‘India Waging Proxy War’: Khawaja Asif Repeats Accusation as Afghanistan–Pakistan Peace Talks Collapse Amid Escalating Tensions

The delicate, high-stakes diplomatic maneuvering between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban regime reached a definitive and perilous breaking point in late October 2025. Following four days of intensive, yet ultimately fruitless, negotiations in Istanbul, Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, publicly reiterated his government’s most severe accusation: that India is orchestrating a “proxy war” against Pakistan using Afghanistan as its operational base. This dramatic recurrence of rhetoric accompanied the formal collapse of the second round of peace talks, a failure that immediately elevates the risk profile for the entire South Asian security architecture. The diplomatic fallout signals a concerning pivot toward confrontation, threatening to undo a fragile, recently brokered ceasefire and usher the region into a period of heightened military alert.

The immediate crisis stems from Pakistan’s unrelenting demand that the Afghan Taliban decisively act against militant sanctuaries operating from Afghan soil, most notably those associated with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Despite a temporary cessation of hostilities secured in Doha on October 19, 2025, recent border clashes killed dozens of soldiers and militants, illustrating the fragility of any truce not underpinned by concrete security commitments. The breakdown in Istanbul on or around October 29, 2025, confirmed that, despite external facilitation, the core grievances remain unbridgeable at this juncture.

The Specifics of the Diplomatic Rupture

The Istanbul negotiations, intended to build upon the Doha ceasefire, were designed to establish a structured, verifiable peace framework for monitoring compliance and addressing cross-border terrorism. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar confirmed the dialogue concluded without yielding any “workable solution,” a sentiment echoed by sources indicating an impasse over fundamental security guarantees. The core of the deadlock, according to Pakistani security officials, was the Afghan Taliban’s “lack of commitment and seriousness” regarding the TTP threat and their refusal to provide assurances in writing.

Khawaja Asif detailed the frustrating procedural dynamic, alleging that the Taliban negotiators demonstrated a fundamental insincerity. He asserted that on “three or four” occasions, an agreement would be finalized at the negotiating table, only for the Afghan delegation to “contact Kabul” and withdraw their consent upon receiving instructions from leadership there. Asif explicitly characterized the governing structure in Kabul as being controlled by Delhi, stating, “The people in Kabul pulling the strings and staging the puppet show are being controlled by Delhi”. He further claimed that India sought to engage in a “low-intensity war” with Pakistan and that Kabul was acting as a tool or a proxy to exact revenge for a perceived “defeat on their western border” in May 2025. The Afghan side, conversely, reportedly accused the Pakistani delegation of “improper conduct” and presenting “demands that are unacceptable to Afghanistan”.

Khawaja Asif’s Stark Warnings and the ‘Proxy War’ Narrative

The public airing of the proxy war narrative by Pakistan’s Defence Minister was immediately paired with explicit military threats, signaling a shift to a strategy of deterrence through overwhelming force. Asif warned that if Afghan soil were used for any future terror attack on Pakistan, Islamabad would respond with a retaliation “50 times stronger”. In a declaration that resonated with historical conflict, Asif stated that Pakistan “does not require to employ even a fraction of its full arsenal to completely obliterate the Taliban regime and push them back to the caves for hiding”. He specifically cautioned that the region could witness a repeat of the 2001 Tora Bora offensive, a spectacle he suggested the hardliners in the Taliban regime had misjudged Pakistan’s resolve to orchestrate. This severe rhetoric implies that Pakistan views the collapse not just as a diplomatic failure, but as the failure of restraint, thereby authorizing a more assertive military posture on the frontier.

The Afghan Counter-Stance

Kabul’s response to the breakdown was equally confrontational. While signaling a commitment to dialogue, official sources from the Afghan side warned that they “will respond firmly to any future military strikes by Pakistan”. Spokespersons explicitly stated that Afghan forces are prepared to target Islamabad in return for any unilateral airstrikes on Afghan soil, with one official asserting that while Afghanistan may lack nuclear weapons, the international coalition led by NATO failed to subdue the nation despite two decades of war. This exchange of high-level threats reinforces the immediate atmosphere of instability, turning the border zone into a region on high alert.

Broader Geopolitical Ramifications for South Asian Stability

The public airing of such severe accusations and the definitive collapse of the bilateral dialogue mechanism carry significant weight beyond the immediate border zone, impacting the wider security architecture of South Asia and the strategic calculus of neighboring powers. The environment suggests a difficult path ahead, marked by continued tension and a reliance on deterrent warnings rather than shared security commitments.

The Perceived Failure of International Mediation Frameworks

The involvement of major regional powers like Türkiye and Qatar as mediators underscores the international community’s vested interest in preventing a wider conflagration in a volatile region. Their inability to shepherd the parties to a sustainable agreement, even after the Doha truce—which was itself brokered by them following earlier deadly clashes—raises questions about the effectiveness of current diplomatic tools when confronted with entrenched, high-stakes security grievances. The sequence of events—a ceasefire followed by a renewed, more acrimonious dialogue that then collapses—suggests that the internal political dynamics within Kabul and Islamabad may be proving too resistant to external influence or mediation frameworks.

The diplomatic failure has several implications for the mediators themselves:

• Erosion of Trust: The public blame game, particularly Asif’s insistence that the mediators were aware of Kabul’s “infirmity” or lack of sincerity, places a strain on the diplomatic capital invested by Ankara and Doha.
• Need for New Structures: The failure suggests that the monitoring and verification mechanisms, which were the stated goal of the Istanbul talks, will not be established through the current bilateral track. This may prompt Türkiye and Qatar to seek alternative, potentially multilateral, structures or to scale back their involvement, perceiving the risks outweighing the immediate rewards.
• Regional Vacuum: The inability of these two key regional brokers to cement peace creates a perception of increased regional turbulence, which could invite other powers with different strategic interests to increase their footprint or engagement in the region [cite: Implicit in the prompt].

Implications for Regional Security Ecosystems and Power Balances

The formal breakdown of dialogue, coupled with accusations of proxy warfare and threats of massive military retaliation, signifies a clear pivot toward confrontation over cooperation. This deterioration creates a vacuum that other regional and global powers may seek to fill or exploit, potentially altering existing power balances. The continued friction on the Durand Line, exacerbated by mutual distrust and the proxy narrative, ensures that the broader region remains on a high alert status.

Several security dynamics are immediately affected:

• Heightened Risk of Miscalculation: With both sides issuing warnings of deep strikes and massive retaliation, the risk of an accidental escalation or a misread signal triggering a full-scale military conflict along the 2,600-kilometer frontier remains acutely elevated in the immediate aftermath of this diplomatic fallout.
• Impact on TTP/Militancy: With dialogue shuttered, the immediate path for Pakistan to secure verifiable action against the TTP has closed, suggesting a likely increase in unilateral Pakistani security operations within Afghan territory, thereby guaranteeing further Afghan retaliation.
• The India Factor: Khawaja Asif’s central accusation places India squarely at the heart of the breakdown, framing the bilateral issue as a tri-lateral security challenge. The assertion that Kabul is acting on Delhi’s behalf solidifies a narrative in Islamabad that may preempt further diplomatic opening in the near term, as one side views the other as an extension of a primary strategic adversary.
• U.S. Re-engagement Question: The context of these events has also occurred amidst offers of mediation from former US President Donald Trump, suggesting that the failure of the Turkish-Qatari track might push Islamabad or Kabul to more actively court American diplomatic involvement to de-escalate or to balance regional influence.

In conclusion, the events of late October 2025 represent a significant regression in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. The collapse of the Istanbul talks, layered with the explosive rhetoric from Khawaja Asif concerning India’s alleged role, has removed the immediate diplomatic off-ramp. As the region navigates this sharp turn toward potential armed confrontation, the stability of South Asia hinges precariously on the restraint—or miscalculation—of actors along the Durand Line.