Relevance (UPSC): GS-II International Relations, Human Rights | GS-IV Ethics in Public Life

When a woman reporter is told, “Women are not allowed to speak,” and the room still proceeds—that is the moment diplomacy turns into complicity. The ethical choice is simple: change the room or leave it.
In New Delhi, a press conference with the Taliban’s foreign minister invites only male journalists. Women reporters who cover Afghanistan are left out. The message is blunt: erase women from public life, and we will still talk. 

Calling this “pragmatic diplomacy” does not make it right. When a regime imposes gender-based exclusion as state policy, routine hosting and photo-ops risk becoming complicity, not diplomacy.

The pattern we must name

• Within weeks of retaking Kabul in 2021, the Taliban closed girls’ secondary schools, pushed women out of most government jobs, and restricted movement without a male guardian. Bans soon extended to universities, parks, gyms, television, and civil society groups.
  
• Women journalists were sacked, barred or threatened. Many outlets now employ no women at all; those who remain face harassment and censorship.
  
• The regime justifies this as “culture” or “religion”. But the effect is a systematic erasure of women’s visibility, livelihood and voice—what many scholars describe as gender apartheid.
  

This is not a side issue. It is the very structure of rule. A state that denies half its people the right to study, work, move, and speak is already committing widespread, systematic discrimination. Treating such a policy as an “internal matter” is neither morally defensible nor strategically wise.

The law and norms India has signed up to

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: bar discrimination and protect freedoms of expression, movement and association.
  
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): requires states to act—at home and abroad—to advance equal rights.
  
• United Nations Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda (Resolution 1325 and successors): insists that women must be present and heard in peace and security processes.
  
• Non-recognition doctrine: states may withhold recognition from regimes created or run in violation of peremptory norms.
  
• Due diligence principle: when a state engages a harmful actor, it must avoid aiding or abetting the harm.
  

Why “quiet engagement” without conditions backfires

1. It normalises the exclusion. If meetings, conferences and trade talks go ahead while women are pushed outside the room, silence becomes endorsement.
   
2. It weakens moderates. Afghan men and women resisting the erasure lose leverage if foreign partners signal that rights are optional.
   
3. It rewards coercion. A regime that gets investment and visibility without reform has little reason to change.
   
4. It erodes India’s moral capital. India’s own Constitution commits to equality and dignity. Looking away abroad weakens credibility at home and in multilateral forums.
   

What principled engagement looks like 

• Conditional visibility: meetings with Taliban officials must include women journalists and civil society voices; if the host cannot guarantee that, the format should change—or the meeting should not happen.
  
• Red-line protocol: no platform to delegations that travel without women; no joint photos or communiqués that hide the exclusion.
  
• Twin-track outreach: meet Afghan women leaders, local humanitarians, and diaspora professionals alongside any official contact; publish readouts.
  
• Humanitarian plus dignity: continue food, medical and education aid—but design it so that girls and women can safely access schools, scholarships, and health services, with independent monitoring.
  
• Safe-passage ladders: expand scholarships, fellowships and visas for at-risk students, journalists, health workers and judges; support remote learning links into Afghanistan.
  
• Regional consensus: work with neighbours and the Islamic world to set clear, shared conditions—girls’ secondary schooling, women’s work rights, freedom of movement—as non-negotiable basics for any future normalisation.
  
• Name the harm: in multilateral forums, use the words gender persecution and gender apartheid; back independent documentation and accountability mechanisms.
  

India’s interest, clearly stated

India does not gain from a radicalised, rights-denying Afghanistan. Terror risks, narcotics flows, and refugee distress rise when half a society is locked out. A stable neighbourhood requires women’s participation in administration, economy and media. Principled engagement is not charity—it is smart security.

Five explained terms for the exam

• Gender apartheid: systematic state policy that segregates and subordinates women in all spheres of life.
  
• Non-recognition: a state’s decision not to treat a regime as the legitimate government where core norms are violated.
  
• De facto engagement: limited working contacts (for aid, security, consular needs) without formal recognition.
  
• Women, Peace and Security agenda: United Nations framework ensuring women’s participation, protection and prevention in conflict settings.
  
• Due diligence: duty to prevent one’s acts (aid, finance, logistics) from enabling human-rights abuse.
  

Exam hook

Key takeaways

• The Taliban’s erasure of women is not culture; it is a governing doctrine.
  
• Diplomatic engagement without conditions risks normalising this doctrine.
  
• India can practise principled engagement: conditional visibility, twin-track outreach, women-centred aid, safe-passage ladders, and regional red lines.
  

UPSC Mains question

“Quiet engagement with regimes that practise gender persecution becomes complicity.” Critically examine with reference to Afghanistan since 2021. Outline a principled engagement framework for India that balances humanitarian needs, security concerns and constitutional values.

One-line wrap: Real diplomacy keeps faith with dignity—put Afghan women back in the room, or refuse the room that erases them.