In this already volatile environment, Taliban Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Mullah Baradar abruptly instructed Afghan traders — without prior consultation or planning — to end commercial ties with Pakistan within three months and seek alternative trade routes. His televised directive appeared more political than strategic, given Afghanistan’s longstanding dependence on Pakistani land and ports.
During the two-decade-long US-led occupation, hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into Afghanistan, and Kabul enjoyed broad international support. Even then, however, Pakistan remained the primary lifeline for the landlocked country due to its 2,600-kilometer border and unmatched access to global markets. Despite Pakistan being frequently criticised for its role in Afghanistan’s conflict, former Afghan presidents Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani never considered halting trade through Pakistan. While Kabul is fully entitled to diversify its trade routes, such a shift demands a well thought-out strategy rather than the political brinkmanship displayed by Baradar.
The month-long closure of all eight border crossings has severely impacted tens of thousands of people — farmers, daily wage earners, traders, patients, and students enrolled in Pakistan — leaving them in a state of uncertainty. Pakistan’s concerns over TTP-led cross-border terrorism, and Kabul’s angry response (including calls to minimise trade with Pakistan), have deepened an already complex crisis.
Seasonal trade has been particularly affected. Pakistani markets, typically filled with affordable Afghan pomegranates and grapes at this time of year, are largely empty. Traders on both sides have been deprived of seasonal income. A trickle of Kandahari pomegranates has been smuggled into Balochistan, but prices in Quetta have soared to 1,000 rupees per kilogram — ten times the Afghan price. Grapes, selling in Afghanistan for under 50 rupees per kilogram, have virtually disappeared from Pakistani markets. Smuggling offers no real substitute for regulated trade and contributes to inflation. It is an unfortunate and avoidable situation.
The November 12 Peace Jirga in Peshawar drew a broad array of stakeholders and marked a rare display of political unity. Speakers highlighted the immense hardship K-P has endured due to decades of conflict in Afghanistan and criticised Islamabad for ignoring local sensitivities and provincial concerns. Several participants condemned Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s securitised remarks on Afghans in Pakistan and questioned Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s assertion that the country is “in a state of war”. ANP’s Mian Iftikhar Hussain warned that those advocating for conflict risk devastation in Jalalabad, Kabul, Islamabad and Peshawar alike.
Many speakers stressed that K-P has borne the brunt of decisions made in Islamabad since the early 1980s — decisions taken without consultation with political parties in the province. PTI’s Junaid Akbar noted that not once were provincial stakeholders formally included in such deliberations.
Faisal Karim Kundi, Mohsin Dawar, Professor Ibrahim and others underscored the long-term socio-economic destruction wrought by successive Afghan wars and called for K-P’s meaningful involvement in shaping policy. Several speakers warned against ethnicising the issue by conflating K-P Pashtuns with Afghan Taliban, stressing the deep historical, cultural, linguistic and economic ties shared across the border.
The assembly hall resounded with criticism of the current system and a de facto charter of demands:
• No to military operations
• No to forced deportations of Afghan refugees, and
• No to recurring border closures, which have caused massive economic losses since mid-October
Participants demanded inclusive policymaking, respect for local sensitivities, and an end to discrimination faced by Pashtuns from Karachi to K-P. Many also condemned the federal government’s neglect of K-P’s socio-economic challenges, including the failure to release over Rs500 billion owed to the province, particularly to the newly merged southern districts.
Speakers repeatedly emphasised that peace with Afghanistan is indispensable. Maulana Sirajul Haq cautioned that no side would emerge victorious from a conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, even after twenty years. His colleague, Professor Ibrahim, echoed the sentiment, criticising the ongoing discrimination endured by Pashtuns and civilians at large.
Without doubt, the province is simmering with resentment. Sentiment across the border also is running high. A government that feels insecure, not recognised internationally and faces a grave economic crisis that can potentially spill into a public uprising, is not likely to respond rationally if threatened. Years of conflict in Afghanistan, coupled with the tribal mindset, shape responses that may not necessarily be diplomatic. It needs to be handled with deft diplomacy — whatever it takes — as also advised by the majority of speakers and those familiar with the tribal culture. Even more precipitating would be the belligerent statements that our ministers are issuing to appease certain quarters. But this is not likely to help in the long run. This conduct is only aggravating the circumstances and multiplying the ill-will that has accompanied the policy.