DND Report
In a strong, loud, and clear message to all, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir stated that Pakistan seeks regional peace and stability; however, any violation of its territorial integrity—direct or indirect—will be met with a firm and decisive response to safeguard the lives and well-being of its citizens.
While interacting with participants of the 17th National Workshop Balochistan at the General Headquarters (GHQ) on October 21, 2025, the COAS emphasized that Indian-sponsored proxies — Fitna al-Hindustan and Fitna al-Khawarij — propagate anti-people and anti-development agendas with malicious intent to perpetrate violence. He added that all necessary actions are being taken to pursue these terrorists and rid the province of this menace.
His comments, if read in the backdrop of the regional situation where India is trying to sandwich Pakistan from both sides by using the Afghan Taliban regime, directly address New Delhi, Kabul, and even those friendly countries that played a positive role in the ceasefire agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan, signed on Saturday night in Doha.
“Experts urge Pakistan to rethink ties with Afghanistan after COAS’s strong messaging”
A debate is ongoing at several levels suggesting that Pakistan should avoid showing military muscle to Afghanistan, as being engaged on both eastern and western borders would not be in its favor. Indeed, no country wishes to remain militarily stretched across two fronts covering nearly 5,000 kilometers (east and west). However, this proposition is shallow. Pakistan has, in fact, been engaged on its western border since 2006, sacrificing over 95,000 lives (officially) — while unofficial estimates exceed 105,000 — including both civilians and soldiers. These losses far outweigh those from any conventional war in recent history. This asymmetric warfare was well-planned by Pakistan’s adversaries, and all this martyrdom is linked to terrorism emanating from the Afghan border.
In all its wars with India, Pakistan never sacrificed as many lives as it has in fighting terrorism originating from Afghanistan. This figure doesn’t even include the economic terrorism and financial damage caused from across that border.
There has been an unending debate about how many times Pakistan contacted Afghanistan, requesting it to stop terrorists from crossing into Pakistan, and how many times Afghanistan responded with the standard line that Kabul had “nothing to do with terrorism in Pakistan” and that it was an “internal matter.” Pakistan has presented numerous dossiers at the UN, EU, OIC, and other international forums containing evidence of India’s cross-border terrorism — mostly launched from Afghan soil. Even the U.S. and UN have acknowledged that Afghanistan has become a hub of global terrorism, with Pakistan as its foremost target. It defies logic for anyone to suggest that Pakistan should continue exercising restraint while Afghan Taliban elements persist in exporting terrorism across the border.
“Pakistan’s stand on Afghan terror and Indian interference gains clarity”
When asked how Pakistan should deal with the Afghanistan issue, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasir Khan Janjua — who knows the matter inside out, having been directly involved in countering Indian-sponsored terrorism in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — said that if the Afghan Taliban are truly sincere with Pakistan, as he believes, then their Ameer, Hibatullah Akhundzada, must issue a categorical Fatwa (Islamic decree) declaring that attacking Pakistan is un-Islamic and against the centuries-old bond of brotherhood between the two nations.
The retired general explained that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was formed under a Fatwa that falsely claimed Pakistan was supporting non-Muslims against Afghanistan — a pretext used to justify attacks on Pakistani forces. The TTP, he said, was established under the patronage of the Afghan Taliban and operated under their leadership and guidance.
Since there are no non-Muslims (infidels) in Afghanistan today, the original justification for attacking Pakistan no longer exists. Therefore, there is no religious or moral ground for the Afghan Taliban to continue supporting the TTP. He noted that the Afghan Taliban have repeatedly shifted their stance, offering varying excuses to justify their continued backing of this barbaric organization.
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Janjua suggested that instead of demanding the extradition of TTP terrorists, Pakistan should ask Afghanistan to keep them within its borders. “Let them live in Afghanistan, as they are no longer loyal to Pakistan,” he said firmly. He explained that the Afghan Taliban consider them “guests,” and because they served as foot soldiers during the war against ISAF, Kabul is unlikely to hand them over. Endless diplomatic back-and-forth would only waste time. “It’s better to lock this subject by telling the Afghan Taliban to host the TTP terrorists permanently while Pakistan manages its borders and acts decisively against them whenever necessary,” Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Janjua concluded.
Historian and author Prof. Dr. Akhtar Sandhu, sharing his historical perspective on Pak-Afghan relations, observed that Afghanistan is propagating the claim that the Durand Line is “disputed” merely to gain legitimacy after facing humiliation at the hands of the Pakistan Army. “The Taliban now want to unite all Afghan factions around the Durand Line issue,” he said.
“Dr. Cheema highlighted two key flaws in pro-Afghanistan narratives. First, that cultural and historical ties make it impossible for Pakistan to distance itself. “By that logic, should we also open our borders for Indians with whom we share language, culture, and pre-partition history?”
He further argued that the Durand Line Agreement was concluded between British India and Amir Abdul Rehman’s Afghanistan, while Pakistan emerged as an independent state in August 1947 with clearly defined boundaries — recognized by the world and the UN. “Pakistan’s sovereignty is based on these territorial definitions. No organization or country at that time disputed this boundary,” he added.
Dr. Sandhu elaborated that other nations, such as the Sikhs, had also demanded the return of their territories from the British, but such claims were rejected. “The Durand Line issue was settled long ago; the Taliban only raise it now to divert public attention from their failures,” he said. “Many Afghans are also unhappy with Muttaqi’s recent rapprochement with non-Muslim, anti-Pakistan countries, which has further inflamed tensions.”
On cross-border terrorism, Dr. Sandhu opined that Pakistan must continue taking stern action against militant organizations within the country as well, as they not only challenge the state’s writ but also collaborate with external terrorist groups like the TTP. “Money laundering, weapons smuggling, espionage, and attempts to sabotage Pakistan’s nuclear program are among their goals,” he warned.
Commenting on COAS Field Marshal Asim Munir’s recent statements, Dr. Sandhu said the Army Chief’s bold and proactive strategy marks a shift from the long-standing policy of restraint. “For decades, the Taliban and TTP relied on the myth of invincibility through terror; Pakistan has shattered that myth by defeating them swiftly,” he remarked. He concluded that “never trust an Afghan” should be Pakistan’s guiding principle, and that blocking trade routes and expelling Afghan refugees would make both the Taliban and the Afghan public realize Pakistan’s critical importance to their survival.
Sharing her perspective on Pak-Afghan relations, author and foreign affairs expert Dr. Shazia Anwer Cheema observed that Afghans have historically used chaos, looting, and cross-border aggression as a “business model,” while the Afghan Taliban regime has weaponized terrorism as a diplomatic tool. She argued that Pakistan must immediately abandon its faulty Afghan policy and treat Afghanistan as other regional countries — such as Iran and the Central Asian states — do, maintaining only formal diplomatic and trade relations.
Dr. Cheema highlighted two key flaws in pro-Afghanistan narratives. First, that cultural and historical ties make it impossible for Pakistan to distance itself. “By that logic, should we also open our borders for Indians (at least for Indian Muslims) with whom we share language, culture, and pre-partition history?” she asked rhetorically. Second, that ethnic Afghans live on both sides of the border, which supposedly makes strict border control impractical. “Afghan-Uzbeks, Afghan-Tajiks, and Afghan-Iranians also live across borders — yet those countries enforce documentation, visas, and work permits,” she noted.
She concluded that “such shallow, illogical arguments in favor of serving Afghan interests must be rejected and thrown into the dustbin of history.”
