Diplomacy has never been gentle or idealistic in South Asia. It’s moulded by a constant push and pull between survival and conviction. This is a region where borders blur, emotions run deep, and history, as well as hard geography, shadow every diplomatic move. At the heart of this equation is India’s long-standing conundrum: should foreign policy be driven by necessity or morality?
Moral positionality requires a tough stand for principles such as human rights, gender equality, and democracy. The diplomatic stance stands for trade, influence, and security to ensure survival across borders. The thin line between these two is a dicey decision each country has to make. For India, that line mostly cuts straight through Afghanistan.
Since the Taliban recaptured power in Kabul, India has been faced with the awkward question: does it engage with a government whose moral precepts India itself espouses? Or should it continue speaking despite its moral misgivings because the stakes are too high? New Delhi’s response has been straightforward but circumspect: participate, but do not support.
India has made significant investments in Afghanistan over the past 20 years, not just in roads and dams but also in people, education, and goodwill. In Afghanistan, infrastructure constructed by Indians came to represent cooperation and advancement. Giving up on everything now would be a moral as well as diplomatic retreat, leaving the Afghan people at the mercy of other nations who are less interested in their well-being. India stays, therefore, out of dedication rather than comfort. Its choice shows strategic tenacity rather than moral approval.
Diplomacy vs morality
Although the conflict between morality and diplomacy is not new, Afghanistan painfully highlights it. Furthermore, India and Afghanistan hardly ever go hand in hand in the real world. Morally, everything India stands for is offended by the Taliban. It is challenging to defend engagement due to their treatment of women, crackdown on education, and inflexible ideology. Any kind of association runs the risk of coming across as hypocritical in a democracy that values equality and pluralism.
However, diplomacy cannot exist in a vacuum, unlike morality. Afghanistan is situated at a crucial crossroads between Central and South Asia, connecting energy and trade routes that are vital to India’s future. The proposed North-South Transport Corridor, India’s plan to link Central Asia with the Indian Ocean, and Iran’s Chabahar port all pass through Afghan territory.
If India leaves, Pakistan, China, and possibly even Russia will take its place. The harsh reality of geopolitics is that openings are short-lived. Silence is surrender rather than virtue. Therefore, interacting with the Taliban is not a blessing; rather, it is a way to ensure that India’s voice continues to be heard. Sometimes the goal of diplomacy is to ensure that you still have a seat at the table rather than to like the other side.
Also read: What India needs to learn from the Ayni airbase setback
Pakistan, the Taliban, and the burden of irony
Without Pakistan, a story about Afghanistan cannot be told. Islamabad viewed Afghanistan as a strategic outpost that provided “strategic depth” against India for many years. This idea gave rise to the Taliban in its early years. It was developed, trained, and employed by Pakistan’s intelligence services to exert influence across its western border.
However, history is full of irony as usual. Once obedient to Rawalpindi’s orders, the Taliban has now made a U-turn. Pakistan’s previous victory is now a threat due to border skirmishes along the Durand Line, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) comeback, and Kabul’s refusal to follow Islamabad’s line. The creator is no longer relevant. This rift serves as a warning as well as a window for India.
On one hand, this reduces Afghanistan’s dependence on the Taliban, consequently opening up new diplomatic avenues. But on the other hand, dealing with a regime that brazenly violates human rights undermines India’s moral standing. India thus has to tread cautiously—a stern refusal of recognition to Afghanistan is undesirable, yet blind endorsement of the Taliban is also not an option.
The country has to attain a delicate balance between principle and pragmatism so as to extend humanitarian engagement without implying political acceptance. After all, true diplomacy is akin to a tightrope walk of influencing without deceit. As for Pakistan, it has its own set of repercussions to deal with. Its internal politics are in shambles, the economy is on the verge of collapse, and militancy has begun to seep into its central regions. Both at home and in Afghanistan, the military establishment that once claimed to be in charge of the Afghan playbook is now losing control. In South Asia, time is often the best diplomat, and India can learn patience from this slow disintegration.
The necessity of engagement
India’s relationship with Afghanistan has always been more than just strategic. It’s about human connections and shared history. From cultural exchange to development assistance, India’s engagement in Afghanistan has been shaped by empathy as much as curiosity. Indian-built schools, hospitals and power projects continue to serve ordinary Afghans despite the unpredictability of Taliban rule. But idealism cannot dictate foreign policy on its own. There is little place for morality in geography.
For all intents and purposes, Afghanistan will continue to be India’s neighbour because of proximity and impact. To pretend otherwise would be to deny the map. The cautious, quiet and calibrated nature of India’s engagement now therefore makes a lot of sense. Maintaining relations with the Afghan people, focusing on humanitarian assistance and reopening a small diplomatic mission in Kabul do not amount to recognition of, let alone backing, the Taliban.
These actions are intended to prevent India’s moral influence from being lost in silence. Any discussion, according to critics, justifies an oppressive government. Disengagement, however, would be worse since it would remove India from Afghanistan’s future. Uncomfortable as it may be, presence is power. Moral purity alone is worse than even a morally dubious presence. By remaining involved, India maintains a channel for challenging, questioning, and reminding the Taliban that reform is necessary for legitimacy in the modern world.
A clear warning is provided by Pakistan’s own misadventure with selective engagement—using extremists for immediate gain. This tactic has backfired, sending Pakistan into uncontrollably unstable cycles. Therefore, India’s diplomacy must be grounded in principle tempered with realism rather than opportunism. Economics lies beyond politics. The real forces behind peace are commerce and connectivity. The prosperity of the region could be transformed by connecting Central Asia with Indian ports via Afghanistan. Everyone benefits more from a stable Afghanistan than from a collapsing one, even under flawed regimes.
Also read: The math is clear — buying Russian oil is now a losing deal for India
The balance of principle and power
More than just a geopolitical arrangement, the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan triangle is a test of how New Delhi, as a democracy, strikes a balance between power and principle. The question is not whether or not to participate, but rather how to do so without losing our core identity. It may seem morally right to boycott Kabul, but it would not benefit any Afghan women or children.
On the other hand, accepting the Taliban unconditionally would damage India’s reputation as a moral leader. Thus, an open discussion that protects India’s interests and reminds Afghanistan of the values of genuine legitimacy is the answer. This delicate balance is a sign of maturity. True diplomacy aims to balance what is essential and what is possible, not to choose between good and evil.
India faces the challenge of maintaining its moral compass while navigating a world where strategy and ethics seldom align. Pakistan, on the other hand, is still unable to balance ideology and statecraft due to its contradictions. Afghanistan fights for national sovereignty for all of its citizens. India is situated in the middle, straddling the line where interests and ideals collide. Neither strategy nor morality can exist on its own in this triangle. Blindness or betrayal results from one without the other. Keeping both together, even when the tension seems intolerable, is the true art of statecraft. Because a country’s strength ultimately depends on how wisely it applies its principles rather than just how pure they are.
Tehmeena Rizvi is a policy analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University. Her areas of work include Women, Peace, and Security (South Asia), with specific emphasis on the Kashmir region, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Her X handle is @TehmeenaRizvi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Saptak Datta)