By Neelapu Shanti

While Afghans suffer, regional powers chase “strategic interests” — connectivity, resources, proxy wars — all paid for in Afghan blood.

The four years of Taliban rule have been marked by a dictatorship led by a few religious leaders and designated terrorists, incapable of understanding the needs of a developing society, recognizing the importance of education and skills, or alleviating the suffering of the Afghan people. Taliban have been imposing harsh edicts; restrictions banning education to women and girl children and they do not consider them as an additional hand in the nation building. 

In the absence of laws, the people are not given a fair trial in which evidence, witnesses, or the opportunity to defend themselves are absent, and instead they must endure public flogging or stoning—a blatant violation of human dignity. By engaging with a terror state ruled by terrorists, are the countries of the world not complicit in degrading the Afghan people?

In any system where rulers are not required to seek the mandate of the people, they become arrogant and the needs of the people are neglected. Such rulers tend to formulate rules that serve their own interests. Should we not strive to provide the Afghan people with a government that represents the people, assistance that will be truly humanitarian in nature?

International Engagements with the Taliban

Four years into Taliban control, the question of how the international community has responded to the Afghan crisis remains pivotal, given the fact that Afghans are struggling for sustenance. The international community was fully aware that conditional engagement could serve as leverage over the Taliban, and equally aware that none of the commitments made in the Doha Agreement had been fulfilled. Nevertheless, 16 of the 66 diplomatic missions established under the Republic Government of Afghanistan were transferred to Taliban control by host countries (covertly or overtly)—an action lying outside the scope of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Taliban’s subsequent record of compliance, including with assurances given to the United States during negotiations, offers little evidence of change. The absence of the inclusive government long demanded by the international community speaks for itself.

Russia

On July 3, Russia has formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. “We believe that the act of official recognition of the government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will give impetus to the development of productive bilateral cooperation between our countries in various fields,” the statement said.

In April 2025, Russia has removed the Taliban from a list of banned terrorist organisations despite the fact that they are on the UN blacklist. Lavrov said at the time that “the new authorities in Kabul are a reality,” real power, adding Moscow should adopt a “pragmatic, not ideologised policy” towards the Taliban.

How does Russia view the Taliban as “the real power”? It is pertinent to understand that real power lies with the people of the land, not in the power of the gun, which the Taliban have been using to rule Afghanistan.

Does Moscow’s decision to appoint a defence attaché to Afghanistan imply that Moscow trusts the Taliban and hopes that it will fight ISIS-K to prevent the terror group from targeting Russia? Absolutely no!

According to the TASS, Russia's state news agency, reported on August 10, that investigations indicate one of the perpetrators of the attack on the Crocus Moscow concert hall had traveled to Afghanistan with a fake passport and had received training in Afghanistan on "skills for carrying out terrorist attacks." The attack on the Crocus Moscow concert hall took place on March 22, 2024, and resulted in at least 145 deaths.

Russia’s approach legitimising Taliban needs to be assessed based on the security and threat implications; otherwise, mistaken assessment and actions at random are likely to draw smaller countries into the Russian path, causing a major catastrophe for the entire world and push Afghanistan to attain its freedom to have a democratic set, as major countries function today.

China

China does not want the terror-ridden Xinjiang to be affected by the Uyghurs who are part of the Taliban or to be used against them. China’s economic interests in Afghanistan revolve around significant investments in the mining sector — the Mes Aynak copper mine and the oil extraction contract in the Northern provinces of Farvab and Sar-e-Pol.

In Afghanistan, China eyes massive lithium & copper reserves. Deals with the Taliban regime aren’t about peace—they’re about mining and plugging Afghanistan into Chinese-controlled corridors like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). So, China is the first country to accept an illegitimate Taliban Ambassador in Beijing. China’s trap: China controls major mining operations, often with little transparency and few local benefits. Likewise, what we see, zero share of Afghan people. The question is, what are we really giving away—and at what cost to our sovereignty, resources, and future that Afghanistan's holds for its people, which is sandwiched between demonic Taliban and hungry nations like China and other regional stakeholders?

Wherever China goes, it goes looking for resources —it’s about control of minerals, energy, and trade routes that power China’s rise-the real win is for Beijing not Afghan people who are reeling under a major humanitarian crisis.

Pakistan

Pakistan has aimed to have Afghanistan ruled by its proxy for decades. Pakistan has appointed a full-fledged Taliban Ambassador to Kabul. The fact that despite Pakistan helping Taliban harboring terrorism activities and its leaders in many ways, including by providing arms, ammunition, funds, logistics, etc. to fight against the republic government of Afghanistan is the group’s arch enemy goes to prove. Over 352,000 Afghan people were deported from Pakistan to Taliban-led Afghanistan this year.

According to media reports, the United States had blocked a UN Security Council exemption that would have allowed Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi to travel to Pakistan on August 4. The Taliban Foreign Minister is under international sanctions; he requires special approval from the UN sanctions committee for any foreign travel.

India

In 2023, India’s forced closure of the Afghan mission in New Delhi, and the subsequent handover of its keys to Taliban-nominated individuals- unjustifiably, immorally-marked a departure from the 1950 Treaty of Friendship and the India–Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), which had been the pillars of India’s friendship with the legitimate Afghan government.

In January this year, Taliban’s Foreign Minister Mottaqi held a meeting of diplomats from 11 neighbouring and regional countries, including India, China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and had proposed establishing a “region-centric narrative aimed at developing regional cooperation for a positive and constructive engagement between Afghanistan and regional countries.” This was one of the first publicised meetings. Taliban accepted as a leading regional player to lead a meeting of countries? Why and on what basis? No official statement on the meetings have been issued by India’s Foreign Ministry.

In May this year, India has resumed granting visas to Afghan citizens across multiple categories, including business, medical, and entry visas for artists and relatives, five years after suspending all visa services following the Taliban’s takeover in Kabul in 2021.

Following the Taliban’s return to power, India closed its embassies and consulates in Afghanistan, citing security concerns and uncertainty regarding the new regime’s legitimacy. It also revoked visas for legitimate government representatives and ordinary Afghan citizens with aspirations to study in India- causing significant disruptions despite the absence of any evidence linking them to terrorism, as they had not become terrorists overnight in 2021. Why this change in its stance today?

The 193-member U.N. General Assembly on July 7, 2025 adopted the draft resolution, introduced by Germany on ‘The situation in Afghanistan’. The resolution was adopted with 116 votes in favour; two against and 12 abstentions, including India.

India’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, in the explanation of vote, said, “We have been working closely with U.N. agencies to support the Afghan people in critical areas such as health, food security, education and sports. India’s commitment to Afghanistan’s reconstruction is demonstrated through more than 500 development partnership projects across all provinces”.

On 10 November 2022, India voted in favour of a similar United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution supporting the Afghan people. What, then, has prompted India to retreat from that position today? Has the situation in Afghanistan improved? Has the Taliban adopted an inclusive form of governance, or granted women the right to education, employment, and participation in public life? The answer is unequivocally no. If nothing has changed, why has India altered its stance in a way that fails to serve the interests of the Afghan people?

Since the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia, China, Iran, and India have all been quick to build ties with the Taliban—not to promote the welfare of the Afghan population, but to advance their own geopolitical interests and pursue proxy agendas.

The Taliban remains a terrorist organisation in all its forms, alongside its affiliated networks such as the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP), Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaeda, East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) have a presence in Afghanistan, with most of these groups operating under the Taliban's watch, aiming to expand their influence.

How many demands that India, as a ‘Viswa Guru’ (World Leader)- and the rest of the world had suggested to Taliban leaders, like girls’ education- ‘Nari Shakti’- inclusiveness in government etc have been implemented? None!

Afghan people do not need doles. They are looking forward for peace after decades of death and destruction besides a future for the future generations which cannot be accomplished any day under Taliban dispensation.

India should understand giving doles or food grains supposedly meant for the people, to be distributed by the very system which discriminates people is no humanitarian aid. Such an aid to people governed by terrorists who lack the vision to develop the people and do not seek the advice of the people will only turn the people to become dependent on dole forever.

Humanitarian aid is that which is provided during natural calamities, for short durations for the people to tide over the temporary situation. It cannot be a permanent measure.

On May 15, India made the first ministerial outreach in Kabul when External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar held a telephone conversation with Afghanistan’s Acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi who condemned the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

India should not think of fighting proxy wars employing terror groups.

The question is, why this change? What has changed in real terms? Nothing!

As per the reports, India will be appointing a Taliban Charge d'Affaires-level representative in New Delhi by the end of this year. This will further push the Afghan people under the bus by India’s deepening relationship with the Taliban.

Unanswered Questions

The world should be concerned about recognising an illegal government that has not been endorsed by the people of Afghanistan. Recognition of the government was the last leverage available to the international community to compel the Taliban and their government to care for the Afghan population. Seeking legitimacy from the people will compel political leaders to engage with them, understand their problems, and ensure that the machinery of government is fair and does not ignore any section of society.

By refusing to establish an inclusive government and by failing to treat women as equal partners in society, how can the Taliban be considered representative of the country? Does the world approve of a government that serves only a portion of the population while excluding women, who make up 50% of the country’s citizens? That being the case, how can the Taliban be regarded as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan? How can the world leaders advocate their engagements with the Taliban?

The question remains: what are the compelling reasons for the Taliban’s refusal to seek the support of the people? Does this stance not encourage terror groups in other parts of the world to seize power through violence and seek legitimacy by citing Afghanistan as a precedent? On what grounds, then, could legitimacy be denied to such a government? Geopolitical considerations cannot come at the expense of the people, who must remain central to all forms of politics.

The world needs to remember that the Taliban continues to have a cabinet of terrorists. It refuses to have a constitution and go through the electoral process to get approval for its rule from the people. Seeking legitimacy through the people’s mandate will force the Taliban to care for its people. Legitimising Taliban rule will not be in the interest of the long-term interests of the world.

Let the world allow Afghanistan and its people to embrace democracy! 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.