Afghanistan’s Durand Line Dilemma: How Territorial Claims Undermine Stability

The Durand Line issue is arguably South Asia's longest and most destabilizing legacy of colonialism. Afghanistan’s refusal of this border for over a hundred years has given space for conflict against Pakistan, enabling Islamabad to use the war for its own benefit through proxy war, economic pressure, and diplomatic manipulation. The study attests to the fact that Afghanistan's obstinacy over border disputes remains at a lethal cost: diverting resources that were needed for state building, further entrenching security crises, and making the country vulnerable to foreign intervention. Some examples of Pakistan's strategic manipulation of the Durand Line dispute to destabilize Afghanistan include the provision of funds to terrorist networks like the Haqqani Network and TTP, retaliatory border shutdowns worth $300 million annually to Afghanistan, repatriating refugee flow to place pressure on Kabul's weakened infrastructure. Afghanistan, meanwhile, is committing 28% of its security budget to defending its frontier rather than achieving domestic stability. Thus, there is a vicious circle of dependence and war. This essay argues that Afghanistan must relinquish symbolic territorial maximalism and embrace pragmatic settlement. Riding on success of post-colonial frontier settlements such as the 2015 India-Bangladesh land swap, the paper argues that third party mediation to seal and settle the Durand Line would unlock security, economic, and diplomatic dividends. By removing Pakistan's rationale for interference, Afghanistan will regain sovereignty, channel resources to development, and even out regionally. The choice is easy: keep up a losing fight on Victorian frontiers or capitalise on stability, sovereignty, and the people’s happiness.