Would India and Afghanistan have had a close relationship had Pakistan not been founded?
Since the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, India and Afghanistan, except the Taliban era, have had warm ties. Opposition to Pakistan is the main reason why the two countries have maintained cordial relations (even though Afghanistan remained neutral in the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars).
In both India and Afghanistan, more especially and frequently in Afghanistan, talk of a long historical relationship between the two countries is very common. In that spirit, centuries’ long invasions from or through present-day Afghanistan into India or vice versa receive little or no attention.
More importantly, little thought is given to what course Indo-Afghan relations would have taken, had British India not been divided. In other words: Would India and Afghanistan have had as close a relationship as they do today, had Pakistan not been founded?
Background
In 1893, the Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and the British Indian Foreign Secretary Sir Henry Mortimer Durand signed an agreement in Kabul to delimit “the frontier of Afghanistan on the side of India,” as well as to fix “the limit of their respective sphere of influence.” With the passage of time, the delimited “frontier” is commonly referred to as the Durand Line.
Even though subsequent Afghan rulers such as Amir Habibullah Khan, King Amanullah Khan, and King Nadir Khan renewed the “frontier” agreement with the British, most Afghans have seen the agreement as temporary, and void as soon as the British left.
It is because the line divides families and tribes which were part of Afghanistan in their entirety before the 1893 agreement. Under that impression, in July, 1947 Afghan Prime Minister Shah Mahmoud Khan’s government laid Afghanistan’s first claim over Pashtun territories in British India, which according to the Mountbatten Plan (or 3 June Plan) were destined to become part of Pakistan. Whether Afghanistan’s claim is valid or not is out of the scope of this writing.
Read next: Acrimony at the heart of Asia
When the Mountbatten Plan was put into action, Pakistan inherited the Durand Line from the British. As such, Afghanistan and Pakistan couldn’t have gotten off to a worse start in their bilateral relations. Few months into Pakistan’s creation, Afghanistan was the only country that cast a “No” vote against Pakistan’s United Nations membership.
Since then, relations between the two countries have been tense (save the Taliban era, which is also debatable). It is worth mentioning that Afghanistan still hasn’t recognised the Durand Line as an international border with Pakistan. To garner domestic support, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai would from time to time bring up the Durand Line issue and Afghanistan’s refusal to accept it as an international border.
India would have replaced Pakistan
With this in mind, if India had not been divided, the post-1947 Indo-Afghan relations would have had the same trajectory as have Afghan-Pak relations since. In other words, India, instead of Pakistan, would have inherited the Durand Line, with all its controversies.
It is tantamount to a fantasy to believe that India would have relinquished control (and sovereignty) of Pashtun-majority areas in India over which Afghanistan has territorial claims. There is evidence for this statement.
A year before India’s partition, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a tour of the Pashtun tribal belt in northwestern India. In addition to trying to counter Muslim League efforts, Nehru made an attempt to convince tribal Pashtuns to cast their lots with a united India, but to no avail.
Nehru saw in the strategic passes of the Pashtun areas a security insurance in the face of a northern invasion (probably from the Soviet Union). Past these strategic passes and mountains, laid the flat lands of the Punjab and the road to Delhi was open. Under no circumstance Nehru or any other Congress leader would have been prepared to meet Afghanistan’s demands.
According to the British historian Alex Von Tunzelmann, Nehru was not willing to come to terms with Pakistan over the Kashmir issue because of Kashmir’s terrain and strategic mountain passes (see Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of An Empire). After Nehru lost the NWFP in a referendum to Pakistan, he was bent on keeping Kashmir for India.
Consequently, Afghanistan’s relations with an undivided India would have been on a collision course from day one. After losing a greater part of its population and trans-Indus territory to the British in the previous century, Afghanistan would not have been in a position to force India’s hand.
To conceal its weakness vis-à-vis a Hindu-majority India, Afghanistan would have invested in the propaganda machine—exactly what it did against Pakistan. Although the process has been checked lately, stereotyping Hindus is common in many parts of Afghanistan.
Related: ‘Redrawing of Durand Line to be catastrophic’
It is widely believed that Hindus are 'unbelievers' and thus cowards, and that 'one Muslim can overpower seven Hindus'. Another popular example is referring to Hindus as 'mis’keen' (poor), not because they are poor, but because they lack 'imaan'.
Ironically, many of the notorious figures in the eyes of India’s Hindus (especially Hindu extremists) are revered in Afghanistan. For instance, Mahmud of Ghazni and Ahmad Shah Durrani are among a bunch of rulers and invaders who are widely respected for their invasions of India.
Zaheer ud-Din Mohammad Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire, who in his memoirs never hesitates to hide his distaste of India, its food, weather and customs also enjoys some degree of scholarly and popular support, especially among ethnic Uzbeks.
Glorifying these Indophobes’ achievements and demonising Hindus would have been a fertile ground for invoking anti-India sentiments against an undivided India.
Afghanistan’s Pashtun card
Afghanistan could also have instigated Pashtun tribal unrest in an undivided India. From 1893 to 1930 (and to a lesser extent to 1947), Afghanistan provided safe havens and at times weapons to Pashtun guerilla fighters fighting the British in India.
Despite repeated British requests, Afghanistan would refuse to take action against Pashtun tribesmen who entered Afghanistan after attacking British or pro-British elements in India. Afghanistan could have continued to do so, had India not been divided.
In undivided India, like British India, Muslims would have been a minority, and it would have been easier for Afghanistan to incite or encourage violence among the Pashtuns in the name of religion or freedom from unbelievers. After Pakistan’s founding, and given that the Pashtuns either through referendum or tribal jirgas joined the new state, Afghanistan could no longer bank on inciting religious violence.
More importantly and surprisingly, undivided India would have created a big rift between Indian (and later Pakistani) Pashtun nationalist leader Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a close friend of Gandhi’s and Nehru’s who campaigned for a united India, and Afghanistan.
Today, Khan is widely respected in Afghanistan primarily because of his Pashtun nationalist and anti-Pakistan sentiments. However, had India not been divided, he would have been looked down upon in Afghanistan, because he didn’t want a “greater Afghanistan,” which would include all Pashtun majority areas in Pakistan.
To clarify, there is no recorded statement available that Khan wanted Indian Pashtuns to join Afghanistan. Initially, he wanted a united India. When he failed, he wanted autonomy for the Pashtuns of Pakistan.
Today, his grandson and successor Asfandyar Wali Khan has given up those fantasies and is leader of the mainstream Awami National Party in Pakistan, the main opposition party in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Conclusion
One could argue that, based on available historical facts, Afghanistan and India would have had a tense relationship had a united India emerged out of the ashes of the British Raj.
India would have been painted in Afghanistan as a usurper of Pashtun lands. This rhetoric from Afghanistan and India’s response to it would have seriously questioned the basis for any historical relationship arguments.
If anything, Afghanistan and India share conflicting narratives of centuries of invasions and conquests. Afghanistan, however, did have warm relations with India’s Muslims. But a majority of those Muslims today live outside of India, either in Pakistan or in Bangladesh. Those who remain in India are not considered loyal Indians by Hindu extremists anyway, and are subjected to discrimination and harassment from time to time.
The current close state of affairs between India and Afghanistan is mainly due to opposition in both countries to Pakistan—to an extent to the country's existence and to an extent to some of its policies. As soon as the status quo changes in South Asia, we will witness estrangement between Afghanistan and India.
Have you visited countries that don't have good relations with your country of origin? Tell us about it at blog@dawn.com
The author is a former adviser to the Parwan governor in Afghanistan. He can be reached at rahiarwin@gmail.com.
The views expressed by this writer and commenters below do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
Comments (80) Closed
It is our own fault. . We have driven Afghanistan into the arms of India! There is no use crying about it now...
Would have, could have, should have.
Are you trying to create an issue where none exists?
Why is it not possible for Afghanistan and India to live peacefully if Pakistan was not there?
The poor relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not because of Durand line but because of Pakistan's policies towards Afghanistan. So why assume that India would have the same policies?
When you don't have anything to look forward you always cling to the past. Why what has not happened in past matters now? What purpose does it serve?
The author undoubtedly brought an altogether new perspective to the discussion, which is commendable. However, to the question on how the relations would've been if the country was not divided, surely Indian government would've dealt with outstanding issues including the Durand line in a far more mature way than what the Pakistani government does.
Durand line is the only border of Afghanistan with a neighbour country, where Afghan government was consulted in the demarcation; in all other cases its borders -for example with Iran and CARs- were demarcated without consulting it. what is its point of view about these? If Afghanistan is so curious about the Pashtuns ethnic group in Pakistan, does the same should not apply to its Tajik, Uzbek and other smaller group which are represented in a majoritarian form in a neighbour country- Tajikistan, Uzbikistan and other for example.
The were several agreements about this border between Afghanistan and the Britishers, and in the later agreements Afghan government agreed to the border's permenent status.
Useless article.
Good article.
There would have been some discord between United India and Afghanistan. Look at how India managed its land boundary and sea conflicts with Bangladesh or gave away Kachchativu island to Sri Lanka to fully resolve all land boundary issues. The same give and take would have happened with Afghanistan. The relation may not have been that sweet but also not a sour relation like dread enemies for ever as in case of India Pakistan relations.
Baseless story
Invest time and resource in HDI Instead wasting in such useless stuff!!!
@Surya kant agrawal Completely agree with you!!!
There are no permanent friends only permanent interests.
A very interesting article Arwin.
As a Pakistani, I was always under the impression that it is my successive governments' unchecked aggression towards the Afghans in the name of national interest (see: strategic depth) that has created a perception of a bad boy Pakistan in the eyes of Afghans. This is a great fresh perspective.
Very well written article
Excellent Article. Detailed historical facts.
No wonder Afghanistan is facing so many problems. An intelligent advisor.
It has always been about interests of those in power and their power struggle, cast, creed, color, race, religion, sect, nationalism or any other ideology are just tools used to influence people, and people unfortunately fall for these tools.
@Surya kant agrawal "Useless article "
You cant have it your ways, always. Learn to read and digest the other narrative too. BTW, it was surprising for me to note that the author is an Afghan, not a Pakistani.
The only nice thing about partition is that now there is buffer state of pakistan between india and afghanistan
Hypothetical article
certainly, after all, afghanistan was part of the earlier empires of different dynasty. i think even pakistan would have had good relations, but for the policies followed by pakistan, after the 1979 invasion of afghanistan by the former ussr.
Lol @ author.This piece of work is quite fictional and hypothetical. its all about "what if". Though i had to agree that it could be a good plot for a bollywood movie with lots of thrill and suspense. Good entertainment while reading.
Well written article based on historical facts.
@NK - Same comes to China... Countries arent brothers.. its goverened by politicians.. so answer is it depends
Thought provoking and insightful article, however looking at countries' relationship only through Hindu-Muslim lense may not have worked had India been united. My view being, rather the close relationship of "Frontier Gandhi" with the then Indian leadership would have helped in cementing Indo- Afghan relationship.
When modern nations speak about eternal 'friendships' or 'civilizational links' what they are trying to do is to give an attractive wrapping to what is essentially a transactional relationship based on self-interests of both parties. There is no real 'friendship' between modern nation-states, just pragmatic realpolitik.
This may become true in future as borders of India and Afghanistan are going to meet one day
hmm it is good factual article indeed afghanistan conspires againt Pak from 1st day other way india
@SHAHRYAR SHIRAZI : in that case its a good article!
It helped me a lot. A good write-up. Keep it up.
A perfect analysis.
From truth, we can rationalise the present, very good article.
Wishful thinking - what if are not relevant in this world my friend.
Really interesting article!
Wishful thinking.
An excellent article and equally good hypotheses.
Stupid article.
A well argued analysis
A rare but realistic view of the geopolitics of the region. Well Done.
Indeed great article.
Afghanistan and India are historically connected. There are various places in Afghanistan that carry Hindu names and haven'tbeen modified since.
It was just a few years ago that India and Bangladesh settled their border issue that was festering since 1947. Why can't we accept that colonialism is long gone and all these issues created "by them and at that time" should be resolved by "give and take" and get back to doing people's business RIGHT NOW.
Afghani governments only get along with their enemies' enemy, in which they have more enemies than allies.
I suppose partition was natural then. Pakistan absolutely needed to be wedged conveniently between majority Hindu India and Afghanistan. NWFP had approx. 97% Muslim population around time of partition, in contrast to Punjab, which had about 55% Muslim population.
Good article with few assumptions based on historic facts and totally relevant since afghan govt did not recognise Pakistan in 47 goes eqaully true had there been united india. Needless to talk about camps setup in afghanistan by khad in 50's and later on for destabilising Pakistan.Infact it would have been worse in 79 considering the refugees coming to Pakistan and Iran. india only has 14000 afghan refugees more or less so afghans should well think before speak against Pakistan.
In that case relation between the two countries would not have been what it is today.
Present situation depends on our past.
@zorro;
We will see when military occupation ends in Afghanistan.
If Pakistan was not carved out of India, Afghanistan and possibly even Iran would have been reduced to Bhutan status
Waste of time article
Let the two brothers get back together and have one strong nation and find out if we have issues with Afghanistan.
Fantasy , not a narratives. What would have happened between Hindus and Muslims, if India would not divided, should be the main question?
as its written in this article :In undivided India, like British India, Muslims would have been a minority, and it would have been easier for Afghanistan to incite or encourage violence among the Pashtuns in the name of religion or freedom from unbelievers" This is the case already happening in Kashmir.
good analysis......great comparisons..............The writer narrates rightly what could have happened had India remained undivided with regards to Afghanistan
Really? the point being??
Never.This union is only to add fuel to the fire within Pakistan.
Let's look in to the present and future instead of wasting time in past.
Would Pakistan and China have had an iron clad relationship, had Pakistan not been founded or if Kashmir had gone to Pakistan?? McMohan line would have come to Pakistan as well. There are so many what ifs -and they don't matter now.
author is absolutely right... its the same case that brought china and pakistan closer with completely opposing ideologies
Article says common perception of people is... " It is widely believed that Hindus are 'unbelievers' and thus cowards, and that 'one Muslim can overpower seven Hindus'. Another popular example is referring to Hindus as 'mis’keen' (poor), not because they are poor, but because they lack 'imaan'. "...
Hindus have been targetted by this for centuries, thier idols have been broken, thier temples sacked. Afghans looted Somnath 13 times
And then Muslims complain of Islamophobia
Excellent piece of work
@byju No, involvement goes much further backwards to Bhutto's time.
Pretty good propaganda. I wish people would stop calling the current regime in afghanistan, consisting of Uzbek's, tajiks and a token pustun, who has spent most of his adult life in the World Bank - as the government of afghanistan. Majority of Afghans have lived peacefully with the people of Pakistan. When Nehru tried to win over patans in the 1947 referendum he went to the frontier province. He was attacked and got seriously injured. Today there is a minority in afghanistan that is friendly with India and the US. That is because they want to remain in power. So lets not be misguideded that all Afghans love India.
A perspective I always thought about but which the author nicely put into words. Bravo. Will expect more articles from you in the future Mr. Arwin Rahi!
A great country like Undivided India would have treated Afghanistan in the same way as modern India treating Nepal .
@P.K.Tripathy
Hasn't Nepal too decided to go the China way? Get your facts straight? BTW: Afghanistan too is not far behind even though it's not even India's neighbor. It's only the India's neighbors not so blessed with India being next door.
would pakistan have existed then? isf it was in india
;
@zorro and how we did that?
This article is nothing more than would have or could have.
Excellent write up. We through our deeds compelled Afghanistan to seek security from India.
@zorro how can it be Pakistan fault.afghanistan was against Pakistan before it came in existence
There were three dynasties in the South Asian Region, one was Afghan, other was Kanishka, and the third was Fars, today's Iran, that former has been denied by the then British empire because of its resistance against the invader and the later ones were colonized by British and hence later retained its status till today. The former one has been in that struggle to retain its lost position and one the game the British played was the creation of Pakistan to resist the Afghans for its legitimate right in the region.
@Mirza Fida Hussain what is wrong with Bhutan status? It's in a better position than a lot of countries who are going under debt soon. Don't just say anything base it on facts. Do you know anything about their GDP,living conditions....anything at all?
Past is past. India and Afghanistan have always had a brotherly relationship. citizens of Afghanistan and India have the sane thought of good life for them with complete freedom for women.
If and only if?. Absolutely hypothetical. I will add some more if's here. If there was an agreement in 1928 regarding sharing of power and Mr Jinnah would have taken over as the PM of the then United India, probably Kabul would have been the frontier of undivided India, rather than Peshawar.
@Afy Very well presented. Colonialism left many problems. Some of today's leaders have resolved those problems. Others have leadership and other political issues. An exception is China which makes its own rules and ignores everybody. If you are powerful then no one questions you, otherwise you can cry like the Phillipines is doing now, in spite of World Courts order.
Three countries have only ONE option
Open borders and free movement of people
Hope it comes true soonest
@ZakTheGas : Never. 200 million people will revolt. Kashmir has more chance of being independent but.
And China is the check to India.
"My enemy's enemy is my friend." The cooperation between Afghanistan and India is based on that old saying.
Whether someone likes it or not, this is a great and a very honest article.