Why in News?
- The Taliban administration in Afghanistan launched retaliatory attacks on Pakistani border posts following alleged Pakistani airstrikes.
- Clashes occurred along the 2,600 km Durand Line, escalating tensions after cross-border strikes targeting alleged militant camps.
- Both sides accused each other of “unprovoked fire,” indicating deterioration in bilateral security relations post-2021 Taliban takeover.
Relevance
GS Paper II – International Relations
- Durand Line dispute (1893).
- Article 51 (self-defence) under UN Charter.
- Taliban governance post-2021.
GS Paper III – Security
- TTP factor and cross-border militancy.
- Regional instability implications for India.
Mains Practice Question (15 Marks)
- Recurring clashes along the Durand Line reflect unresolved historical disputes and evolving security threats. Analyse the legal and geopolitical dimensions of Afghanistan–Pakistan border tensions.
Static Background
1. The Durand Line Dispute
- The Durand Line (1893) was drawn between British India and Afghanistan by Sir Mortimer Durand.
- Length: ~2,640 km, dividing Pashtun tribal areas.
- Pakistan recognises it as international border; Afghanistan has historically refused formal recognition.
- Dispute fuels cross-border insurgency and mistrust.
2. Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Factor
- TTP is a Pakistan-based militant group aiming to overthrow the Pakistani state.
- Islamabad accuses Kabul of providing safe havens to TTP fighters post-2021.
- Taliban deny formal support but have struggled to restrain transnational militancy.
3. Taliban Government (Post-2021)
- Taliban regained control of Afghanistan in August 2021 after U.S. withdrawal.
- No formal international recognition by most countries.
- Afghanistan faces economic crisis, humanitarian dependency, and security fragmentation.
Geopolitical Context
1. Pakistan’s Security Calculus
- Pakistan conducted alleged airstrikes in Afghan territory targeting militant camps.
- Islamabad frames action as safeguarding territorial integrity and internal security.
- Escalation reflects breakdown of earlier Pakistan–Taliban tactical alignment.
2. Afghanistan’s Strategic Signalling
- Taliban’s retaliatory strikes signal assertion of sovereignty.
- Domestic legitimacy imperative: projecting strength against perceived external aggression.
- Risk of localised clashes escalating into broader confrontation.
International Law Perspective
Sovereignty and Non-Intervention
- Under UN Charter Article 2(4), states must refrain from use of force against territorial integrity of another state.
- Cross-border strikes justified by Pakistan under self-defence doctrine (Article 51) against non-state actors.
- Legal controversy: whether inability/unwillingness doctrine applies.
Counter-Terrorism Law
- States obligated to prevent territory being used for terrorist activities (UNSC Resolution 1373).
- Failure to control TTP presence complicates Taliban’s international legitimacy claims.
Regional Security Implications
1. Escalation Risk
- Armed exchanges along mountainous terrain increase risk of miscalculation.
- Historical precedent: border clashes in October 2023 and 2024 ceasefire breakdowns.
2. Refugee and Humanitarian Impact
- Afghanistan already hosts severe humanitarian crisis; border tensions disrupt trade and aid corridors.
- Pakistan hosts millions of Afghan refugees; tensions may worsen deportation policies.
3. India’s Strategic Stakes
- India maintains limited engagement with Taliban regime while monitoring security implications.
- Instability could affect connectivity projects in Central Asia and regional counter-terror strategy.
Economic and Connectivity Angle
- Pakistan–Afghanistan trade critical for landlocked Afghan economy.
- Border closures disrupt transit routes linked to Central Asia–South Asia connectivity frameworks.
- Potential spillover into CPEC security dynamics.
Challenges
- Unresolved Border Legitimacy: Durand Line remains contested, preventing stable demarcation and border management.
- Non-State Actor Sanctuaries: TTP presence complicates sovereignty claims and fuels retaliatory doctrine justification.
- Weak Institutional Control in Afghanistan: Taliban governance lacks unified control over all armed factions.
- Escalatory Signalling: Airstrikes and retaliatory artillery increase probability of accidental escalation.
- Humanitarian Spillover: Trade disruptions and refugee tensions exacerbate fragile Afghan economy.
Way Forward
- Revive Border Coordination Mechanism: Institutionalise joint verification and ceasefire monitoring cells.
- Counter-Terror Cooperation Framework: Structured intelligence-sharing mechanism targeting TTP without violating sovereignty.
- Durand Line Confidence-Building Measures: Local ceasefire committees involving tribal elders to reduce flashpoints.
- Regional Mediation Support: Engage SCO or OIC platforms to facilitate dialogue.
- Humanitarian Safeguards: Ensure border trade and aid corridors insulated from military escalation.
Prelims Notes
- Durand Line (1893) divides Pakistan and Afghanistan (~2,640 km).
- UN Charter Article 51 permits self-defence against armed attack.
- TTP distinct from Afghan Taliban; operates primarily against Pakistan.
- Afghanistan not formally recognised by most UN member states post-2021.


