India's Taliban Engagement: The Collapse of Western Moral Authority and the Rise of Pragmatic Geopolitics

Introduction: A Diplomatic Earthquake in South Asia

The recent official visit of Taliban Foreign Minister Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi to New Delhi represents nothing less than a seismic shift in South Asian geopolitics. This landmark engagement between India and the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan signals a pragmatic recalibration of foreign policy in the aftermath of America’s catastrophic withdrawal from the region. The visit, which resulted in India upgrading its technical mission in Kabul to full embassy status, demonstrates how nations of the Global South are increasingly charting their own course independent of Western diktats and moralizing.

This development cannot be understood outside the context of Western imperial failure in Afghanistan. After twenty years of occupation, trillions of dollars spent, and countless Afghan lives lost, the United States retreated in disgrace, leaving behind a power vacuum that regional powers must now manage. The Taliban’s return to power, while deeply troubling from a human rights perspective, represents the failure of Western nation-building and the resilience of local political realities that external powers consistently underestimate.

The Historical Context: Western Intervention and Its Aftermath

The American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under the banner of the “War on Terror” began what would become the longest war in U.S. history. What started as a mission to dismantle Al-Qaeda and topple the Taliban regime evolved into a protracted nation-building exercise that fundamentally misunderstood Afghan society and political dynamics. The Western model of liberal democracy, imposed from above without adequate cultural or institutional foundations, never truly took root beyond major urban centers.

The chaotic American withdrawal in 2021 exposed the fundamental fragility of the Western-backed Afghan government, which collapsed within days of U.S. forces departing. This humiliating exit revealed not just strategic incompetence but also the profound hypocrisy of Western foreign policy—nation-building as a cover for imperial ambitions, abandoned when the costs became too high. The resulting power vacuum created precisely the conditions that the original invasion was supposed to prevent: the return of Taliban rule and the resurgence of regional instability.

Meanwhile, the international community continues to grapple with the fundamental question of how to engage with the Taliban regime. While Western nations largely maintain diplomatic distance, countries like Russia, China, and now India are pursuing pragmatic engagement. This divergence in approach reflects broader geopolitical realignments and the declining influence of Western moral authority in international affairs.

The Terrorism Definition Dilemma: Western Hypocrisy Exposed

The article brilliantly exposes one of the most glaring hypocrisies in contemporary international relations: the politically convenient, selectively applied definition of terrorism. As noted by scholars like Walter Laqueur, the search for a universal definition of terrorism has proven “futile and misguided” because the concept is inherently political and context-dependent. The United Nations, despite numerous resolutions on counter-terrorism, has never established a universally accepted definition, allowing powerful nations to weaponize the term against their adversaries while excusing their allies.

This hypocrisy is starkly visible in the case of the Taliban. While individual Taliban leaders remain on sanctions lists, the organization itself has never been formally designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States. This inconsistency reflects what the article accurately identifies as “political selectivity in U.S. counter terrorism policy” driven by “strategic necessity rather than objective reassessment.”

The pattern repeats globally. In 2025, the U.S. removed Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham from its terrorist list, a move widely interpreted as pragmatic adjustment to political realities in Syria. Similarly, Russia delisted the Taliban after decades of designation, followed by Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. These developments demonstrate that terrorism designations are not based on objective criteria but serve as tools of geopolitical manipulation.

India’s Pragmatic Shift: Necessary Realism or Moral Compromise?

India’s engagement with the Taliban represents a necessary realism in response to regional dynamics. Having supported the elected Afghan government until its collapse, India initially shut its embassy and paused official engagements following the Taliban takeover. However, by 2022, India reopened a limited technical mission in Kabul to oversee humanitarian aid—a crucial lifeline for the Afghan people suffering under economic sanctions and governance failures.

The Muttaqi visit and subsequent embassy upgrade signify India’s recognition of several hard truths. First, the Taliban are the de facto rulers of Afghanistan, and non-engagement would cede influence to regional competitors like China and Russia. Second, humanitarian considerations demand some level of interaction to assist the Afghan people. Third, the Taliban’s stated position that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, plus their condemnation of recent terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, suggests potential strategic alignment.

However, this engagement comes with significant risks. The Taliban maintain complex relationships with various militant organizations, including the Haqqani network and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. India risks becoming entangled in this web of alliances and hostilities, potentially exacerbating its security vulnerabilities rather than mitigating them.

The Larger Geopolitical Picture: Multipolarity and Decolonial Foreign Policy

India’s Taliban engagement must be understood within the broader context of a rapidly multipolar world where Global South nations are asserting their autonomy from Western hegemony. The unipolar moment of American dominance has clearly ended, and nations are increasingly pursuing foreign policies based on national interest rather than Western approval.

This shift represents a healthy decolonization of international relations. For too long, Western nations have positioned themselves as arbiters of global legitimacy while pursuing blatantly self-interested policies. The selective application of human rights concerns, the weaponization of international institutions, and the hypocrisy of terrorism designations have eroded Western moral authority.

Countries like India, China, and Russia are now engaging with Afghanistan based on regional realities rather than Western preferences. This doesn’t mean endorsing the Taliban’s horrific human rights record, particularly regarding women’s rights, but rather acknowledging that the solutions to Afghanistan’s problems must emerge from regional dynamics, not external imposition.

The Ethical Dilemma: Engagement Versus Principles

The fundamental ethical dilemma remains: how should nations balance practical engagement with moral principles when dealing with regimes like the Taliban? Complete isolation risks abandoning the Afghan people to suffering while achieving little political change. Engagement risks legitimizing oppression.

India’s approach appears to be one of cautious pragmatism—maintaining channels for humanitarian assistance and diplomatic influence while stopping short of formal recognition. This balanced approach acknowledges the Taliban’s control without endorsing their methods or ideology. It represents a mature foreign policy that recognizes the complexity of real-world politics beyond ideological purity.

However, this engagement must be coupled with consistent pressure on human rights issues, particularly women’s rights. The international community, including Global South nations, must find ways to support Afghan civil society and vulnerable populations while engaging with the de facto authorities. This requires nuanced diplomacy that Western nations, with their tendency toward punitive measures and moral grandstanding, have consistently failed to practice.

Conclusion: The Future of Global South Diplomacy

India’s engagement with the Taliban government marks a significant moment in the evolution of Global South foreign policy. It demonstrates a willingness to navigate complex geopolitical realities based on regional interests rather than Western preferences. This represents a healthy assertion of strategic autonomy in a multipolar world.

The Western model of foreign policy—characterized by moral certainty, military intervention, and conditional engagement—has failed spectacularly in Afghanistan. The Global South must now chart a different path: one based on pragmatic engagement, respect for sovereignty, and recognition that political solutions must emerge from local contexts rather than external imposition.

This doesn’t mean abandoning human rights concerns but rather addressing them through dialogue and regional cooperation rather than sanctions and isolation. The peoples of the Global South have suffered enough from Western experiments in nation-building and democracy promotion. It’s time for a new approach—one that acknowledges complexity, respects sovereignty, and prioritizes the welfare of ordinary people over geopolitical scorekeeping.

As the international order continues its transition toward multipolarity, India’s Taliban engagement may be remembered as a landmark moment when Global South nations began writing their own rules of international relations, free from the hypocrisies and failures of Western imperialism.