Why has Satluj movie banned just two days after its release in India?

By Agha Iqrar Haroon

Director General Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, during his press briefing on July 8, 2026, re-emphasized that Afghan soil under the control of the Taliban regime was being used to carry out terrorist attacks against Pakistan.

Everybody who follows security issues knows that the Afghan Taliban regime is funding, hosting, facilitating, and providing weapons to terrorists and is directly involved in planning terrorism inside Pakistan. It is one of the reasons why Pakistan, in 2023, decided to send illegal Afghan nationals back to Afghanistan, and this process is continuing. However, the KP government has been found to facilitate illegal Afghans staying in the province that is the greatest victim of terrorism. PTI and certain politicians from KP and Balochistan express a soft corner or a kind of support for Afghans. These factors help Afghans hide and live within Pakistan and even receive help from the civil administrative system to obtain Pakistani CNICs and property documents. Sending Afghans back is no longer a simple exercise and requires synchronization between the provincial and federal governments. Lt Gen Chaudhry, during his press conference, categorically said that Pakistan would continue to send illegally residing Afghan nationals back to Afghanistan.

Independent writers, journalists, social workers, and even moderate politicians from KP and Balochistan have another story to tell. They sometimes claim that cleaning Pakistan of Afghan influence requires a narrative shift that has yet to take place. State media institutions, state writers and ruling politicians rightfully indicate that the Afghan Taliban regime is behind the spread of terrorism, but they at the same time also promote the view that a common Afghan is brother may not be against Pakistan. This confusing narrative might be helping Afghans gain local support because, over the last 45 years, Pakistan has promoted the idea that “Afghans are our Muslim brothers” and that we should help them because they are refugees. For a simple person who has full confidence in state institutions, the cognitive framework is that “Afghans are our brothers.” Despite Afghanistan costing Pakistan enormous losses in the form of human casualties, economic meltdown, terrorism, and economic terrorism, Afghanistan is still being considered by state media outlets as a “brotherly country.” This strange narrative helps create further confusion among Pakistanis, particularly those living in Balochistan and KP, that Afghans are involved in terrorism against Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban funds terrorists against Pakistan, yet Afghanistan is a brotherly country.

Since the 1980s, three major narratives have been established regarding Afghans in Pakistan:

• Afghans are Muslims; therefore, they should have the right to live in or be allowed to stay in Pakistan.
• Afghans are Muslim brothers with historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Pakistan; therefore, they should be allowed to live in Pakistan.
• Afghans are Pashtuns, and many families live on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; therefore, they should have the right to live in Pakistan.

Since the 1980s, a pro-Afghan mindset has developed based on the above premises, and challenging these premises has generally not been encouraged in Pakistan. According to this view, this approach has had serious consequences for Pakistan, the results of which are now evident. All three major premises should be examined critically through simple questions and answers.

The first premise is: “Afghans are Muslims; therefore, they should have the right to live in or be allowed to stay in Pakistan.” The question is: Are Afghans the only Muslims in the world besides Pakistanis? The answer is no. Should Pakistan, then, allow the entire Muslim population of the world to live in the country without valid travel or residence documents? The simple answer is no. There is no such thing as a “Muslim visa” that allows Muslims from around the world to live in any Muslim-majority country without obtaining a valid visa from the host country.

The second premise is: “Afghans have historical, linguistic, and cultural linkages with Pakistan; therefore, they should be allowed to live in Pakistan.” If the same premise is applied consistently, then Pakistan should also allow Indian citizens of Sindhi, Punjabi, and Kashmiri origin to live in Pakistan because the culture, language, traditions, and history of Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab are closely linked. Similarly, Indian Sindhis and Pakistan’s Sindh share common cultural roots, as do Indian and Pakistani Kashmiris.

The third premise is that Afghans are Pashtuns and that families live on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; therefore, they should have the right to travel or live in Pakistan without legal documentation. Using the same logic, Indian Punjabis, Indian Sindhis, and Indian Kashmiris should have the same right to travel, live, or stay in Pakistan without legal documentation because the Partition of 1947 divided their families between two countries, and relatives continue to live on both sides of the border.

Another premise often presented is that Afghanistan is a friendly country. This premise, too, is historically disputed. Afghanistan was the only country that opposed Pakistan’s admission as an independent state to the United Nations. It was also the first country to undertake military action against Pakistan during the Bajaur campaigns of 1960–64, even before the Indo-Pakistani War was fought on internationally recognized borders (as the Kashmir conflict was not fought entirely on internationally recognized borders). Afghanistan was also the first country to provide asylum to anti-Pakistan elements, particularly those from Balochistan, beginning in the early 1970s and, according to this view, continues the same policy today.

Furthermore, the total number of casualties suffered by Pakistan in all Indo-Pak wars is, according to this argument, less than of the casualties caused by terrorism sponsored from Afghanistan. This raises the question of how Afghanistan can be considered a friendly country while India is regarded as the principal rival when, according to this perspective, the economic, human, and cultural costs imposed on Pakistan by Afghanistan have been greater than those resulting from hostility with India and Afghanistan and India always collaborate to harm Pakistan.

Additionally, history shows that Kabul and New Delhi have often cooperated against Pakistan. If that is the case, how can one be regarded as a friend while the other is considered an enemy?

This confusion over whether Afghanistan is a friendly country or an enemy country is one of the main reasons that state institutions have been working hard for the last several years to send illegal Afghans back to Afghanistan, but thousands, if not millions, are still living in Pakistan.

Several researches (for example, Kahneman, 2011; National Research Council, 2000; Sweller, 1988; D’Mello & Graesser, 2012) on cognitive processes, social structures, and beliefs indicates that confusion can create a kind of cognitive “blurriness” that can temporarily reduce the clarity of beliefs and decision-making by increasing uncertainty and cognitive load. When you are confused, one or more of these things may be happening:

The most dangerous part of confusion is that it reduces conceptual clarity. Ideas that were once distinct can begin to overlap. You may have trouble seeing how concepts differ or relate to each other, creating a sense of “mental fog” or blurriness.

For example:

Certainty: “I know X is true.”

Confusion: “The evidence for and against X both seem compelling. I’m not sure anymore.”

There are also cases where confusion becomes persistent. If someone is exposed to contradictory information without a way to evaluate it, the blurriness can remain. They may:

• become indecisive,
• switch between incompatible beliefs,
• lose confidence in their own judgment, or
• avoid making decisions altogether.

So, confusion can create cognitive blurriness about beliefs and approaches, and that is what many among us, particularly those living in KP and Balochistan, are facing regarding Afghans and Afghanistan.

The state should be clear Afghan Taliban who inject terrorism inside Pakistan are our enemies and everyone who harms Pakistan is enemy whatever ethnic background, religious believe and social group he/she belongs.

Note: Writer Agha Iqrar Haroon is a Pakistani research journalist, political analyst, author, and documentary producer. He is known for his reporting Afghan War (1995-97 and 2003-2006), regional affairs and governance, and has worked with a number of Pakistani and international media organizations over a career spanning several decades.

Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/opinion/comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.