Revision summary
August 2021 ended India’s two-decade Republic partnership in Kabul. Terrorism and Pakistan’s strategic depth are the sharpest Indian fears. Chabahar–Central Asia connectivity needs a workable Afghan landmass. Aid projects became stranded assets of influence. Policy is a recognition-versus-engagement dilemma, not a restored embassy as before.
Model answer
Introduction
The Taliban took Kabul in August 2021 as the United States left. India’s interests there are terrorism, connectivity, a friendly balance against Pakistan’s depth, and the safety of past investments. The takeover damaged all four at once.
Body
Immediate hits
- The Republic that hosted Indian aid, the parliament building, and the Zaranj–Delaram road collapsed.
- Embassy drawdown and the loss of a political partner in Kabul erased twenty years of presence.
- Pakistani influence and the risk of anti-India groups finding space rose in New Delhi’s threat perception.
Core interests
- Terrorism: Indian concern is Lashkar, Jaish, and other groups using Afghan soil, not only Afghan civil war.
- Connectivity: Chabahar and a land path to Central Asia need a usable Afghanistan. The Taliban freeze that bet.
- Strategic denial: India does not want a Pakistan-run western neighbour. It also does not want a chaos that exports fighters.
- People: minorities, women, and Indian-origin workers affect reputation and consular load.
Policy dilemma
- Engage the Taliban for access and counter-terror pledges, or stay out and lose the board.
- UN sanctions, recognition, and humanitarian aid are the diplomatic tools. None restore the 2001–21 Republic.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD T[Taliban 2021] --> X[Republic collapse] X --> TE[Terror risk] X --> C[Connectivity Chabahar hit] X --> P[Pakistan depth fear] TE --> I[Indian interests] C --> I P --> I
Conclusion
The Taliban takeover set back India’s aid footprint, western connectivity, and counter-terror buffer. Implications are a harder Pakistan-facing map and a choice between pragmatic contact and principled distance. Interests did not disappear. The partner did.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Did India support the Taliban?
No. It backed the Republic. After 2021 it has weighed limited contact for security and aid, not an alliance.
-
Is Afghanistan only a Pakistan problem for India?
Pakistan is central. Terror, energy, and Central Asia make it a wider Indian interest.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the major features of India's Foreign Policy in the 21st century. -
2022 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Peaceful co-existence remains the cornerstone of India's foreign policy. Comment. -
2022 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Critically examine the major factors responsible for a turnaround in the trajectory of India's foreign policy in the post-cold war period -
2022 · Q8(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
How does India-Israel bilateral ties reflect the autonomy of India's foreign policy choices? -
2022 · Q8(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss India's vision of a New World order in the 21st century -
2021 · Q1(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the five proposals made by India in the recent COP-26 conference held in Glasgow. -
2021 · Q5(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the philosophical foundations of India's foreign policy. -
2021 · Q5(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain India's position on the waiver of intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines in WTO.
More from this topic
Q5(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
For India, a multipolar world order would also mean a multipolar Asia. Comment.
Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy
A multipolar world is several great-power centres; it is hollow for India if Asia is Sino-centric. India’s threats, trade and waters are Asian, so Asian power-sharing is the real test of the slogan. Japan, ASEAN centrality, Korea, Australia and India beside China and the U.S. are the intended map. Quad and FOIP are instruments of pluralism, not a finished concert. The claim is right as strategy and still aspirational as fact.
Q5(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
China's growing footprint and a tangible shift in power dynamics in Bangladesh has weakened India's leverage in Dhaka. Comment.
Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy
India’s Bangladesh leverage after 2009 was tied to Sheikh Hasina; her 2024 exit opened space for China. Beijing’s BRI projects, credit and defence courtship give Dhaka an omni-enmeshment option. Indian delays on Teesta, a trade surplus and political optics of patronage stored grievances. The shift weakens Delhi’s privileged access but does not erase geography, power trade or transit. A less personality-based Neighbourhood First is the repair, not a hyper-realist sulk.
Q6(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Would you concur with the view that of late, India's foreign policy has been in a transition mode from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism? Support your answer with the help of suitable examples.
Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy
Nehruvianism meant NAM, UN moralism and refusal of blocs; neoliberalism in this debate means markets, U.S. partnership and globalisation. 1991, Act East, the U.S. nuclear bargain and the Quad are the visible transition. India still refuses formal alliance, keeps Russia, defends WTO policy space and talks Global South — Nehruvian residues. Concur partly: instruments have shifted; doctrine of autonomy has not been abolished. Multi-alignment is the mix, not a clean replacement of one school by the other.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.