Friday, 27 February 2026

Re: Anatomical Demography of Afghanistan

                           By
                   Dr.Adil Mufti

To understand Afghanistan you have to sudy its demographics. It reveals a nation deeply divided by power. 

Pashtuns, comprising 42% of the population, form the largest group, followed by Tajiks 27% , Hazaras 10% Uzbeks
10% and others like Aimaqs, Turkmens, and Baloch.

Yet, the Taliban are overwhelmingly Pashtun in leadership dominating 95% of senior roles and key ministries has consolidated authority along ethnic lines. Non-Pashtun groups face systemic marginalization: limited cabinet representation, purges in security apparatuses and exclusion from important portfolios. This has fueled perceptions of an occupying force in Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek heartlands, where local tribal governance offers only partial autonomy.

Afghanistan remains predominantly rural, with about 80% of its people in rural countryside areas reliant on traditional governance structures. The Taliban's rule through coercion and fear echoes patterns seen accross the borders where one dominant ethnicity often exceeding 60% in other nations grips national power, sidelining others and stifling genuine inclusivity.

True stability demands power-sharing that reflects Afghanistan's diversity, not ethnic hegemony. Without it, resentment simmers, risking renewed conflict in a fragile land.

Demography is one factor but there  are other key causes of conflict .pashtuns are sunnis . and hazaras are shias while , tajiks etc are sunni/ shias mix .

There is sectarian sectarian fault line in Afghanistan . Another stark difference is language . Pashtuns speak pushto while others are farsi speaking clans . Then wealthy areas where precious stone mining is ,always with non pashtuns, like panj sheer valley . Afghanistan is conflict prone from centuries.


Pakistan -Afghanistan Armed Conflict- The Fourth Round of Great Game

The Fourth Round of the Great Game in Afghanistan: Which Country Will Support Whom?

We are perceiving Pakistan-Afghanistan relations only through the lens of border skirmishes, refugees, and the TTP, but this is merely the surface level of the issues.

In the depths, a global strategic game is underway, in which India, China, Russia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States are all moving their own pieces.

Marvin Weinbaum, a former analyst for the US State Department, says that the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship cannot be viewed in isolation; both are part of a broader regional chessboard.

In 1904, at the Royal Geographical Society in London, the British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder said, "Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world."

This statement rings just as true today in 2026. Afghanistan is the gateway to this "Heartland," and Pakistan is the gatekeeper of that door. But this time, the conflict is beginning between the household and the gatekeeper, and perhaps neither knows what is going to happen to them in the future?

The "Great Game" being played in Afghanistan is a contest whose first round (1830-1907) began between Britain and Russia on January 12, 1830, when London ordered the establishment of new trade routes to India.

Britain feared that Russia would reach India, and Russia feared that Britain would occupy Central Asia.

The core of the game was espionage, map-making, and bribing local rulers. Back then, Afghanistan became the center of this entire chessboard. Britain attempted to make Afghanistan a "buffer zone."

This game formally ended with the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, but it left behind a devastated economy, quiet political movements, and millions of innocent deaths.

The second round (1979-1989) was between the Soviet Union and the United States.

The Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 marked the return of the Great Game. The US, Western countries, and Israel armed the mujahideen through Pakistan, leading to the Soviet Union's defeat.

According to the East Asia Forum, the third round (2001-2021) began with America's failed war.

In 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan, which became the longest war in American history. Like the British and Russian empires, America became mired in a frustrating stalemate.

With America's defeat and the arrival of the Afghan Taliban, the fourth round of the Great Game has already begun, and with new players too. Pakistan may target Kabul again in the coming days. If this conflict spreads over time, you could also call it a "new twist in the fourth round of the Great Game."

China's re-emerging power and Russia-China cooperation have revived the Heartland theory. After the US withdrawal, "Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran are coming together in the next chapter of the Great Game."

The Friday Times writes, "The concept of strategic depth has backfired; Pakistan is falling victim to cross-border attacks by the very groups it once nurtured." In other words, secretive external powers competing in the fourth Great Game are entering the field and pulling the Afghan Taliban, including the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) – who are capable of creating chaos – towards their side.

However, like the rulers of the past, the Afghan Taliban are now trapped in this fourth Great Game; they must decide their direction at this crossroads. They have to choose between a new war or the development of their country, and both of these decisions are linked to their relationship with Pakistan.

It's not that Pakistan will remain unharmed; it will be harmed. In fact, Pakistan also needs peace in Afghanistan, not war, for its own development. According to the think tank Chatham House, "Pakistan's development depends on CPEC, and CPEC depends on the stability of its western border, which is connected to Afghanistan."

How tense the situation between Pakistan and Afghanistan could become can be gauged from the fact that in January 2026, the International Crisis Group (ICG) in Brussels listed Pakistan-Afghanistan relations among the "ten most dangerous conflicts of 2026."

The ICG's most startling revelation was, "The Taliban publicly deny any link with the TTP, but behind the scenes, they themselves admit that due to ideological and tribal connections, they cannot take decisive action against the TTP."

And an even greater danger is this: "If the Taliban cracks down on the TTP, its members will join ISIS-Khorasan, which is a far more dangerous and global organization."

According to the Lowy Institute (Sydney), Afghanistan is on its way to becoming a "global narcotics hub" by shifting from opium to methamphetamine, while Russia just days ago reported the presence of thousands of foreign jihadists in Afghanistan. This means everything needed to destabilize the entire region is present in Afghanistan.

According to the East Asia Forum (Australian National University), for peace on the Pakistan-Afghan border, "a purely military strategy will not work. Political engagement in the Pashtun border areas is essential. Without sustainable security cooperation, these two countries will remain trapped in a cycle of conflict for a long time."

India is rapidly establishing a foothold in Afghanistan, China has its eye on Afghanistan's three trillion dollars' worth of minerals. President Trump is also searching for rare metals, while Russia wants to benefit quietly.

In the event of conflict, Afghanistan will continue to receive external allies and behind-the-scenes support over time, the people will continue to die, and the region will remain plagued by instability. A single question stands before both: do they want to trade in corpses or in vegetables and fruits?

If Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban view the situation in a broader context, the lives of the people in both countries, along with the region, could be transformed. The world order is changing; this is a time for agreements on the eastern and western borders, not for war. Other countries have nothing at stake; they will only pour weapons and money into this Great Game – it is your blood that will be spilled.