Any diplomatic optimism surrounding the upcoming Pakistan-Afghanistan dialogue in Doha is colliding with a brutal reality on the ground. The path to negotiation is not being paved with trust, but with fresh violence. A fragile ceasefire has been shattered, followed by the grim return of bodies from Afghanistan bearing marks of torture, a terrorist attack in Wana, and culminating in Pakistan’s retaliatory precision strikes against terrorist commanders in Paktika. This rapid escalation, capped by Afghanistan’s predictable pivot to a narrative of victimhood, transforms the proposed talks from a potential off-ramp into a high-stakes confrontation.
The recent timeline of events reads like a case study in conflict escalation. A tentative ceasefire, meant to de-escalate tensions, was followed by a grim exchange. Afghanistan returned the bodies of deceased individuals, with credible reports, including from the BBC, highlighting severe torture marks on them. This act alone sent a chilling message, suggesting a brutal disregard for the conventions of conflict and human dignity. The situation was further aggravated by a terrorist attack in Waziristan, a region that has long borne the brunt of cross-border militancy.
Pakistan’s response was swift and forceful. In a series of intelligence-based precision strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, it targeted and neutralized a significant number of senior commanders from the Hafiz Gul Bahadur (HGB) group and affiliated Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) factions. The list of those killed, including key figures like Commander Farman Al-Karamah, Commander Sadiqullah Dawar, and Fazlur Rehman, the uncle of Gul Bahadur himself, represents a major blow to the operational capabilities of a terrorist network that has orchestrated countless attacks within Pakistan.
Predictably, the aftermath of the strikes saw Afghan officials and social media activists pivot to a narrative of victimhood. This response is a calculated move within the broader information war. By portraying Pakistan’s counter-terrorism operations as acts of foreign aggression, the Afghan interim government seeks to deflect from the undeniable reality of terrorist sanctuaries operating with impunity on its soil. This narrative of grievance was simultaneously accompanied by a more provocative campaign on social media, where many regime-affiliated accounts began peddling slogans and maps advocating for a “Greater Pashtunistan,” an ethno-nationalist concept that lays claim to Pakistani territory. This dual-pronged strategy serves multiple purposes: playing the victim, rallies domestic support and appeals to international sympathy, while the revival of irredentist claims aims to stir nationalist sentiment and challenge Pakistan’s territorial integrity, shifting the focus away from Afghanistan’s responsibility under international law to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist acts.
However, this narrative conveniently ignores the catalyst for Pakistan’s actions. No sovereign state can be expected to perpetually endure terrorist attacks planned and executed from a neighbouring country. Pakistan’s strikes in Paktika were not an unprovoked act of aggression but a counter-strike, a measure of last resort taken after repeated diplomatic entreaties and intelligence sharing failed to yield concrete action from Kabul. From Islamabad’s perspective, the primary responsibility for the escalation lies with the Afghan authorities who have demonstrated either an unwillingness or an incapacity to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating under their jurisdiction. The presence of high-value targets like the HGB commanders so close to the border is, in itself, an indictment of this failure.
This shift from diplomatic protest to direct military action signals a significant evolution in Pakistan’s counter-terrorism doctrine. It appears Islamabad has adopted a new policy of direct and proportionate retaliation that any terrorist attack on Pakistani soil, planned or executed by Afghanistan-based groups, will be met with targeted strikes against their infrastructure and leadership across the border. For years, militants have exploited the rugged, often porous, international border as a strategic tool, using Afghan territory as a safe haven to regroup, train, and launch attacks before melting back across the frontier. Pakistan’s recent actions indicate a firm resolve to neutralize this advantage, making it clear that the border will no longer serve as a one-way shield for terrorism.
This cycle of violence and recrimination places the upcoming Doha dialogue in a precarious position. For the talks to have any chance of success, both sides must navigate a minefield of deep-seated mistrust and conflicting national interests.
For Pakistan, the core issue is non-negotiable: the complete dismantlement of TTP, HGB, and other affiliated terrorist safe havens. The precision strikes in Paktika were a clear signal that Pakistan’s strategic patience had ended, replaced by a policy of active defense. The Pakistani delegation will likely join talks Doha with a portfolio of evidence and a firm demand for verifiable action, not just verbal assurances. The central message will be that the sanctity of the international border must be respected and that Afghanistan can no longer be a staging ground for attacks that cost Pakistani lives.
For the Afghan delegation, the situation is more complex. On one hand, they need to project an image of sovereign strength and resist being seen as capitulating to Pakistani pressure. On the other hand, they are governing a country facing immense economic and humanitarian crises, and further alienating a powerful neighbour is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Their victim narrative may play well on social media, but it does little to solve the underlying security dilemma. The Afghan Taliban’s ideological kinship with the TTP further complicates their ability to act decisively against them, creating a fundamental contradiction between their stated policies and their on-the-ground reality.
The dialogue, therefore, hinges on whether both sides can move beyond the current impasse. Afghanistan must acknowledge the legitimacy of Pakistan’s security concerns and demonstrate a genuine commitment to eliminating terrorist sanctuaries. This would require more than mere denials; it would necessitate active intelligence sharing and joint operations.
While dialogue is the only civilized path forward, it cannot succeed if it is used as a tool to buy time or deflect responsibility. There is a well-documented historical pattern of groups like the Taliban and TTP engaging in dialogue during the harsh winter months, not out of a genuine desire for peace, but to gain a strategic pause to recuperate and rearm before launching fresh offensives in the spring. The strikes have raised the stakes, demonstrating that the cost of inaction for Kabul will be high. The success or failure of the Doha talks will depend on whether the Afghan government is ready to abandon its dangerous double-game and confront the terrorist cancer within its borders, and whether Pakistan can leverage its military pressure into a sustainable diplomatic outcome. Without a fundamental shift in Kabul’s strategic calculus, this dialogue risks becoming another chapter in a long history of missed opportunities, with the people of both nations continuing to pay the price in blood.
The New Normal: End of Pakistan’s Strategic Restraint
Any diplomatic optimism surrounding the upcoming Pakistan-Afghanistan dialogue in Doha is colliding with a brutal reality on the ground. The path to negotiation is not being paved with trust, but with fresh violence. A fragile ceasefire has been shattered, followed by the grim return of bodies from Afghanistan bearing marks of torture, a terrorist attack in Wana, and culminating in Pakistan’s retaliatory precision strikes against terrorist commanders in Paktika. This rapid escalation, capped by Afghanistan’s predictable pivot to a narrative of victimhood, transforms the proposed talks from a potential off-ramp into a high-stakes confrontation.
The recent timeline of events reads like a case study in conflict escalation. A tentative ceasefire, meant to de-escalate tensions, was followed by a grim exchange. Afghanistan returned the bodies of deceased individuals, with credible reports, including from the BBC, highlighting severe torture marks on them. This act alone sent a chilling message, suggesting a brutal disregard for the conventions of conflict and human dignity. The situation was further aggravated by a terrorist attack in Waziristan, a region that has long borne the brunt of cross-border militancy.
Pakistan’s response was swift and forceful. In a series of intelligence-based precision strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, it targeted and neutralized a significant number of senior commanders from the Hafiz Gul Bahadur (HGB) group and affiliated Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) factions. The list of those killed, including key figures like Commander Farman Al-Karamah, Commander Sadiqullah Dawar, and Fazlur Rehman, the uncle of Gul Bahadur himself, represents a major blow to the operational capabilities of a terrorist network that has orchestrated countless attacks within Pakistan.
Predictably, the aftermath of the strikes saw Afghan officials and social media activists pivot to a narrative of victimhood. This response is a calculated move within the broader information war. By portraying Pakistan’s counter-terrorism operations as acts of foreign aggression, the Afghan interim government seeks to deflect from the undeniable reality of terrorist sanctuaries operating with impunity on its soil. This narrative of grievance was simultaneously accompanied by a more provocative campaign on social media, where many regime-affiliated accounts began peddling slogans and maps advocating for a “Greater Pashtunistan,” an ethno-nationalist concept that lays claim to Pakistani territory. This dual-pronged strategy serves multiple purposes: playing the victim, rallies domestic support and appeals to international sympathy, while the revival of irredentist claims aims to stir nationalist sentiment and challenge Pakistan’s territorial integrity, shifting the focus away from Afghanistan’s responsibility under international law to prevent its territory from being used for terrorist acts.
However, this narrative conveniently ignores the catalyst for Pakistan’s actions. No sovereign state can be expected to perpetually endure terrorist attacks planned and executed from a neighbouring country. Pakistan’s strikes in Paktika were not an unprovoked act of aggression but a counter-strike, a measure of last resort taken after repeated diplomatic entreaties and intelligence sharing failed to yield concrete action from Kabul. From Islamabad’s perspective, the primary responsibility for the escalation lies with the Afghan authorities who have demonstrated either an unwillingness or an incapacity to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating under their jurisdiction. The presence of high-value targets like the HGB commanders so close to the border is, in itself, an indictment of this failure.
This shift from diplomatic protest to direct military action signals a significant evolution in Pakistan’s counter-terrorism doctrine. It appears Islamabad has adopted a new policy of direct and proportionate retaliation that any terrorist attack on Pakistani soil, planned or executed by Afghanistan-based groups, will be met with targeted strikes against their infrastructure and leadership across the border. For years, militants have exploited the rugged, often porous, international border as a strategic tool, using Afghan territory as a safe haven to regroup, train, and launch attacks before melting back across the frontier. Pakistan’s recent actions indicate a firm resolve to neutralize this advantage, making it clear that the border will no longer serve as a one-way shield for terrorism.
This cycle of violence and recrimination places the upcoming Doha dialogue in a precarious position. For the talks to have any chance of success, both sides must navigate a minefield of deep-seated mistrust and conflicting national interests.
For Pakistan, the core issue is non-negotiable: the complete dismantlement of TTP, HGB, and other affiliated terrorist safe havens. The precision strikes in Paktika were a clear signal that Pakistan’s strategic patience had ended, replaced by a policy of active defense. The Pakistani delegation will likely join talks Doha with a portfolio of evidence and a firm demand for verifiable action, not just verbal assurances. The central message will be that the sanctity of the international border must be respected and that Afghanistan can no longer be a staging ground for attacks that cost Pakistani lives.
For the Afghan delegation, the situation is more complex. On one hand, they need to project an image of sovereign strength and resist being seen as capitulating to Pakistani pressure. On the other hand, they are governing a country facing immense economic and humanitarian crises, and further alienating a powerful neighbour is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Their victim narrative may play well on social media, but it does little to solve the underlying security dilemma. The Afghan Taliban’s ideological kinship with the TTP further complicates their ability to act decisively against them, creating a fundamental contradiction between their stated policies and their on-the-ground reality.
The dialogue, therefore, hinges on whether both sides can move beyond the current impasse. Afghanistan must acknowledge the legitimacy of Pakistan’s security concerns and demonstrate a genuine commitment to eliminating terrorist sanctuaries. This would require more than mere denials; it would necessitate active intelligence sharing and joint operations.
While dialogue is the only civilized path forward, it cannot succeed if it is used as a tool to buy time or deflect responsibility. There is a well-documented historical pattern of groups like the Taliban and TTP engaging in dialogue during the harsh winter months, not out of a genuine desire for peace, but to gain a strategic pause to recuperate and rearm before launching fresh offensives in the spring. The strikes have raised the stakes, demonstrating that the cost of inaction for Kabul will be high. The success or failure of the Doha talks will depend on whether the Afghan government is ready to abandon its dangerous double-game and confront the terrorist cancer within its borders, and whether Pakistan can leverage its military pressure into a sustainable diplomatic outcome. Without a fundamental shift in Kabul’s strategic calculus, this dialogue risks becoming another chapter in a long history of missed opportunities, with the people of both nations continuing to pay the price in blood.
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
The New Normal: End of Pakistan’s Strategic Restraint
Any hope surrounding the Pakistan–Afghanistan dialogue in Doha is colliding with renewed violence and mutual distrust. Pakistan’s recent precision strikes in Paktika, following a shattered ceasefire and terrorist attacks, signal a shift toward active defense. The talks now hinge on whether Kabul can curb militant sanctuaries and move beyond its victim narrative.
Train to Nowhere ; Religious diversity and partition of hearts
In 1947, Punjab’s trains carried not passengers but memories — of unity turned to horror, of a land where coexistence once thrived before borders tore it apart. Train to Nowhere revisits that plural Punjab, where rivers, shrines, and songs united hearts beyond creed, reminding us that remembrance itself is resistance.
Revising the Agnipath Scheme: Preserving the Gorkha Legacy in India-Nepal Relations
The introduction of India’s Agnipath scheme has stalled the historic Gorkha recruitment process, challenging a 200-year-old tradition and Nepal’s economic stability. This paper argues for a Hybrid Gorkha Model, a reformative structure extending service terms to 7–10 years with pension guarantees and skill development. Such a model not only preserves the Gorkha legacy but also strengthens India–Nepal bilateral ties amid evolving regional geopolitics.
The Long War: The Historical and Ideological Roots of the Pakistan–Taliban Showdown
A tenuous ceasefire between Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime has halted hostilities for now, but the calm conceals deeper fissures rooted in history, ideology, and regional rivalries. As cross-border tensions resurface, the decades-old dispute over the Border, the Taliban’s harboring of TTP militants, and India’s quiet re-entry into Kabul are reshaping South Asia’s most volatile frontier.
From Policy to Action: Analyzing Pakistan’s Climate Change Framework in Light of IPCC Insights
Pakistan’s National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) presents a comprehensive roadmap to tackle the country’s growing climate challenges. From managing water resources and protecting biodiversity to empowering women and promoting renewable energy, the NCCP blends adaptation and mitigation for a sustainable future. Yet, implementation gaps: limited funding, institutional weaknesses, and policy incoherence, threaten its potential. Strengthened governance, transparency, and international cooperation remain key to turning this vision into climate resilience for Pakistan.