Pashtun Voices Reject Role in India-Pakistan Conflict: Former Taliban Diplomat Sparks Debate 

By Jalal Pacha

In a climate of renewed tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, a surprising voice has entered the conversation — that of Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan during Taliban’s first regime (1990s). In a widely shared post on X (formerly Twitter), Zaeef issued a cautionary message to Pashtuns, warning them not to allow themselves to be used as pawns in a conflict he characterized as a “political war” with no religious justification.

Writing in Pashto, Zaeef urged Pashtuns to “keep themselves and their children out of this game,” hinting at what he believes to be a longstanding strategy by Pakistan’s military establishment to mobilize Pashtun youth under the banner of jihad, especially during periods of heightened geopolitical strain. His comments come at a time of increasing nationalist rhetoric on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, following recent cross-border accusations and the tragic Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir that claimed the lives of 26 Indian tourists.

Zaeef’s remarks carry weight not only because of his former high-ranking position within the Taliban but also because of his insider knowledge of Pakistani military and intelligence circles. Having been detained at Guantanamo Bay before being released in 2005, Zaeef has since adopted a more moderate tone, frequently speaking against foreign interventions and proxy wars.

His warning resonates with many Pashtuns across the region, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, who feel increasingly alienated from Pakistan’s military leadership, which remains heavily dominated by Punjabis. These tensions are nothing new — Pashtuns have long complained of economic marginalization, military repression, and political underrepresentation within Pakistan.

Zaeef’s social media post was soon echoed by sentiments on the ground. A viral video from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa showed an Islamic preacher declaring that if India attacked Pakistan, Pashtuns would side with the Indian Army. “They (Pakistan’s Army) have committed so many atrocities against us Pashtuns,” the preacher said, “and you think we will say ‘Zindabad’ (long live) for Pakistan? Never.”

Such statements may seem extreme, but they reflect decades of unresolved grievances. The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), a grassroots civil rights movement in Pakistan, has long accused the Pakistani military of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and brutal crackdowns in tribal areas. The preacher’s message — and Zaeef’s — taps into this simmering anger.

What makes Zaeef’s intervention particularly notable is his attempt to reframe the India-Pakistan conflict in ethnic rather than religious terms. By calling it a political war, he distances the broader Muslim community — particularly Pashtuns — from what is often framed by Islamabad as a religious struggle. This framing challenges one of the key ideological tools used historically by the Pakistani state to rally support for its conflicts: the invocation of Islamic unity.

Reactions to Zaeef’s post have been mixed. Some praise his boldness in challenging dominant narratives and speaking out for Pashtun autonomy, while others express caution or outright support for his core message. 

Several Pashto-speaking users on X echoed Zaeef’s concerns, arguing that the conflict between India and Pakistan is being manipulated by what they described as the “terrorist and oppressive Punjabi-led military regime” in Pakistan. They insisted that the war holds no religious legitimacy and that Pashtuns, Baloch, and other marginalized communities should refuse to participate in a political conflict that does not serve their interests.

One user emphatically stated, “Pashtuns and Baloch should not join this war. The Punjabi military regime is the enemy of Islam and must be dismantled.” Another highlighted India’s history of friendship and support for Afghanistan, contrasting it with Pakistan’s duplicity, and insisted that the India-Pakistan conflict does not qualify as jihad. They urged Afghans not to be misled, arguing that Pakistan was only using Islam to protect its own survival.

Still, not all responses were entirely supportive. Tahir Khan, a Pakistani journalist, respectfully addressed Zaeef in response to his tweet, stating, “I have no right to criticize your words, but as a brother, I believe such language is not helpful at this time.” He pointed out that Indian attacks have also harmed civilians, including women, and urged caution against oversimplifying the conflict.

Together, these responses reflect a deepening divide between Pashtuns and the Pakistani state, along with an increasing unwillingness to accept traditional state narratives at face value. The discussion also reveals an emerging political consciousness among Pashtuns, rooted in historical grievances, ethnic identity, and a desire for autonomy over their own destiny—especially when it comes to war.

Nevertheless, Zaeef’s intervention underscores a crucial truth in South Asian geopolitics: ethnic minorities are often caught in the crossfire of state rivalries. Whether it’s the use of Kashmiris as political leverage by Pakistan or the conscription of Pashtun fighters into proxy wars, the burden of conflict disproportionately falls on those least represented in decision-making circles.

As the region braces for what many hope will be only rhetorical escalation, voices like Zaeef’s serve as a reminder that not all conflicts should be accepted at face value — and that solidarity, even within a state, is never guaranteed when historical wounds remain unhealed.

Jalal Pacha (a pseudonym) is a member of the Pakistani diaspora community in London and an advocate for refugees.

Note: The contents of the article are of sole responsibility of the author. Afghan Diaspora Network will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in the articles.