Pakistan has been one of the nations hardest-hit by terrorism, losing thousands of lives while fighting to restore regional stability. Despite the proxies’ war waged by its neighbouring states it showed resolve to advocate for dialogue and peaceful coexistence with all its neighbours.
Its foreign policy remains anchored in mutual respect, non-interference and the pursuit of lasting regional peace. Through consistent counterterrorism efforts, Pakistan has proven its commitment to defeating terrorism and extremism and promoting stability across South Asia.
Since returning to power in August 2021, time and again the Taliban have given assurances to the international community and neighbouring states that Afghan’s soil under their rule would no longer serve as a safe haven for transnational terrorist groups. Statements have emphasized non-interference, respect for international borders and counterterrorism cooperation. However, numerous reports, analyses and intelligence assessments suggest a contrasting reality: a policy of tacit and at times active, patronage of certain militant groups, particularly the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaida and IS-Khorasan (IS-K). This tension between promise and practice has significant implications for regional security, diplomatic relations and the credibility of Taliban governance. While the Taliban’s statement reflects a desire for legitimacy, the observed behaviour tells a more complex story. Several credible sources outline evidence that contradicts the public pledges.
According to UN Security Council monitoring reports, the Taliban regime has allowed safe havens for operational and logistical spaces to the TTP. New training camps have reportedly been established and expanded in border provinces such Kunar, Nangarhar, Khost and Paktika. UN monitoring reports suggest that Al-Qaida remains active in several Afghan provinces under the Taliban regime. IS-K has continued to conduct attacks inside Afghanistan and there is evidence of overlapping or contested areas of influence between IS-K and the Taliban, particularly in eastern provinces. The United State Institute of Peace has also stated that analysts note ideological proximity, shared networks and historic connections between the Taliban and TTP, which complicate purely coercive containment.
Pakistan has provided evidences to the international community about attacks originating from Afghanistan under the patronage of the Taliban. Pakistan has also communicated this to the Taliban top leadership who gave verbal assurances to Pakistan but failed to implement them on ground.
Pakistan has hosted 4.5 million Afghan refugees for more than four decades extending humanitarian support through access to housing, health care, education and livelihood opportunities despite internal challenges. Afghanistan is a landlocked country and Pakistan has been facilitating it by providing access to its ports and other trade facilities through its borders on humanitarian grounds despite attacks from its soil.
Through consistent diplomatic channels including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Pakistan has urged the Taliban top leadership to prevent militant groups, particularly the TTP, from using Afghan territory for cross border terrorism, stressing that such activities are a threat to regional peace and stability. The recent devastating terrorist’s attacks on Pakistan armed forces, including the attack on the DI Khan police training centre compelled Pakistan to adopt a clear stance. On October 9, the Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, while on a visit to India, has publicly denied that the Taliban harbour the TTP inside Afghanistan. He asserted that militancy in Pakistan is largely an internal issue and criticized Pakistan for attributing all problems to Taliban.
The gap between peace promises and terror patronage reflects both the legacy of decades of conflict and the complex challenges of rebuilding a state under constrained conditions. But for lasting peace and regional stability, word must be matched by deeds. The test for the Taliban regime is not what it declares, but how it handles the hard, often unpopular, work of restraining militant networks-including those with ideological or tribal affinity and enforcing the rule of law.
In response Pakistan’s FO strongly rejected his remarks, saying Taliban had been repeatedly confronted with evidence of militant groups using Afghan soil to attack Pakistan. October 10, a Pakistan Army spokesman, addressing a press conference in Peshawar, stated that in the last two years 1093 Pakistanis, including civilians and armed forces personnel, embraced martyrdom while 1786 terrorists, including Afghans, were killed of whom over 30 suicide bombers were also Afghans.
On the night of October 11/12 huge number of terrorists tried to infiltrate Pakistan from Afghanistan under covering fire provided by the Taliban from their checkposts. Pakistan armed forces retaliated using small arms, heavy weapons including artillery and drones and repulsed the infiltration. As a result of this border clash 23 Pakistan Army soldiers were martyred while 230 terrorists and Taliban were killed. The Pakistan armed forces also claimed capturing and destroying 21 Taliban checkposts which provided covering fire for terrorist infiltration beside destroying terrorists’ hideout and training camps in Afghanistan. Interestingly or coincidently, it all happened once the Taliban foreign minister was on a seven-day visit to India.
If the Taliban can defeat the NATO, headed by the USA, in Afghanistan, then why cannot they control non-state actors operating from their soil and ensure compliance to the commitment they made it to the world? If the Taliban wish to move from rhetoric to credible governance on security, certain steps seem essential. Allow UN or neutral regional monitoring of commitments, for example, with credible mechanisms to verify dismantling of militant safe havens. Adopt and enforce laws or decrees that unambiguously prohibit cross-border plotting, recruitment, financing of foreign proxies; hold accountable local commanders who violate those. Cooperation with neighbours on strict border control, intelligence sharing, joint operations where necessary to prevent militant movements. Systematically shutting down or relocating training camps, cutting logistic and financial flows to groups like TTP or Al-Qaida, even when costly or politically sensitive. Consistent messaging internally and externally that links public commitments with action, so that promises are not sees as propaganda.
The gap between peace promises and terror patronage reflects both the legacy of decades of conflict and the complex challenges of rebuilding a state under constrained conditions. But for lasting peace and regional stability, word must be matched by deeds. The test for the Taliban regime is not what it declares, but how it handles the hard, often unpopular, work of restraining militant networks-including those with ideological or tribal affinity and enforcing the rule of law.
