The current conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan in October 2025 centres on escalating cross-border violence, primarily driven by Pakistan''s accusations that the Afghan Taliban government is harbouring and supporting the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant group responsible for numerous attacks on Pakistani security forces. Tensions peaked after Pakistan conducted airstrikes on October 9, 2025, targeting TTP leadership in Kabul and Paktika province, which Afghanistan condemned as a violation of its sovereignty. In retaliation, Afghan Taliban forces launched attacks on Pakistani border posts, resulting in a deadly exchange of fire that killed over 250 people, with conflicting reports on casualties—Afghanistan claimed 58 Pakistani soldiers were killed, while Pakistan stated it eliminated over 200 Taliban and affiliated militants.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan-TTP conflict stems from a complex mix of historical grievances, strategic mistrust, and militant activity.  The key reasons fuelling the current tensions are as below: -

• TTP Militancy and Cross-Border Attacks - Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harboring Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants who use Afghan soil to launch attacks into Pakistan. These attacks have intensified in recent months, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, prompting Pakistan to take military action. Afghanistan’s Taliban government denies these claims, but Pakistan insists that the TTP operates freely in eastern Afghanistan.
• Durand Line Dispute - The Durand Line, a colonial-era border drawn in 1893, remains a contentious issue. Afghanistan has never officially recognized it as the international boundary, while Pakistan considers it settled. This disagreement leads to frequent border skirmishes and accusations of encroachment, especially when Pakistan builds fences or fortifies border posts.
• Sovereignty Violations - Pakistan’s recent airstrikes inside Afghan territory have been condemned by the Taliban as violations of Afghan sovereignty. Afghanistan views these incursions as aggressive and provocative, while Pakistan argues they are necessary to neutralize threats. This tit-for-tat escalation has deepened mistrust and hardened positions on both sides.
• Taliban’s Strategic Shift - Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government has been signalling a shift in regional alliances. It has praised its relations with India, China, and Iran, while criticizing Pakistan for being confrontational. This shift threatens Pakistan’s strategic influence in Afghanistan and raises concerns about regional isolation.
• Internal Pressures and Political Narratives - Both countries face internal challenges. Pakistan is grappling with economic instability and rising militancy, while Afghanistan is dealing with diplomatic isolation and humanitarian crises. Leaders in both nations may be using the conflict to rally domestic support or deflect from internal issues.
• Breakdown of Intelligence Cooperation - After the Taliban’s takeover in 2021, Pakistan hoped for cooperation in counterterrorism. However, intelligence sharing and joint operations have stalled. Pakistan claims Afghanistan is unresponsive to requests for action against TTP, while Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of unilateral aggression.

Core Dispute

• Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of providing sanctuary to TTP fighters, facilitating attacks into Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces.
• The Afghan Taliban government denies the allegations, calling for Pakistan to address its own internal security issues.
• Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi emphasized peaceful intentions but warned of strong responses to continued airspace violations.

Military Engagements

• Military clashes escalated along the disputed Durand Line border.
• Pakistan deployed XI and XII Corps, air defense, and paramilitary forces.
• Afghanistan responded with its 201 Khalid Ibn Walid Corps and Islamic National Army units.
• Mutual accusations of airspace violations and destruction of border outposts marked the fighting.
• Key border crossings such as Torkham and Chaman were sealed, disrupting trade and movement.

Regional Implications

• Afghanistan emphasized improving relations with India, China, and Iran, contrasting with deteriorating ties with Pakistan.
• The Taliban government accused Pakistan of confrontation and hinted at seeking alternative alliances.
• Pakistan faces increasing internal pressure from growing militancy and economic challenges.

Humanitarian and Security Concerns

• Fears persist that continued hostilities could destabilize the region further.
• Escalation may trigger more cross-border terrorism and civilian displacement.
• Ongoing fighting has already displaced families along the border, deepening the refugee crisis.
• Diplomatic efforts are urgently needed to prevent a full-scale conflict and maintain regional cooperation.

Theories of international relations  

Realism

Realism views international politics as a struggle for power in an anarchic world where states prioritize survival and security.

• Pakistan’s airstrikes reflect a realist pursuit of national security, targeting perceived threats (TTP) regardless of Afghan sovereignty.
• Afghanistan’s retaliation and defense of its borders align with realist principles of self-help and deterrence.
• The Durand Line dispute is a classic example of territorial realism, where control over borders is tied to strategic dominance.
• Both states are acting in their national interest, with little regard for international norms or cooperation.

Liberalism

Liberalism emphasizes cooperation, institutions, and interdependence.

• The breakdown of intelligence sharing and lack of diplomatic engagement show a failure of liberal mechanisms.
• Regional organizations like SAARC or the OIC have been largely absent, indicating weak institutional influence.
• Liberalism would advocate for dialogue, mediation, and joint counterterrorism efforts, which are currently lacking.

Constructivism

Constructivism focuses on identity, norms, and the social construction of interests.

• Pakistan and Afghanistan’s historical narratives shape their mutual distrust—Pakistan sees Afghanistan as a haven for militants, while Afghanistan views Pakistan as a meddling neighbor.
• The Taliban’s ideological ties to the TTP complicate cooperation, as shared religious and ethnic identities influence policy.
• National identity and sovereignty are central to Afghanistan’s rejection of Pakistani incursions.

Security Dilemma Theory

This theory explains how defensive actions by one state can be perceived as threats by another, leading to escalation.

• Pakistan’s strikes, meant to secure its borders, are seen by Afghanistan as aggression.
• Afghanistan’s military buildup and retaliatory attacks then reinforce Pakistan’s perception of threat.
• This cycle of action-reaction fuels instability and mistrust.

Offensive vs Defensive Realism

• Offensive realism suggests Pakistan is proactively asserting power to eliminate threats and shape regional dynamics.
• Defensive realism would argue Afghanistan is merely responding to protect its sovereignty and avoid encirclement.

Strategic Implications for India

India’s strategic interests are deeply affected by the escalating Pakistan-Afghanistan-TTP conflict.

Security Concerns

• Spillover of Militancy: The rise in TTP activity and instability along the Durand Line could lead to increased militant movement across South Asia. India may face heightened risks in Jammu & Kashmir and along its western borders if extremist networks expand or shift focus.
• Border Vigilance: India will likely reinforce surveillance and counterterrorism operations, especially in sensitive border areas, to prevent infiltration or radicalization.

Diplomatic Leverage

• Improved Ties with Afghanistan: The Taliban government has praised its relations with India while criticizing Pakistan. This opens a window for India to deepen engagement through humanitarian aid, infrastructure projects, and diplomatic outreach.
• Regional Balancing: India can use the conflict to position itself as a stabilizing force in South Asia, advocating for peaceful resolution and multilateral dialogue.

Geopolitical Influence

• Countering Pakistan’s Narrative: India may highlight Pakistan’s internal instability and its alleged support for militant groups to strengthen its case in global forums.
• Strategic Partnerships: India could collaborate more closely with Iran, Central Asian republics, and even the US to monitor developments and counter extremist threats.

Economic and Connectivity Projects

• Impact on Trade Routes: Instability in Afghanistan affects India’s plans for regional connectivity, especially the Chabahar port and International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
• Investment Risks: Indian investments in Afghan infrastructure and education may face delays or security threats if the conflict escalates.

Intelligence and Counterterrorism

• Enhanced Monitoring: India’s intelligence agencies will likely increase focus on TTP movements, Taliban factions, and Pakistan’s military deployments.
• Cyber and Hybrid Threats: The conflict could trigger propaganda campaigns or cyber threats targeting Indian interests, requiring robust digital defenses.

Roadmap for India

Strengthen Border and Internal Security

• Enhance surveillance along western borders, especially in Jammu & Kashmir, to prevent militant spillover.
• Boost counterterrorism coordination among intelligence agencies to monitor TTP movements and potential alliances with anti-India groups.
• Invest in cyber defense to guard against propaganda or hybrid threats emerging from the conflict zone.

Deepen Engagement with Afghanistan

• Humanitarian aid and development projects: India can expand its support for Afghan civilians, building goodwill and influence.
• Track Taliban factions: Maintain diplomatic channels to identify moderate elements open to cooperation.
• Cultural and educational diplomacy: Offer scholarships, training, and cultural exchanges to build long-term ties.

Leverage Multilateral Forums

• Raise concerns at the UN, SCO, and SAARC about cross-border terrorism and regional instability.
• Push for a regional counterterrorism framework that includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asian states.
• Support peace initiatives led by neutral actors like Iran or Qatar to de-escalate tensions.

Coordinate with Strategic Partners

• Work with the US, EU, and Gulf nations to monitor militant financing and arms flows.
• Strengthen ties with Iran and Central Asia to bypass Pakistan-Afghanistan bottlenecks in connectivity projects.
• Engage China cautiously on shared concerns like extremism, while managing border tensions separately.

Safeguard Economic Interests

• Secure Chabahar Port and INSTC routes to ensure access to Central Asia and beyond.
• Protect Indian investments in Afghanistan, especially in infrastructure, education, and health sectors.
• Monitor trade disruptions that may arise from regional instability and adjust supply chains accordingly.

Shape the Narrative

• Use media and diplomacy to highlight India’s constructive role and Pakistan’s destabilizing actions.
• Promote India as a responsible regional power committed to peace, development, and counterterrorism.

India should respond to the Pakistan-Afghanistan-TTP conflict with a balanced mix of strategic caution, diplomatic engagement, and regional leadership.

Ethical Reflections on the Pakistan-Afghanistan-TTP Conflict 

The ethical dimensions of the Pakistan-Afghanistan-TTP conflict in October 2025 reveal deep tensions between national security imperatives and international norms, raising critical questions about sovereignty, proportionality, and humanitarian responsibility.

Sovereignty vs. Security

• Pakistan’s alleged airstrikes on Kabul, Khost, and Paktika in October 2025 challenge the principle of state sovereignty, a cornerstone of international law.
• While Pakistan justifies these actions as self-defense against cross-border terrorism by the TTP, Afghanistan views them as violations of its territorial integrity.
• A July 2025 UN report noted that the TTP receives “logistical and operational support” from Taliban authorities, lending credibility to Pakistan’s claims, though Kabul denies any such collaboration.
• Ethically, realist perspectives may support Pakistan’s actions as necessary for survival, but liberal and constructivist frameworks emphasize that unilateral force undermines global order and risks normalizing aggression.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

• Pakistan argues it has a duty to protect its citizens from TTP attacks, which killed over 500 people—including 311 soldiers—between January and September 2025.
• The R2P doctrine allows for intervention to prevent mass violence, but it also demands multilateral coordination, proportionality, and last-resort status—conditions not clearly met by Pakistan’s unilateral strikes.
• By acting without international consensus or Afghan cooperation, Pakistan risks overreach, potentially violating ethical and legal standards even while claiming moral justification.

Ethics of Retaliation

• Afghanistan’s military response, including claims of killing 58 Pakistani soldiers, raises concerns about proportionality and escalation.
• Just War Theory requires that retaliation be measured, discriminate between combatants and civilians, and avoid unnecessary harm—principles difficult to verify amid conflicting battlefield reports.
• Analysts suggest the Taliban’s response may have exceeded initial plans, indicating poor control and miscalculation, which further destabilizes the region.

Humanitarian Impact

• The conflict has caused significant civilian suffering, with border communities in Kurram and Bajaur experiencing displacement and sporadic violence.
• Pakistan’s deportation of over a million Afghan refugees since 2024 has exacerbated humanitarian crises, drawing criticism for targeting vulnerable populations.
• Both states bear ethical responsibility under international humanitarian law to minimize harm to non-combatants, yet military actions appear to prioritize strategic goals over civilian welfare.

Ethics of Blame and Narrative

• Pakistan blames Afghanistan for harboring TTP militants, while Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of externalizing its internal security failures.
• Constructivist ethics critique the use of nationalist narratives to justify violence, urging transparency and dialogue instead of blame-shifting.
• The Taliban fears internal revolt if it moves against the TTP, given ideological and personal ties, complicating its ability to act as a responsible sovereign—yet this does not absolve it of ethical obligations.

India’s Ethical Role

• India’s diplomatic outreach, including Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s visit to Kabul, signals a shift in regional engagement, contrasting with Pakistan’s isolation.
• India faces ethical choices: whether to mediate, provide humanitarian aid, or leverage the crisis for strategic advantage.
• A constructive role—such as facilitating dialogue or supporting refugee relief—would position India as a regional stabilizer, while opportunism could deepen instability.

In sum, the conflict reflects a breakdown in ethical statecraft, where security concerns override norms of sovereignty and humanitarian protection. Sustainable peace requires not only military restraint but also ethical accountability, transparent dialogue, and regional cooperation grounded in shared responsibility.