India’s Double Game On Afghanistan Exposed

India’s conduct on the Afghanistan file shows a clear split between public talk and private action, with one line for the media and another for closed rooms. The case of the UN travel waiver for Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi made this plain, as New Delhi first pushed the request and then pulled it back when it feared Western anger. After the retreat, India tried to put blame on Pakistan, even though the record does not support that claim.

• Key Facts: The visit needed a UN waiver because the minister faces a travel ban, funds freeze, and arms ban under the UN list.
• Core Point: India withdrew its own request and then spread a false story about Pakistan, which exposed a weak and two-faced policy.

The Waiver Case That Exposed India

Under UN rules, a listed person may travel only if a time-bound waiver is placed, discussed, and allowed by the committee. India knew the rule, put the file forward, read the room, and then quietly pulled back when it expected Western states to object. This single act showed a habit of show in public and retreat when an open vote is near.

• UN Rules In Brief: A waiver needs dates, limits, and a clear case; after that, members can allow or reject it by set steps.
• India’s Step Back: New Delhi withdrew the waiver before any vote, which shows it feared a public loss more than it valued steady policy.

False Blame Pinned On Pakistan

Soon after the pullback, Indian voices claimed Pakistan, as chair of the UN body, had blocked the move. The record shows the sponsor itself withdrew the file; the chair did not stop it and followed the rules. The blame shift was a cover for a failed plan, not an honest account of what happened.

• Role Of Chair: The chair keeps order and notes views; it does not invent outcomes or kill files on its own.
• Why It Matters: False claims break trust, harm future work, and show that India puts face-saving above facts and rules.

Fear Of The West And Early Retreat

This was not the first time pressure shaped a planned visit by the same Afghan minister. A recent plan in another capital met US pushback; Pakistan faced the heat in public, while India folded early and tried to pass the blame after quitting the field. The contrast is sharp and tells the region who stood firm and who hid behind talk of timing and process.

• US Pressure In View: Pakistan took the pressure in the open and bore the cost; India quit before the test and tried to shift the story.
• Policy Lesson: Leadership needs steady nerves under pressure; early retreat only invites more pressure next time.

Hidden Contacts With Kabul, Public Denial

India says it keeps distance from the Taliban, yet it has kept quiet lines with Kabul and moved aid to build access and influence. Senior figures have spoken more than once with Afghan leaders this year, which shows active contact behind a wall of public denial. This mix of private talk and public denial has lowered trust in India’s word with partners and rivals alike.

• Quiet Contact: Calls and meetings took place, and relief was used to open doors and gain space in Kabul.
• Trust Cost: When a state hides its own contact, others begin to doubt later claims on every linked file.

China Factor Behind New Delhi’s Moves

A key driver of India’s rush to reopen Afghan lines is fear of China’s growing space in Kabul and across the region. Beijing’s push in roads, mines, and talks has raised alarm in New Delhi, which wants a seat at the table but also wants Western cover at the same time. This twin aim has led India to try to please both sides in words and please neither side in action.

• Fear Of China: India worries that China will fill the gap in Kabul if it stays away from the field.
• Both-Sides Play: India tells the West it keeps away from the Taliban, while it tells Kabul it wants “practical ties,” and both sides see through it.

Big Talk Of Power, Weak Nerve In Forums

New Delhi often calls itself a “regional power” and a “voice of the South,” but power is proved in open rooms, clear cases, and firm votes. In this case, India feared a public count and backed off, then tried to spin the story in the media at home. Such conduct lowers standing and weakens every later move at the UN and in the region.

• Test Of Leadership: A strong state places its case, faces the vote, and accepts the result; India did none of these steps.
• Loss Of Standing: Partners will now ask if India will run again when the wind turns against it in the next UN test.

Real Costs For Afghans And The Region

This was not only a media spat; it had real effects on people and on work that keeps basic order. A sound waiver with strict terms could have opened a channel for relief, trade talks, and basic security talk, which helps to avoid new shocks. The pullback slowed relief, cut space for talks, and gave room to actors who move with a clear plan and steady hand.

• Relief And Trade Hit: Mixed signals delay visas, hold back aid, and stall small steps that keep markets, roads, and clinics open.
• Space For Others: When India hesitates and blames others, more room opens for states that act with a single line and steady pace.

Pakistan’s Steady And Clear Role

Pakistan, as chair, kept to rules, stayed calm, and did not block a technical waiver. It did not run a media fight and did not claim credit, which helped the UN process and kept doors open for later steps. The steady role of the chair exposed how fragile India’s line has become on this file.

• Follow The Rules: The chair handled the file under set steps; no objection from Pakistan stopped the case from moving.
• Regional Lesson: A clear, rule-based role builds trust and gives room for future work even on hard issues like this one.

What India Should Have Done

If New Delhi wanted the visit, it should have stood by its own request, set firm dates, placed its facts on record, and faced the vote. If it judged a waiver was not possible, it should have said so plainly and withdrawn without blaming others. If it seeks contact with Kabul, it must state aims and limits in public and then hold that line in all rooms.

• If Pushing “Yes”: Own the file, present facts, and accept a vote in the UN room without fear of the count.
• If Saying “No”: Withdraw with an honest note and end the false story about Pakistan’s role in the process.

Conclusion: Truth, Open Words, And Firm Steps

The pulled waiver is a mirror to India’s wider conduct on Afghanistan: make contact in private, deny it in public, seek Western cover at each turn, and shift blame to Pakistan when plans fail. It also shows fear of China’s rise without a firm plan to meet it in Kabul, and it shows loud claims of power paired with a habit of retreat when a simple vote is near. The way forward for the region is plain: progress needs open words, steady steps, and ownership of policy that does not change with every gust of pressure.

• Final Word: India’s two-faced line has been exposed; only clear stands and open votes can repair the damage done.
• Way Ahead: Own the policy, face the forum, and act with firm steps, or accept growing isolation and loss of trust across the board.