DESPITE vast ideological divergence, the strategic behaviors of India and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan reveal a striking pattern: both are capitalizing on Pakistan’s structural vulnerabilities not merely as acts of self-defense, but as deliberate efforts to expand their strategic footprint in South Asia. This convergence is less about traditional notions of fear-based security and more deeply rooted in jingoistic ideologies and expansionist aspirations.
Indian support for ethno-nationalist movements hostile to Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, reflects a departure from a purely defensive security posture. Rather than serving as a bulwark against regional instability or China’s growing assertiveness, Delhi appears increasingly invested in leveraging sub-national conflicts to undermine Pakistani sovereignty. This shift marks a growing alignment with expansionist doctrines, such as the ideologically-driven notion of Akhand Bharat, a cultural and territorial imagination that challenges the territorial integrity of multiple neighboring states.
In parallel, the Taliban’s harboring and facilitation of groups such as the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) further underscores a strategy of proxy conflict aimed at destabilizing Pakistan. This is not merely the result of ideological sympathy or logistical inertia but represents a calculated attempt to redefine regional power hierarchies. Kabul’s repeated failure to adhere to the Montevideo Convention’s condition for statehood, particularly the inability to maintain effective control over its territory and engage responsibly in international relations exacerbates its reliance on asymmetric means, such as the support of transnational militancy.
Both states, despite ideological differences, share a strategic culture of expansionism reminiscent of Israel’s territorial policies—seeking influence through land, identity, and narrative domination. Whether through the idea of a Hindu civilizational state or a “Greater Afghanistan,” both aim to revise post-colonial borders, violating international norms and conventions. This behavior contradicts the UN Charter’s principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, undermining regional stability and the international legal order. Such external aggression stems from internal fragility: India’s economic stress, social polarization, and dissent, and Afghanistan’s factionalism, economic collapse, and lack of recognition—all driving expansionism as a means of political survival. In both cases, populist regimes are employing a time-tested tactic: projecting internal dissent outward to fabricate national unity. By externalizing blame be it through reviving territorial grievances or inflaming ethnic divides, both Delhi and Kabul are seeking to consolidate power domestically by militarizing nationalism. This behavior is typical of populist governments which, when confronted with eroding legitimacy, turn toward aggressive foreign policy as a tool for mass distraction and emotional mobilization. Social media, rather than merely reflecting dissent, has intensified it—making state narratives more vulnerable and forcing authoritarian tendencies to seek more radical, external means of control.
The strategic postures of India and Afghanistan toward Pakistan are not driven solely by conventional threat perceptions or reactive defense mechanisms. Instead, they are shaped by jingoistic visions of national identity, expansionist ideology, and populist survival instincts. In this context, security becomes a performative tool—used not to stabilize borders but to justify their redrawing. Thus, the evolving regional dynamic is not simply a geopolitical rivalry—it is an ideological contest rooted in revisionist nationalism, populist statecraft, and the calculated manipulation of regional instability.
—The writer is associated with IPRI as a research fellow and political commentator with specialization in global and regional politics.
