Strategic Myopia: The Constitutional and Strategic Costs of India’s Taliban Engagement 

India’s recent diplomatic engagement with the Taliban, marked by the red-carpet treatment of its foreign minister in New Delhi, represents a troubling departure from the nation’s foundational values and strategic wisdom, as the government’s pursuit of a tactical advantage, driven by an obsession to counter Pakistan, has led it to actively facilitate the regime’s gender apartheid by barring women journalists from an event on Indian soil, thereby undermining constitutional principles of equality, legitimizing a repressive authoritarian regime for short-term gains, instrumentally tainting Indian Muslims by association with extremism, and ultimately eroding the country’s identity and moral credibility as a democratic leader for a myopic and counterproductive strategy that sacrifices long-term interests for dubious immediate rewards.

Strategic Myopia: The Constitutional and Strategic Costs of India’s Taliban Engagement 

The image was as striking as it was discordant: Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Foreign Minister of the Taliban, speaking at a press conference in New Delhi. Behind him, almost taunting in its serenity, hung a painting of the Bamiyan Buddhas—the very monuments his regime’s previous incarnation dynamited into dust in 2001.

This visual paradox encapsulates the profound contradictions of the Modi government’s recent diplomatic outreach to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. While engagement with the de facto authority in Kabul may be a geopolitical necessity, the manner of this engagement—marked by the barring of women journalists and the granting of full diplomatic courtesies—suggests a troubling pivot where strategic pragmatism bleeds into unprincipled endorsement, risking both India’s constitutional soul and its long-term strategic interests. 

1. The Stain on Indian Soil: Normalising Gender Apartheid

The most immediate and visceral breach occurred when women journalists were barred from Muttaqi’s press conference at the Afghan Embassy. This was not a closed-door, hard-nosed negotiation between intelligence officials; it was a public event on Indian territory. By acquiescing to the Taliban’s misogynistic diktat, the Indian government committed a profound error. It transitioned from engaging with a regime that practices gender apartheid to actively facilitating that apartheid on its own soil. 

This move establishes a dangerous precedent. Diplomatic engagement typically involves a negotiation of norms. A principled stance would have insisted that while India respects the cultural practices of its guests within their own borders, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are non-negotiable on Indian soil. The failure to assert this basic boundary is not realism; it is capitulation. It signals to the world that India’s commitment to gender equality, a cornerstone of its democratic project, is negotiable when convenient. For a nation that takes pride in its women presidents, prime ministers, and a vibrant community of female journalists, this silent complicity in the exclusion of women from a public discourse is a historic self-betrayal. 

2. The Constitutional Erosion: Undermining the Republic’s Foundational Pillars

India’s identity is not merely a product of its borders or its economic might; it is fundamentally anchored in its Constitution. Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) are not just legal provisions—they are a civilisational commitment born from a freedom struggle that sought to overthrow prejudice and hierarchy. 

Permitting a foreign power to effectively suspend these articles within a diplomatic enclave in the capital city strikes at the very heart of this commitment. The founders of the republic envisioned a secular, pluralistic democracy that would stand as a beacon in a troubled region. By legitimising a regime that is the antithesis of these values—theocratic, majoritarian, and brutally discriminatory—the government undermines the moral authority of India’s own democratic project. This is not a mere foreign policy adjustment; it is a dilution of the nation’s foundational narrative. When a state’s actions abroad contradict its professed values at home, it creates a crisis of credibility that resonates far beyond diplomacy, corroding the social contract within. 

3. The Bamiyan Backdrop: A Symbol of Ironic Hypocrisy

The presence of the Bamiyan Buddha painting during the press conference was a moment of supreme, if unintended, irony. The Taliban’s destruction of these 1,500-year-old statues was a globally condemned act of cultural vandalism, an attempt to erase a pre-Islamic history that did not conform to their rigid iconoclasm. 

For India, a nation with deep civilisational links to the Buddhist world and to Afghanistan’s Gandhara heritage, this backdrop should have been a source of solemn reflection. Instead, it became a twisted symbol of the current engagement. It highlighted the uncomfortable paradox of a government that domestically champions the cause of cultural and religious revival, yet internationally cozies up to a force notorious for cultural annihilation. The painting served as a silent accuser, reminding observers that the pursuit of tactical advantage can sometimes force one to shake hands with those who have desecrated one’s own heritage. 

4. The Pakistan Obsession: A Strategic Trap

A significant driver of India’s Taliban pivot appears to be the deteriorating relationship between the Taliban and its erstwhile patrons in Pakistan. The logic is seductively simple: “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” However, reducing the complex tapestry of Afghan politics to a mere function of the India-Pakistan rivalry is a classic case of strategic myopia. 

Afghanistan’s importance to India is multifaceted: it is a gateway to Central Asian trade, a bulwark against pan-Islamic terrorism, and a historical partner. By viewing every move through the narrow lens of countering Pakistan, India surrenders strategic initiative and becomes predictable. It risks investing political capital in a regime that is intrinsically unstable and ideologically extreme, purely to spite Islamabad. This reactive posture ignores the possibility that a strengthened, internationally legitimised Taliban could eventually pose a far greater threat to regional stability, and by extension to Indian security, than a frustrated Pakistan ever could. True strategic realism would involve a policy crafted around India’s positive interests in Afghanistan, not its negative anxieties about Pakistan. 

5. The Domestic Political Instrumentalisation: Tainting a Community

This foreign policy move cannot be divorced from the domestic political landscape. There is a compelling argument that the Hindutva-driven government finds utility in normalising the most extreme forms of political Islam on the world stage. The strategy is one of guilt by association: by engaging with and legitimising the Taliban, a regime that represents a grotesque caricature of Islam, it becomes easier to paint the entire Indian Muslim community with a broad brush of suspicion. 

This creates a pernicious false equivalence. It allows political narratives to conflate the everyday religious practices and democratic aspirations of Indian Muslims with the barbaric extremism of the Taliban. This instrumentalisation of foreign policy for domestic majoritarian politics is both morally reprehensible and strategically disastrous. It alienates 200 million Indian citizens, undermines social cohesion, and betrays the pluralistic spirit of the Constitution. It ignores the demonstrable reality that Indian Muslims have, by and large, steadfastly rejected the extremist ideology of the Taliban and embraced India’s secular democracy. 

6. The Legitimisation of Extremism: The Slippery Slope

Finally, the red-carpet treatment—complete with the display of the Taliban flag and the upgrade of India’s mission in Kabul—grants the regime a crucial commodity it desperately seeks: international legitimacy. The Taliban is not just another authoritarian government; it is a movement that has instituted a system of gender apartheid, dismantled basic human rights, and harboured global terrorist groups. 

Engagement is one thing; endorsement is another. India could have pursued a policy of “critical engagement”—maintaining channels for communication on specific issues like humanitarian aid, counter-terrorism, and the safety of Afghan minorities, while withholding the symbolic and political rewards of full diplomatic normalization. By rolling out the red carpet, India has effectively diluted the international community’s bargaining power and provided the Taliban with validation without extracting any meaningful concessions on human rights or inclusive governance. 

Conclusion: Towards a Principled Realism 

The challenge in statecraft is to navigate the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Engagement with the Taliban, as the de facto power in Afghanistan, is arguably an inescapable reality. However, the form that engagement takes is a choice that defines a nation’s character and its long-term strategy. 

The Modi government’s current approach appears to be a form of pragmatism unmoored from principle. A more sophisticated and ultimately more successful strategy would be a “principled realism” that distinguishes sharply between engagement and endorsement. This would involve setting clear, public red lines: we will talk to you on issues of mutual interest, but we will not allow you to violate our constitutional norms on our soil, we will not grant you full legitimacy until you moderate your behaviour, and we will consistently champion the rights of Afghan women and minorities. 

By sacrificing core values for perceived short-term tactical gains, India risks losing something far more valuable than any diplomatic advantage: its identity as a democratic republic committed to liberty and equality. In the long run, a foreign policy that remains true to the nation’s constitutional soul is not a handicap; it is the ultimate strategic asset.