PK, Oct.16,2025:Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif asserted in a primetime interview as Islamabad and Kabul observed a short, 48‑hour ceasefire after some of the deadliest cross‑border clashes in years. He described the truce as “fragile” and accused Kabul of acting as a “stooge” for New Delhi — a charge that raises the stakes in an already tense neighbourhood-
The 48‑hour ceasefire and the on‑ground reality
A temporary 48‑hour ceasefire came into effect after days of heavy fighting along the Afghanistan‑Pakistan border that left dozens dead and many more wounded. Both Islamabad and Kabul confirmed the truce — though each side framed who requested it differently — and the UN urged both parties to protect civilians and de‑escalate. Independent outlets reported strikes, artillery exchanges and displaced families near border crossings such as Spin Boldak and Chaman.
Khawaja Asif, speaking on Geo News, said that despite the formal ceasefire, he doubted its durability because, in his words, “Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war” made any pause fragile. He warned Pakistan retained the capability to respond forcefully if hostilities resumed.
Khawaja Asif’s seven core claims
Below are the seven main claims Khawaja Asif made when accusing Kabul of acting on behalf of India — each followed by brief context and how outside reporting aligns (or doesn’t) with the claim.
The Taliban in Kabul are being “sponsored by Delhi”
Asif bluntly said Kabul’s actions appear backed by India and described the Afghan side as effectively promoting Indian interests on Pakistani soil. Pakistan’s minister framed this as the underlying reason why the ceasefire might collapse. Independent reporting confirms Asif’s comments but does not independently verify Indian sponsorship.
The 48‑hour ceasefire is “fragile” because of external backing
Asif argued that any external sponsorship (he alleges from India) reduces the likelihood the truce will hold. Observers noted both sides blamed each other for initiating violence; the ceasefire request itself had competing narratives — Islamabad said Kabul requested it, Kabul said Pakistan did. This confusion feeds into Asif’s pessimism.
Pakistan has the capacity to strike anywhere in Afghanistan
In the interview Asif stressed Pakistan’s “capability” to strike Afghan territory if attacks continued. Pakistani officials previously acknowledged cross‑border operations and limited strikes against militant positions; international media documented Pakistani air and artillery responses in recent days. Still, cross‑border strikes into Kabul or Kandahar raise major diplomatic risks.
Kabul’s narrative is a “flood of lies” about Pakistani movements
Asif accused Afghan spokespeople of misrepresenting Pakistan’s troop movements and actions, saying Pakistani accounts should be treated with caution. Both sides have circulated differing versions of incidents and casualties; independent verification has been difficult amid restricted access.
The fighting targets Pakistan’s internal security — not just border control
Asif linked recent skirmishes to a larger pattern involving militants (notably the TTP — Tehrik‑e‑Taliban Pakistan) and alleged sheltering of anti‑Pakistan elements. Islamabad has long accused elements in Afghanistan of providing sanctuary to militants who strike Pakistan; Kabul denies state sponsorship. These longstanding grievances shape Asif’s framing that Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war is part of an effort to destabilise Pakistan.
Pakistan will respond with “full force” if attacks escalate
This was the clearest warning: Asif said Pakistan would answer decisively to any further aggression. Such statements are often intended to deter further escalation but can also harden positions and make diplomacy harder. International actors, including the UN, called for restraint to protect civilians.
The crisis is “complex but solvable” only through dialogue — after pressure
Paradoxically, while Asif accused Kabul of being a proxy for India, he also welcomed a ceasefire as a window to negotiate, implying that pressure and diplomacy must go hand in hand. Regional mediators and statements indicated there was at least some willingness to pursue talks during the truce.
Why he says “Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war”
There are three strategic reasons Islamabad frames the conflict this way-
Historical suspicion and the Durand Line legacy: Pakistan and Afghanistan have a fraught history over the Durand Line and mutual accusations of meddling. Any uptick in border violence revives old suspicions and quickens accusatory rhetoric.
- Domestic politics and security narratives: Casting the adversary as a proxy of a third party (India) helps Islamabad consolidate domestic consensus and justify robust military responses.
- Information warfare: At times of conflict, political leaders use strong language to shape global and regional narratives. Calling out Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war is as much about delegitimising Kabul’s motives as it is a military claim.
Independent reporting shows the facts on the ground are complex: there were real casualties and damage, but direct public evidence of Indian sponsorship of Afghan actions has not been produced by either Pakistan or independent outlets. Reuters, Al Jazeera, AP and others report the exchanges and the ceasefire but stop short of proving external sponsorship.
How Kabul, New Delhi and Islamabad reacted
- Kabul / Afghan Taliban administration: Kabul welcomed the ceasefire and ordered its forces to observe it while warning it would respond if Pakistan violated the truce. The Afghan side denied being a proxy and emphasized sovereign defence.
- New Delhi / India: India has repeatedly denied involvement in cross‑border violence in the region and maintains an official stance against terrorism. At the time of writing there has been no verified reporting from major outlets that India sponsors Afghan actions against Pakistan. International media treat Asif’s charge as an allegation pending evidence.
- Islamabad / Pakistan: Officials framed the ceasefire cautiously and issued warnings. Asif’s remarks were part of a broader official line pointing to external factors behind the violence. Pakistani outlets echoed his skepticism that the ceasefire would hold.
Regional implications and risks
Escalation risk
If either side interprets the other’s actions as proof of third‑party sponsorship, tit‑for‑tat responses may follow, increasing the risk of wider military engagement.
Humanitarian fallout
The UN and aid agencies warned of civilian casualties and displacement. Cross‑border engagement — drone strikes, artillery fire, air raids — exacerbate humanitarian suffering and hinder relief access.
Diplomatic fallout
Accusations like Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war complicate potential mediation by third parties, because they inject an India factor into a bilateral crisis. Regional diplomacy will need careful calibration to avoid turning a temporary truce into a frozen conflict.
Terrorism and safe havens
Longstanding Pakistani concerns about militant safe havens in Afghanistan (and vice versa) mean trust is low. Unless verification mechanisms (monitors, international observers) are agreed, mutual accusations could persist.
Where this leaves the fragile truce
Khawaja Asif’s repeated allegation that Afghanistan fighting India’s proxy war crystallises a broader political narrative in Islamabad that attributes recent hostilities to external meddling. Whether or not independent evidence ultimately supports that charge, the statement matters: it hardens positions, shapes public opinion, and raises the diplomatic stakes.
