A few days ago, a video of a Taliban leader advocating for war against Pakistan and declaring it an “apostate state” resurfaced, sending ripples through an already tense relationship. The statement, reportedly a couple of years old and made by a figure now in jail, came in the backdrop of a significant increase in attacks inside Pakistan by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), often with heavy involvement from Afghan fighters. This incident, while disowned, starkly highlights the persistent and dangerous contradiction between the diplomatic face of the Afghan Taliban and the rhetoric and actions of its more hardline elements.
While official Afghan regime representatives consistently repeat the mantra that Afghan soil will not be used against any other country, a long history of statements and actions from within the regime tells a different story. This pattern of overt hostility, whether based on religious or ethno-nationalist grounds, has been tolerated or quietly ignored, suggesting a deeply entrenched ideological divide that makes meaningful cooperation with Pakistan exceptionally difficult.
This is not an isolated incident. The resurfaced video is part of a larger, more troubling pattern of statements and actions that have consistently emanated from various platforms, including prominent social media accounts, religious speeches, and the pronouncements of military commanders. These statements serve to incite and justify attacks against Pakistan, providing ideological cover for groups like the TTP. The duality of the Afghan Taliban’s public and private messaging creates an environment of distrust and instability, complicating diplomatic efforts to secure the region.
The Ethno-Nationalist Challenge
One of the most persistent sources of tension is the longstanding dispute over the Durand Line. The Afghan Taliban, in line with previous Afghan governments, does not recognize the internationally recognised Pak-Afghan border, viewing it as an arbitrary colonial imposition that divided the Pashtun people. This ethno-nationalist grievance is frequently used to rally support and undermine Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
A prime example is the statement by the Taliban regime’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai. He has made several provocative remarks, including a verbal tirade against Pakistan, suggesting that the history of 1971—when Bangladesh seceded—will soon be repeated. Stanikzai’s comments reflect a deep-seated belief that another Afghanistan exists on the other side of the Durand Line, and that the border is fake. Such statements are not just historical claims, they are a clear and present danger, giving ideological legitimacy to cross-border incursions.
Another highly inflammatory statement came from Abdul Hamid Khorasani, a well-known Taliban commander. Khorasani brazenly declared that if Pakistan were to attack Afghanistan, his forces would conquer this country!” This kind of aggressive rhetoric, coming from a figure with a military background, leaves little room for ambiguity about the intentions of a significant faction within the Taliban. These public threats, made on platforms like X, are a form of psychological warfare, intended to project strength.
The Ideological Battle
Beyond ethno-nationalism, a powerful religious narrative is used to legitimize the conflict. The ideological framework of the Taliban views its own system as a pure Islamic emirate and, in contrast, often portrays Pakistan’s state as a compromised and un-Islamic entity. This religious lens provides a crucial justification for the TTP’s war against the Pakistani state, portraying it not as a political conflict but as a holy war.
Zabihullah Mujahid, the official spokesperson for the Taliban, inadvertently provided a significant propaganda point for the TTP in 2021 when he criticized Pakistan’s government, stating that its political framework does not represent an Islamic system and that religion is not important to Pakistan’s government. Such a statement, from a high-ranking official, serves as an indirect form of support for the TTP by validating their core ideological grievance against Islamabad. It lends credibility to the TTP’s narrative that the Pakistani state is an apostate regime that must be overthrown.
This religious justification extends to the glorification of fighters killed in combat against Pakistani forces. For instance, after Pakistan killed around 50 terrorists belonging to Afghanistan, in Balochistan. A high-ranking Taliban commander named Hayatullah Galchakai not only glorified the deceased but also declared that the war against Pakistan is a jihad and an obligatory duty for all Afghans. The funeral, which was attended by the Taliban, further cemented the links between the Afghan regime and these anti-Pakistan fighters. This incident, documented in a tweet with video evidence, demonstrated a stark contrast between diplomatic promises and the honor bestowed upon those actively engaged in hostilities against a neighbor.
Furthermore, a pro-Taliban individual on social media, using the handle paykhar, notorious for his anti-Pakistan propaganda tweets has accused Pakistan of having a common cause with the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), an organization that has been relentlessly targeting Pakistani interests. This claim is a particularly insidious form of propaganda, as it attempts to create a moral equivalency between Pakistan and a group that is a declared enemy of both the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan.
The Disconnect: Official Policy vs Individual Actions
The conflicting messages from different Taliban figures raise the question of whether there is a genuine lack of power to enforce policy or if this dual stance is a deliberate strategic choice. On one hand, the diplomatic front, led by figures like Amir Khan Muttaqi, seeks international recognition and trade, and thus, maintains a polite and cooperative posture. On the other hand, the more hardline military and ideological factions continue to espouse views that are openly hostile to Pakistan.
General Mubeen Khan, another prominent Taliban figure, exemplifies this strategic communication. In a television interview, he delivered a scathing criticism of the Pakistani army, calling it a rented army. Simultaneously, he called for closer ties with India, a move that is clearly designed to create friction between Pakistan and its neighbors. Such statements, while often framed as personal opinions, are widely disseminated and contribute to the narrative of an anti-Pakistan establishment within the Taliban.
Similarly, a tweet by another Taliban personality, Wakeel Mubariz, highlights this strategic messaging. In the tweet, he requests the Indian government not to harm Indian Muslims because of the wrong actions of the Pakistani government, effectively placing the blame for regional tensions on Pakistan.
The trend of hostile rhetoric and provocative actions continues to manifest in various forms. Mullah Abdul Latif Mansoor, the Minister of Energy and Water, has claimed that Pakistan fears a strong central government in Afghanistan and cannot tolerate an independent, self-reliant neighbor. Similarly, Mullah Noorullah Noori, the Minister for Borders and Tribal Affairs, referred to the internationally recognized Durand Line as an “imaginary line, further dismissing its legitimacy. This narrative is amplified in viral videos where Taliban fighters near the border are filmed chanting that they would remove the Durand line and would drive their tanks to Attock.
The recurring statements and incidents from various individuals and factions within the Afghan Taliban, as evidenced by a multitude of public statements, speeches, and social media posts, paint a picture of a deep-seated ideological animosity towards Pakistan. This animosity is not merely an isolated phenomenon but a core tenet for a significant portion of the movement. While diplomatic gestures and official denials continue to be made, the reality on the ground, fueled by a potent mix of ethno-nationalism and religious zealotry, remains a cause for significant concern. The fundamental question for Islamabad is whether it can ever reconcile with a neighbor that, while offering a hand in friendship, simultaneously allows its most influential figures to advocate for its demise.
