Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
The violent clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, two brotherly nations linked by centuries of shared heritage, strike at the heart of regional stability and hinder the crucial connectivity across South and Central Asia. This conflict risks reigniting longstanding mistrust, encouraging extremism and slowing economic and social progress in both countries.
In this context, the recent cease-fire, brokered in Doha through the good offices of Türkiye and Qatar, was a significant diplomatic breakthrough. While modest in immediate outcomes, it symbolically paused hostilities and opened a path toward dialogue. Technical-level talks now underway in Istanbul aim to consolidate these gains into durable mechanisms for peace. Türkiye’s involvement carries particular significance. Drawing upon its centuries of experience in statecraft and its deep civilizational consciousness, Türkiye’s mediation efforts, both in Doha and now in Istanbul, reflect an understanding of the region’s historical complexities.
Although there is reason for hope, the cease-fire is still fragile. The careful shift in Qatar’s official statement, from “tensions on the border” to “tensions between the two brotherly countries,” makes clear that even the language of peace is fraught with political sensitivities. The main issue at the center of the conflict is sovereignty and national identity, which Afghanistan highlighted by refusing to accept language that implied acceptance of the Durand Line.
The Durand Line, established in 1893 between Sir Mortimer Durand, representing British India and Emir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan, was negotiated to secure British India’s northwest frontier and to formalize Afghanistan’s sovereignty. While Afghanistan initially accepted it, the division of Pashtun tribes has remained an emotive and politically sensitive issue. Post-1947, the Durand Line became the de facto border of Pakistan, recognized internationally, yet Kabul continues to contest it politically. This historical backdrop explains the symbolic weight of language in peace statements and highlights the fragility of current agreements.
Pakistan’s expectations after the Taliban assumed governance in Kabul in 2021 were grounded in historical experience. Pakistan had provided extensive support during Afghanistan’s anti-Soviet resistance and later during the Taliban’s resurgence, offering sanctuary for millions of refugees, logistical backing and intelligence support. The hope was that a Taliban-led government would adopt a cooperative posture toward Pakistan. Yet the transition from insurgency to governance has proven challenging. Elements within the Taliban remain shaped by a wartime mindset, complicating the shift toward diplomatic statecraft and limiting progress on cross-border issues.
This distinction between legitimate resistance and terrorism is central to understanding the current challenges. Afghan resistance against foreign occupation has historically carried moral legitimacy. However, the Taliban government, as a recognized authority, bears both international and moral obligations to prevent Afghan soil from being used to foment violence elsewhere. Over the past two years, Pakistan has suffered immensely from cross-border militancy. In 2024 alone, more than 685 security personnel were killed, marking the deadliest year for the country in a decade. By October 2025, over 2,400 security personnel had been killed, alongside civilian casualties, with attacks in Bannu, Mir Ali, Bajaur and Baluchistan inflicting devastating losses.
Pakistan’s border enforcement measures, such as fencing, customs and surveillance, are driven by security considerations. Afghanistan’s hesitation to formally recognize the border continues to contribute to ongoing tensions. These measures have fractured local communities, separated families and stifled trade, turning what should be a manageable border into a daily source of hardship. This divide feeds into violence and militancy, as local grievances are exploited to perpetuate a relentless cycle of insecurity. For any lasting peace, both countries must commit to respecting each other’s sovereignty, laws and administrative control, an absolute necessity for stability in the region.
Pakistan must move beyond notions of having a sphere of influence in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan must abandon expansionist ambitions or refusal to recognize internationally established borders. Both nations must avoid being drawn into external power games aimed at destabilizing the region.
The most viable solution lies in “Accept the Border, Dissolve it Practically.” Afghanistan, as a landlocked country, depends on access to Pakistani ports and infrastructure for trade and economic growth. Pakistan, in turn, could benefit immensely from secure corridors through Afghanistan to Central Asia. Practical steps include gradual visa relaxation, establishment of cross-border economic zones and joint economic corridors linking Pakistan-Afghanistan trade to Central Asia and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Free movement should respect each country’s laws, taxation and administrative authority while reconnecting families, facilitating trade and restoring social cohesion.
Joint counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation, overseen neutrally by Qatar and Türkiye, could ease security concerns and build trust. Equally important are humanitarian, cultural, academic and religious exchanges to rebuild community ties. Their shared Islamic heritage offers a strong basis for reconciliation, reminding both nations that unity and cooperation should outweigh past disputes.
Violence between these nations is like a wound within the Muslim world itself, reminding us that shared faith without fraternity can lead to ruin. Sustainable peace is possible not through redrawing maps but through redrawing mindsets: turning the Durand Line from a line of division into a corridor of connection, respecting sovereignty while facilitating practical cooperation.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance, values or position of Daily Sabah. The newspaper provides space for diverse perspectives as part of its commitment to open and informed public discussion.
