The Taliban’s India Turn: A Short-Term Fix with Long-Term Costs

As Afghanistan’s Minister of Industry and Commerce, Nooruddin Azizi, arrived in New Delhi for five days of trade discussions, Pakistan views the development not with surprise but with a sober recognition of patterns long understood. The visit, following Amir Khan Muttaqi’s United Nation-waivered eight-day diplomatic engagement in October, confirms a reality Islamabad has articulated for years: when pressured, the Taliban’s ideological claims yield to political convenience. India, sensing an opening created by Kabul’s unwillingness to address regional security concerns, has simply stepped into the vacuum.

For Pakistan, this is not a moment of confusion, but of clarity. It underscores what Islamabad’s policymakers have observed since 2021. Rhetoric aside, the Taliban’s governing impulses are driven by short-term survival, not coherent strategy. What is concerning is not Afghanistan’s desire for diversified ties, Pakistan has never opposed that, but Kabul’s decision to pursue distant partners while ignoring immediate obligations to its closest neighbors.

A Four-Decade Investment, Selectively Forgotten

Pakistan’s sacrifice during the Soviet occupation was not symbolic, it was structural. Hosting millions of refugees, providing the logistical backbone of the Mujahideen resistance, absorbing the social and economic aftershocks of conflict: these were commitments no other neighbor matched. Even during the Taliban’s first emirate (1996–2001), Pakistan extended diplomatic recognition when almost no one else would.

After August 2021, Pakistan continued to advocate engagement, managed humanitarian flows, and maintained open borders despite rising security risks. Yet within a short span, the Taliban leadership has chosen political theatre in New Delhi over addressing legitimate concerns from the one neighbor whose stability remains indispensable to Afghanistan’s own.

This is not a matter of Pakistan expecting loyalty; it is a matter of Afghanistan disregarding realities that no state can wish away.

The Core Issue: Security, Not Strategy Drift

Islamabad has repeatedly underscored that trade diversification is Afghanistan’s sovereign right. What is not acceptable, to Pakistan or any responsible state, is the continued operation of militant groups from Afghan territory. Since 2021, cross-border attacks have surged, targeting Pakistani civilians and security forces. Senior TTP commanders move and plan openly across Afghan cities, a fact documented by multiple regional security services.

Pakistan has provided precise intelligence, coordinates, and actionable dossiers. The response has ranged from denial to deflection, often framed as “internal issues” Pakistan should solve on its own. This posture is untenable. No country can tolerate attacks emanating from a neighbor that simultaneously demands unrestricted access, open borders, and political concessions.

Against this backdrop, Kabul’s ministerial overtures to New Delhi appear less strategic craftsmanship and more strategic avoidance, prioritizing optics abroad while fundamental responsibilities at home remain untouched.

Islamic Solidarity as Rhetoric, Not Policy

For decades, the Taliban framed their relationship with Pakistan through the vocabulary of faith, brotherhood, and shared identity. But the moment issues of border management, recognition of the internationally acknowledged frontier, or counterterror obligations arose, this brotherhood was abruptly downgraded.

Meanwhile, India, a state whose support for the Northern Alliance directly challenged Taliban interests and whose domestic policies marginalize millions of Muslims, now receives red-carpet treatment. The contradiction is not subtle, nor is it lost on Muslim-majority nations watching Kabul’s diplomatic choreography.

Pakistan’s 2,611-kilometer border has remained open even during difficult periods, facilitating humanitarian flow and trade. Kabul’s rejection of basic border management tools, combined with an unwillingness to curb anti-Pakistan groups, stands in stark contrast to its enthusiastic overtures toward a country with which it has neither shared borders nor shared burdens.

Kashmir: A Silence That Speaks Loudest

Perhaps the clearest indicator of selective principle is the Taliban’s sudden silence on Kashmir. For years, Kashmiri Muslims were invoked in Taliban rhetoric; today, despite eight-day visits to Delhi, meetings with senior ministers, and global media attention, not a single reference is made to Article 370, mass detentions, or the systemic erosion of Muslim rights.

The silence is not ideological moderation, it is strategic bartering. And in global diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than statements.

Geography Is Not a Choice

Afghanistan’s outreach to India might generate temporary headlines, but it does not alter the region’s physical or economic architecture. Afghanistan is landlocked. The overwhelming bulk of its trade flows through Pakistan, and despite political signalling, Afghan traders continue to rely on Karachi, Torkham, and Chaman because alternatives are costlier, slower, and geographically constrained.

India’s trade via Chabahar corridor may provide supplementary access, but it cannot replace the economic logic of Afghan-Pakistani connectivity. Geography is indifferent to ideology and unforgiving of political symbolism. It rewards pragmatism; it punishes make-believe.

Afghanistan’s economy, already shrinking by double digits, simply does not have the margin to experiment with politically motivated but economically inefficient routes.

Pakistan’s Position: Assertive, Stable, Unmoved

Pakistan is neither threatened nor destabilized by Kabul’s India tilt. Islamabad remains anchored in institutional policy: secure borders, verifiable action against TTP, cooperative regional engagement, and respect for recognized boundaries. These are not demands, but expectations embedded in international norms.

Pakistan does not oppose Afghanistan’s engagement with any state. What Pakistan insists upon is responsible neighborly conduct, a position echoed by China, Russia, Iran, and Central Asian republics, all of whom share similar security concerns originating from Afghan soil.

The Path Forward: Real Responsibilities Before Distant Ambitions

No sustainable Afghan foreign policy can begin with distant capitals while ignoring security obligations to immediate neighbors. Trade agreements with India may create headlines; ignoring TTP sanctuaries creates crises.

The Taliban cannot demand open access while rejecting border recognition. They cannot seek Indian investment while allowing groups hostile to India to operate from their soil. They cannot expect Pakistan’s cooperation while dismissing Pakistan’s most fundamental security concerns.

The choice facing Kabul is simple. Address obligations first, pursue ambitions second. Failure to do so risks isolating Afghanistan from the very neighborhood that geography, history, and economics have tied it to.

Afghanistan now stands at a crossroads. It can either build a stable future by resolving issues with its closest neighbors or pursue short-lived diplomatic theatre with distant partners. The former offers sustainability; the latter offers applause without architecture.

States are defined not by who they court abroad, but by the responsibilities they fulfill at home. And until Kabul internalizes that, the instability it exports will continue to return, with increasing consequence.