“Afghan Jalebi,” an Indian song, draws a symbolic parallel between Afghans and the sweet jalebi to highlight how appearances can be alluring yet deceptive. The jalebi’s golden, coiled form represents the complexity and duplicity often found in politics—where leaders project sweetness and sincerity while concealing self-interest and moral emptiness. This imagery reflects how political systems, much like the jalebi’s spirals, avoid straightforwardness, choosing manipulation and ambiguity over honesty and accountability.
The behavior of the Taliban government exemplifies this symbolism. After returning to power, it initially promised peace and cooperation with Pakistan but soon revealed contradictions by supporting militant groups and breaking diplomatic commitments. Pakistan, despite decades of sacrifice and support for Afghanistan, continues to face betrayal as trust erodes through the Taliban’s evasive policies. Yet, both Pakistan and the international community remain unable to sever ties, clinging to faint hope for genuine reform. Like the jalebi’s endless loops, the cycle of promises, deceit, and disappointment keeps repeating—offering sweetness on the surface but bitterness at its core.
The narrative of Pakistan’s immense and unwavering support for the Afghan people is a matter of extensive historical record, sacrifice, and significant national cost, portraying its assistance—from its crucial role in aiding the anti-Soviet resistance to its unparalleled humanitarian commitment in hosting over four million Afghan refugees for numerous decades—as fundamentally driven by genuine goodwill, profound national sacrifice, and a deep sense of brotherly responsibility. The list of Pakistan’s tangible, documented support for its neighbor is both extensive and cannot be understated in its scope or duration. Regrettably, the recompense which Pakistan has received in return for these decades of service is persistently portrayed as overwhelmingly negative and severely destabilizing. Successive Afghan administrations, and most specifically the current Taliban-led government, are accused in this account of actively supporting or passively tolerating militant groups whose primary, explicit purpose is to conduct acts of terrorism and violence within Pakistan’s sovereign borders. Instead of taking the clear, necessary, and decisive action against these hostile groups, the Afghan Taliban-led government has, along with elements broadly described as Fitna ul Hind and Fitna ul Khwarij (terms used to allude to agents of external discord, malice, and sectarian trouble), been directly implicated in enabling and facilitating cross-border assaults targeting Pakistan. Diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the rising tensions through mediated talks successfully produced an initial ceasefire and follow-up negotiations in Doha and subsequently in Istanbul, Turkey. However, the subsequent Istanbul’s first round of talks concluded dramatically and utterly without concrete, positive results, unfolding amid what Pakistan’s perspective described as consistently obstructionist, evasive, and at times overtly provocative behavior emanated from the Afghan delegation, clearly indicating an unwillingness to genuinely commit to a straight path.
According to the comprehensive narrative provided by the Pakistani side, while most of the technical and non-security agenda items were discussed in considerable detail during first round, the ultimate deadlock and failure of the talks occurred specifically and solely over Afghanistan’s complete refusal to commit to clear, verifiable, and enforceable actions against the specific groups actively using Afghan soil as a launchpad for terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Pakistan, on its part, presented specific, time-stamped evidence detailing militant sanctuaries and cross-border movements, while the Afghan delegates allegedly responded by aggressively questioning the provenance and integrity of the evidence, by deliberately attempting to divert the substantive security discussions to peripheral procedural and political matters, by repeatedly and unilaterally consulting Kabul during the critical proceedings, and by flatly declining to accept direct responsibility or agree to any practical, enforceable security measures that would prevent future attacks. The host nations and mediators, Qatar and Turkey, were reportedly surprised and profoundly disappointed by the Afghan side’s consistently uncooperative and evasive stance, with a draft agreement that had appeared finalized multiple times ultimately being dramatically abandoned at the critical last minute immediately after the Afghan delegation consulted with Kabul one final, crucial time before signing. Pakistan’s firm position conveyed was that while it continues to seek a negotiated, peaceful solution, it will not tolerate its sovereign territory being used as a staging ground for attacks and therefore reserves the inherent right to take all necessary measures to defend its people and its national sovereignty against hostile elements originating from Afghan territory. The overall account of first round was concluded with the stark assessment that the Taliban-led Afghan government failed demonstrably to exhibit the required political maturity, transparency, or sincerity, repeatedly presenting agreeable, friendly rhetoric but consistently refusing to follow up with practical, tangible security commitments—a pattern of behavior unequivocally likened to a jalebi: outwardly sweet and enticing but structurally and politically not straight—and that Pakistan remained absolutely determined to protect its national peace and security, including by actively and relentlessly pursuing militants and their known facilitators wherever they may be found.
Pakistan demonstrated complete seriousness and commitment to the dialogue process, choosing to remain in Istanbul at Türkiye’s request to facilitate any further discussions. Owing to Türkiye’s mediation efforts, both sides agreed to hold a second round of talks. These discussions proved successful, resulting in a mutual decision to continue the ceasefire.
Throughout the entire process, Pakistan displayed maturity, patience, and a genuine desire to make the dialogue successful. However, challenges and complications primarily originated from the Afghan side. Pakistan reaffirmed its firm commitment to maintaining peace and stability along its western border, while making it clear that the ceasefire is neither open-ended nor unconditional.
For Pakistan, the continuation of the ceasefire depends on a single, critical condition: Afghanistan must ensure that its territory is not used for terrorist attacks against Pakistan. This includes taking clear, verifiable, and effective measures against groups such as Fitna al-Khawarij and Fitna al-Hindustan, as well as other terrorist organizations operating from Afghan soil.
Pakistan expects credible and tangible evidence of Afghan action — including the dismantling of militant hideouts, disruption of logistical networks, arrests or prosecution of leadership figures, and transparent reporting through the agreed monitoring and verification mechanism.
If Afghanistan fails to provide verifiable proof of these actions, or if cross-border attacks by militants continue, Pakistan will consider the ceasefire to have been violated. In such a case, Pakistan reserves the right to take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and protect its citizens.
The monitoring and verification mechanism established under Türkiye’s mediation will serve as a neutral and essential instrument for determining Afghanistan’s compliance with the agreed terms.
Pakistan entered this phase of dialogue with sincerity but also with a realistic understanding that past experiences of border violence require not just promises, but consistent and verifiable implementation.
Afghanistan must recognize that this ceasefire is a conditional arrangement — its continuation depends entirely on the Afghan side’s demonstrable responsibility and actions. Failure to fulfill these commitments will compel Pakistan to consider alternative measures.
The Government of Pakistan and the Armed Forces remain united in their message: Pakistan prefers peace, but the protection of its territorial integrity and national security is non-negotiable.
Ultimately, the choice lies with Afghanistan. It must decide whether to follow the path of sincerity and cooperation — showing the “sweet and straight” character symbolized by a jalebi’s pleasant taste — or to revert to its “twisted and spiral” behavior by abandoning its commitments once again.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.