India’s UN Abstention on Afghanistan: Strategic Autonomy and Regional Balance

In its session on 7 July 2025, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution regarding the Afghan situation. A UN press release stated, “The General Assembly adopts a resolution titled ‘The situation in Afghanistan’ calling on Afghanistan to uphold human rights, adhere to international law and take decisive action against terrorism, amid a worsening humanitarian crisis, rising numbers of returnees and the enduring impact of decades of conflict”. The resolution was passed by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 12 abstentions. India was among the abstainers.

Critics will undoubtedly question India’s choice to abstain from a resolution supported by a majority of 116 countries. Therefore, it is essential to understand India’s perspective and the reasons behind its abstention from voting.

For many decades, foreign powers have been meddling in the affairs of a sovereign Afghanistan. Among the most prominent were Pakistan, the former Soviet Union, and the US, primarily to secure political influence and strategic advantage in a region of historical significance.

India has been considerably visible in Afghanistan, not only after independence but also before that. If we look back to ancient times, such as the Vedic period, we find Indo-Afghan relations are evident in the distant past. The renowned Buddhist university was in Takhshashila (modern Taxila), the splendid Buddhist temple Nava Vihara (Nav Bahar) was constructed in Balkh, and the 175-foot-tall Buddha image, the tallest known, was carved into the rocky mountain of Bamiyan near Balkh (known as Bakdi in the Rig Veda).

Moving beyond this brief mention of the historical links between India and Afghanistan from ancient times, we would like to examine some sections of the text that reveal clear imbalances. 

Speaking on the occasion, India’s Ambassador explained India’s unconditional support to the Afghan people in various areas, particularly infrastructural development, the supply of food grains, and meeting their pharmaceutical and educational needs. Thousands of Afghan students are given admission to a multitude of Indian institutions, often with scholarships. It is surprising that while the resolution recognises, and rightly so, the role of two neighbouring countries of Afghanistan in accepting thousands of Afghan refugees on their soil, it does not mention India’s decades-long investments in building essential infrastructure such as roads, bridges, dams, schools, hospitals, and the design and construction of the Afghan parliament house. 

Not thousands but millions of Afghan nationals would benefit from India’s support. India’s example of aiding a neighbour will be imitated by others. The sponsors of the resolution did not see it necessary to include a word of thanks for India, the largest democracy in the world, which voluntarily fulfilled its responsibility to support a needy UN member.

The Russian representative speaking on the draft resolution pointed precisely to the core issue. She stated, “What we are witnessing here is a hypocritical shifting of responsibility. Ironically, the custom of swiftly unfreezing Afghanistan’s assets is ignored, knowing that the country needs funds for quick economic recovery — to build roads, schools, and hospitals, and the issue of lifting unprecedented unilateral sanctions.” “Because of the biased position favouring one group of countries and open disregard for proposals supported by regional States, we ended up with an imbalanced document,” she said. This is quite accurate because, for example, India is investing in transforming Afghanistan’s infrastructure to aid her economic recovery. Yet, other powerful nations have frozen Afghanistan’s assets, subjecting her population to severe deprivation.

The OIC is a significant affiliate of the UN. It consists of 57 member states, 48 of which are Muslim-majority. The organisation claims to be “the collective voice of the Muslim world” with the aim to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The impropriety and illegitimacy of the organisation will be understood by its accepting Russia as an observer state with only a small Muslim population in the Russian Federation. However, the OIC rejected India, which has the second-largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia, as a member observer.

This contradicts the so-called publicised aim of “safeguarding the interests of the Muslim world.” It is biased against India, which is why we say it is illegitimate. The question is, what is the justification for the UN to grant affiliation to an organisation that claims to protect the interests of the Muslim world but singles out a country with the world’s second-largest Muslim population? This dichotomy must be addressed. The UN should revoke the affiliation of the OIC until India is formally granted Observer status, like Russia.

The resolution states, “The 193-member General Assembly reiterated its “serious concern” over continuing violence and the presence of terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) and their affiliates ISIL-Khorasan and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, and “demanded” that Afghanistan not be used as a safe haven for terrorist activity.” 

Just note the obvious bias in this vague and unsubstantiated GA’s statement. It discusses ongoing violence and the presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan. We could ask the UN where Osama bin Laden was found and killed, especially since in October 1999, the same United Nations designated al-Qaeda a terrorist organisation. Why didn’t the UN question that country about why a designated terrorist was discovered just a few miles from its General Headquarters and declare it a terrorist state? Which country in the subcontinent has at least five of the nine major terrorist organisations proscribed by the UN or the State Department?^[i] Which country’s Defence Minister told Yelda Hakim, the Sky News anchor, in response to her question, “Well, we have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades, you know, and the West, including Britain.”

This analysis of the resolution’s text strongly indicates that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan has been deliberately targeted solely to appease the real epicentre of international terrorism. India does not yield to such intimidation.

India has consistently maintained friendly relations with the Afghan people through thick and thin. These relations have no political strings attached. It is India’s ongoing effort to honour the rich legacy of trust and friendship. Recently, Moscow announced that it would recognise the Taliban government in Kabul. India should continue to monitor the situation and strive with all its might to ensure peace and tranquillity in its immediate neighbourhood. India must also prepare for the rapidly evolving situation in Balochistan.

^[i] These are Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Omar, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jaish ul-Adl, Al Badr Mujahideen, Harkat ul Mujahideen and ISIS-KP.