A Turbulent Af-Pak Again?

A Turbulent Af-Pak Again

A recent letter from Pakistan’s Caretaker Prime Minister, Anwar ul Haq Kakar, to his Afghan counterpart is receiving mixed reactions. Some view it as a routine exchange, while others see it as a reconciliatory move. The former say it was a response to the felicitation message by Afghanistan’s Acting Prime Minister, Mullah Hassan Akhund. The latter are trying to read between the lines of the letter. They aim to see it as an attempt to melt the ice that has built up in the second year of the Interim Government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA). This ice has affected the Af-Pak relationship.

Pakistan initially hailed the takeover of Kabul and the establishment of the IEA. As a good neighbor, Pakistan extended the support it could and even received a fresh wave of Afghan refugees. However, a growing streak of militant attacks on Pakistan’s security forces followed the takeover of Kabul. This shift reversed the previous equation and caused problems for the Af-Pak relationship.

An emboldened Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was the least desirable outcome of the transition in Afghanistan

The Presence of TTP

Nevertheless, an active TTP launching attacks from Afghanistan has become a new irritant. This development is affecting the love-hate relationship between the two countries. The IEA responds to any calls for action by Pakistan with denials of the presence of TTP inside Afghanistan. However, these denials are far from true and only worsen the situation. This was illustrated by two simultaneous encounters on September 6 and the subsequent closure of the Torkham Border Crossing for nine days.

Afghanistan received the closure as an unfair move affecting trade. However, the lack of will to address the underlying cause still persists. The recent report presented to the United Nations Security Council provides ample evidence of the TTP’s presence on Afghan soil. The report records 4,000 active TTP members in Afghanistan. It also notes that NATO weapons are unfortunately in the hands of these militants.

Also See: Afghanistan and Pakistan: The Road to Prosperity

Both Sides Blaming Each Other

The internal discourse in Pakistan and Afghanistan has once again centered around “who started the fire?” This focus on blame steals space that could otherwise be used for bilateral exchanges on long-term policy steps. These steps are necessary to ensure that no flicker catches fire. It seems that no lessons have been learned, and policy circles on both sides are giving in to misleading rhetoric.

Both countries have had a fair share of damage caused by reaction-driven approach to problems that actually want long-term redressal

After coming to power, the IEA displayed such a spirit by facilitating talks between the TTP and Pakistan but after those talks could not make a headway, the IEA has adopted an approach that repeatedly labels Pakistan’s own internal issues to be the cause of increased militant attacks.

But the Chitral incursion made it clear as day that militants crossed into Pakistan from the other side of the border. This incident only puts the IEA in a paradoxical position; where the incoherence of its policy regarding TTP becomes apparent. Even if the letter by the Caretaker PM of Pakistan was a reconciliatory move, it was the right gesture. Instead of turning the irritant into a hardened conflict, the best that both sides can do is to take the matter with caution and to keep navigating for possible peaceful solutions.

SAT Editorial Desk

Your go-to editorial hub for policy perspectives and informed analysis on pressing regional and global issues.

Recent

Between Security and Privacy: Contextualizing Amnesty’s Claims on Pakistan’s Surveillance

Between Security and Privacy: Contextualizing Amnesty’s Claims on Pakistan’s Surveillance

Amnesty International’s Shadows of Control paints a bleak picture of Pakistan’s digital surveillance. Yet by sidelining the country’s acute security challenges, dismissing existing legal safeguards, and overlooking its own credibility issues, the report offers a partial and misleading narrative. A more balanced approach requires situating surveillance within Pakistan’s counterterrorism imperatives and recognizing the global double standards at play.

Read More »
The End of Liberal Internationalism? America’s Retreat into Realism

The End of Liberal Internationalism? Trump’s New Realism

Donald Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly marked a sharp break from America’s seven-decade stewardship of the liberal international order. Rooted in realist principles, his speech rejected multilateralism, attacked the UN’s legitimacy, and reframed alliances as transactional bargains. From immigration and climate policy to NATO and Middle East conflicts, Trump outlined a vision of unilateral power and national sovereignty that directly challenges the institutional foundations of global governance.

Read More »
Colonial Legacies of Bombay and Calcutta

Colonial Legacies of Bombay and Calcutta

Bombay and Calcutta were more than colonial capitals, they embodied imperial urban planning, economic integration, and cultural hybridity. From segregated ‘white’ and ‘black’ towns to thriving ports, industries, and nationalist thought, these cities reveal how British rule reshaped India’s urban life while leaving enduring legacies still visible today.

Read More »