India’s Ingress Into Afghanistan: Why Should Pakistan Worry

There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

In an interview with the Indian news outlet, Mullah Yaqoob, the defense minister of the Afghan interim government, left many startled when the minister nodded yes to the possibility of sending Afghan soldiers to India for training. The announcement was particularly frowned upon among the circle of policymakers in Pakistan. The issue was further compounded by the Afghan interim government’s cold response to the issue of Blasphemous remarks by the BJP spokesperson. The aforesaid developments led many to speculate that something is brewing inside between India and Afghanistan. This in turn begets the question:

Should Pakistan worry about this new dynamic of the relationship unfolding between Afghanistan and India?

To answer the question, we shall recourse to the history.

Evidence from History

India since long has developed hegemonic ambitions in the South Asian region. The said hegemonic ambitions are reflected in their respective foreign policy doctrines. Since its inception, India under the leadership of the secular and progressive Jawaharlal Nehru has developed its own Monroe Doctrine. Apparently, the doctrine was aimed to keep the external powers out of South Asia, however, embedded in the doctrine was India’s hegemonic ambitions to pull the neighboring countries under its influence. However,

it is pertinent to mention that the term ‘hegemonic ambitions’ should be understood as a euphemistic word for the project ‘Akhand Bharat’

The said doctrine was reinforced by the subsequent governments irrespective of their party affiliations and ultimately institutionalized as a key principle of Indian foreign policy during the tenure of Indira Gandhi in the form of the Indira Doctrine. Since then, to quote from the Indian ministry of external affairs’ official website, “the principle has been a matter of faith for Indian foreign policymakers.” What is noteworthy here is that contrary to the mainstream discourse which laid particular emphasis on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as a pioneer of the Hindutva project it was the leadership of the so-called secular, progressive Indian National Congress that laid the foundations of Hindutva project disguised under the hegemonic ambitions.

In line with its hegemonic ambitions and its foreign policy goals, India has hauled a number of countries in the region into its own sphere of influence which includes Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Attempts have also been made on Afghanistan to put it in under its influence. These attempts carry strategic importance for Pakistan_ the country which has resisted Indian hegemonic ambitions. The point needs further illustration.

The Triad and Strategic Responses

Afghanistan has remained a center of regional powers’ rivalry with competing interests. Of all these regional powers, the two countries, whose rivalry has greatly influenced the stability of Afghanistan are Pakistan and India.

There is no exaggeration in the assertion that Afghanistan is the epicenter of the Pak-India Cold war, where both the countries are entangled in a zero-sum game.

To put it bluntly, in the context of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s gain is perceived by India as its loss and vice versa.

But it should be kept in mind that Pakistan is merely responding to the Indian maneuvers in Afghanistan to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity. For a long, India is trying to make inroads in Afghanistan through soft power projection. All of its endeavors, whether it is economic or military assistance to Afghanistan are mainly aimed against Pakistan. Pakistan fears, that the central objective of Indian endeavors in Afghanistan is to turn the latter into a focal point for the pincer movement against Pakistan. However, in retrospect, these fears are aptly placed, as India’s relations with Afghanistan are mainly dictated by the Pakistan factor. Jawaharlal Nehru’s remarks on India-Afghanistan relations could serve as an eyeopener in this regard. When asked about the relations between the countries, Nehru did not mince his words:

“Ever since India’s independence, we have grown closer to each other, for a variety of reasons. The long memory of our past was there, and the moment it was possible to renew them, we renewed them. And then came mutual interest, (our common hostility towards Pakistan) which a powerful factor.”

Thus, it can be inferred from the whole debate that Indian maneuvers in Afghanistan are mainly dictated by the Pakistan factor.

Given the futility of their historic support to the Northern Alliance in the wake of the Taliban’s ascendance to power, India has finally recognized the Taliban as a force to be reckoned with.

After recognizing the Taliban as a de facto power, India now seems desperate to forge ties with the Taliban interim government. Pakistan, by virtue of its close proximity to Afghanistan, cannot turn a blind eye to these new developments and should pursue a proactive, and effective strategy to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan. After all, we cannot afford a second India on our Western border.

The article is originally published by Daily Times. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the South Asia Times.

Azhar Zeeshan

Azhar Zeeshan is a researcher at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS) Lahore, Pakistan. He can be reached at info@casslhr.com

Recent

An analysis of Qatar’s neutrality, Al Jazeera’s framing of Pakistan, and how narrative diplomacy shapes mediation and regional security in South Asia.

Qatar’s Dubious Neutrality and the Narrative Campaign Against Pakistan

Qatar’s role in South Asia illustrates how mediation and media narratives can quietly converge into instruments of influence. Through Al Jazeera’s selective framing of Pakistan’s security challenges and Doha’s unbalanced facilitation with the Taliban, neutrality risks becoming a performative posture rather than a principled practice. Mediation that avoids accountability does not resolve conflict, it entrenches it.

Read More »
An analysis of how Qatar’s mediation shifted from dialogue to patronage, legitimizing the Taliban and Hamas while eroding global counterterrorism norms.

From Dialogue to Patronage: How Qatar Mainstreamed Radical Movements Under the Banner of Mediation

Qatar’s diplomacy has long been framed as pragmatic engagement, but its mediation model has increasingly blurred into political patronage. By hosting and legitimizing groups such as the Taliban and Hamas without enforceable conditions, Doha has helped normalize armed movements in international politics, weakening counterterrorism norms and reshaping regional stability.

Read More »
AI, Extremism, and the Weaponization of Hate: Islamophobia in India

AI, Extremism, and the Weaponization of Hate: Islamophobia in India

AI is no longer a neutral tool in India’s digital space. A growing body of research shows how artificial intelligence is being deliberately weaponized to mass-produce Islamophobic narratives, normalize harassment, and amplify Hindutva extremism. As online hate increasingly spills into real-world violence, India’s AI-driven propaganda ecosystem raises urgent questions about accountability, democracy, and the future of pluralism.

Read More »
AQAP’s Threat to China: Pathways Through Al-Qaeda’s Global Network

AQAP’s Threat to China: Pathways Through Al-Qaeda’s Global Network

AQAP’s threat against China marks a shift from rhetoric to execution, rooted in Al-Qaeda’s decentralized global architecture. By using Afghanistan as a coordination hub and relying on AQIS, TTP, and Uyghur militants of the Turkistan Islamic Party as local enablers, the threat is designed to be carried out far beyond Yemen. From CPEC projects in Pakistan to Chinese interests in Central Asia and Africa, the networked nature of Al-Qaeda allows a geographically dispersed yet strategically aligned campaign against Beijing.

Read More »
The Enduring Consequences of America’s Exit from Afghanistan

The Enduring Consequences of America’s Exit from Afghanistan

The 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan was more than the end of a long war, it was a poorly executed exit that triggered the rapid collapse of the Afghan state. The fall of Kabul, the Abbey Gate attack, and the return of militant groups exposed serious gaps in planning and coordination.

Read More »