Durand conundrum, TLP and the rule of law

The latest round of armed hostilities, accompanied by toxic narratives, demands that both Afghan and Pakistani leaders step back from the brink and reassess their conduct. Shared interests - such as peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial economic connectivity - call for logical, dispassionate recalibration rather than emotional confrontation.

While blaming or belittling the other side is easy, managing the consequences of such behaviour is far more difficult. The flood of disinformation, motivated narratives and fake news further complicates any corrective effort - underscoring the urgency for reflection.

Afghanistan's Predicament

Afghanistan and its people deserve sympathy and empathy for their suffering of more than four decades - a direct outcome of relentless geopolitical wars. Ever since the Soviet invasion, followed by the US-led "bleed the bear" campaign, the country has endured displacement, destruction and despair. The intra-Mujahideen civil war, the rise of the Taliban in the mid-1990s, the arrival of Osama bin Laden, and the subsequent "war on terror" have all deeply scarred Afghanistan's collective psyche and traumatised millions.

The Taliban's return to power in August 2021 was yet another painful episode - especially for those who had grown up under narratives depicting the group as destructive and anti-state. Yet, some in Afghanistan seem to treat compassion from others as an entitlement. They forget that compassion belongs in families and societies; states operate on mutual interests, not cultural, ethnic or linguistic affinities. Loud reminders of Pakistan's "moral obligations" and recurring invocations of the "Durand Line" surface whenever political tensions rise, adding needless friction.

Pakistan's Imperative: Rule of Law Above All

For Pakistan, the most pressing challenge is to firmly establish the rule of law over expediency. The absence of such an approach only encouraged religious and criminal networks over time. Preferred religio-political and militant organisations often enjoyed impunity, particularly since the Kashmir jihad began unfolding – supplemented by the Afghan jihad too. The practice of deploying certain groups for managing or marginalising unwanted non-cooperating elements polluted governance and eroded the authority of state institutions. Still, most rulers kept preaching the virtues of respect for law.

The country, therefore, has a long road ahead in turning rhetoric into reality. Civil and military leaders have often spoken of transforming Pakistan into a "normal state" - one that rests on law rather than its subversion. Yet, the state has repeatedly compromised legal integrity by condoning or permitting violations by various jihadist groups in the name of mosques or seminaries. This dual approach must end once and for all.

The federal cabinet's unanimous decision on October 23 to ban the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) marks a significant step in that direction, one would hope. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb's recent remarks may be viewed as a rare ministerial-level acknowledgment of how the state's appeasement of militant groups has undermined Pakistan's stability and image.

"For too long, policymakers have avoided admitting how militant violence and political instability repel foreign investment - both of which depend on domestic peace and cohesion," Aurangzeb said at a media briefing in Washington.

"From a financial standpoint, this action [against militant groups] is necessary," he added, referring to the state's crackdown on TLP.

The designation of TLP - now the 83rd banned outfit - followed Punjab's sweeping administrative actions against the group's infrastructure. These include the takeover of at least 323 mosques and seminaries, the seizure of large sums of cash, foreign currency and gold from Saad Rizvi's residence, and the freezing of about 95 bank accounts reportedly linked to him.

Seen in this light, Aurangzeb's statement signals a potentially major shift - a recognition that direct or indirect tolerance of non-state actors must end, and their activities subjected to strict legal scrutiny.

Rhetoric vs Reality

Talk of becoming a "normal state" contrasts sharply with ground realities: trenches, containers and internet shutdowns used to suppress protests do not reflect institutional confidence. The weaponisation of laws for short-term political ends erodes the state's moral authority.

By excusing religiously disguised or criminal non-state actors, authorities themselves undermine legitimacy and weaken the writ of law. Pakistan must pursue a consistent, impartial and logical rule-of-law framework to sustain credibility at home and abroad.

Three Concluding Thoughts

A Calculated Strategy on Afghanistan: Pakistan must develop a measured, not reactionary, approach to counter persistent Afghan insistence on treating the Durand Line as an "unfinished agenda". The border is an internationally recognised frontier - a reality that must be asserted firmly yet diplomatically. The Afghan Taliban regime, which seems in full control of its territory, governance structures and the media, is best placed to initiate a national dialogue on the border issue. Living in the past is futile – however they consider the border as "unfinished agenda". President Ashraf Ghani simply looked the other way when Pakistan began fencing the border for the simple reason; this is the official border and no objections would stop Pakistan from doing whatever it wants on its soil. Kabul and Kandahar can help in rationalising the border discourse instead of letting it simmer and fuel tensions.

End Patronising Attitudes: Pakistan's elites should abandon the patronage mindset toward Afghanistan. Such behaviour provokes resentment and inflames nationalist passions rather than fostering cooperation.

Rule of Law as Policy Compass: The rule of law must guide both domestic governance and foreign relations. Exceptionalism, whether in favour of or against particular individuals or groups, undermines the credibility of Pakistan's national narrative on justice, rights and legality.

Without this, any advocacy on the need for or impassioned rhetoric by the state will only fall on deaf ears.