KEY POINTS
- Afghanistan’s instability is rooted in historical state formation and ethnic divisions
- Power has historically been concentrated in Pashtun-led institutions
- Cross-border ethnic ties complicate national cohesion and policy-making
- Debate continues over territorial restructuring versus federal reform
Chronic instability did not begin with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the rise of the Taliban, or post-2001 international intervention; it is embedded in the inherited egoistic tribal mindset of the entire region that historically insists on the assertion of ethnic individualism.
Its roots stretch back to the very formation of the Afghan state — a venture of statehood and an expression of statesmanship.
A project that fused diverse ethnic regions under a central authority that never fully achieved inclusive legitimacy.
Historical foundations of fragile state
Modern Afghanistan traces its political origins to the mid-18th century, when Ahmad Shah Durrani, also known as Ahmad Shah Abdali, consolidated Pashtun tribes and established the Durrani Empire in 1747.
His rule laid the foundation of Afghan statehood but relied on tribal alliances and military dominance rather than inclusive institutions.
Governance was heavily Pashtun-centric, leaving Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and other minorities politically marginalised.
Ethnic geography and political power
Afghanistan today is approximately 42 per cent Pashtun, 27 per cent Tajik, and 9 per cent each Hazara and Uzbek, with smaller groups including Turkmen, Baloch, and other minority communities.
Pashto and Dari are official languages, but political power has historically remained concentrated in Pashtun networks.
This has reinforced perceptions of structural exclusion among minorities.
Ethnic geography further entrenched these divisions: Pashtuns dominate the south and east, Tajiks the northeast and urban centres, Uzbeks the north, and Hazaras the central highlands.
Decades of forced migrations, land redistributions, and political manipulation have intensified these patterns.
Cross-border identities and regional dynamics
Tajiks share linguistic and cultural ties with Tajikistan, Uzbeks with Uzbekistan, and Pashtuns with Pakistan.
These affiliations have influenced political alignments and foreign interventions, weakening Afghan national cohesion.
Analysts note that these cross-border networks have historically acted as both support structures and sources of conflict, complicating governance.
Militant safe havens and security spillover
Afghanistan’s fragmented authority has enabled the proliferation of militant and extremist groups.
Weak central control, porous borders, and rugged terrain enable these actors to establish bases and logistical networks, which threaten regional security.
According to United Nations Security Council reports, insurgent activity has repeatedly spilt across borders, highlighting the link between governance deficits and regional instability.
The case for territorial restructuring
Some scholars and policy experts have proposed the peaceful partition of Afghanistan along ethnic and regional lines.
Under this framework, Uzbek-majority areas could align with Uzbekistan, Tajik-majority regions with Tajikistan, and Pashtun-majority territories could potentially integrate with Pakistan.
Remaining Hazara-dominated regions and mixed territories could form an independent state with international guarantees.
Advocates argue that smaller, ethnically coherent units could strengthen local governance, improve border management, and enhance counterterrorism cooperation.
Risks and counterarguments
Critics caution that partition could trigger population transfers, new border disputes, and violent contestation over mixed territories such as Kabul and resource-rich provinces.
Afghanistan’s interwoven communities, shared infrastructure, and economic interdependence make clean territorial separation extremely challenging.
Redrawing borders could also destabilise neighbouring states by inflaming separatist or nationalist movements.
Beyond partition: alternative pathways
A more feasible approach may lie between rigid centralisation and outright fragmentation.
Federalism, meaningful decentralisation, revenue-sharing, and institutional power-sharing mechanisms could address ethnic grievances without dismantling the state.
Durable peace would also require sustained regional diplomacy and binding non-interference commitments from neighbouring countries.
Afghanistan’s enduring instability is not merely a security problem but a structural one, rooted in history, identity, and governance.
Whether through restructuring, federal reform, or inclusive governance, any long-term solution must reconcile political borders with social realities to break cycles of conflict and promote regional stability.
