British Special Representative for Afghanistan Richard Lindsay may have meant to sound even-handed, but his post landed in Islamabad as another unfair indictment of a state defending its people: Pakistan is asked to absorb cross-border terrorism with restraint, while the Afghan Taliban’s shelter for the TTP is allowed to to fade into the background.
The Foreign Office was right to call the remarks “one-sided” and “devoid of a deeper understanding” of border realities.
Since the temporary pause announced in March, Pakistan says cross-border aggression, infiltration attempts and terrorist attacks by Afghan Taliban-supported proxies have killed 52 Pakistani civilians and wounded 84. In Bajaur alone, officials have counted nine dead in recent shelling, including three women and six children. 12 others were injured and, according to local authorities, eight homes were destroyed. A cricket ground was reportedly struck by a quadcopter, injuring three civilians. That is the human cost of allowing TTP sanctuaries to operate from Afghan soil while Pakistan is asked, yet again, to explain the defence of its own citizens.
The Afghan Taliban cannot evade responsibility by hiding behind staged outrage each time Pakistan responds. Islamabad has made clear that its actions are precise, intelligence-based and directed at terrorist infrastructure, not civilians. The Afghan claims about Pakistan targeting a university and residential areas in Kunar have been rejected by the information ministry as false propaganda
No sovereign country can be expected to absorb terrorism indefinitely in the name of restraint. The banned TTP has used Afghan sanctuaries to regroup, infiltrate and attack Pakistanis from KP’s border districts to urban centres. Kabul’s denials have grown thinner with every infiltration attempt, and every funeral in a village that has already sacrificed too much to militancy. The Taliban regime wants international sympathy when Pakistan strikes terrorist support infrastructure, yet it offers no credible action against the networks using its territory as a launchpad. Britain, of all countries, should understand the weight of this frontier. The Durand Line is not an academic map for Pakistan. It is a hard border where families live under the shadow of shelling and where terroristsexploit terrain, refugee flows and smuggling routes.
Western diplomats who urge restraint must also demand accountability from Kabul.
Pakistan’s position is therefore both lawful and necessary. Dialogue remains possible, and Islamabad has already shown goodwill by accepting a pause at the request of brotherly Islamic countries. The next step must be international pressure on the Afghan Taliban to dismantle TTP sanctuaries, stop cross-border firing and end the propaganda machine that converts terrorist hideouts into alleged civilian targets whenever Pakistan responds. *