The Politics of Borders: How Nations Cherry-Pick Colonial Boundaries to Suit their Interests

The Durand Line, the McMahon Line, and the Selective Recognition of Colonial Borders

The Double Standard of Border Recognition

In the complex landscape of international relations, few issues expose the hypocrisy of nation-states quite like their selective approach to colonial-era borders. While some boundaries are defended as sacrosanct, others are dismissed as illegitimate impositions not based on legal principle, but on political convenience. This contradiction is nowhere more evident than in the contrasting treatment of Afghanistan’s Durand Line with Pakistan and India’s McMahon Line with China. The principle at stake is simple yet profound: if colonial borders are inherently illegitimate, then consistency demands their universal rejection. If they represent valid international boundaries, then all must be respected equally. The current selective approach reveals not principled opposition to colonialism, but calculated opportunism dressed in the rhetoric of justice.

The Durand Line: A History of Acceptance and Opportunistic Rejection

The Durand Line, Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan, was established in 1893 through an agreement between British India and Afghan ruler Amir Abdur Rahman Khan. This boundary was later reaffirmed by the 1919 Treaty of Rawalpindi, with Afghanistan not only accepting the demarcation but also receiving British subsidies in exchange for recognition. While the Durand Line was recognized through several agreements during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, successive Afghan governments have questioned its status since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, arguing that agreements concluded with British India do not automatically bind modern Afghanistan.

This rejection, however, lacks the consistency of principle. Supporters of the Durand Line’s legal validity argue that historical agreements and subsequent state practice support its status as an international boundary. Instead, it maintains a calculated ambiguity keeping legal obligations intact while making territorial claims that pressure what it perceives as a weaker neighbor. This isn’t legal scholarship; it’s political opportunism masquerading as anti-colonial sentiment.

The Ethnic Division Argument: Selective Outrage

Afghanistan’s most emotionally resonant argument centers on the division of the Pashtun people across the Durand Line. While this grievance carries emotional weight, it crumbles under scrutiny when viewed alongside Afghanistan’s acceptance of other borders that similarly divided ethnic groups. Many of Afghanistan’s modern boundaries emerged through agreements involving British India and other regional powers, and several of these borders cut across ethnic communities. The O’Conor Line of 1895 separated Tajiks between Afghanistan and what is now Tajikistan.

The Dane Line of 1905 divided Persian populations between Afghanistan and Iran. The creation of the Wakhan Corridor between 1893-1895 served as a buffer zone, further fragmenting regional ethnic groups. Yet Afghanistan raises no objections to these divisions. It doesn’t demand the return of Tajik lands from Tajikistan or Uzbek territories from Uzbekistan. The reason is pragmatic rather than principled: challenging Russia, China, or Iran carries risks that Afghanistan is unwilling to bear. Pakistan, however, is seen as a softer target. If ethnic unity were truly the governing principle, Afghanistan’s position would demand consistency across all its borders. The selective application of this argument reveals its true nature: not a quest for justice, but territorial ambition cloaked in ethnic solidarity.

Afghanistan’s Colonial Borders: All or None

Many of Afghanistan’s contemporary borders emerged through a series of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century agreements involving British India, Russia, Persia, and Afghanistan.

East/South: Durand Line with Pakistan (1893)

North: O’Conor Line with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (1895)
West: Dane Line with Iran (1905)
Northeast: Wakhan Corridor buffer with China (1893-1895)

If Afghanistan genuinely believes that colonial impositions lack legitimacy, intellectual honesty demands the rejection of all these boundaries. However, Afghanistan cherry-picks only the Durand Line for challenge while embracing the others. This selective rejection reveals the hollowness of the anti-colonial argument, these are not principled objections but calculated territorial claims.

The Demographic Reality: Pakistan’s Pashtun Majority

The numbers tell a story that undermines Afghanistan’s entire narrative. Most demographic estimates suggest that a larger number of Pashtuns reside in Pakistan than in Afghanistan, although precise figures remain contested. This demographic reality exposes the absurdity of Afghanistan’s claims to unite the Pashtun people under its flag. By Afghanistan’s own ethnic logic, the larger Pashtun population should determine the outcome. If unity were the goal, Afghanistan should be seeking to join Pakistan, not claiming Pakistani territory. However, this demographic argument assumes that ethnic identity trumps all other considerations an assumption that Pakistani Pashtuns themselves would overwhelmingly reject.

Freedom Versus Oppression: The Choice No Pakistani Pashtun Would Make

The contrast between life for Pashtuns in Pakistan versus Afghanistan under Taliban rule could not be starker. In Pakistan, Pashtun daughters become doctors, lawyers, pilots, and engineers. They attend universities, pursue careers, and contribute to society as equals. Malala Yousafzai, a Pashtun from Swat, exemplifies this potential shot by the Taliban for seeking education, she went on to become a Nobel laureate representing the aspirations of Pakistani Pashtun women.

In Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, girls are banned from school after age 12, women are erased from the workforce, and gender apartheid is enforced through medieval strictures. The Afghanistan that claims to offer a better future for Pashtuns instead offers regression, ignorance, and oppression. Pakistani Pashtuns have tasted freedom, built lives, and achieved success as generals, judges, ministers, and professionals. They have integrated into Pakistan’s democratic framework while maintaining their cultural identity. The notion that they would voluntarily surrender these achievements to join a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is not merely implausible, it’s insulting to their intelligence and aspirations.

India’s Glaring Double Standard

Perhaps no nation exposes the hypocrisy of selective border recognition more clearly than India. New Delhi vehemently defends the McMahon Line, the boundary drawn by British India in 1914 to separate India from Tibet as sacred and inviolable. India fought a war with China in 1962 to protect this line and continues to treat any challenge to it as an act of aggression. Simultaneously, India questions the legitimacy of the Durand Line, calling it a ‘colonial imposition’ that Afghanistan should be free to renegotiate. Critics argue that a contradiction exists because both the Durand Line and the McMahon Line originated during the British colonial period.

The McMahon Line was established in 1914, while the Durand Line predates it by 21 years, established in 1893. The difference in treatment has nothing to do with legitimacy, colonial origins, or legal principles. It’s purely strategic: the McMahon Line secures Indian territory, while questioning the Durand Line weakens Pakistan. India’s position perfectly embodies the cynical calculus that drives selective border recognition nations love the lines they want and question those that benefit their rivals.

International Law and the Principle of Inherited Borders

International law provides a clear framework for handling colonial-era boundaries through the principle of uti possidetis juris essentially, new nations inherit the borders they possessed at independence. This principle exists precisely to prevent the chaos that would result from widespread border challenges based on colonial origins. When colonial powers departed, their successor states inherited existing administrative boundaries, much like inheriting a house with its established fence lines. Pakistan inherited the Durand Line in 1947, India inherited the McMahon Line, and Afghanistan’s borders were set by 1919.

While peaceful negotiations can always modify boundaries through mutual agreement, unilateral rejection or the use of force to change inherited borders threatens the entire international system. Pakistan consistently respects this principle, recognizing all inherited borders and seeking resolution of disputes through dialogue. Afghanistan’s selective rejection of one inherited border while embracing others, and India’s defense of its colonial borders while questioning Pakistan’s, both violate the consistency that international law requires.

The views presented in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Strategic Forum – GSF.

Imran Bhatti

Imran Bhatti holds an M.Phil. in Governance and Public Policy and professional certifications as a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) and Project Management Professional (PMP). He is a geopolitical analyst and writer specializing in energy geopolitics, great-power competition, Eurasian strategic affairs, and South Asian security dynamics. His work explores regional geopolitics, border disputes, infrastructure, security, and economic statecraft in an increasingly multipolar world.