APPARENTLY, the two rounds of Pak-Afghan talks in Istanbul collapsed due to stubbornness influenced by external powers and hidden agendas.
Last-minute efforts by Turkiye and Qatar extended the ceasefire, but the next round on November 6 remains shrouded in mistrust and international conspiracies. The situation is fragile due to multiple factors, including domestic rebellions within Afghanistan. Pakistan presented a comprehensive security plan to monitor terrorist activities emanating from Afghan soil. While the Taliban (TTA) may desire peace, instructions from Kabul led the delegation to present unreasonable demands, rendering talks meaningless without tangible, verifiable proposals. Past practices show both Afghan Taliban and TTP frequently back out of commitments as reflected by recent border incursions during talks.
Pakistan’s kinetic actions along the Afghan border and within cities are strategically and operationally necessary, despite domestic criticism. Pakistan has repeatedly attempted diplomatic measures—protests, ministerial visits and meetings—to convey the negative impact of TTA’s approach, emphasizing commitments under the Doha Agreement and the logistical support Pakistan has provided. These efforts have largely been in vain. Ideologically, the Afghan Taliban and TTP are aligned and the fractured Taliban governance lacks the capacity to control organizations using Afghan soil for terrorism, driven by multiple external masters. Tribal divisions, geographic fragmentation and foreign funding further complicate the landscape, while Kabul remains heavily influenced by India’s RAW.
The Istanbul talks’ failure, combined with TTA’s growing maliciousness and India’s threat, underscores the need to reassess Pakistan’s Afghan policy. The current conflict has evolved from TTP-led border skirmishes supported by TTA into a larger regional issue. Over the past two decades, terrorism has transformed from conventional attacks to high-tech, communication-based methods, including the Internet. Terrorism is increasingly employed as a tool of strategic objectives through proxies. The growth of terrorism under TTA aligns with this phenomenon, serving as a cost-effective proxy war by India and Israel to achieve political and strategic goals while keeping conflicts controlled.
India, resentful after Operation Sindoor and Israel are wary of Pakistan’s strategic outreach in the Middle East. Their involvement, alongside TTA as a pawn, highlights the complexity and danger of South Asia’s emerging security milieu. The US is observing closely, with recent Indo-US defence agreements increasing Pakistan’s vulnerability. Russia’s recognition of the TTA regime adds a geopolitical tilt. Pakistan-Afghanistan relations are shifting under these dynamics, with potentially adverse regional consequences. Historically, Pakistan has supported Afghanistan since 1947, despite Afghanistan opposing Pakistan’s UN entry. Successive Afghan governments have not been friendly, whereas Pakistan has consistently sought cordial relations. Afghan social media, largely controlled by the regime, projects anti-Pakistan sentiment, though pockets remain pro-Pakistan due to Pashtun ethnic integration. Afghanistan has historically lacked cohesion, comprising Tajiks, Turks, Hazara and Pashtun tribes, often oscillating as part of neighboring states. Ahmed Shah Abdali briefly unified warring tribes, but subsequent intertribal rivalries, foreign interventions and British influence disrupted unity. The Durand Line, agreed upon in 1893 between Amir Abdul Rahman and the British, was internationally recognized to ensure stability and act as a buffer between Russia and British India. Pakistan inherited these borders in 1947, yet Afghanistan has never recognized them, voting against Pakistan at the UN and raising the Pashtunistan issue despite a larger Pashtun population within Pakistan. Pakistan’s repeated border incursions by Afghanistan highlight ongoing tensions. Conversely, Pakistan could claim Pashtun areas historically under Ranjit Singh and later British sovereignty, emphasizing the Durand Line’s legitimacy. The TTP itself has evolved since its 1990s founding, influenced by external powers. Its collision with TTA makes it part of TTA’s operational strategy against Pakistan, funded by India and Israel. Both groups are notorious for failing to honour commitments, making negotiations nearly impossible. Pakistan’s current approach, though controversial domestically, is rational and strategically sound.
Over the past 40 years, Pakistan has suffered economically and infrastructurally due to support given to Afghanistan and the burden of over four million Afghan refugees has strained its resources and foreign exchange reserves. Realigning Afghan policy is now imperative to address a two-front war scenario, stabilize Pakistan’s economy and curb the outflow of foreign exchange. Pakistan must treat dealings with Afghanistan as international trade relationships, emphasizing accountability and economic reciprocity. The ongoing conflict is no longer a localized skirmish but a multi-dimensional challenge. Terrorism has become a permanent element of strategic warfare, now amplified through proxies. The TTA and TTP serve as instruments in the hands of external powers seeking to weaken Pakistan, including India and Israel. The use of Afghan soil for terrorism is part of a larger operational design, complicating direct negotiations and requiring Pakistan to rethink conventional approaches. A broader historical perspective underscores the enduring fragility of Afghanistan. Social divisions, external interventions and repeated invasions—from the Soviets to the British—have prevented a unified state. The Pashtun question, tribal rivalries and strategic miscalculations over the decades have created recurring instability, which external powers exploit. The present situation reflects these historical patterns, intensified by modern geopolitical alignments and emerging alliances.
Given these complexities, Pakistan must prioritize pragmatic policy measures. Kinetic operations must be integrated with robust intelligence, regional diplomacy and economic safeguards. It is essential to brace for a two-front conflict, balancing domestic security, economic stability and foreign policy. Afghanistan should be engaged on principles akin to trade relationships: clear obligations, reciprocal responsibilities and verifiable outcomes. The global strategic environment—ranging from the West’s influence to shifts in the Global South—will inevitably impact South Asia’s security and politics. Pakistan must recalibrate its Afghan policy to address the evolving landscape and protect national interests. Realignment is necessary not only to counter immediate threats but also to stabilize Pakistan’s long-term economic and strategic position. By combining military preparedness, diplomatic engagement and economic strategy, Pakistan can mitigate the risks posed by proxy conflicts, external interventions and domestic vulnerabilities. The goal is to ensure security, protect resources and maintain sovereignty in a rapidly shifting regional and global order.
—The author is a Brigadier Retired, a decorated officer with 32 years of active combat experience, 30 years in corporate sector as MD/COO. A column writer, Researcher and TV analyst.
