SINCE the Afghan Taliban’s accession to power, Pakistan’s approach to Afghanistan has largely been one of patience, quiet diplomacy and cautious optimism, sometimes interrupted by defensive military counter strikes. The assumption was that a shared history and geography would translate into shared security interests. Islamabad placed its faith mainly in dialogue, believing that persuasion could prevent the Afghan side from allowing anti-Pakistan groups to operate across the border. Yet the events of the past months — the growing boldness of militant sanctuaries, the deadly border clashes, and Kabul’s defiant rhetoric — have underscored that diplomacy without accountability breeds impunity.

At no point since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 has Pakistan’s border security been so fragile as now. Each promise of cooperation from Kabul has been followed by another attack on Pakistani soil. Each meeting, each delegation, each attempt at quiet mediation has ended with the same grim pattern — militants re-emerging across the Durand Line, launching raids, killing soldiers, and retreating into what Pakistan calls ‘protected zones’. It’s time to rethink what ‘engagement’ means — not as an abandonment of diplomacy, but as its recalibration. Real peace must rest on mechanisms that compel compliance and consequences that deter transgression.

Click to see more

The recent clashes on the border were the culmination of years of unreciprocated restraint. Pakistan’s soldiers, accustomed to exercising caution on a volatile frontier, faced heavy fire from across the line — and paid with their lives. Statements from Kabul, denying responsibility or shifting blame, deepened public outrage. The national consensus is that dialogue alone will not secure the frontier. A firm, accountable strategy does not mean reckless aggression or collective punishment. It means replacing appeasement with deterrence — a model rooted in law, precision, and protection of civilians. It begins with one principle: when one state’s territory is used repeatedly for attacks against another, the victim state has both the right and obligation to defend itself. The challenge is to exercise that right intelligently.

The first step is accountability. For too long, violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty have gone unanswered in international forums. Documentation of cross-border incursions, militant safe havens, and targeted killings should form the basis of a formal diplomatic case, presented to regional partners and international organisations. The goal is to expose patterns of behaviour that can no longer be ignored. Evidence-based accountability will isolate those within Afghanistan who enable militancy while protecting its civilian population from broad sanctions.

Pakistan has been a patient neighbour — at times too patient for its own security.

The second step is defensive deterrence. Pakistan’s border is long and mountainous, but it cannot remain porous. A modernised surveillance grid, combining satellite imagery, drones and local intelligence as well as rapid response can sharply reduce infiltration. The message should be: incursions will meet with immediate, proportionate response — not to provoke war, but to prevent it.

Third, Pakistan must harness economic and diplomatic leverage. Afghanistan’s economy remains heavily dependent on cross-border trade, transit revenue and remittances. Conditional trade facilitation will create tangible incentives for cooperation. At the same time, Pakistan can mobilise regional partners to impose targeted sanctions on networks financing cross-border militancy. This is not collective punishment; it is pressure applied exactly where it hurts the enablers most.

Yet firmness must not blur into vindictiveness. Humanitarian channels must remain open. Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghan refugees for decades, often with little international help. That tradition of generosity may selectively continue, but it must be insulated from exploitation. Humanitarian corridors should be monitored, aid flows regulated and border populations protected from both militant recruitment and retaliatory policies. The moral high ground remains Pakistan’s most potent diplomatic asset; it must not be surrendered.

The fourth pillar is legal and multilateral engagement. Pakistan’s case must not rely solely on rhetoric. By submitting documented evidence of cross-border attacks to regional and UN mechanisms, Islamabad can shift the burden of proof. It can demand verification missions, border-monitoring arrangements, or third-party observers. If Kabul resists, its refusal will speak louder than any propaganda. This approach transforms Pakistan’s narrative from one of grievance to one of governance — a state acting within the law.

Fifth, Pakistan should build a coalition of the willing. No regional state benefits from an unstable frontier. China, Iran, and the Central Asian republics all share concerns about cross-border militancy. Coordinated intelligence-sharing, joint patrol frameworks, and shared surveillance capacities can dilute the burden Pakistan currently shoulders alone. Regional consensus would deprive militant groups of the illusion that they can exploit one neighbour against another.

But all these measures depend on clarity of intent. A firm posture is not an end in itself; it is a tool to restore deterrence. The objective is not perpetual hostility with Afghanistan, but a relationship redefined by boundaries — political, physical and moral. Peace cannot emerge from fear, but neither can it survive without respect — which must now be earned, not assumed. The lessons of history are unambiguous. States that fail to defend their borders under the guise of restraint invite greater aggression. States that act rashly without legal and moral legitimacy invite isolation. The middle path — disciplined strength — is the only viable route.

For a long time now, Pakistan has been a patient neighbour — at times too patient for its own security. India’s and Afghanistan’s aggressions have demonstrated this. Pacifist voices are needed to maintain a semblance of sanity, but they should be rooted in reality, rather than a one-sided insistence on negotiations and self-defence. It is time now to take a harder stance. When dialogue becomes a loop of promises and denials, patience becomes vulnerability.

It is time Islamabad replaced vulnerability with vigilance, and dialogue without consequence with diplomacy that carries weight. A firm, lawful, and strategically calibrated posture towards Afghanistan is the overdue recognition that peace without accountability is fiction. If Kabul truly desires a stable relationship, it will find a willing partner in Islamabad. But if Kabul continues to allow violence to flow across the border, it will face a neighbour that no longer confuses restraint with weakness.

The writer is a retired inspector general of police and ex head of Nacta.

X: @Kkf50

Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2025