Malala Yousafzai recently voiced concerns over Pakistan’s decision to repatriate Afghan refugees, highlighting fears for women and girls under IEA rule and calling for a global response to protect vulnerable individuals. While her humanitarian sentiment is understandable, the context and Pakistan’s longstanding commitment to Afghan refugees deserve a fuller, fact-based examination.
The Historic Humanitarian Commitment
For over four decades, Pakistan has shouldered one of the largest and most sustained humanitarian responsibilities in modern history—hosting over 4 million Afghan refugees. This commitment, driven by compassion rather than obligation, has come at immense economic, social, and security costs. The World Bank and UNHCR estimate that Pakistan bears an annual burden exceeding $200 million, severely straining public services, housing, healthcare, and urban infrastructure, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.
Sovereign Rights and the Need for Balanced Policy
It is essential to recognize that hosting refugees, while deeply humanitarian, is voluntary and not an indefinite obligation. As Pakistan grapples with internal fiscal pressures and growing external threats, a balanced approach prioritizing national security and economic stability has become inevitable. Documented concerns—including smuggling, terrorism, and cross-border militancy involving Afghan nationals—further necessitate responsible, lawful management of refugee populations.
Adherence to International Norms
Importantly, Pakistan’s repatriation policy adheres to international norms. Repatriation is a sovereign and legal right of any nation, especially when conducted humanely and voluntarily, as Pakistan has pledged. Under international law, repatriation is permitted for individuals who do not face specific threats—an important distinction often overlooked. Pakistan, despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, has voluntarily upheld the principle of non-refoulement where applicable, working closely with UNHCR for refugee status determination.
Changed Ground Realities in Afghanistan
It must also be noted that the security situation in Afghanistan has evolved. According to UNAMA, parts of rural Afghanistan and non-conflict zones have seen marked improvement, making safe return a viable option for many. Furthermore, on 17 April 2025, Afghanistan’s Consul General in Peshawar, Hafiz Muhibullah, reaffirmed that vulnerable individuals would not be repatriated and would continue to receive protection.
Complex Realities, Not Blanket Assumptions
Not all returnees face equal risks; conditions vary widely by region, ethnicity, and individual background. Blanket generalizations do a disservice to the nuanced reality on the ground. If Malala Yousafzai or others believe specific individuals are at verifiable risk, the appropriate course is to provide detailed information to humanitarian agencies for proper intervention—not sweeping public criticism.
Regional Comparison
In the broader regional context, Pakistan’s actions stand in sharp contrast to those of other states. Iran, a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, recently deported over 100,000 Afghan refugees and has openly denied accepting any new asylum claims. Meanwhile, the United States—also bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention via the 1967 Protocol—has implemented a deportation drive imposing daily fines of $998 on undocumented Afghan migrants.
Despite lacking formal obligations under the Refugee Convention, Pakistan continues to exercise restraint, compassion, and adherence to humane standards. However, it is neither fair nor sustainable to expect Pakistan to indefinitely carry this burden alone. If the international community is truly concerned, it must step up: expand resettlement pathways, increase funding, and share the responsibility more equitably.
Also See: Afghan Consul General Praises Pakistan for Hosting Afghan Refugees
Strengthening Pak-Afghan Diplomacy
This issue should not be allowed to derail Pak-Afghan diplomacy. Managing refugee repatriation with dignity and mutual understanding remains crucial for both nations’ stability and future cooperation. Constructive international engagement, rather than misplaced criticism, is what will truly serve the interests of vulnerable Afghans.
