Taliban’s obstinance risks a regional war

Once again, the Afghan Taliban have demonstrated their inability to think beyond ideology and grievance. The Istanbul talks, which were expected to mark a diplomatic thaw between Pakistan and Afghanistan, ended in disappointment.

The Taliban delegation arrived unprepared, rejected Pakistan’s call for a written commitment to curb cross-border terrorism and dismissed concerns over Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) sanctuaries as “exaggerated.” The talks collapsed not because of Pakistan’s intransigence, but because Kabul chose defiance over diplomacy.

This failure exposes the same short-sightedness that has defined the Taliban’s foreign policy since their return to power in 2021. They yearn for legitimacy abroad, but refuse to act like a responsible state at home. They crave recognition from the international community but cannot commit to the most basic condition of sovereignty — ensuring their soil is not used for terrorism.

In Istanbul, they had an opportunity to take a modest yet meaningful step toward peace and credibility. Instead, they walked away, reaffirming the perception that their diplomacy begins and ends with deflection.

Pakistan’s expectations were not unrealistic. No country can tolerate being attacked from a neighbor’s territory. For years, Islamabad has urged the Taliban to dismantle TTP bases inside Afghanistan and hand over wanted militants.

The Taliban’s refusal to even discuss mechanisms for verification and monitoring is deeply telling — it is not just an ideological choice, but a political one. It reveals a mindset that still sees itself as a revolutionary movement rather than a state accountable to its neighbors and its own citizens.

Yet the question now troubling regional observers is whether this obstinacy stems entirely from the Taliban’s own misjudgment — or whether external forces are quietly encouraging their stance. In recent months, the Taliban’s engagement with India has grown noticeably warmer.

Indian diplomats have met Taliban representatives in Doha and New Delhi, framing the interactions as “development dialogue.” But the timing of these overtures — alongside anti-Pakistan propaganda amplified on social media by pro-Taliban and India-linked accounts — raises unsettling questions.

Is the Taliban’s defiance truly independent? Or is it, at least in part, shaped by the strategic calculations of India’s Modi regime?

For Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, a destabilized Pakistan serves clear strategic purposes. It distracts from India’s own domestic turmoil, keeps Pakistan occupied on multiple fronts and weakens Islamabad’s diplomatic leverage in Kashmir.

An Afghanistan that refuses to cooperate with Pakistan, harbors anti-state militants, and destabilizes its western border is a convenient outcome for New Delhi. While there is no public evidence of direct coordination, the convergence of interests is difficult to ignore.

The Taliban, of course, are not puppets. Their defiance also stems from a deeply ingrained belief that Pakistan “used and abandoned” them. They see the TTP, also known as the “Pakistan Taliban”, not as a terrorist organization but as ideological kin — a perception that blurs moral lines and undermines regional peace.

But by clinging to this logic, the Taliban are isolating themselves further. Their refusal to act against militancy not only alienates Pakistan but also frustrates Beijing, Riyadh and Ankara, all of whom have quietly urged Kabul to cooperate on counterterrorism as a condition for economic engagement.

The Istanbul talks collapse will have consequences far beyond diplomatic disappointment. Pakistan is unlikely to remain passive if cross-border attacks continue. A military response, though costly, becomes increasingly probable if diplomacy fails. Meanwhile, Afghanistan risks losing what little goodwill it has left among regional powers.

The tragedy here is not just political but moral. Ordinary Afghans, already crushed by hunger and poverty, are once again paying the price for their rulers’ ideological arrogance. Each failed dialogue means fewer trade opportunities, fewer investments and deeper isolation.

The Taliban claim to defend Afghan sovereignty, yet their actions render that sovereignty hollow — beholden to militancy, driven by paranoia, and, possibly, manipulated by external hands.

If the Taliban’s stance is born of short-sightedness, it is tragic. If it is shaped by outside influence — particularly from India’s current regime — it is dangerous. In both cases, Afghanistan is once again being reduced to a pawn in someone else’s geopolitical game. And South Asia, instead of moving toward stability, inches closer to the brink.

The Istanbul talks could have been a new beginning. Instead, they became another reminder that peace requires vision — and that those who cannot see beyond their immediate grudges are destined to keep repeating the past.

Advocate Mazhar Siddique Khan is a Lahore-based High Court Lawyer. He may be contacted at mazharsiddiquekhan@gmail.com.