By Ajmal Farhan
Since its inception, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) has followed a political policy within the framework of Islamic Sharia based on independence, mutual respect, and non-interference. The IEA has neither interfered in the internal affairs of other countries nor allowed anyone to violate Afghanistan’s sovereignty and borders.
On this principle, the Islamic Emirate has always sought to resolve disputes and conflicts through dialogue and understanding, because lasting stability is achieved not through war, but through rational and thoughtful engagement.
The recent negotiations between Afghanistan and Pakistan were also a continuation of this policy. In practice, the IEA showed its genuine intention to resolve issues.
For example, along the Durand Line, it avoided any movements or incidents, consulted scholars to provide solutions based on Sharia principles, and brought tribal refugees under order and control so that no side could use them as a pretext for insecurity. These steps show that the IEA has not relied on dialogue alone but has also taken practical measures.
But in contrast, the Pakistani military regime, along with its malicious and hired networks that have long cast a shadow over the country’s politics, does not want issues to be resolved peacefully. The ongoing insecurity within Pakistan, largely rooted in the policies of General Pervez Musharraf’s era, is a result of this approach.
At that time, when Pakistan supported the occupation of Afghanistan and carried out large military operations in the tribal areas, drone strikes were launched, thousands of families were displaced, and many young people were either killed or went missing.
The social and security effects of these policies continue to this day.
Even now, the Pakistani army faces many internal challenges. Political disagreements, power struggles, suppression of opponents, and economic crises are realities that have shaped Pakistan’s political environment. When a system faces internal failures, it often tries to divert people’s attention by creating external pretexts. Blaming Afghanistan or provoking border incidents appears to be part of this same strategy.
Violating Afghanistan’s airspace, targeting civilians, and disregarding religious values are actions that not only go against the principles of good neighborliness but also violate Islamic and international norms.
In some cases, the IEA has responded firmly, but in many instances, it has exercised patience to allow negotiations to continue and to prevent the escalation of violence. This approach is not a sign of weakness, but a mark of political maturity and responsibility.
Even so, every patience has its limit. Historically, the Afghan nation has always defended its sovereignty and dignity. While the IEA prioritizes peace and dialogue, it will never remain indifferent when it comes to the country’s security and the safety of its people. If the other side insists on continuing the conflict, it is only natural that they will face the consequences of their actions.
Overall, the position of the IEA is clear: problems should be resolved through negotiations, mutual respect must be maintained, and every country should honor the sovereignty of others. If these principles are observed, stability can be achieved. But if anyone chooses the path of conflict and pressure, history shows that Afghans will defend their rights.
So far, the IEA has demonstrated patience, prudence, and political responsibility, but if necessary, it will also take decisive action to protect the honor and security of its people.
