United States asks Mexico for approval of putting up a fence on its southern borders? Does any other country do this?

Have you seen all of the press reports over the past week where Musharaff says, "We don't need AF or any other nation's approval to build a fence just on our side of the border."? .--User:DLinth 19:05, 5 January 2007(UTC)

I've read those reports and it was a well written statement. The statement was purposely made short as to not say anything that will be used against them in the future. Pakistan's government did not clarify where the border fense would be built. "On our side of the border" does not clearly say where "our side" begins. It could be the current Durand Line, it could be the Indus River where the border between Afghanistan and India (now Pakistan) has historically been, and it could be somewhere else. So Musharraf's statement didn't have any real meaning.--Rize Again (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you forget the fact that British-India violated all the terms of the 1893 Durand Line agreement in 1919, when they invaded Afghanistan (see Third Anglo-Afghan war). After the 1893 Durand Line agreement was signed, the British decided to invade Afghanistan in 1919, violating the terms of the agreement and also losing the war. After the Third Anglo-Afghan war, the Durand Line agreement became Void and is no longer valid. Besides this, there are other reasons to believe the agreement no longer being valid. Pashtun Nov. 28, 2006

The Afghan government claims the Durand Line has expired in 1993.--Afghan Wireless 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The Afghan govt has never made that claim, knowing that it is false. See US and British experts in http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-2-2004_pg7_23 and http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-9-2005_pg7_12 Many websites do make the claim, such as "fake governmental-appearing" pages like www.affghanistans.com . --User:DLinth 19:04, 5 January 2007(UTC)

I've read the complete Durand Line agreement and I don't think it is an agreement of any kind, it's rather an early and temporary proposal of a deal. The agreement is very poorly made and very short, 6 or 7 sentences long, with only one person's signature from Afghanistan's side. I clearly see what the Afghans are challenging, and that is the authenticity of the Durand Line agreement. This is perhaps the reason what haunts Pakistanis the most and puts fear in them.

Knowing all the facts, I believe the Afghans can "at any time" claim their territories and there is not much Pakistan can do. I disagree with the statement on the article's front that every nation of the world recognizes the Durrand Line. Those nations only recognizes the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as it is shown on most maps of the world, which is a common thing to do. Most nations of the world are fully unaware of the Durrand Line agreement. King

Reply from a Pakistani Pakhtun: The Pakistani govt asks Afghans for permission to fence the border because Pakistanis are dumb and too much into "Muslim brotherhood". There is no need to ask the Afghans for permission to do anything inside Pakistan, including fencing the border.

Regarding the comment from the fellow named "King", the Durand Line became the border of the Pakistani state in 1947. The original agreement also remains valid. Afghans can claim anything, their mouths are under their control, but the land is now Pakistan with the consent of the people living there.

Unknown Paki Pakhtun, this is not about what Afghan civilans who come here to edit articles say. This is about what is going on between the government of the two countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Whatever User:King stated is his own opinions about the Durrand Line and he did not claim to be an Afghan. From media reports, Afghanistan's government claims that the Durrand Line agreement had expired in 1993,

Not true. The Afghan govt has never made that claim, knowing that it is false. Many websites do make the claim, such as "fake governmental-appearing" pages like www.affghanistans.com . --User:DLinth 19:04, 5 January 2007(UTC)

while Pakistan's government claims it is still valid. So there is a dispute over the border between these 2 countries. Only a 3rd party can help resolve this dispute. If the territory belongs to Afghanistan, then it's their territory. If not, then it's not. Saying stuff like "Afghans can claim anything, their mouths are under their control" is an insult to all Afghans, which is not a good thing to do. You Pakis should respect your Muslim neighbors (Afghans), if you really are Muslims as you claim. If not, then Allah will be angry with you. --NisarKand 18:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments without categories

This is awesome !

I am not removing the claim that Baloch are asking for independence and to unite with the Afghans since it is true.

A fellow named Mir Azad Baloch as put a ton of garbage into this article. I am removing it.

To Mr Azad Baloch: Next time use your real name, desist from insults and write facts. This online encyclopedia is not the property of your worthless Sardars.

Yes Mr. I say Balochs want to merge with Afghanistan. I have nothing to say about Baluchs. I am only talking about Pushtuns living in Pakistan.

Pashuns are not Pakistanis. Afghans are Pashtuns. The word "Afghan" was mentioned since the Islamic periods and onwards...refering to Pashtuns...which was way before the nation Afghanistan coming to existence. So the word Afghan does not mean someone from Afghanistan...but refers to Pashtuns. Only 15% of the people in Pakistan are Pasthuns. I am Pashtun from Afghanistan and I have a great desire to make the 15% Pashtuns living in Pakistan to merge with us in Afghanista, as we see them as our bothers. But if the Pashtuns in Pakistan want to be ruled by a Punjabi as their ruler is perfectly fine with me.--NisarKand 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: Pakhtun means Pakhtun. Pakistani Pakhtuns have no interest in joining Afghanistan.

Reply to Nisar Khad: I think you should spend your energies in taking millions of Afghan refugees, living in Pakistan, back to Afghanistan, instead of offering your services to Pakistani phaktuns. How did you think that Phaktuns are ruled by Punjabis by the way? Most of the rulers of Pakistan were non-Punjabis and Pakistan is still ruled by a non Punjabi ruler.

POV

More POV by NisarKand! This article is once again filled with unsourced information and false claims, such as the Afghan legend that "Afghanistan defeated the United Kingdom twice" ... I have never seen ANY reliable scholarly source for this claim! Tājik 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Afghanistan defeated the British not twice but 3 times. Since you are uneducated, you probably think that British defeated Afghanistan I assume? British invaded Afghanistan 3 times and were forced to withdraw...that's considered defeating them. In the first invasion...the entire British (about 16,500 or more...including Indians) were killed on their retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad. In the second invasion...the British again retreated and withdrew from Afghanistan. In the last war (in 1919...between British India and Afghanistan), British clearly raised a white flag (sign of retreat or defeat) and signed documents (the treaty of Rawalpindi) at Rawalpindi, which is a city now in Pakistan. By the way, articles in Wikipedia are never finalized because they are always under editing. I will be more than happy to gather all the references needed for this article, as you can see this information is available at many encyclopedias and government libararies.--NisarKand 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so i've been in the background watching this article since it came up while I was doing some work as part of the recent changes patrol. The issues of NPOV are starting to escalate within this article and we now need to bring it to a resolution as soon as possible. I am prepared to step in as a third party to the matter, particularly since I have no connection to the regions covered by this article and can look at it from an outside perspective. My goal is that both Tajik and NisarKand can come to some form of consensus to deal with the NPOV issues that have arisen. In order to kick this off, can I please ask each of you to give a brief and factual summary of your issues with the article so we can take it from there. I would hope we can have this issue resolved promptly, however if this cannot be done I will be more than happy to escalate it up the chain to bring about a resolution. I don't want to protect this article, but if this is what it takes to come to a factual and neutral stance on the article so be it. thewinchester 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is fine for now, there isn't much to add or edit because most important things are already mentioned. The Durand Line is simply a border made in the past and the people on both side of the border do not recognize it. User:Tajik has a habit of going around to every article I edit and place bad remarks about me. Trying to give me a bad name so that others don't trust my edits, which I simply go by what news sources report and place that report with the attach news sources. User:Tajik has issues and I don't know what his/hers exact problem is with me? From the first day I began editing articles on Wikipedia (begining of October 2006) until today, he is the ONLY person messing with me and my edits. By the way, I am ethnic Pashtun from Afghanistan and this Durand Line deals specifically and directly with Pashtun people, has nothing to do with ethnic Tajiks. Since there was nothing in particular disputed, I decided to remove the disputed tag.--NisarKand 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's been read. Tajik - when you read both my initiation of review by an outside party and NisarKand's comments, can you please look at them from an objective POV and not as anything else. Can you please respond with your key concerns about the article and your issues with it and I will review them as soon as they are posted. thewinchester 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, NisarKand - can you please leave the POV tag in place until the dispute has been resolved. I don't think it's appropriate or beneficial for you to remove it. It's best left to an outside party to action after this dispute has been either resolved or closed off. thewinchester 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite multiple requests for participation in a POV discussion, Tajik has refused to participate. I am therefore calling the POV dispute in this article dead and will allow NisarKand's edits to stand unless challenged by anyone else who has plausible debate and information to add to the matter. thewinchester 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the discussion here?! Just look at the discussion below: I (and Tmbseye) have expressed our views. NisarKand is pushing for extreme Pashtun-nationalist POV - totally unsourced. NisarKand does not have ANY sources for his claims, and he was even cought twice putting fake sources to his claims, giving the impression that his POV is somehow "sourced". He was banned twice because of racism - including his multiple attacks on my user-page and his racist comments against Tajiks ("Tajiks are rats").

What do you want me to comment on?! This entire article is POV. It is unsourced, and the few "sources" that are given in the text are not scholarly, but references to "Pajhwok News", an Afghan national news-paper known for its anti-Pakistani stand. What else do you want me to comment on?! Tājik 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the facts in the article, which you have constantly avoided doing. You have not shown any information which backs up your oft-repeated claim of it being unsourced and one sided. To use an Australian colloquial phrase "put your money where your mouth is" and back up your claims. I've strongly advised you already to not place the dispute tags on this page - and you've done so without any discussion in talk. thewinchester 13:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just go through the dicussion. With all due respect - you seem to lack the ability to read! Just take a look at my discussion with User:Tombseye and the references to the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica. If you have problems accepting scholarly sources, it's your problem. Tājik 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard of this edit: see WP:CIVIL. ....... The article Durand Line is POV, it is based on unsourced Pashtun-nationalist POV (including the "fairy tale" about Afghanistan's "3 glorious victories against the British"; the truth is: Afghanistan lost 2 of them, and was able to regain its independence with Russian help in the 3rd one!). Besides that, Balouchestan has NEVER been a part of Afghanistan. At the time of the Durand Line, Balouchestan was already a part of British India. Before that, it was an independent fiefdom of Balouch Khans. Tājik 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, let's sort this out, o'k? I agree with theWinchester and am impressed by his even-handed approach. 1) Your claim (immediately above) that Balochistan has never been a part of Afghan. makes no sense.....If you read the current version(s), it says it was part of British India. Agreed? Then please stop acting "citation needed" there. 2) I do agree with "citation needed" for the line: "the Afghan tribes whom the British feared and may have tried to disunite." A bit non-NPOV to me. Hopefully someone can provide documentation on that. 3) And in my last edit I changed the line that seems to bother you the most to "After reaching a virtual stalemate in two wars against the Afghans" From my research and as per Tombseye's well-reasoned comments below, I find that much closer to the truth. Let's remember that probably 90% of the inhabitants for centuries along the Durand Line route are Pashtuns, and all Pashtuns (I met quite a few when I was there last year) are not like NisarKand, and their views must be included in a NPOV manner. And the Durand Line did and does divide those people in a very definitive manner. And the most Britain could claim in those first two wars collectively is a stalemate. Finally, your "controversial" tag, as you can see, is not one that is allowable except on the talk page...it should be the "unbalanced" tag. What do you think.....Are there other specific passages ("Facts in the article" as theWinchester says) that you believe are unbalanced?

DLinth 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no "stalemate" between the British and the Afghans. Many people - most of all Afghans - confuse the words war and battle. The Afghans indeed won 2 battles - one being the famous Battle of Maiwand, the other one was an Afghan attack on British civilians. However, Afghanistan clearly lost 2 wars. As a consequence, Afghanistan had to give up 50% of its territory and accept British masterhood over its foreign (and internal) affairs. When the British established the Durrand Line, their main object was not the devision of the Afghan lands. It was part of the Anglo-Russian contracts that Afghanistan (and parts of Persia) were accepted as "buffer-zones". This is the ONLY reason why Afghanistan remained a (semi-)independent nation. This article is way too much concentrated on the "Pashtun lands were devided" story and leaves out the complex Anglo-Russian politics during the "Great Game". Tājik 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

O'k, I hope that we can let this article "stabilize" now, as I hope you agree based on your last edit where you changed nothing (other than adding the "citation needed" to the 2 wars line.) You also seem to agree with most of Tombseye's "stalemate" explanaton immediately below. As per your excellent focus above, I'll add a "see 'Great Game' article" note there in addition, and then let's just let it be, yes? You know, those "Great Game" and "First Anglo-Afghan War" and "European influence in Afghanistan" articles are where most of this "victory vs. stalemate" debate should reside, not under "Durand Line", agreed? (All three of those well sourced articles make it clear that the retreats of 1841-2 and 1880-1 by the British dictate that the term "stalemate" at the most is appropriate to characterize the British success, albeit their setting up of "puppet governments" for which they controlled foreign affairs may be considered a "victory" of sorts.) I think that the Durand Line article should mostly focus not on all this, but on the history, geography, location, etc. of the line itself, leaving the Great Game and Anglo-Afghan wars for the articles with those names, o'k? Thanks, Tajik. DLinth 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Afghan wars

It depends upon how one looks at these conflicts, BUT victory between the two sides is not quite simple. Encyclopedia Iranica is an excellent source that succintly explains the Anglo-Afghan wars. In the first war, the British entered and occupied Afghanistan, but were unable to hold it for long. The Afghans did not regain Peshawar so this is not a victory so much as a stalemate even though the British were forced back ultimately, but not before they had done much damage to Afghanistan. The 2nd war resulted in Afghanistan formally giving up claims to its eastern regions (now part of Pakistan) AND they gave up control of their foreign affairs to the British who also kept a military presence in the country. The final war was somewhat more like a victory as Afghanistan did achieve independence from the British and regained control of its foreign affairs etc. Thus, I think it doesn't really make any sense to claim that Afghanistan "won" so much as held the British at bay as it was able to avoid being incorporated into British India (a fate that the Pashtun regions in the east were not able to do though the tribal areas were never fully under British control). The Third War is really the only one in which the Afghans "won". Tombseye 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Tombseye. As always, you are a great help. Only one small addition:

In the 3rd Anglo-Afghan War, Afghanistan was defeated in battle. However, due to an excelent diplomatic strategy, the Afghans managed to convince the British that independence was the best solution. They threatened Britain with Russian help, i.e. that Kabul will establish closer alliances with the Russians. This gave Afghanistan it's independence (at the coast of more than 50% of its former territory), but - at the same time - it also ment the "influx" of Russian influence. It was the beginning of predominant Russian influence in Afghanistan that - 50 years later - led to the communist take-over and Soviet invasion. Tājik 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true Tajik. I was going for brevity, but the Russian influence aspect is true. The wars were often humiliating to the British because of how they weren't able to accomplish their goals, BUT Afghanistan suffered quite a bit and lost a lot (as you point out).

I would also add quickly for the people who are 'proud' of their ancestors' history (Nissarkand), that our job is not promoting nationalism, but putting out accurate information. I realize people want to read what they want to read, but this is an encyclopedia and terms like "win" are highly subjective anyway. A lot of Afghans died and their traditional homelands divided so I'm not sure how much of a victory these wars were. They were more or less stalemates with neither side really getting what it wanted. Tombseye 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am myself from Afghanistan, and I know that many Afghans like to exeggerate the "glories" of their forefathers (or what they interpret as glories). The truth is that - from the very beginning - Afghanistan was plagued by wars, racism, religious hatred, and extreme backwardism.

A very sensitive issues are the Anglo-Afghan Wars. Afghans like to make up all kinds of "great victory" stories, an almost all of them are nothing but nationalistic phantasies. At the end of the Anglo-Afghan Wars, Afghanistan was the clear loser - and especially the Pashtuns - were the clear losers. Afghanistan lost 50% of its territories, the Pashtun tribal areas were devided (until today, 2/3 of the Pashtun population lives in the former British colony), countless Afghan families were deported to Australia or Guyana, Afghanistan became landlocked, etc etc etc.

The British did not succeeed in taking over Afghanistan, but that was certainly not an achievement of the Afghans, but the Russian pressure put on the British. Like so many other countries, Afghanistan became a typical political tool of the Great Game.

I really do not understand what NisarKand is trying to achieve. We should simply accept the truth, and promote the truth. Tājik 14:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all true. "Victories" or perceived victories all come with a heavy price and while the British used Indian troops as cannon fodder and killed lots of Afghans, the worst thing they had to endure was the humiliation of not succeeding completely (just partially), something they had gotten used to. We're gonna have to make some changes to this article at some point definitely and bring back some objectivity. Tombseye 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Mr. Thomsbey simply can’t accept the fact that a poor country like Afghanistan has indeed defeated the aggressive British Empire. This is the same ignorance which led the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. You guys have to understand and know the culture of Afghanistan; Afghans have never bowed for any occupying force. Britain was defeated 3 times very pitifully; do you think they would have left, if they weren’t forced to do so? Afghanistan is the only country which regained its independence by its own through military struggle. You have forgotten the British soldiers’ dead bodies scattered from Kabul to Jalalabad, and you still claim it was only a battle? A battle with 16500 casualties! Britain then took its revenge by cutting Baluchistan and Pashtunistan from Afghanistan because it was a great humiliation for an Empire like Britain. Don’t be emotional because Britain was defeated by Afghans! Whether UK`s or US`s government recognize the Durand Line or not is not important, the fact is that Pashtunistan and Baluchistan belong to Afghanistan as long as this planet rotates. Most of Pashtuns and Baluchs, who know the history, know their origin and love their motherland, will always long to rejoin the land of their fathers and grandfathers. You should know that most of the current conflicts around the world are based on problems deliberately left behind by colonial forces like Britain. Pakistan was born by Britain and of course the motherland will stand behind its offspring but God stands with those who tell the truth! Britain had no right to divide India (cutting Punjab and Sindh) and make a new country at first place after sucking its blood for almost 200 years, it should have left the way it had come. By the way Brits call their land Great Britain, but I see no greatness if you colonize countries (which mean death, torture, rape, imprisonments…), which only brings suffering. Greatness is gained by promoting peace and stability not hatred and division…

I must say that I strongly agree with the person who wrote the large statement above and I totally disagree with the other people, tajik and tombseye, they have no idea what their writing or talking about. The Afghans killed 16,500 foreign enemy invaders in one day, that's even shocking in today's standard. It was clear defeat for the British, no doubt, they themselves claimed defeat. About the Durand line, you must realize why this is an issue today and not an issue in the last 30 years. It's because Afghanistan was involved in a big mess with Coupe in 1973, uprisings, soviet invasion, civil war, taliban, us-nato invasion, etc. The Pashtuns of Pakistan were in no way ready to decide on doing anything with the Durand Line issue in last 30 years. They could only sit back and see what happens next in Afghanistan. Now that Afghanistan is developing gradually and the Pashtuns seeing themselves under direct military attacks on their own land by Pakistan's Punjabi dominated government, not to mention them being very poorly represented in Pakistan and constantly oppressed by NON-Pashtuns in Pakistan, the idea of Pashtuns seperating from Pakistan is growing rapidly. It all depends on who will make their lives better for them, the government of Pakistan or the government of Afghanistan. It's their decision on what they want to do with their destiny or future of their land. It's a win/win situation for them, both ways they will win as long as their land is developed and their living standards improved. I believe all Pashtuns will annex their land with Afghanistan because they had given Pakistan's government an extremely long period of time to help develop their areas but nothing much has been done in the last 60 years or so. It's now time to give Afghanistan's government the chance to see if the Pashtuns living standard improve or not, and since most of Afghanistan's government is in the hands of Pashtuns I don't see why not. The Punjabi dominated government of Pakistan has been taking full advantage of the Pashtuns for the last 30 years and this will not be forgotten by the Pashtuns. The Punjabi dominated government of Pakistan is very smart, they are well aware of all this and that is why they quickly began to force-out all Afghan refugees (most of whom are Pashtuns and were living in Pakistan for over 25 years, many were even born in Pakistan). Although they may be very clever government, God is the best planner for everything because its reality. so believe it..--Rize Again (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic status & Kalat State

Since the Durand Line deals with the demarcating line and international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, I suggest this topic be also added to WikiProject Pakistan as well.

Some of the latter paragraphs I have seen tend to show more of the Afghanistan viewpoint without sufficient backing whatsoever and revisiting the 1893 agreement, as well as the greyish stature and history of the Khanate of Kalat, which some people put it as something which guaranteed Balochistan independence and making it something separate and special from the Indian Independance Act of 1947 is something a bit too difficult to believe given the status of Jammu & Kashmir and Hyderabad Deccan that were even more prominent princely states and yet they had to choose or were forcibly made to choose which country to join. It doesnt add up seeing the Khanate of Kalat being anything different as NO princely state was allowed independance - as far as I know - so essentially the Khan of Kalat had to choose and he went against the act and hence gave Pakistan legitimate claim of taking action, similar to what India did in Jammu & Kashmir, Junagadh, Hyderabad Deccan and many many other princely states. Why all the finger pointing on Pakistan then ?

I suggest more research in these matters as both issues arent completely black & white, rather with heavy shades of grey prevalant. Peace to all Suprah™ 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Debate on Validity of Durand Line

I think all this debate on whether the Durand Line is or is not is irrelevant and unproductive. I don't believe the purpose of Wikipedia is to do that which the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan can not do; to pass judgment on the issue. I think it is safe to say that first, the Durand Line treaty was made at one point in time. Second, that the validity of the Durand Line agreement is questioned. Third, and finally, the arguments for the validity and the arguments against the validity of the Durand Line should both be presented to the end user. I also find it silly that I couldn't even find a single link to the text of the Durand Line Agreement of 1893. The text is located at the end of this link. I also want to stress that this continuing bickering on irrelevant topics is delaying the presentation of valid and useful information to anybody that is interested in this topic. Alexkreuz 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Durand Line following rivers, watershed ridges

The Durand line DOES NOT follow terrain or land marks, view the Google flyover, it meanders all over..don't say it clearly follows anything it does not. Gerald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.186.104 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, except for the desert straight lines in the SW, most of the line follows river (wet or dry) or distinct watershed ridges, as is clearly shown on widely available large scale maps such as the Russian maps (www.omnimaps.com) The problem that you see in Google Earth is that their (usually yellow) digital boundary line is very generalized (smoothed) and, you're right, does not appear to exactly follow the features. They will improve that I'm sure.DLinth (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Poorly marked

I don't think "poorly marked" was a value judgment. I think it meant to say that it was hard to tell when you are in the mountains where the boundary is. Kingturtle (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"duress"

After reaching a virtual stalemate in two wars against the Afghans [...], the British forced Emir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan on November 12, 1893 to come to an agreement under duress [...]

Could a knowledgeable editor improve this line in the article? It reads as though the British weren't able to beat Khan, but somehow were able to force him to do things ... though it's not clear how they could force him if they weren't able to beat him.... Tempshill (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

POV

I am removing website references to the claim, Leaders of Pashtuns on both sides of the border are divided amongst themselves over the Durand Line issue. It seems quite suspicious that only one website, called Pajhwok Afghan News is cited NINE times for a single claim - a highly non-credible source. No credible source is cited and Pajhwok Afghan News does not appear elsewhere in the article as a source for anything at all.Ron Pitz (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pajhwok Afghan News is the leading news agency in Afghanistan. It has won many international awards and they are not pushing any POVs but just reporting what Pashtun tribal leaders or elders have to say about the Durand Line. The issue of the Durand Line in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very visible to almost every citizen of these 2 nations. This article is biased, about 99% on Pakistan's side. It's not up to editors to decide the outcome of the border but the politics of these 2 nations and the facts behind the treaties and the rights of the people who are being affected by the border. Here is what curent Afghan politicians have to say about Durand Line. Durand Line not a legitimate border —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.3.103 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Language

The standard of English in the article is poor. I don't know enough about the Durand Line to lick it into shape, but someone should. Tsinfandel (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

International Court of Justice

"While there has never been a formal agreement between Islamabad and Kabul on its ratification or the existence and location of the boundary, the international precedent under uti possidetis juris requires none.

Who is saying that it requires none?

"That is because the International Court of Justice, courts in several countries around the world, and the Vienna Convention have universally upheld via uti possidetis juris that binding bilateral agreements are "passed down" to successor states, as is the case with the 90% of current African nations that signed both the Organization of African Unity (OAU) charter and 1964 Cairo Declaration, both of which "proclaimed the acceptance of colonial borders as the borders between independent states...through the legal principle of uti possidetis."

Afghanistan did not recognize the Durand Line Agreement before and after Pakistan. What's the reason behind bringing this international court arguments about African countries and borders passing down to new states? Afghanistan is rejecting the 1893 Durand Agreement not Pakistan as a state. In other words this dispute would've been circulating even if Pakistan was still India today. This argument of yours is really irrelevant. The Pashtun people, who rule Afghanistan and are the second largest in Pakistan feel the Durand Line border is imposed on them by Britain. They don't recognize it and you're bringing international court decisions to show that Pashtuns should accept their division. You don't seem to know much about this issue. If Pakistan's government believe they own the Pakistani Pashtun areas where is sources that mention their arguments? Why are they afraid to take this issue to the United Nations with Afghanistan? Surely, Pakistan is fully aware that Afghanistan is not recognizing the Durand Line. [2]--119.73.1.178 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you do good, detail-oriented edits. But, with a long-established article that has had the involvement of numerous editors, to jump in with, by my count, 46 separate edits over the past seven days, and doing so as an "unestablished" editor with no talk page of your own makes you vulnerable to other administrators editors blocking or reverting your work. Comments of yours such as "You don't seem to know much about this issue" will also not endear you to folks! Are you an international boundary expert who does international boundary legal work for a living, and has done so for the better part of a decade? I would not be so quick to make comments such as "you don't seem to know much..." Do you have all of the references handy, as other do, including here in my office?

I'd hate to see your work get blocked or reverted because, again, you do very good work, so please avoid deleting legitimate references that I've added to this article over the past three years, references from the UN, international law consortiums from UK to Australia, the Afghan national mapping agency, etc.....Deleting references like that, which are obviously legitimate and relevant, is not helpful.

As for your questions above, see what I've added to the article......The current government of Afghanistan incuding its mapping wing (with whom I've met) do recognize and do show the line as "de facto." And, yes, international boundary court judgements are relevant to a WP article on a contentious intnernational boundary.

"I think you'll find my additions to be fine....I don't have any "dog in the fight" over how the AF and PAKs view the line (or view it as illegitimate), but I will ensure that the relevant geographic and legal information, including demarcation information (you should get that Prescott book at your local library or via Google Books), remains in this article as it should. And I think if you want to add more about how the regional geopolitics plays out, it could be moved to that Afghanistan-Pakistan relations WP article, yes?DLinth (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about who I am, what my work is or why I'm using an anonymous IP to edit. I'm not really a talk person here and what references of yours did I delete? This part of your statement ..."as an "unestablished" editor with no talk page of your own makes you vulnerable to other administrators editors blocking or reverting your work." suggests that you want to revert my work because you find me vulnerable that I'm editing behind an IP. Your edits, however, are too pro-Pakistani indicating you're a POV pusher. I'm trying to neutralize the article by editing it in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view fashion. If someone removes my edits or place false information I will report them to administrators. The policy of Wikipedia is to improve articles but not concentrate on editors which you're doing on me. I'm correcting your errors and falsification, for example Afghanistan Geodesy and Cartograpy Head Office (AGCHO) is an independent group that is not part of Afghanistan's government as you falsly claim. See their official website Afghan Geodesy and Cartography Head Office (AGCHO) established on 1958 as an independent office. There is nothing that indicates your work, I can claim here to be an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, really I am. Haha. Your other falsification is your claim that 7 articles of the Durand Line Agreement are for the border agreement when in fact it is only 5 articles. The last 2 (6 and 7) say this:

“ "6. The above articles of' agreement are regarded by the Government of India and His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them in regard to the frontier; and both the Government of India and His Highness the Amir undertake that any differences of detail, such as those which will have to be considered hereafter by the officers appointed to demarcate the boundary line, shall be settled in a friendly spirit, so as to remove for the future as far as possible all causes of doubt and misunderstanding between the two Governments. 7. Being fully satisfied of His Highness’s goodwill to the British Government, and wishing to see Afghanistan independent and strong, the Government of India will raise no objection to the purchase and import by His Highness of munitions of war, and they will themselves grant him some help in this respect. Further, in order to mark their sense of the friendly spirit in which His Highness the Amir has entered into these negotiations, the Government of India undertake to increase by the sum of six lakhs of rupees a year the subsidy of twelve lakhs now granted to His Highness."http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Durand_Line_Agreement ”

The section "Demarcation Surveys on the Durand Line" is an event that occurred after the 1893 Durand Line Agreement was signed so it goes well in the "History" section. What's funny is that you state "Hey, you do good, detail-oriented edits" and also revert my work like a vandal.[3] Your argument is trying to establish the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and my argument is that the boder (regardless where the border is located or whether it's marked or not) is UNRECOGNIZED by the Government of Afghanistan as well as by the native Pashtun people who inhabit the area. When we look at the maps clearly we see a border....but when you actually go on the ground to the border regions you see people go back and forth without a single document (such as visas or border crossing cards). More importantly, they all openly say that they never believed in any border being here since 1893. You also don't see posts on most part of the border, even the American army guys have hard time figuring out where the border is. This is what I'm trying to address in the article so just try to understand it.--119.73.6.186 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, let's take a deep breath, yes? You do good work, but 55 edits in seven days to an established article? The article already says that "MostPashtuns do not recognize the Durand Line" 9 times.....Isn't that enough?

I have for four years on this article, and will continue, to limit my edits to making sure that the well-sourced facts about the line's demarcation, geographic, and its legal standing in international boundary law remain in the article.....I do this as part of my job dealing with legal issues of international boundaries all over the world, so I have plenty of time to devote to this, and I assure you that your feeling is just plain wrong that my edits are pro-Pak or pro_Afgh could not be further from the case....I am a million miles away, and I could care less about that and have no POV at all...I just don't care. You've seen that my edits are simply adding in technical information from very reliable sources. But, yes, you are correct....any WP article is about the facts in the article, not about you and me, the editors.

I am assuming that we can agree that all 7 articles are part of the 1893 agreement....I'm frankly just confused by this. When you read above what you posted yourself, where article 6 of the Durand Line agreement actually talks about "demarcation", and that every published text (see link at bottom of article) of the agreement includes all 7 articles, that 7, not 5, is the number that should be used. I've never seen any source except you claim that the Durand Line agreement has 5, not 7 articles! Not important really. But as you know Durand and the Amir signed 7, not 5 articles in that document.

I do recommend that you should try to pick up from your library some of the excellent, authoritative books on this topic, several of which I've added in as sources lately (such as the Prescott and Sykes sources.) Yes, there IS a difference in credibility between respected, established sources in print or on line, and various error-plagued internet sites such as afghanistans.com. IN WP, no good editor believes that "if it's on the Internet it must be true" and no good editor believes that "if it's not on the Internet, it doesn't count."

Close to 100% of AGCHO's funding comes from the national govt....you did not know that? So let's use the term "quasi-governmental independent organization" (money talks!), ok?

Let's add back in, ok?, the 1956 SEATO resolution on the Durand Line.....fully relevant, and that May 8 resolution is fully documented in that international organization's documents.....That's the kind of thing I'm talking about that both of us should try to avoid (and you and I have done so fairly well, I think....as you said, NOT deleting relevant, well-sourced edits from anyone!...ok?)

A good example of how you and I agree on most things, and you and I are better informed on this topic than 99% of folks out there, is your last paragraph right above this.....Other than your spurious "vandal" comment (let's stay civil, ok?!...edit conflict, accident maybe??....I never delete relevant, well-sourced info), I agree with every single word you say....you make some excellent observations. So let's work together....the (true) fact that, in contrast to most of the rest of the world's government's positions on the line, most (by far) Pashtuns think the line is illegitimate and abhorrent (I added that line a year ago or so to the article....can you believe that!) AND the (true) fact that the line was generally located and fixed and mapped and demarcated....it DID happen---the full 20 page text is in several sources on line and in print.....in a very precise manner by joint AF-PK surveys 1894 to 1934 are two facts that can co-exist!....Both are true, and both need to remain in the article, we both agree, right!? Anyway, keep up the good work, and get a talk page to make things easier (why not?) DLinth (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I have my own personal reason to edit behind an IP, and when the time comes I'll edit using a user account. Now, I have to disagree with you on several things. I know how to read this short single-page agreement, and I'm well aware what it says. The whole agreement is written in a very deceptive way, and I find your edits the same way. The article that talks about "demarcation and laying down the line" is ARTICLE #4. The 6 and 7 are part of the agreement but they deal with settling differences of opinions and economic trade ties between British-India and Afghanistan, so my point is clear that only the first "5 articles" are for "not to exercise interferences". You have only edited very little in the last 4 years, and you must have an agenda to be stuck on this article for 4 years, editing with the same anti-Afghanistan POV. Your claims such as "Close to 100% of AGCHO's funding comes from the national govt..." is clearly POV-pushing. I'm not going to comment on your other POVs. Since the Durand Line concerns Afghanistan and Pakistan I prefer to depend first on what the people of these 2 nations have to say before I begin to read books written by people who live million miles away as you claim where you live. Are you telling me that you live on another planet? Anyway, this article is not only about the single-page agreement document, it is about the 1,500 miles border that cuts through the 42 million Pashtun people who are being affected by it and who don't recognize the border or the documented agreement. There is a war going on this border and in the region so it helps many readers understand why the area is in such a chaos. My edits are with NPOV and I'm addressing the views of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, however I can't find anything written by Pakistanis at the moment. I'm going to ask you to please stop changing my words in the article because I find your writing skill poorer than mines. You are even changing the exact words stated on the given websites, this is vandalism and act of misleading. For example you changed "(3)... Many experts believe" to "Some sources believe". Again, this is just an example of your POV-pushing which isn't going to help you.--119.73.1.55 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's take another deep breath and work together, ok? How about making your edits TO my last version.....rather than a blanket delete. Ok? That's what I have done every time with you except for that one edit conflict. Or, even better, discuss them here on this page first.

That's the way its done in WP. You're the first person on this page, or on any I've been on, to do 70 edits in 7 days from various IP addresses (all used by yourself, as you admitted) ....It is just "not the way it's done", neither are blanket reverts of edits. I've tried being patient, since you're new to WP and you're using random IP addresses.

You claim your edits are perfectly NPOV, and yet right above, you say the "whole Durand Line agreement is written in a very deceptive way" as you edit the Durand Line. Your "NPOV" is very strange when you say that it has only 5 articles when 100% of every source including the one linked at the bottom of the article includes, of course, all 7 articles, all on the same page, all signed by the two gentlemen....What are you thinking there? And no, Artcle 6 does require demarcation....just look at the text.

Come on, you use as a source eight times the website of Wahid Momand, a Herbalife help desk operator in the Los Angeles area, on what he calls "my web page", where you found the ramblings credited to Mir Azaad Khan Baloch, the "General Secretary of The Government of Balochistan in Exile" titled "End of Imaginary Durrand(SIC) Line: North Pakistan belongs to Afghanistan"?? Come on....That's what you call "experts" and "many experts." A government that doesn't exist and a Herbalife help desk guy?

I'm sure you're embarassed by that kind of source as your most-used source in the article....if so, delete those references and content. I chose just to describe the source fully....and no editor should attempt to delete & censor relevant, important info about sources, hiding that from WP readers. Many "facts" in that particular source are imaginary (the "100 years" expiration myth, for example), most is just copied from a three-year old WP article, and several "facts" are thoroughly debunked by any number of reputable sources in the list below. And the article has a NPOV when is says "North Pakistan belongs to Afghanistan" and "Its Time to Raise National Flag of Afghans in Peshawar and Queta."? Really?

And you have the temerity to accuse me of POV when I add.....

text from the actual treaty (link at bottom of article)

fully-sourced content from the UN

fully-sourced content from the Vienna Convention

fully-sourced content from SEATO (which you have blanet-reverted/deleted twice, despite 2 sources)

fully-sourced content from authoritative Survey of India maps

fully-sourced content from the US State Dept.

fully-sourced content from the British Foreign Commonwealth Office

fully-sourced content from any number of university dissertations, journal articles

fully-sourced content from "The Map of Mainland Asia" and other primary international boundary legal sources.

Above, you write...."I'm going to ask you to please stop changing my words in the article because I find your writing skill poorer than mines." No typo! I quote you exactly! So let's work together, o'k, not insult each other!

Please, you'll do fine and not get blocked if you simply, from now on 1) Do not do any more blanket, wholesale reverts of other editors' well-sourced, relevant additions....just edit, and don't revert the entire page, 2) Do research on and add content from legitimate sources, and 3) Don't make any more threats to me like your summary line "I told you don't mess with my edits." Ok? We can work together to make this article accurate....I know we can!

By the way, I did like your "million miles away"-another planet joke....You caught me...Really, that was funny and true. And I like what you wrote above 100% ( Anyway, this article is not only about the single-page agreement document, it is about the 1,500 miles border that cuts through the 42 million Pashtun people who are being affected by it and who don't recognize the border or the documented agreement. There is a war going on this border and in the region so it helps many readers understand why the area is in such a chaos. A true and important statement by you. So let's work together, ok?!DLinth (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First, statements such as "I'm sure you're embarassed..." are considered personal attacks. Second, I didn't blanket revert you. I didn't remove or mess with your edits, it is you who began with me. Me mentioning here in the talk page about the agreement appearing to me to be written in a deceptive way has nothing to do with W:NPOV because that's my personal opinion which I hold to myself and I didn't insert it in the article.. Why are you concerned about me making 70 edits in 7 days? How many edits am I allowed per week? About Afghanland.com, its creator and owner (Wahid Momand) may be a Pashtun or Afghan nationalist as well as the owners of Afghanistan Online and Afghanistans.com, and it wouldn't matter if they are or not. Also, it doesn't matter how you view Afghans in general or the owners of these websites, readers want to know how Afghans view the Durand Line so that helps to verify the claim that Afghans/Pashtuns do indeed reject the Durand Line as mentioned in the article. The information on their websites is reliable.

All those sources you listed above and have used in the article are pretty much useless because these things are already mentioned in nearly every news article on the Durand Line. In other words you're not finding or bringing anything new. My position in all this is that I'm just trying to address that the border is disputed by Afghanistan and the Pashtun people, which is backed by many sources. I think I'm done with this article because these main issues are addressed. I'm curious why are you so much critical of Afghanistan and Afghans? Your edits, comments and POV show this very clearly. You should have respect for their views regardless if they may be poor at the moment. Their country was the center of so many empires in the past. In other words they are all children of kings and queens. Almost every city of Afghanistan was once the center of an important empire, Bagram was the center of the Kushan Empire, Zaranj was the capital of the Saffarids, Ghazni was the capial of the Ghaznavids, Ghor was the capital of Ghurids, Herat was the capital of Timurids, Kabul was the capital of the Mughal Empire and today's nation, Kandahar was the capital of the Hotakis and the Durrani Empire, and etc.--119.73.1.55 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's call it "a truce"....Additions fine, but no deletions of well-sourced, relevant content, yes? I'll fix a couple typos (of my own making....that stuff I put in in all caps doesn't work on links, and those 1894-1896, 1921, 1934 demarcations did definitely take place and are in loads of books/sources as you know...But other than a couple words, I don't see anything else wrong or misleading.....You know why....'cause, other than on some technicalities and "perspectives", you and I have researched and probably know more about this topic than just about anyone out there editing, and have left much more useful info in the article than it had beforehand.....Congratulations to us, yes? (Didn't say it was easy, but......) And while you know I think differently on some technical points you make on reliability and relevance of sources, I know you think differently than me with some of my points! But I've come around to see how you are an excellent writer....I have never intended to be critical of Afghans and have numerous connections to and have traveled to that wonderful part of the world as a tourist three times in the past four years......And your last part above (starting with You should have respect... to the end above is actually such a beautiful passage, and one with I agree completely....I hope you continue to do edits on numerous articles! (Just small ones, not big wholesale ones, here, yes.....I think we've about "beat to death" all the research on this topic.....Other editors still reading this (whew!) may want to look instead to the Afghanistan-Pakistan relations page to add content not directly relevant on this page about the frontier border line, yes? DLinth (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I very much agree with that and you've also done plenty of good work here, especially with finding the demarcation information. I'll not do any large changes without your consent. Speaking of that, where it mentions "they secretly camped to sign the agreement" and etc., under the history section, that area needs little improvement and I was wondering that we can explain the agreement (document) stuff there if needed. Immediatly below that will start with how the demarcation began and to what extent. I think the intro should be ok now the way I left it because otherwise if you mention too much stuff readers quickly get confused between the agreement document and the border as both uses "Durand". The Afg-Pak relations are connected to the Durand Line Agreement.--119.73.1.55 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I for one really don't care at all about the order (where in History section things go, etc.) and yes, the intro looks good. I did not add that "secretly camped" part and I've never tried to research that...I don't know anything about that...Yes, in my opinion you should improve that if you can. (By the way, if you add up the 1894-1896 demarcation and the 1921 and 1934 parts, it is now 1,100 miles demarcated.) If you want more measurements on that, you could add this part in italics below somewhere, if you think it is helpful...it's not original work, just measurements off of maps (like "Paris is 100 miles from London") that is verifiable by anyone:

In sum, excluding the desert portion of the line southwest of 66 degrees 15 minutes east longitude, over 80% of the line follows clear physical features (rivers or watershed divides) visible on any modern satellite imagery website or on readily available mapping such as the detailed (1:50,000 scale) Russian maps of the 1980s. Yes, your suggested order (where to put things) sounds good, and thanks for linking to that "Afg-Pak relations" article.DLinth (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose New Name For Article "Pakistan- Afghanistan Border"

This article should be renamed "Pakistan-Afghanistan" border as the Durand line is defunt since it expired in 1993 "Pakistan - Afghanistan" border is politcally and geographically more sound and is along the same lines as US canada border if someone types in Durand line it should redirect to "Pakistan - Afghanistan border" title, there can be mention if its old name but the durand line is defunt and is internationally recognised by all nations aswell as the UN and UK who was the orginal party to the treaty that it is the internation border between these countries. S Seagal (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet myth that Durand Line expired in 1993. No expiration date on ANY international boundary, including this one. Nothing in the 1893 to 1896 documents (see article.)DLinth (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed border

This source and the fact that Afghanistan not recognizing the Durand Line as its international border with Pakistan is enough to mention "disputed border".

There are Islamist insurgents on both sides of the porous and disputed border...[4]

We report things in Wikipedia as they are. If Pakistan feels that Durand Line is legitimate that doesn't mean it is no longer a disputed border.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

durand line

the controversy over the Durand Line is much older but unfortunately no third party has had a look into it. whether it is a frontier or border between the two neighboring countries or it has no value after the collapse of British colonial rule. some questions rise in our minds which may kindly be answered: i)were the people of Afghanistan taken in confidence when the agreement was signed with British rulers? ii)was this agreement provisional or permanent? iii)what is the total area of land which was included in British India after the agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.175.17 (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Gandhi in 1940.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Gandhi in 1940.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

afghanistan's & pakistan's border is in which pakistani city??

afghanistan's & pakistan's border is in which pakistani city?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.28.113 (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? There is no single specific city, maybe near Tora Bora, west of the Khyber Pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.111.73 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Source no longer exists for citation #5

This issue was fixed. Khansher40 (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The source for citation #5 "...were given only the choice of becoming a part either of India or Pakistan." either does not exist or it may have been moved to a different location at http://www.newsweek.com/. Khansher40 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the landing page: http://www.newsweek.com/id/73137/page/1. Khansher40 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Why so judgy?

In the Contemporary Era section:

"Pakistan obviously being aware of article 2 of the Durand Line Agreement, where it mentions "The Government of India (Pakistan) will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of Afghanistan", created a puppet state in Afghanistan run by the Taliban."

Why is this so judgey? Is the source cited accurate? somebody please rephrase this and figure out how much this claim that Pakistan installed the taliban is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCC4:2230:B45A:3168:93CF:EB5A (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durand Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325161737/http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/Contributions/Commentaries/DRRoashanArch/2001_08_11_unholy_durand_line.htm to http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/Contributions/Commentaries/DRRoashanArch/2001_08_11_unholy_durand_line.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Durand Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510142126/http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2012/10/24/no-change-stance-durand-line-faizi to http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2012/10/24/no-change-stance-durand-line-faizi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720015319/http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Jun/09Jun_Janjua.pdf to http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Jun/09Jun_Janjua.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126035657/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/afghanistan/page4.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/afghanistan/page4.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606143303/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-2-2004_pg7_23 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-2-2004_pg7_23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407223825/http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp to http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718235449/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s496/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s496/show
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408113251/http://www.newsweek.com/id/73137/page/1 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/73137/page/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)