Escalation Along the Durand Line: Pakistan and Afghanistan Plunge Into Open War Amid Enduring Mistrust

By Chetna Gill

Cover Image Attribute: Taliban soldiers at a checkpoint / Source: Agence France-Presse

 
The 2,600-kilometer frontier that snakes through mountainous terrain and arid expanses between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a line drawn in 1893 by British colonial administrator Sir Mortimer Durand in negotiations with Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, has never been formally accepted by successive Afghan governments as an international border. Established amid the “Great Game” rivalry between Britain and Russia for influence in Central Asia, the Durand Line bisected Pashtun tribal lands, dividing families, villages and ethnic kin in a demarcation intended to create a buffer state rather than a permanent sovereign boundary. Afghanistan has long viewed the agreement, signed under duress on November 12, 1893, as a colonial imposition that violated Pashtun honor and unity, while Pakistan, inheriting the line upon its creation in 1947, has insisted on its validity under principles of international law. This unresolved dispute, compounded by decades of cross-border militancy, lies at the heart of the latest eruption of hostilities that, by March 2, 2026, had entered its fifth day of direct military confrontation, with both sides showing no signs of stepping back.
Pakistan’s historical role in Afghan affairs shifted dramatically after the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in August 2021. Islamabad, which had backed the group for years as a means of securing strategic depth against India, initially welcomed the development, with then-Prime Minister Imran Khan declaring that Afghans had “broken the shackles of slavery.” Yet relations soured as attacks by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, surged inside Pakistan, more than doubling in 2025 compared with 2021 according to conflict monitoring data. Pakistani officials repeatedly accused the Afghan Taliban government of providing safe haven to TTP fighters and Baloch insurgents, allegations Kabul has consistently denied, countering instead that Pakistan harbors elements of Islamic State and that its own security woes are internal. Trade closures and repeated border skirmishes followed, culminating in the deadliest clashes in years in October 2025, when days of cross-border strikes killed dozens before Qatar- and Turkey-mediated talks in Doha and Istanbul produced a fragile ceasefire.
Those negotiations, however, faltered amid deep mistrust. In Istanbul at the end of October 2025, Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar accused the Afghan delegation of “deflection and ruses,” saying the dialogue “thus failed to bring about any workable solution.” Afghan officials blamed the Pakistani side for “lack of coordination” and repeatedly leaving the negotiating table. The core impasse centered on Pakistan’s demand that Kabul dismantle TTP sanctuaries; Afghan Defence Minister Mullah Yaqoob insisted there was “no universal or clear definition of terrorism,” arguing governments could brand adversaries as terrorists for political ends. A Saudi-mediated prisoner release in early 2026 offered a brief respite, but low-level incidents persisted, and Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif warned on February 11 that Pakistan “may take action against militants in Afghanistan before the start of Ramadan” if the Taliban did not curb activity. On February 19, Islamabad issued a further warning that it “would not hesitate” to launch air operations inside Afghanistan.
Tensions boiled over following a wave of attacks inside Pakistan. Between January 29 and February 5, the Balochistan Liberation Army conducted assaults in southwestern Pakistan. A February 6 suicide bombing at a Shia mosque in Islamabad killed 36 people, claimed by Islamic State’s Pakistan Province. On February 16, a TTP assault on a checkpoint in Bajaur district killed 11 soldiers and a child. Pakistan blamed Afghan-based militants and delivered a démarche to the Afghan ambassador. Intelligence officials cited “irrefutable evidence” linking the attackers to Afghanistan, including an Afghan national’s involvement in the Bajaur incident.
On February 21, the Pakistan Air Force conducted targeted strikes on seven alleged TTP and Islamic State-Khorasan camps in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar, Paktika and Khost provinces, hitting districts including Bihsud and Khogyani in Nangarhar, and Barmal and Urgun in Paktika. Pakistani authorities claimed the operation destroyed hideouts and killed more than 80 militants. Afghanistan reported civilian casualties, with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan confirming at least 13 civilians killed and seven injured by February 23, including reports of 18 deaths, among them 11 children, in Nangarhar. Afghan officials described strikes on residential areas and a religious school. The Taliban vowed a “calculated response.”
Border clashes resumed on February 24. On the night of February 26, Afghan forces launched what they termed a retaliatory operation across Nangarhar, Nuristan, Kunar, Khost, Paktia and Paktika provinces, claiming to have killed 55 Pakistani soldiers, captured several others, seized one military headquarters and 19 border outposts, and destroyed four more. Pakistan rejected the claims, reporting only two soldiers killed and three injured while repulsing the assault. In immediate response, Islamabad launched Operation Ghazab Lil Haq—translated as “Wrath for the Truth”—with airstrikes and ground operations targeting Taliban positions in Kabul, Kandahar, Paktia and Nangarhar. Pakistani officials said the operation destroyed headquarters, ammunition depots, more than 80 vehicles and 27 border posts, while capturing nine others. They reported 133 Taliban fighters killed and more than 200 injured on the first day alone, later updating figures to 415 Taliban soldiers killed and 580 injured by March 1 after hitting 46 locations, including Bagram Airfield. Satellite imagery from Planet Labs and NASA showed damage to an ammunition depot near Kandahar International Airport and sites in Kabul and Gardez.
Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid confirmed the strikes but insisted they “did not cause any casualty,” attributing secondary explosions in Kabul to a hit ammunition depot near Darulaman. He stated, “We have always repeatedly emphasized a peaceful solution, and we still want to find a solution through dialogue.” In Nangarhar, Pakistani mortar fire reportedly struck civilian areas, including a refugee camp, killing at least 12 people. Residents in Kabul described waking to explosions and jets overhead. One unnamed Kabul resident told reporters, “I was terrified. Then we heard gunfire. When we looked out of our apartment window, we saw bullet-like flames going up in the sky… Since the first explosion, the lights of most of the houses and apartments around us have been on. I’m sure every Kabul resident is sitting in fear of being hit by a bomb.”
Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif declared the situation had become “open war,” stating, “Our patience has run out. Now it is open war between us and you.” He accused Afghanistan of gathering “all the terrorists of the world” and “exporting terrorism” while depriving its own people of human rights. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar posted on X that the strikes had killed 435 Afghan troops, destroyed 188 posts and captured 31 others, while also eliminating 188 tanks, armored vehicles and artillery pieces across 51 locations. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar reiterated Pakistan’s sole demand: “Pakistan has had only one ask, and that’s that Afghan soil shouldn’t be used against Pakistan. This is the only issue we have, as long as it is settled, we have no other issue with Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan countered with claims of its own successes, including downing a Pakistani aircraft over Jalalabad on February 28—a report Pakistan denied—and using drones to strike Pakistani targets, such as PAF Base Nur Khan. Taliban fighters employed Russian-made ZU-23 anti-aircraft guns to repel jets over Bagram. On March 2, both sides continued targeting border posts, with Afghanistan reporting the destruction of a Pakistani armored tank in Paktika and the repulsion of strikes on Bagram. Casualty figures remained sharply disputed and unverified by independent sources beyond United Nations confirmation of civilian deaths from earlier strikes. Pakistan reported 12 soldiers killed overall; Afghanistan claimed more than 100 Pakistani personnel killed and 25 posts captured.
International reactions underscored the regional alarm. The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres expressed “deep concern” over the surge in violence and urged adherence to international humanitarian law and civilian protection. UN Special Rapporteur Richard Bennett voiced “deep concern for ‘a significant number of children and civilians’ that were killed.” The United States supported Pakistan’s “right to defend itself.” India condemned Pakistan’s airstrikes during Ramadan as an attempt to externalize internal failures. China, Russia and Iran called for immediate dialogue and offered mediation. Qatar and Saudi Arabia engaged in diplomatic calls to de-escalate. Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai urged Afghans to “defend their beloved homeland with complete unity” and called on Pakistan to choose “good neighbourliness, respect, and civilised relations.”
As fighting entered its fifth day on March 2, intensity had eased slightly from the initial barrage, yet clashes persisted with reports of ongoing artillery exchanges and drone activity. No breakthrough in mediation had emerged despite offers from Qatar, Russia and others. Trade remained halted, exacerbating economic hardship in both nations already strained by years of conflict. Analysts noted the military asymmetry—Pakistan’s modern air force and nuclear arsenal against the Taliban’s guerrilla experience and limited conventional capabilities—but warned that prolonged fighting risked broader instability, including urban attacks inside Pakistan or renewed militant surges.
The current confrontation represents not an isolated incident but the latest chapter in a century-old struggle over sovereignty, ethnicity and security along a line that has never truly divided the peoples it sought to separate. With both governments entrenched in their narratives and civilian populations bearing the brunt, the path to de-escalation remains elusive, even as calls for restraint grow louder across the region. Whether diplomacy can yet prevail over the cycle of retaliation will determine if the Durand Line’s razor’s edge cuts deeper into the fragile peace of South and Central Asia.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

DISCLAIMER 1: The views expressed in this insight piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IndraStra Global.

DISCLAIMER 2: This is a developing story. The information presented in this article reflects events and statements available at the time of writing. As the situation continues to evolve, subsequent updates and official statements may alter the context and understanding of these developments.

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html