‘War crime’ claim puts Afghan–Pakistan truce under strain after Kunar university strike
Taliban officials accuse Pakistan of mortar and missile attacks on a Kunar university and nearby homes, while Islamabad denies it, raising fears the fragile ceasefire may collapse.
A fresh round of fighting has shaken a fragile Afghan–Pakistan ceasefire, after Kabul accused Pakistani forces of striking a university and residential areas in Kunar.
The Taliban’s deputy spokesperson Hamdullah Fitrat said the attacks hit Asadabad and surrounding districts on Monday, killing at least seven people and wounding more than 80, including students and professors from Sayed Jamaluddin Afghani University.. Fitrat called the strikes “unforgivable war crimes” against civilians and academic institutions.. Afghanistan’s Ministry of Higher Education said roughly 30 students and professors were among the wounded and that the university sustained extensive damage.
Pakistan rejected the account outright.. Its Ministry of Information and Broadcasting described claims that Pakistani forces struck the university as a “blatant lie,” and said any targeting by Pakistani forces is “precise and intelligence based,” without explicitly ruling out attacks inside Afghan territory.
What makes Monday’s clash more dangerous is not only the violence, but the lack of shared facts.. With each side offering sharply different versions—Afghan officials alleging attacks on a university and neighborhoods, and Pakistan denying that a strike occurred—every accusation risks hardening positions on both sides just as diplomacy is trying to hold.
The immediate impact is visible where the ceasefire is meant to reduce suffering: border communities in Kunar, a province tightly linked to day-to-day movement across a porous frontier.. When claims multiply and casualties are contested, ordinary people are the ones who live with the uncertainty—whether it’s whether a school can reopen safely, whether another round of shelling is coming, or whether family members will be able to travel without being caught in the next escalation.
That anxiety now feeds into a larger question: can the ceasefire survive when neither side fully trusts the other’s narrative?. Afghan and Pakistani officials have separately confirmed that they have been exchanging fire along the border, even while both sides say they are observing a truce.. In that setting, disagreements over whether an institution was hit—or what targets were intended—can become the spark for a broader breakdown.
Diplomatic efforts have already shown how quickly openings can unravel.. Peace talks hosted by China in Urumqi earlier this month brought delegations from both sides together for the first time since the conflict’s sharpest phase in February and March.. Afghanistan described the discussions as “positive” and “useful,” while Pakistan said progress depended on Kabul.. But the talks ended without a formal agreement or a joint statement, leaving the central dispute unresolved.
The disagreement goes beyond tactical border incidents.. Pakistan accuses Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities of allowing sanctuary to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an armed group with deep ideological and social ties to the Afghan Taliban even though it is distinct.. Pakistan says the TTP and allied militants have carried out sustained attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.. Afghanistan rejects the premise, saying it does not shelter or support the TTP and other anti-Pakistan groups.
Analysts in the region argue that the Urumqi format had built-in limits.. One view is that the contact was thin from the start, with little political engagement and a demand from Pakistan for action “in writing” rather than verbal assurances.. Another view is that both sides may be willing to talk under regional pressure, but once talks end, the underlying problems return—especially when incidents are disputed and verification is missing.
The wider mediation history also matters.. Previous ceasefire efforts mediated by Qatar and Turkey in 2025 were followed by low-level clashes, while a temporary Eid ceasefire in March was immediately disputed.. Afghanistan alleged dozens of mortar strikes by Pakistan in Kunar even while that truce was in effect, and the conflict has included one of the most contentious episodes of the current cycle: a March 16 strike that Afghan officials said destroyed Omar Hospital in Kabul, with Pakistan insisting its target was nearby military installations and an ammunition depot.
Monitors are left with a familiar dilemma.. External mediators can host meetings, but agreements typically depend on trust—or at least credible mechanisms to verify violations.. If parties cannot agree on how to investigate incidents, who verifies them, and what happens when either side claims the other broke an accord, then a ceasefire can become less of a durable commitment and more of a pause that collapses after the next accusation.
China’s role adds a further layer.. As Pakistan’s largest trading partner with major infrastructure interests across the region, Beijing has strong incentives to reduce instability along the border.. Yet regional analysts argue that economic leverage alone cannot substitute for enforceable commitments.. Without written guarantees and a credible enforcement or verification system, even well-intentioned mediation can struggle to produce lasting change.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s own position reflects how the dispute is tied to its internal security and humanitarian pressures.. Kabul has demanded that Pakistan keep borders open, allow trade, resume visas, and accommodate Afghan refugees already in Pakistan.. Pakistan’s stance remains centered on the expectation that cross-border attacks must stop and that assurances must be verifiable in writing.
For now, Monday’s competing claims over the Kunar university strike have reintroduced the same uncertainty that has plagued earlier rounds of diplomacy: each side is trying to define reality before it can agree on terms.. If the ceasefire continues to be met with accusations that both governments deny or dismiss, negotiations—however organized—may remain trapped in a cycle of strain.. The next weeks will likely show whether the truce can be stabilized through clearer communication and verifiable steps, or whether another disputed incident pushes tensions beyond the point of repair.