Pakistan has sharply responded to recent Afghan Taliban remarks about dialogue and intelligence cooperation, saying Kabul must take concrete action against militant networks that Islamabad says operate from Afghan territory.
Dawn reported on September 20 that Pakistan's Information Ministry said Islamabad had consistently pursued dialogue and constructive engagement, but would not accept talks being used, in its view, to shield actors threatening Pakistani citizens.
The response followed an interview in which Afghan Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said Afghanistan wanted dialogue with Pakistan and called for stronger mechanisms for intelligence sharing and bilateral cooperation.
Mujahid also welcomed a potentially larger Saudi role in mediation, describing Saudi Arabia as a friend of both countries. That is Kabul's stated position and does not by itself establish that a new formal mediation framework has been agreed.
Pakistan's Information Ministry also rejected Kabul's warning of retaliation if Islamabad carried out military action inside Afghanistan. Pakistan says Afghan authorities should act against groups operating across the border rather than deflect responsibility.
The Afghan Taliban government has repeatedly rejected allegations that it permits anti-Pakistan armed groups to use Afghan territory. Kabul argues that Pakistan's internal security problems are primarily Pakistan's responsibility.
Relations between the neighbours have been strained by border clashes, allegations involving the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, trade disruptions and periodic closures of border crossings.
Islamabad regards the TTP as a major internal security threat and has repeatedly demanded effective Afghan action against it. Kabul says it does not allow Afghan territory to be used against other countries.
The latest statements suggest that neither side is entirely closing the door to talks, while significant disagreements remain over militancy, sovereignty and cross-border military action.
Margalla News attributes the competing claims to the respective governments. Contested allegations about militant networks, responsibility for attacks or state support are not treated as independently established facts without supporting evidence.