By Neelapu Shanti

The news report about India seeking a United Nations Sanctions Committee (UNSC) travel ban waiver for Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s  proposed visit to New Delhi this month appears to solidify India’s engagements with the de facto authorities, who were once kept at arm’s length from any form of engagement in the history of India–Afghanistan relations, which are anchored in the 1950 Treaty of Friendship and the India–Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA).

India’s engagement with the Taliban- a terror faction, will only be meaningful if it avoids conditional or geopolitical calculations and presses for an inclusive government in Afghanistan. Otherwise, such interactions merely reflect conditionality, leaving the Afghan people sidelined and reduced to pawns in regional rivalries.

The destiny of the Afghan population cannot rely solely on humanitarian assistance, as that is only a short-term measure. For the country’s long-term development, Afghans need a democratic process that aligns with their aspirations for seeking modern education, economic growth, and infrastructure development, enabling them to become self-reliant. Democratic traditions, the parliamentary system of debate, press freedom, and a commitment to inclusiveness exists in India and other countries of the world- Afghan people aspired to develop a similar system of governance in their own country.

The question is whether India’s engagement with the Taliban has helped ordinary Afghans in any way over the past four years. India’s aim in stepping up its efforts through a technical mission in 2022 was to support the people of Afghanistan, particularly by impressing the Taliban to align with the Doha mandates of inclusivity and the restoration of women’s rights. Following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 2021, India subsequently shut down its mission and consulates in Afghanistan.

To what extent can the Taliban be considered the legitimate representative of the Afghan people? It remains unclear whether India is engaging primarily with the Taliban regime or with the broader Afghan population that continues to struggle under Taliban rule.

Stark Contrasts and Silences

“Some make a distinction between ‘good Taliban’ and ‘bad Taliban’ – I don’t, because I’ve seen the Taliban, they have only one cult– the cult of violence,” observed the late former Foreign Minister of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee. This statement came against the backdrop of former Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s initiative to engage with the “good Taliban” in the peace process in 2007.

In 2018, unlike other countries that deputed serving representatives, India declined to send a diplomat to the Russia-sponsored Moscow peace conference with the Taliban, instead nominating former envoys Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan to participate at the “non-official level.”

India’s engagement with the Taliban deepened since 2022 through various close door meetings, Indian delegations visiting Kabul from time to time.

In 2022, under India’s presidency, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2593, which demanded that Afghan territory should not be used to threaten or attack any country, shelter or train terrorists, or plan or finance terrorist acts. India also called for an inclusive regime that represents all segments of Afghan society.

In July 2025, India abstained from voting on the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution on the situation in Afghanistan and noted that a “business as usual” -approach without new and targeted initiatives is unlikely to deliver the outcomes the international community envisions for the Afghan people, said, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish

India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, highlighted his conversation with Amir Khan Muttaqi on the Pahalgam terrorist attack, projecting cooperation with the Taliban as pragmatic engagement. Yet, when the Afghan Mission was forced to shut down in September 2023, India chose silence, hiding behind a “wait and watch” narrative. This double standard undermines New Delhi’s credibility on women’s rights and inclusivity, exposing its Taliban policy as one driven by convenience rather than principle.

India’s approach towards Afghanistan reflects a lack of balance, shifting from supporting only legitimate governments to engaging with the Taliban. A country that once refused to engage with terrorists or terror groups now openly embraces them. Is this our strategic interest or moral dilemma that we are yearning for the people of Afghanistan?

Isn’t it unconceivable for the regional countries to know that 78 percent of young Afghan women and girls are not in education, employment or training and have no chance to fully participate in the economy and the society of Afghanistan under Taliban’s regime?

The record of India’s historical relationship with the people of Afghanistan, the larger aim ought to have been to get a government that is elected by the people which will force those in power to seek the good will of the people and caring for them rather than allowing the rulers to dictate terms to the people.

As per the recent reports, Afghanistan has once again become safe haven for multinational and transnational terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS. Reports indicate that al-Qaeda is rebuilding its operational capacity inside Afghanistan. While the Taliban and even many global powers deliberately downplay the network’s presence, the reality is that al-Qaeda, working in close coordination with the Taliban, is establishing new bases in strategic and mountainous regions, particularly in Panjshir Province. Local sources in Panjshir report that al-Qaeda has trained roughly 500 newly recruited fighters, mostly from Arab countries, with some from Somalia, in both military tactics and ideological indoctrination. The question remains-who is funding these terror groups and why? Who are these terror groups targeting?

Decoding Legitimacy

The enhancement of state legitimacy is a central dimension of multilateral development assistance and a prerequisite for stable peace. Legitimacy may be understood in two ways: (i) as the acceptance of political authority by a population, or (ii) as political authority acquired and exercised by the will of the people according to socially accepted normative standards and criteria, such as a Loya Jirga. This raises two critical questions: first, has the Taliban assumed legitimacy by any of these means? Second, on what grounds are bilateral engagements being pursued when the people of Afghanistan neither recognise nor credit Taliban governance which lacks social and political landscape that is acceptable to the people of Afghanistan, 

A state's political legitimacy earned through people’s mandate determines the quality of governance. The idea that citizens support the state's policies and actions and feel comfortable abiding by those rules matters significantly for governance because of three reasons. First, if citizens have confidence in the state's right to hold and exercise political power, it creates a conducive environment for the state to formulate and execute its policies, enhancing the quality and effectiveness of such policies. Second, conformity to rules and regulations creates a better rule of law, a critical governance component. Third, citizens feel comfortable voicing their opinions in a politically legitimate state without engaging in politically motivated violence. All these factors improve the quality of governance. Therefore, people elected political legitimacy determines the quality of governance which Afghan people are aspiring for decades.

A people elected government will be a better bet for regional security and for the long-term interests of the region.

Afghan Crisis- The Way Forward

Regional stakeholders, including India, must adopt a constructive approach to support Afghanistan in establishing a legitimate government. If this effort proves unsuccessful, alternatives such as supporting a government-in-exile or convening a Loya Jirga (Grand Assembly) should be pursued to ensure inclusive representation and safeguard Afghanistan’s sovereignty.

Instead, the country risks being dragged into proxy wars, as seen when Afghan Taliban fighters joined the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in clashes with the Pakistani military, resulting in casualties and bodies returned to Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan International news reported unidentified drones targeted fighters of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Hafiz Gul Bahadur faction in three Afghan provinces on 27 August.The drones are believed to have belonged to the Pakistani military.

This highlights a troubling pattern of external interference that sacrifices Afghan youth for regional agendas. Countries playing a destabilizing role must be restrained—if necessary, through force—to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a perpetual battlefield.

Afghanistan’s stability remains at risk as regional and global actors debate their engagement with the Taliban. Entrusting the country to the Taliban or pursuing power-sharing arrangements would likely trigger another uncontrollable civil war, destabilizing the wider region. The conflict is not merely internal but shaped by the geopolitical ambitions of external players, particularly Pakistan’s persistent interference. Major powers—including China, the United States, Russia, Iran, and India—have used Afghanistan as a venue for proxy rivalries, while terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Taliban affiliates exploit Afghan territory to expand their operations. Decades of bloodshed demonstrate that Afghanistan cannot continue to serve as a battleground for competing interests.

A durable solution requires treating terrorism as a global menace that cannot be defeated through fragmented national or regional efforts. The international community must adopt a coordinated approach: ending proxy warfare, cutting financial and arms flows to terrorist groups, dismantling the Taliban’s opium trade, and initiating UN-led peace talks from a position of combined military and moral strength. Regional cooperation will be essential, with neighboring countries shedding rivalries and engaging constructively to prevent further destabilization. Ultimately, only a united global effort can secure Afghanistan’s future and prevent the export of terror beyond its borders.

The regional stakeholders should align its support for a legitimate governance in Afghanistan which constitutes both strategic necessity and moral obligation.

Choice is ours!

Neelapu Shanti is a New Delhi Based international affairs research analyst, writer, journalist and Indo-Afghan analyst. MA in International Relations Post-Graduate in Journalism.

Academicians and Officials interested to publish their academic pieces on this page, please approach us through: contact@aissonline.org.

The article does not reflect the official opinion of the AISS.