The recent call by the Afghan Taliban’s spokesperson for dialogue and the avoidance of provocative statements is, on its surface, a welcome sentiment. Diplomacy and communication are indispensable tools in the often-fraught relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, for Pakistan, a nation that has borne the brunt of cross-border terrorism for decades, these overtures must be measured against the stark and bloody reality on the ground. While Kabul speaks of talks, the operational freedom of terrorist groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) on Afghan soil continues to fuel instability, making any discussion of trust purely academic until concrete, verifiable action is taken.
Peace and stability in Afghanistan have never been a mere foreign policy preference for Pakistan; they are a core strategic imperative. An unstable Afghanistan exports insecurity directly across the Durand Line, and for the past several years, this insecurity has had a name: the TTP. The assertion from Kabul that the TTP is an internal issue for Pakistan is a dangerous oversimplification that ignores the fundamental principle of state responsibility. A problem ceases to be purely internal when its command-and-control structure, leadership, and operational sanctuaries are hosted by a neighboring state. Since the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021, Pakistan has witnessed a catastrophic surge in terrorist violence. The country saw a 73% rise in terror attacks in the first three years post-takeover compared to the preceding three years, with over 2,200 Pakistanis losing their lives. This is not a statistical anomaly; it is a direct consequence of the TTP and its affiliates finding a permissive environment in Afghanistan to regroup, rearm, and relaunch their war against the Pakistani state.
The foundation upon which any future trust must be built is the Doha Agreement. In that accord, the Taliban leadership gave a clear and unequivocal pledge that Afghan soil would not be used to threaten the security of other nations. This was not a minor clause but the central premise of their international engagement. Yet, every TTP attack planned in Afghanistan and executed in Pakistan is a flagrant violation of this commitment. These attacks, targeting both security forces and civilians in places like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, are not random acts of violence. They are systematic, well-coordinated operations that require safe havens for planning, training, and logistical support—havens that demonstrably exist inside Afghanistan.
Compounding this crisis is the proliferation of advanced weaponry left behind by US and NATO forces. Sophisticated equipment, including M16/M4 rifles, night vision goggles, and thermal imaging sights, has found its way from abandoned Afghan National Army stockpiles into the hands of TTP terrorists. This has transformed them from a guerrilla nuisance into a more lethal threat, enabling them to conduct audacious night raids. When Pakistan presents evidence of these weapons being used in attacks, it is not making a provocative statement but stating an verifiable fact. The Afghan authorities’ inability or unwillingness to secure these weapons and prevent their transfer to terrorist groups is a critical failure that directly undermines Pakistan’s national security.
Read : Proxy, Partner, or Pawn: Situating the TTP in Taliban Strategy
Therefore, the onus of responsibility lies squarely with the de facto government in Kabul. For trust to be restored, the Afghan authorities must prevail upon their local commanders and nationals to cease providing any form of sanctuary or manpower for attacks in Pakistan. Promises from the central leadership are meaningless if they are not enforced in the provinces of Kunar, Nangarhar, Paktika, and Khost, where TTP presence is widely documented. This goes to the heart of statehood. Pakistan unequivocally rejects all non-state actors and adheres to the principle that only the State possesses the legitimate authority to wage war or peace. It expects the same principle to be respected by its neighbours. A government cannot claim sovereignty over its territory while simultaneously tolerating armed groups that use that same territory to wage war on another country.
The situation is further complicated by the exploitation of Afghan soil by external intelligence networks hostile to Pakistan. These agencies have historically used militant groups as proxies, and the current vacuum of effective governance in parts of Afghanistan provides a fertile ground for them to orchestrate attacks aimed at destabilizing Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan and the tribal districts. Halting this proxy war is a prerequisite for regional peace and a key responsibility of the Afghan government under international law and its own stated commitments.
There are, of course, pathways to a more stable future. The Afghanistan-Pakistan-China Trilateral Dialogue, for instance, offers a framework for economic cooperation and development, including the potential extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Such initiatives hold the promise of lifting the region out of conflict and into an era of shared prosperity. However, economic corridors cannot be built on foundations of insecurity. The success of any such venture is entirely contingent on the foundational commitment to security being honoured. Without a sincere and effective crackdown on terrorist groups, these dialogues will remain unproductive, and the vast economic potential of the region will be held hostage by violence.
Ultimately, Pakistan’s position is not one of aggression but of legitimate self-defence and a desire for a stable, predictable neighbourhood. It seeks balanced, cooperative, and mutually respectful ties with all its neighbours, including Afghanistan. The historical, cultural, and religious bonds between the people of both nations are profound. But a relationship between states cannot survive on sentiment alone. It must be built on the bedrock of mutual security and non-interference. Reciprocity from Afghanistan is the key. When Kabul demonstrates a genuine commitment to eliminating terrorist sanctuaries, not just with words, but with decisive and sustained action, it will find in Islamabad a willing and forward-looking partner. Until then, Pakistan has no choice but to view the situation through the lens of its own security and respond accordingly to protect its citizens and its sovereignty. The path to trust begins with action, and the ball is firmly in Afghanistan’s court.
Beyond Words: Why Afghanistan’s Actions on Terrorism Will Define Regional Trust
The recent call by the Afghan Taliban’s spokesperson for dialogue and the avoidance of provocative statements is, on its surface, a welcome sentiment. Diplomacy and communication are indispensable tools in the often-fraught relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, for Pakistan, a nation that has borne the brunt of cross-border terrorism for decades, these overtures must be measured against the stark and bloody reality on the ground. While Kabul speaks of talks, the operational freedom of terrorist groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) on Afghan soil continues to fuel instability, making any discussion of trust purely academic until concrete, verifiable action is taken.
Peace and stability in Afghanistan have never been a mere foreign policy preference for Pakistan; they are a core strategic imperative. An unstable Afghanistan exports insecurity directly across the Durand Line, and for the past several years, this insecurity has had a name: the TTP. The assertion from Kabul that the TTP is an internal issue for Pakistan is a dangerous oversimplification that ignores the fundamental principle of state responsibility. A problem ceases to be purely internal when its command-and-control structure, leadership, and operational sanctuaries are hosted by a neighboring state. Since the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021, Pakistan has witnessed a catastrophic surge in terrorist violence. The country saw a 73% rise in terror attacks in the first three years post-takeover compared to the preceding three years, with over 2,200 Pakistanis losing their lives. This is not a statistical anomaly; it is a direct consequence of the TTP and its affiliates finding a permissive environment in Afghanistan to regroup, rearm, and relaunch their war against the Pakistani state.
The foundation upon which any future trust must be built is the Doha Agreement. In that accord, the Taliban leadership gave a clear and unequivocal pledge that Afghan soil would not be used to threaten the security of other nations. This was not a minor clause but the central premise of their international engagement. Yet, every TTP attack planned in Afghanistan and executed in Pakistan is a flagrant violation of this commitment. These attacks, targeting both security forces and civilians in places like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, are not random acts of violence. They are systematic, well-coordinated operations that require safe havens for planning, training, and logistical support—havens that demonstrably exist inside Afghanistan.
Compounding this crisis is the proliferation of advanced weaponry left behind by US and NATO forces. Sophisticated equipment, including M16/M4 rifles, night vision goggles, and thermal imaging sights, has found its way from abandoned Afghan National Army stockpiles into the hands of TTP terrorists. This has transformed them from a guerrilla nuisance into a more lethal threat, enabling them to conduct audacious night raids. When Pakistan presents evidence of these weapons being used in attacks, it is not making a provocative statement but stating an verifiable fact. The Afghan authorities’ inability or unwillingness to secure these weapons and prevent their transfer to terrorist groups is a critical failure that directly undermines Pakistan’s national security.
Read : Proxy, Partner, or Pawn: Situating the TTP in Taliban Strategy
Therefore, the onus of responsibility lies squarely with the de facto government in Kabul. For trust to be restored, the Afghan authorities must prevail upon their local commanders and nationals to cease providing any form of sanctuary or manpower for attacks in Pakistan. Promises from the central leadership are meaningless if they are not enforced in the provinces of Kunar, Nangarhar, Paktika, and Khost, where TTP presence is widely documented. This goes to the heart of statehood. Pakistan unequivocally rejects all non-state actors and adheres to the principle that only the State possesses the legitimate authority to wage war or peace. It expects the same principle to be respected by its neighbours. A government cannot claim sovereignty over its territory while simultaneously tolerating armed groups that use that same territory to wage war on another country.
The situation is further complicated by the exploitation of Afghan soil by external intelligence networks hostile to Pakistan. These agencies have historically used militant groups as proxies, and the current vacuum of effective governance in parts of Afghanistan provides a fertile ground for them to orchestrate attacks aimed at destabilizing Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan and the tribal districts. Halting this proxy war is a prerequisite for regional peace and a key responsibility of the Afghan government under international law and its own stated commitments.
There are, of course, pathways to a more stable future. The Afghanistan-Pakistan-China Trilateral Dialogue, for instance, offers a framework for economic cooperation and development, including the potential extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Such initiatives hold the promise of lifting the region out of conflict and into an era of shared prosperity. However, economic corridors cannot be built on foundations of insecurity. The success of any such venture is entirely contingent on the foundational commitment to security being honoured. Without a sincere and effective crackdown on terrorist groups, these dialogues will remain unproductive, and the vast economic potential of the region will be held hostage by violence.
Ultimately, Pakistan’s position is not one of aggression but of legitimate self-defence and a desire for a stable, predictable neighbourhood. It seeks balanced, cooperative, and mutually respectful ties with all its neighbours, including Afghanistan. The historical, cultural, and religious bonds between the people of both nations are profound. But a relationship between states cannot survive on sentiment alone. It must be built on the bedrock of mutual security and non-interference. Reciprocity from Afghanistan is the key. When Kabul demonstrates a genuine commitment to eliminating terrorist sanctuaries, not just with words, but with decisive and sustained action, it will find in Islamabad a willing and forward-looking partner. Until then, Pakistan has no choice but to view the situation through the lens of its own security and respond accordingly to protect its citizens and its sovereignty. The path to trust begins with action, and the ball is firmly in Afghanistan’s court.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
Herat Border Tragedy: The Deadly Consequences of Afghanistan’s Governance Failures
The Herat border tragedy, is a stark illustration of the human cost of Afghanistan’s governance failures. With limited economic opportunities, widespread poverty, and insufficient social support, families are forced to undertake life-threatening journeys across freezing mountains. The incident underscores the urgent need for the Afghan government to provide stable livelihoods, establish safe migration routes, and strengthen healthcare and social services, as humanitarian risks continue to escalate across the country.
Debunking the Gaza Deployment Narrative
False claims of a Pakistani troop deployment to Gaza, amplified by disinformation networks, were firmly rejected by the Foreign Office, reaffirming that Pakistan’s military operates only under UN mandates and constitutional limits.
The End of the 1971 Consensus
Sharif Osman Hadi’s death has become the symbolic burial of the 1971 Consensus that long structured India–Bangladesh relations. For a generation with no lived memory of the Liberation War, Hadi embodies a Second Independence, reframing 1971 as the start of Indian dominance rather than true sovereignty. His killing has accelerated Bangladesh’s rupture with India and exposed a deep strategic crisis across South Asia.
Afghan Taliban’s Biopolitics
The Taliban’s health diplomacy is reshaping Afghanistan’s geopolitical landscape. By phasing out Pakistani pharmaceuticals and inviting Indian partnerships, Kabul securitizes its healthcare infrastructure as a tool of strategic realignment. The shift highlights the intersection of sovereignty, economic statecraft, and regional influence, with Afghan patients bearing the immediate consequences.
Who Benefits from Islamophobia?
In the wake of global violence, political actors often replace evidence-based analysis with collective blame. Islamophobia, when elevated from fringe rhetoric to state discourse, fractures society and weakens security.