When Afghanistan’s Taliban foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, arrived in Delhi this week, the visit attracted little media attention. However, beneath the understated diplomacy and courteous handshakes, a significant development was taking place. For the first time since the Taliban took control of Kabul in 2021, India has welcomed a senior Taliban leader publicly. This move wasn’t driven by friendship but by strategic considerations. The geopolitical environment around Afghanistan has changed, and India recognizes that isolation is no longer viable if it wants to safeguard its interests.
India had long kept its distance from the Taliban, focusing on supporting Afghanistan’s democratic institutions—such as roads, hospitals, and schools—while avoiding direct dealings with what it considered a proxy of Pakistan. However, recent developments like the U.S. exit, the growing influence of China and Russia, and the Taliban’s persistent control have prompted a strategic reassessment. Muttaqi’s visit signifies this shift: a careful attempt to sustain Indian influence by engaging with the Taliban instead of withdrawing entirely.
The main issue highlighting this change is the debate over Bagram Air Base, a name associated with twenty years of war. Located seventy kilometers north of Kabul, Bagram was once the center of America’s military activities. It was where plans were made, drones were sent, and intelligence was coordinated. When U.S. troops suddenly left the base in August 2021, abandoning billions in equipment, it marked not only the end of the war but also the decline of Western influence in the region. The Taliban quickly retook control, making Bagram a symbol of sovereignty.
Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump reignited controversy by calling for Washington to “take back Bagram.” Labeling the withdrawal a humiliation, he argued that reclaiming the airfield was crucial for restoring American credibility. However, across Asia, the response was unequivocal: no one desires the Americans to return to Afghanistan. The world has moved forward, and so has the region.
During a recent Moscow meeting, representatives from ten countries—including India, China, Pakistan, Iran, and five Central Asian republics—issued a joint statement condemning foreign military bases in Afghanistan as “unacceptable.” What was notable wasn’t the statement but
India’s support for it. As a country traditionally viewed as aligned with Western interests, India’s endorsement alongside China, Russia, Pakistan, and even the Taliban signaled a significant shift.
India’s stance is pragmatic, not ideological. New Delhi recognizes that reintroducing foreign military forces might trigger instability, as extremist groups could exploit their presence to rally support, leading to renewed violence that could affect South Asia. Given India’s ongoing fight against terrorism, such a risk is unacceptable. Supporting the movement to keep foreign bases out of Afghanistan does not equate to endorsing Taliban rule; instead, it highlights the importance of regional stability over political considerations.
This rare consensus among rivals—India, China, Russia, Pakistan, and the Taliban—highlights significant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Each has its own motives: Russia and China aim to curb U.S. influence near their borders; Pakistan seeks to maintain control over Kabul; and the Taliban, still pursuing legitimacy, aims to assert sovereignty. For India, a stable Afghanistan serves as a buffer against terrorism and protects its regional investments. Should Afghanistan descend into another proxy conflict, India would face the most significant risk.
The Bagram debate, therefore, is more than just a matter of control; it’s about sovereignty. For Afghans, it’s about ensuring their land remains free from foreign troops. For regional powers, it’s about adjusting to a world where alliances shift and influence is shared. By backing Afghanistan’s right to keep foreign powers out, India shows it’s ready to operate in a truly multipolar world, one that prioritizes stability over ideology.
Of course, this approach comes with risks. The Taliban’s record on human rights and its ties to extremist networks remain concerning. Any engagement involves moral and political costs. However, New Delhi’s policymakers appear to understand that waiting for a perfect Afghanistan is impractical. The alternative, abandoning the country, would only allow Pakistan and China to gain influence. In this case, pragmatism is not a compromise; it is a strategy for survival.
Bagram Air Base now symbolizes the transition from one era to another. Afghanistan, after twenty years of being a battleground for global ambitions, now serves as a test for whether regional players can govern their neighborhood without external interference. India’s decision to back Afghan sovereignty, even under Taliban rule, is not a departure from its democratic principles; instead, it’s a move toward regional stability. It understands that in geopolitics, influence is often more about strategic planning than moral certainty.
As Afghanistan continues to face reconstruction challenges, Bagram remains a symbol of both past failures and valuable lessons, highlighting the fragility of independence and the consequences of intervention. For India, advocating that no foreign military return to this base signals a broader stance that the region must assume responsibility for its own peace. This approach is risky but reflects a realistic understanding of the regional dynamics. In the evolving strategic competition in Central Asia, influence is shifting from military might to strategic vision and restraint. Currently, India seems committed to pursuing both these aspects simultaneously.
