Afghanistan–Pakistan Concerns: A Call for Reciprocal Security

After weeks of uncertainty and tense exchanges, cautious optimism has returned to Kabul as preparations begin for the next round of Afghanistan–Pakistan talks, scheduled in Istanbul on November 6. The first phase, mediated by Türkiye and Qatar, concluded with what Islamabad described as a “conditional truce.” Yet in Afghanistan, public sentiment is different, more hopeful and forward-looking. People and commentators alike view the upcoming meeting as a rare opportunity to move beyond blame and redefine relations on the principles of equality and non-interference.

For many Afghans, the Istanbul engagement represents more than a tactical pause; it symbolizes the long-awaited hope of being treated as an equal partner, not as a pawn in Pakistan’s security equation. Although both sides have for decades exchanged accusations over cross-Durand Line militancy, there is a growing realization that regional peace cannot endure through provocative rhetoric, but only through sincere engagement.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, has tied the fragile ceasefire to Kabul’s ability to curb militant activities, even urging the Afghan government to “restore peace in Pakistan.” Such a demand exposes the contradiction at the heart of Islamabad’s policy. The same state that once built, trained, and celebrated armed groups as tools of influence now seeks protection from the very forces it once empowered. What was once projected as strategic depth has turned into strategic distress, a reversal that reveals how policies rooted in manipulation ultimately consume their own architects.

What a strange twist of logic: the very state that once sponsored, sheltered, and glorified armed groups as “strategic assets” now appeals to the country that suffered from those policies to ensure its own security. History, it seems, has come full circle, not as redemption, but as a tragedy authored by its own architects. Instead of confronting the roots of extremism nurtured by its own doctrines, Islamabad seeks external guarantees for internal peace. Yet true stability cannot be outsourced. It demands introspection, accountability, and a decisive break from the ghosts of past ambitions.

Pakistan often portrays the movement of insurgents across the Durand Line as a threat originating entirely from Afghanistan. Yet this narrative overlooks a crucial reality: once these fighters cross into Pakistan, they disperse across various regions and may eventually return to Afghan soil. What happens, then, to Pakistan’s own security institutions during this movement? Despite a heavily fenced Durand Line and a well-equipped military with sophisticated surveillance technology, why are they absolved of their duty to prevent infiltration or re-entry? To ignore this internal responsibility while externalizing blame weakens the very moral ground on which peace must stand. True security will not emerge from deflection but from shared accountability, from both nations recognizing that responsibility, like the Durand Line itself, runs both ways.

The description of the Istanbul understanding as a “conditional truce” may sound diplomatic, but it betrays a familiar mindset, one that still views Afghanistan not as a sovereign neighbor, but as a variable in Pakistan’s security calculus. A truce that rests on conditions and suspicions is not a truce at all; it is merely a pause between old habits and new misunderstandings. The Istanbul negotiations were not meant to draw new lines of accusation. They were an opportunity, perhaps the last in a long chain of missed chances, to begin rebuilding trust between two nations bound by geography, faith, and shared history.

If Pakistan continues to treat cooperation as a favor rather than a shared duty, it will only deepen the wounds of the past five decades, when the politics of proxies tragically replaced the principles of partnership. Afghanistan, though scarred by wars, aggression, and transitions, has consistently shown its willingness to engage on all issues through equality, verification, and non-interference. Yet the language of conditionality weakens this genuine spirit. It implies that peace must first pass through the gate of Pakistan’s approval rather than through the path of mutual understanding.

If Islamabad truly seeks stability, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: the monster of militancy that now torments its own soil was not born in the valleys of Afghanistan, but in the cold corridors of policies where short-term ambition eclipsed long-term peace. To keep blaming Afghanistan for every echo of that historic misjudgment is neither fair nor strategic; it only delays the region’s awakening to shared responsibility.

The path ahead demands not louder rhetoric but wiser reflection. The Istanbul initiative must not become another fleeting truce, but a genuine framework of shared accountability. The real challenge for both Islamabad and Kabul lies not in drafting statements or trading accusations, but in establishing credible mechanisms for verification, intelligence coordination, joint responsibility, and non-interference.

Only when these principles are consistently respected will peace cease to be a slogan and become a tangible reality across the Durand Line. What both nations need today is not lectures of responsibility but a shared awakening, an understanding that peace is indivisible. It cannot be imposed; it must be cultivated with honesty, equality, and respect.

Deadlock at Istanbul: A Reflection of Deeper Fault Lines

Support Dawat Media Center

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320

  Donate Here