kathimerini.gr
Treaty of Gandamak: Afghanistan's Loss of Foreign Policy Autonomy
The Treaty of Gandamak, signed on May 26, 1879, between the British Empire and Emir Yakub Khan of Afghanistan, ended the Second Anglo-Afghan War, forcing Afghanistan to cede control of its foreign policy and key territories to Britain, in part due to the Great Game geopolitical rivalry between Britain and Russia.
- What immediate impact did the Treaty of Gandamak have on Afghanistan's sovereignty and international relations?
- The Treaty of Gandamak, signed May 26, 1879, ended the Second Anglo-Afghan War by placing Afghanistan under British control. This marked the first time Afghanistan lost its autonomy in foreign policy, ceding control to Britain. Key territories, including the Khyber Pass, were given to British India.
- How did the Great Game between Britain and Russia contribute to the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Treaty of Gandamak?
- The treaty's signing stemmed from the Great Game, a geopolitical rivalry between Britain and Russia for control of Central Asia. Britain, fearing Russian influence, viewed Afghanistan as crucial to securing India. This resulted in Afghanistan's subordination, illustrating the impact of British imperial ambition on regional stability.
- What lasting consequences did the Treaty of Gandamak have on Afghanistan's internal politics and its relationship with neighboring countries?
- The Treaty of Gandamak established a model of 'nominal independence' that would be repeated in many areas under colonial pressure throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. This model, characterized by internal autonomy but external control by a foreign power, significantly shaped Afghanistan's political trajectory and continues to impact regional dynamics.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the Treaty of Gandamak primarily from a British perspective, focusing on British strategic interests and actions. While the consequences for Afghanistan are detailed, the text's emphasis on British motives and concerns might overshadow the Afghan experience of the treaty and its long-term effects on Afghan sovereignty and identity. The introduction highlights British concerns regarding the 'Great Game' and the strategic importance of Afghanistan to British India. This framing prioritizes the British viewpoint and sets the tone for the entire analysis.
Language Bias
The text uses language that, while descriptive, sometimes leans toward portraying British actions in a neutral or even slightly positive light, while the consequences for Afghanistan are described in more negative terms. For example, the phrase "British presence" could be considered neutral, while "heavy terms imposed" is more loaded. The text uses words like "heavy" and "taunting" to describe the treaty's implications for Afghanistan, reflecting a somewhat critical perspective on the British actions. This is not necessarily biased, but a more neutral description of the treaty's stipulations would enhance objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The provided text focuses heavily on British actions and perspectives, potentially omitting Afghan voices and internal political dynamics beyond the actions of the Emir. While the text mentions Afghan resistance and societal reaction, a deeper exploration of Afghan perspectives and internal resistance movements would enrich the analysis. The assassination of Cavagnari and its consequences are described, but a broader view of Afghan resistance to British influence is lacking. Omission of other significant events during this period might also skew the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between complete independence and British control, overlooking the nuances of Afghan political landscape and potential alternative outcomes or forms of interaction with Britain. The narrative largely frames the situation as a binary choice between full sovereignty and subjugation, neglecting the possibilities of other political arrangements or degrees of influence.
Gender Bias
The text primarily focuses on the actions and decisions of male figures—the emirs and British officials. There is limited information about the role and experiences of women during this period of Afghan history and under the impact of the treaty. More attention should be paid to the impact of this treaty on Afghan women.
Sustainable Development Goals
The Treaty of Gandamak significantly undermined Afghanistan's sovereignty and autonomy, leading to instability and conflict. The imposition of British control, including the stationing of British representatives and troops, fueled resentment and resistance among Afghans. This interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs directly contradicts the principles of peace, justice, and strong institutions by imposing external control and disrupting the country's ability to govern itself effectively. The subsequent assassination of the British envoy and renewed British intervention further highlight the treaty's negative impact on peace and stability.