Abstract
This dissertation examines the Durand Line, the contested boundary established in 1893 between British India and Afghanistan, analysing its colonial origins and the enduring geopolitical tensions it has generated in South Asia. Employing a comprehensive literature synthesis methodology, this study investigates how imperial boundary-making practices created a persistent source of conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan, whilst simultaneously fragmenting Pashtun and Baloch communities across an arbitrary frontier. The research reveals that the Durand Line exemplifies how colonial cartographies, designed primarily to serve strategic interests during Anglo-Russian rivalry, have become entrenched within international legal frameworks that perpetuate postcolonial disputes. Key findings demonstrate that successive Afghan governments have consistently rejected the line’s legitimacy, whilst Pakistan maintains it constitutes a settled international border. The porous nature of this frontier has facilitated cross-border terrorism, smuggling, and refugee movements, whilst recent securitisation efforts have intensified bilateral tensions. The dissertation concludes that despite various proposed resolution mechanisms, including bilateral recognition frameworks and regional cooperative arrangements, the combination of nationalist narratives, ethnic claims, and great-power rivalries renders near-term resolution unlikely.
Introduction
The drawing of international boundaries has profound and lasting consequences for the communities they divide, the states they define, and the regions they shape. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Durand Line, the 2,670-kilometre frontier separating Afghanistan from Pakistan. Established through an agreement between Sir Mortimer Durand, representing British India, and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan in November 1893, this boundary has remained one of the most contentious and consequential colonial legacies in contemporary international relations (Begum, 2015; Lambah, 2012).
The significance of the Durand Line extends far beyond its immediate geographical context. It represents a paradigmatic example of how European imperial powers imposed arbitrary boundaries upon non-Western territories, with little regard for existing ethnic, linguistic, or cultural configurations. The line was drawn primarily to serve British strategic interests during the so-called ‘Great Game’ with Russia, transforming Afghanistan into a buffer state whilst simultaneously partitioning the Pashtun and Baloch peoples across two distinct political entities (Anwar, Bibi and Khan, 2020; Mahmud, 2010). This colonial cartography has subsequently generated over a century of diplomatic tension, armed conflict, and human suffering.
The academic importance of this topic derives from multiple intersecting dimensions. First, the Durand Line dispute offers crucial insights into how colonial boundary-making practices continue to shape contemporary international relations, challenging assumptions about the post-Second World War international order and the principle of territorial integrity. Second, it illuminates the tension between international legal norms that tend to preserve existing boundaries and the legitimate grievances of communities divided by those boundaries. Third, the dispute sits at the nexus of critical contemporary security concerns, including terrorism, insurgency, refugee movements, and great-power competition in South Asia (Yar, Ihsan and Hafiz, 2022; Mahmood, 2005).
From a practical standpoint, understanding the Durand Line’s origins and ongoing implications is essential for policymakers, security analysts, and humanitarian organisations operating in the region. The border area has witnessed persistent instability, serving as a conduit for militant groups, including the Taliban and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, whilst also functioning as a humanitarian corridor for millions of Afghan refugees (Irshad, 2025; Rahimov, 2025). Pakistan’s recent efforts to fence the border and implement enhanced security measures have added new dimensions to this long-standing dispute, particularly in the context of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul (Faqir, Khalid and Rahman, 2020).
This dissertation contributes to the existing body of scholarship by providing a comprehensive synthesis of historical, legal, and geopolitical perspectives on the Durand Line, whilst critically evaluating proposed resolution mechanisms. By examining how colonial decisions continue to reverberate through contemporary international relations, this research advances broader theoretical understanding of postcolonial sovereignty, border disputes, and regional security complexes in South Asia.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically analyse the colonial origins of the Durand Line and examine how this arbitrary boundary has generated lasting geopolitical tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, whilst assessing prospects for future resolution.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the research:
1. To investigate the historical circumstances and imperial motivations underlying the establishment of the Durand Line in 1893, examining how British strategic interests during the Great Game shaped boundary-making decisions.
2. To analyse the transformation of the Durand Line from a colonial demarcation into a contested international border following the partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
3. To evaluate the impact of the Durand Line on Pashtun and Baloch communities, examining how ethnic fragmentation has fuelled nationalism, identity politics, and ongoing demands for self-determination.
4. To assess the contemporary security implications of the disputed border, including its role in facilitating cross-border terrorism, smuggling, and refugee movements.
5. To critically examine international legal frameworks governing the status of colonial boundaries and their application to the Durand Line dispute.
6. To evaluate proposed resolution mechanisms and assess their viability given prevailing nationalist narratives and regional power dynamics.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, drawing upon peer-reviewed academic sources, historical documents, and policy analyses to construct a comprehensive understanding of the Durand Line’s origins, evolution, and contemporary significance. This approach is particularly appropriate for examining complex historical and geopolitical phenomena that cannot be studied through primary empirical research alone and require the integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives.
The research process involved systematic identification and analysis of scholarly literature addressing the Durand Line from historical, legal, political, and security perspectives. Sources were identified through academic databases, including JSTOR, Google Scholar, and specialised repositories focusing on South Asian studies and international relations. Priority was given to peer-reviewed journal articles, academic monographs, and publications from reputable international organisations, whilst explicitly excluding low-quality websites, blogs, and non-scholarly sources.
The analytical framework integrates multiple disciplinary approaches. Historical analysis examines the circumstances surrounding the 1893 agreement and subsequent developments, drawing upon archival scholarship and regional histories. Legal analysis applies principles of international law, particularly those governing state succession, treaty validity, and the doctrine of uti possidetis, to assess competing claims regarding the border’s legal status. Geopolitical analysis situates the dispute within broader regional dynamics, including great-power competition, security complexes, and contemporary developments such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
Critical engagement with sources involved assessing their methodological rigour, potential biases, and the perspectives they represent. Given the politically sensitive nature of the subject matter, particular attention was paid to identifying and acknowledging differing national perspectives, whilst maintaining analytical objectivity. The synthesis process involved identifying common themes, contradictions, and gaps within the existing literature, enabling the construction of a coherent narrative that advances understanding beyond individual studies.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance upon secondary sources, potential gaps in available scholarship, and the inherent challenges of synthesising materials from different disciplinary traditions. Nevertheless, the literature synthesis approach provides the most appropriate means of addressing the dissertation’s aim and objectives, enabling comprehensive analysis of a complex historical and contemporary phenomenon.
Literature review
Imperial context and the Great Game
The Durand Line cannot be understood in isolation from the broader imperial context of the nineteenth century, particularly the Anglo-Russian rivalry known as the Great Game. This geopolitical competition for influence in Central and South Asia profoundly shaped British policy towards Afghanistan and determined the strategic rationale underlying the 1893 boundary agreement.
British India faced a perceived threat from Russian expansion into Central Asia, with successive military advances bringing Tsarist forces closer to Afghanistan’s northern frontier. The spectre of a Russian advance through Afghanistan to threaten British India animated imperial strategy for much of the nineteenth century. British policymakers oscillated between forward policies, seeking to extend direct control into Afghanistan, and masterly inactivity, preferring to maintain Afghanistan as an independent buffer state. The disastrous First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) demonstrated the costs of military intervention, whilst the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880) established British control over Afghan foreign policy without annexation (Yar, Ihsan and Hafiz, 2022).
The Durand Line emerged from this strategic context as an instrument for securing Britain’s northwestern frontier. By defining clear spheres of influence, British policymakers sought to stabilise the Afghan border region, deny Russia direct access to British India, and establish mechanisms for managing the turbulent tribal areas that lay between the settled districts of Punjab and the Afghan kingdom. The boundary was thus conceived primarily as a strategic demarcation serving imperial security interests, rather than as a permanent international frontier reflecting local demographic or historical realities (Begum, 2015; Mahmud, 2010).
The 1893 agreement and its immediate consequences
The Durand Agreement was concluded on 12 November 1893, following negotiations between Sir Mortimer Durand, Foreign Secretary of British India, and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan at Kabul. The agreement defined British and Afghan spheres of influence, established the line that would bear Durand’s name, and committed both parties to non-interference in territories falling on the other side of the boundary.
Scholars have extensively debated the circumstances, terms, and validity of the 1893 agreement. Anwar, Bibi and Khan (2020) examine various myths surrounding the agreement, including claims regarding duress, misunderstanding, and subsequent Afghan reservations. The agreement was negotiated against a backdrop of British pressure, with Abdur Rahman facing limited alternatives given British control over Afghan subsidies and foreign relations. However, the Amir was also a skilful negotiator who secured British recognition of Afghan territorial integrity north of the line and obtained financial concessions in exchange for accepting the boundary (Ponka, Dkhar and Dkhar, 2017).
The practical consequences of the agreement were immediate and profound. The line cut arbitrarily through Pashtun tribal territories, dividing communities that had existed as cohesive social units for centuries. Semi-nomadic groups found their traditional migration routes crossing an international boundary, whilst families and clans were separated by a demarcation they had no role in creating. The principle underlying the boundary was strategic convenience rather than ethnographic or geographical logic (Lambah, 2012).
Partition and the emergence of the Afghanistan-Pakistan dispute
The Durand Line assumed entirely new significance with the partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan in August 1947. The boundary, originally a demarcation between British India and Afghanistan, now became the international frontier between two sovereign states with fundamentally different perspectives on its legitimacy.
Pakistan inherited British India’s position regarding the Durand Line, treating it as a settled international boundary that delimited Pakistani sovereignty westward. This position drew support from the principle of state succession, whereby newly independent states assume the treaty obligations and boundaries of their colonial predecessors. From the Pakistani perspective, the Durand Agreement constituted a valid international treaty that Pakistan succeeded to upon independence, and subsequent Afghan claims represented irredentist challenges to established boundaries (Tehseen, 2021; Mahmood, 2005).
Afghanistan adopted a fundamentally different position. The Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, convened in 1949 formally repudiated all existing treaties with British India, including the Durand Agreement. Afghan governments argued that the agreement had been imposed under duress, that it constituted an internal boundary within the British sphere of influence rather than an international frontier, and that Pakistan could not succeed to treaty rights that Afghanistan itself had rejected. Furthermore, Afghan nationalists asserted historical claims to Pashtun territories east of the Durand Line, advancing demands for Pashtunistan – an autonomous or independent homeland for Pashtun people (Yar, Ihsan and Hafiz, 2022).
The dispute immediately poisoned relations between the two states. Afghanistan was the sole country to vote against Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations in 1947. Subsequent decades witnessed periodic diplomatic ruptures, border skirmishes, and sustained Afghan support for Pashtun nationalist movements within Pakistan. The Pashtunistan issue became central to Afghan national identity and foreign policy, whilst Pakistan viewed Afghan claims as existential threats to its territorial integrity (Begum, 2015).
Cold War dynamics and the Afghan jihad
The Cold War introduced additional complexity to the Durand Line dispute, as both superpowers sought to cultivate influence in South Asia. Pakistan’s alignment with the United States through SEATO and CENTO contrasted with periods of closer Afghan-Soviet relations, embedding the bilateral border dispute within broader great-power competition.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 fundamentally transformed the significance of the Durand Line. The porous, poorly demarcated frontier became essential to the Afghan mujahideen resistance, enabling the flow of weapons, supplies, and fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan. Pakistan, supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, served as the primary conduit for military assistance to anti-Soviet forces, with Inter-Services Intelligence managing training camps and supply routes along the border (Mahmood, 2005; Wagner, 2013).
The Afghan jihad demonstrated both the permeability of the Durand Line and its strategic significance. Millions of Afghan refugees crossed into Pakistan, establishing camps in the border regions that would become incubators for militant ideologies. The line that had divided communities now facilitated their mobilisation against a common enemy, whilst simultaneously creating security dependencies and demographic pressures that would persist long after Soviet withdrawal (Yar, Ihsan and Hafiz, 2022).
Post-9/11 security challenges and border management
The attacks of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent American-led intervention in Afghanistan brought the Durand Line to the forefront of global security concerns. The border region became central to counter-terrorism operations, whilst also serving as a refuge for Taliban and al-Qaeda elements fleeing American military action.
Cross-border terrorism emerged as the defining security challenge along the Durand Line in the post-9/11 era. Taliban fighters moved freely across the border, conducting operations in Afghanistan before retreating to sanctuaries in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, formed in 2007, conducted devastating attacks within Pakistan itself, demonstrating that border insecurity threatened both states. Smuggling networks facilitated the movement of weapons, drugs, and illicit goods, whilst the absence of effective border controls enabled continued refugee movements and population displacement (Yar and Sadaat, 2025; Irshad, 2025).
Pakistan responded with increasingly assertive border management measures. Beginning in 2017, Pakistan commenced construction of a fence along the Durand Line, accompanied by the establishment of border posts, installation of surveillance technology, and implementation of new crossing protocols. These measures sought to enhance Pakistani security, control cross-border movements, and demonstrate effective sovereignty over the border region. The fencing project also aligned with Pakistan’s efforts to secure infrastructure associated with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which traverses regions adjacent to the disputed frontier (Faqir, Khalid and Rahman, 2020; Irshad, 2025).
However, Pakistani securitisation efforts have intensified tensions with Afghanistan and local tribal communities. Afghan governments, including the Taliban administration that assumed power in August 2021, have rejected unilateral fencing as illegitimate, periodically destroying fence sections and confronting Pakistani forces. Local communities have protested restrictions on traditional cross-border movements, whilst humanitarian organisations have expressed concern about the impact on refugee populations and divided families (Rahimov, 2025).
Legal dimensions and international law
The legal status of the Durand Line has generated extensive scholarly analysis, with competing interpretations drawing upon different aspects of international law governing boundaries, treaties, and state succession.
Pakistan’s legal position rests upon several interconnected arguments. First, the Durand Agreement constitutes a valid international treaty that established a permanent boundary, regardless of the circumstances of its negotiation. Second, Pakistan succeeded to British India’s treaty rights and obligations upon independence, including the Durand Agreement. Third, the principle of uti possidetis juris, which holds that newly independent states inherit the boundaries of their colonial predecessors, applies to the Durand Line. Fourth, subsequent conduct by both states, including mapping practices, diplomatic exchanges, and practical administration, has confirmed the line’s status as an international boundary (Ponka, Dkhar and Dkhar, 2017).
Afghanistan’s legal arguments challenge each of these positions. Afghan jurists contend that the Durand Agreement was obtained through duress, that it was intended as a temporary demarcation rather than a permanent boundary, and that subsequent Afghan reservations prevent any assumption of acquiescence. Furthermore, Afghanistan argues that Pakistan cannot succeed to treaty rights that Afghanistan itself has repudiated, and that the principle of self-determination should enable the Pashtun people to determine their own political future (Poya, 2020).
Mahmud (2010) offers a critical legal perspective, arguing that international law has effectively ‘frozen’ colonial boundaries like the Durand Line, locking postcolonial states into problematic cartographies that serve the interests of former colonial powers and contemporary great powers. This critique highlights how legal doctrines that ostensibly promote stability may perpetuate injustices arising from colonial boundary-making, constraining alternative political arrangements that might better reflect ethnic, historical, or democratic realities.
Identity, ethnicity, and the Pashtunistan question
The Durand Line’s partition of Pashtun communities has profoundly shaped identity politics in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, fuelling nationalist movements and complicating bilateral relations.
The Pashtuns constitute the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and a significant minority in Pakistan, numbering approximately 50 million people divided across the border. They share a common language (Pashto), cultural practices, tribal structures, and historical consciousness, yet find themselves citizens of two different states with distinct national narratives. The Durand Line fragmented this community, transforming what had been internal divisions within a broader Pashtun world into international boundaries separating foreign nations (Leake and Haines, 2017; Tehseen, 2021).
The Pashtunistan movement emerged from this fragmentation, advancing claims for Pashtun autonomy or independence that have persistently complicated Afghan-Pakistani relations. Afghan governments have periodically supported Pashtun nationalist movements within Pakistan, providing rhetorical backing, radio broadcasts, and material assistance to groups challenging Pakistani sovereignty. Pakistan has responded by viewing Pashtunistan advocacy as an existential threat and by supporting Afghan factions, including the Taliban, seen as less committed to irredentist claims (Yar, Ihsan and Hafiz, 2022).
Beyond the Pashtuns, the Durand Line also divided Baloch communities, adding another ethnic dimension to border disputes. Baloch nationalist movements, seeking autonomy or independence from Pakistan, have found common cause with Afghan critics of the Durand Line, further complicating regional politics (Ponka, Dkhar and Dkhar, 2017).
Regional security complexes and great-power involvement
The Durand Line dispute exists within a broader regional security complex encompassing South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Great-power involvement has consistently shaped the dispute’s trajectory, from British imperial boundary-making through Cold War competition to contemporary Chinese and American interests.
Aryal and Pulami (2024) situate the Durand Line alongside other colonial boundaries in South Asia, including the McMahon Line between India and China and the Radcliffe Line between India and Pakistan, arguing that these imperial cartographies collectively shape regional security dynamics. The interconnection of boundary disputes creates complex interdependencies, whereby developments along one frontier influence calculations regarding others.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, particularly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, has introduced new geopolitical stakes to the Durand Line dispute. CPEC investments traverse regions adjacent to the contested border, making their security contingent upon stable Afghan-Pakistani relations. China has consequently developed interests in managing the dispute, whilst its growing presence has also raised Indian concerns about strategic encirclement (Faqir, Khalid and Rahman, 2020).
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has been proposed as a potential mechanism for addressing the dispute, offering a multilateral framework that includes both regional powers and external stakeholders. However, the organisation’s effectiveness in managing bilateral disputes remains limited, and its involvement could introduce additional complications given the competing interests of member states (Rahimov, 2025; Wagner, 2013).
Discussion
The foregoing literature review reveals the Durand Line as a paradigmatic example of how colonial boundary-making creates enduring structural conflicts that resist resolution through conventional diplomatic means. This discussion critically analyses the key findings in relation to the dissertation’s stated objectives, whilst identifying broader implications for understanding postcolonial borders and regional security.
Colonial cartography and its lasting consequences
The first objective sought to investigate the historical circumstances and imperial motivations underlying the Durand Line’s establishment. The evidence demonstrates conclusively that the boundary was drawn with strategic and imperial priorities paramount, reflecting British concerns about Russian expansion rather than local demographic, ethnic, or historical realities. Sir Mortimer Durand and his contemporaries conceived the line as an instrument for securing Britain’s Indian frontier, not as a permanent international boundary reflecting the aspirations of affected communities.
This finding carries significant theoretical implications. It confirms critical perspectives on colonial cartography advanced by scholars such as Mahmud (2010), who argues that European powers imposed boundaries upon non-Western territories as instruments of imperial control, without regard for existing political arrangements or population distributions. The Durand Line exemplifies how maps and boundaries served as technologies of power, enabling colonial states to define, divide, and control subject territories and populations.
Moreover, the analysis reveals the profound disjuncture between imperial boundary-making and local realities. The semi-nomadic Pashtun tribes that inhabited the frontier region operated according to social and political logics entirely different from those assumed by European cartographers. Tribal territories, migration routes, and kinship networks did not respect the geometric lines drawn in distant imperial capitals. The imposition of the Durand Line thus represented not merely a political act but an epistemological violence, imposing European concepts of territorial sovereignty upon communities organised according to different principles.
From colonial demarcation to international dispute
The second and third objectives concerned the transformation of the Durand Line following partition and its impact upon divided communities. The literature demonstrates that the creation of Pakistan converted a colonial demarcation into a contested international boundary, fundamentally altering its political significance whilst leaving unchanged the communities it divided.
The contrasting positions of Afghanistan and Pakistan regarding the line’s legitimacy reflect fundamentally different understandings of state succession, treaty validity, and the relationship between colonial arrangements and postcolonial sovereignty. Pakistan’s position, emphasising legal continuity and the principle of uti possidetis, aligns with dominant international legal frameworks that privilege stability over justice. Afghanistan’s rejection of the line reflects an alternative perspective emphasising the illegitimacy of colonial impositions and the right of self-determination.
This contestation illustrates a broader tension within international law between preserving existing boundaries and addressing the injustices they embody. The doctrine of uti possidetis, developed initially in Latin American independence movements and subsequently applied to African and Asian decolonisation, has effectively frozen colonial boundaries regardless of their arbitrariness or the grievances they generate. Critics such as Mahmud (2010) argue that this doctrine perpetuates colonial cartographies, constraining postcolonial states within problematic territorial arrangements that serve external interests rather than local needs.
The impact upon Pashtun and Baloch communities has been profound and enduring. Families separated by the boundary, traditional migration routes disrupted, and communities divided between different national jurisdictions – these consequences continue to generate human suffering and political mobilisation. The Pashtunistan movement represents an ongoing challenge to the legitimacy of existing arrangements, demonstrating that affected populations have never accepted their partition as natural or just.
Contemporary security implications
The fourth objective addressed contemporary security implications of the disputed border. The analysis reveals that the Durand Line has become central to regional security challenges, including terrorism, insurgency, and refugee movements, whilst also intersecting with great-power competition and economic development initiatives.
The porous nature of the border has facilitated cross-border terrorism, enabling militant groups to operate across the frontier with relative impunity. The Taliban’s ability to maintain sanctuaries in Pakistan whilst conducting operations in Afghanistan exemplifies this dynamic, as does the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s capacity to threaten Pakistani security whilst drawing upon Afghan connections. The border region has functioned as an incubator for extremism, combining ungoverned spaces, weapons availability, and ideological mobilisation.
Pakistan’s fencing and securitisation efforts represent a significant departure from historical patterns, demonstrating enhanced state capacity and determination to control cross-border movements. These measures have achieved some security benefits, reducing infiltration and smuggling along fenced sections. However, they have also generated new tensions, provoking Afghan objections, disrupting local communities, and raising humanitarian concerns about divided families and refugee populations.
The intersection of border security with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor adds economic and geopolitical dimensions to the dispute. CPEC investments require stable conditions along transport corridors, creating Chinese interests in managing Afghan-Pakistani tensions. However, this involvement also introduces new complications, as Chinese presence raises Indian concerns and potentially draws external powers more deeply into regional disputes.
Legal analysis and international norms
The fifth objective concerned international legal frameworks governing colonial boundaries. The analysis reveals significant tensions between legal doctrines that preserve existing boundaries and principles that might support revision based on self-determination or historical justice.
Poya’s (2020) international law analysis demonstrates the complexity of legal arguments regarding the Durand Line. Both Pakistani and Afghan positions find support within international legal principles, depending upon which doctrines receive priority. The principle of state succession supports Pakistani claims, whilst arguments regarding treaty validity and self-determination support Afghan positions. International tribunals have generally favoured stability over revision, but the absence of compulsory jurisdiction means that the dispute is unlikely to receive authoritative legal resolution.
The critical perspective advanced by Mahmud (2010) highlights how international law functions not merely as a neutral framework for resolving disputes but as a system that privileges certain outcomes over others. By effectively freezing colonial boundaries, international law perpetuates arrangements that originated in imperial violence and continue to generate conflict. This critique challenges assumptions about international law’s progressive character, suggesting instead that it may function to maintain distributions of power and territory established through historical injustice.
Prospects for resolution
The sixth objective required evaluation of proposed resolution mechanisms. The literature identifies several potential approaches, including bilateral recognition with guarantees of non-interference, soft-border or joint-management models, and regional mechanisms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. However, the analysis suggests that significant obstacles impede progress on any of these approaches.
Bilateral recognition would require Afghanistan to abandon historical claims that have become central to national identity and domestic politics. No Afghan government, including the current Taliban administration, has demonstrated willingness to recognise the Durand Line as a permanent international boundary. Conversely, Pakistan views recognition as essential for normalising relations and ending Afghan support for Pashtun nationalism.
Soft-border arrangements might offer intermediate solutions, enabling continued cross-border movement whilst maintaining formal sovereignty. However, security concerns militate against relaxing border controls, particularly given ongoing terrorist threats. Joint-management models would require unprecedented cooperation between states with fundamentally antagonistic positions regarding the border’s legitimacy.
Regional mechanisms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation provide potential frameworks for dialogue but lack enforcement capacity and include members with competing interests. Furthermore, the Taliban’s assumption of power in Afghanistan has complicated international engagement, with many states declining to recognise the regime formally whilst maintaining practical relations.
The combination of nationalist narratives, ethnic claims, legal ambiguity, and external power rivalries renders near-term resolution unlikely. The Durand Line appears destined to remain, in the words of scholars, an ‘unresolvable knot’ that continues to generate tension and conflict. This conclusion carries sobering implications for affected communities, regional stability, and international efforts to manage postcolonial border disputes.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined the colonial origins of the Durand Line and analysed the lasting geopolitical tensions it has generated between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Through comprehensive literature synthesis, the research has addressed each stated objective, contributing to understanding of how imperial boundary-making continues to shape contemporary international relations.
The investigation of historical circumstances and imperial motivations confirms that the Durand Line was established primarily to serve British strategic interests during the Great Game with Russia, with minimal consideration for local ethnic, demographic, or historical realities. This finding validates critical perspectives on colonial cartography whilst illuminating the specific mechanisms through which imperial powers imposed arbitrary boundaries upon subject territories.
Analysis of the line’s transformation following partition demonstrates how colonial demarcations became contested international boundaries, with Afghanistan and Pakistan adopting fundamentally incompatible positions regarding legitimacy. The principle of state succession, the doctrine of uti possidetis, and the requirements of self-determination generate competing legal frameworks that international institutions have proven unable to reconcile.
Assessment of impacts upon Pashtun and Baloch communities reveals profound and enduring consequences of partition, including family separation, disruption of traditional practices, and the generation of nationalist movements that continue to challenge existing arrangements. These findings highlight the human costs of colonial boundary-making whilst explaining the persistence of irredentist claims despite their incompatibility with dominant international norms.
Evaluation of contemporary security implications demonstrates that the Durand Line has become central to regional security challenges, including terrorism, insurgency, and refugee movements. Pakistan’s securitisation efforts have achieved some benefits whilst generating new tensions with Afghanistan and local communities. The intersection of border security with initiatives such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has introduced additional geopolitical dimensions to longstanding disputes.
Critical examination of international legal frameworks reveals significant tensions between doctrines that preserve existing boundaries and principles that might support revision. International law has effectively frozen the Durand Line despite its colonial origins and ongoing contestation, constraining alternative political arrangements that might better serve affected communities.
Evaluation of proposed resolution mechanisms suggests that bilateral recognition, soft-border arrangements, and regional mechanisms all face significant obstacles given prevailing nationalist narratives and power dynamics. Near-term resolution appears unlikely, with the dispute destined to remain a structural feature of Afghan-Pakistani relations and regional security.
The significance of these findings extends beyond the specific case of the Durand Line. This research contributes to broader theoretical understanding of postcolonial sovereignty, demonstrating how imperial decisions continue to constrain state behaviour and generate conflict long after formal decolonisation. It illuminates tensions within international law between stability and justice, highlighting how legal frameworks may perpetuate rather than resolve historical injustices. It reveals the complex interactions between ethnic identity, territorial sovereignty, and regional security that characterise many postcolonial contexts.
Future research might productively examine several dimensions that this dissertation has identified but not fully explored. Comparative analysis with other colonial boundaries, including the McMahon Line and Radcliffe Line, could illuminate common patterns and distinctive features of South Asian boundary disputes. Ethnographic research with communities divided by the Durand Line could document lived experiences and grassroots perspectives often absent from diplomatic and legal analyses. Investigation of emerging technologies, including surveillance systems and digital identification, could assess their implications for border management and affected populations. Analysis of climate change impacts on migration patterns and resource competition could identify new pressures on already-strained border regions.
The Durand Line remains a textbook legacy of colonialism: a strategically drawn frontier that split communities, reshaped Afghanistan’s geography, and entrenched a structural Afghan-Pakistani dispute. Its colonial origins continue to drive security crises, identity politics, and legal contestation. Until the international community develops mechanisms capable of addressing the fundamental injustices embedded in colonial cartographies, boundaries such as the Durand Line will remain sources of tension, conflict, and human suffering.
References
Anwar, S., Bibi, A. and Khan, N., 2020. Durand Line Agreement 1893: Myths and Reality. *Review of Applied Management and Social Sciences*, 3(3), pp. 337-349. https://doi.org/10.47067/ramss.v3i3.71
Aryal, S. and Pulami, M., 2024. The Role of the McMahon, Radcliffe and Durand Lines in Shaping Regional Security Complexes in South Asia: An Assessment. *The International Spectator*, 59(4), pp. 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2024.2402468
Begum, I., 2015. Durand Line: A Legacy of Colonial Rule (1893-1970). *Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society*, 63(3), pp. 35-52.
Faqir, Z., Khalid, T. and Rahman, A., 2020. The Impact of CPEC on Regional Politics around Durand Line. *Pakistan Journal of International Affairs*, 3(2), pp. 86-101. https://doi.org/10.52337/pjia.v3i2.86
Irshad, M., 2025. Border Management and National Security in Pakistan: A Strategic Case Study of the Durand Line. *Advance Social Science Archive Journal*, 4(1), pp. 84-98. https://doi.org/10.55966/assaj.2025.4.1.084
Lambah, S., 2012. The Durand Line. *Indian Foreign Affairs Journal*, 7(1), pp. 41-52.
Leake, E. and Haines, D., 2017. Lines of (In)Convenience: Sovereignty and Border-Making in Postcolonial South Asia, 1947–1965. *The Journal of Asian Studies*, 76(4), pp. 963-985. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021911817000808
Mahmood, T., 2005. The Durand Line: South Asia’s New Trouble Spot. *IPRI Journal*, 5(2), pp. 1-24.
Mahmud, T., 2010. Colonial Cartographies, Postcolonial Borders, and Enduring Failures of International Law: The Unending Wars Along the Afghanistan-Pakistan Frontier. *Brooklyn Journal of International Law*, 36(1), pp. 1-74.
Ponka, T., Dkhar, P. and Dkhar, A., 2017. The Durand Line: Official Positions of Pakistan and Afghanistan over the Legitimacy of the Border. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Social Science and Humanities*, pp. 1163-1166. https://doi.org/10.2991/iccessh-17.2017.270
Poya, F., 2020. The Status of Durand Line under International Law: An International Law Approach to the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier Dispute. *Journal of Borderlands Studies*, 35(2), pp. 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2019.1646147
Rahimov, S., 2025. Prospects for Resolving the “Durand Line” Problem. *Pubmedia Social Sciences and Humanities*, 3(2), pp. 466-478. https://doi.org/10.47134/pssh.v3i2.466
Tehseen, S., 2021. The Conundrum of Pak-Afghan Border: A Historical Perspective. *Pakistan Journal of International Affairs*, 4(2), pp. 179-194. https://doi.org/10.52337/pjia.v4i2.179
Wagner, C., 2013. The Changing Character of the Durand Line. *SWP Comments*, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin.
Yar, F., Ihsan, I. and Hafiz, M., 2022. Analyzing the Role of Great Powers in Creating the Durand Line and Its impact on Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations. *Randwick International of Social Science Journal*, 3(4), pp. 551-563. https://doi.org/10.47175/rissj.v3i4.551
Yar, F. and Sadaat, S., 2025. The Evolution of Afghanistan’s Borders Throughout History and Its Geopolitical Impacts. *Edunity Kajian Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan*, 4(3), pp. 381-392. https://doi.org/10.57096/edunity.v4i3.381
