Some controversies happen by chance; others are intentionally built for attention. The uproar over the recent Taliban press interaction in New Delhi clearly belonged to the second type — a piece of political theatre directed by the usual figures of Lutyens’ Delhi.

When Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi addressed a restricted media briefing at the Afghan Embassy in the capital, several Indian women journalists were denied access. The reason was sadly predictable: the order came from Taliban officials who travelled with Muttaqi.

Within hours, the Congress party’s online outrage machine roared to life. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Rahul Gandhi accused the Modi government of hypocrisy on women’s rights, invoked “Nari Shakti,” and demanded an explanation. They framed the incident as a national insult to Indian women.
Echoing them were self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” such as Mohammed Zubair and a cluster of social-media commentators posing as neutral journalists, all quick to attack the BJP for what they alleged was a double standard on gender equality.

For a few hours, the digital drama trended. But behind the noise, facts told a different story. The controversy created more social-media traffic than actual logic — something that has become routine whenever the Gandhis attempt to reclaim relevance through moral outrage.

India’s Stand Clarified by the MEA

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) moved swiftly to explain that the Indian government had no involvement whatsoever in organising the Taliban press conference. According to the official statement, the session was arranged by Afghanistan’s Consul General in Mumbai and held inside the Afghan Embassy premises, coordinated entirely by the Taliban delegation itself.
The MEA clearly stated that the Afghan Embassy “does not come under the jurisdiction of the Indian government.”

In fact, India’s only role was a polite recommendation — it suggested that women journalists be included among the invitees. The Taliban delegation ignored that advice.
Put simply, India did not ban women; the Taliban did. Yet, as history shows, when outrage offers headlines, facts rarely matter in the Congress playbook.

Vienna Convention Explained: Why India Could Not Intervene

To grasp why India neither could nor should have interfered, one must look at the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) — the global framework that defines how nations manage embassies and foreign missions. The Convention, ratified by more than 190 countries including India, establishes the rights and obligations between a host nation and a foreign mission.

A frequent misconception is that an embassy is foreign soil. It is not. The embassy remains on Indian territory but is protected by a legal principle called “inviolability.” Under Article 22 of the Convention, the host country’s officials cannot enter or enforce domestic laws inside a diplomatic mission without consent from its head. Indian law technically applies, but cannot be exercised without explicit approval.

India, therefore, had to respect those obligations. The Afghan Embassy could make its own rules for entry, and the Indian government was legally restrained from interfering. The Convention provides inviolability, not extraterritoriality.
Hence, the Taliban — as the “sending state” — had full legal authority to decide who could or could not enter.

When Priyanka Gandhi dramatically asked how such an “insult to Indian women” could be “allowed on Indian soil,” she inadvertently exposed her lack of understanding about diplomatic law. The truth is straightforward: India was legally bound not to intervene, no matter how politically convenient intervention might have been.

Congress’s Rhetoric Versus Record on Press Freedom

Priyanka Gandhi declared on X: “If your recognition of women’s rights isn’t just convenient posturing from one election to the other, then how has this insult been allowed in our country?”

Her brother Rahul Gandhi echoed her outrage, posting: “When you allow the exclusion of women journalists from a public forum, you tell every woman in India that you are too weak to stand up for them.”

Yet the moral indignation looked selective. In June 2024, Rahul Gandhi himself publicly mocked India Today journalist Mausami Singh for asking a valid question about the Opposition’s parliamentary disruptions. Instead of replying respectfully, he taunted her, saying she should “wear a BJP shirt.” The episode revealed the real Rahul Gandhi — entitled and dismissive toward any woman journalist unwilling to echo his views.

The party’s track record on press access tells a similar story. In 2020, the Congress barred foreign correspondents from entering its Delhi headquarters, citing vague “security reasons.” Then, in September 2023, the Congress-led INDI Alliance issued a blacklist of 14 journalists from nine television networks, including Arnab Goswami, Navika Kumar, Sudhir Chaudhary, Aman Chopra, Rubika Liyaquat, Gaurav Sawant, and Shiv Aroor.
The alliance announced that its leaders would boycott their shows and events. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera even said, with a straight face, that the move was taken “with a heavy heart.”

The BJP compared this act to Nazi-era censorship, and the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) condemned it as a direct assault on press freedom.

Now, that same party positions itself as the defender of women reporters’ rights. When Congress censors the media, it brands it “ethical journalism.” When others act within international law, it cries “oppression.” The moral compass here doesn’t just spin — it somersaults.

The Taliban’s Misogyny vs. India’s Diplomatic Strategy

None of this is to deny the Taliban’s historic misogyny. The regime’s policies toward women are medieval and indefensible. Afghan girls remain barred from schools and universities. Women have been driven out of public life and banned from working in most professions. Even literature written by women has been banned in Afghan universities.

But this is not new. The Taliban’s ideology is fossilized, and its conduct reflects its fundamentalist DNA. What’s new, and alarming, is how Indian opposition leaders weaponised Taliban’s contempt for women to further its domestic politics.

India’s engagement with Afghanistan is not ideological; it is strategic. In one of the most volatile regions in the world, diplomacy is about pragmatism, not posturing.

India is surrounded by unpredictable powers. China remains expansionist and untrustworthy, its record in Doklam and Galwan proving that no handshake can erase its appetite for intrusion. But at the same time, with a mercurial President at the helm in the United States, India has deftly manoeuvred its China policy, working on confidence-building measures to ensure Trump’s tariff tantrums don’t significantly impact its growth trajectory.

On India’s west, Pakistan continues to export terrorism as a state policy, using jihad as a foreign policy tool. While on the east, Bangladesh, under a fragile interim government, is sinking into political chaos, openly displaying hostility towards India.

In this context, maintaining a working channel with whoever controls Kabul is not a concession; it’s a necessity. India’s limited engagement with the Taliban ensures that New Delhi retains leverage in Afghanistan, prevents Pakistan from monopolizing influence, and safeguards Indian investments and security interests.

Furthermore, the Taliban’s relationship with Pakistan has sharply deteriorated. Islamabad has even recently conducted airstrikes inside Afghan territory. For India, this emerging rift between the two is a strategic opportunity, a chance to exploit their hostility and dilute Pakistan’s influence in the region.

Diplomatic engagement with the Taliban is not endorsement. It’s realpolitik; the ability to play the long game in a fractious neighborhood where everyone else plays dirty.

Why the MEA Was Right: Strategy Over Soundbites

The MEA’s restraint was a masterclass in diplomatic discipline. By adhering to the Vienna Convention and refusing to interfere in an embassy’s internal affairs, India upheld international law and avoided a needless diplomatic scandal. Had the government made a public issue out of the Taliban’s exclusion of women journalists, it would have gained nothing and risked jeopardizing a fragile line of communication with Kabul.

The Gandhis, of course, have never understood that foreign policy cannot be dictated by outrage cycles or social media trends. In diplomacy, silence often achieves more than slogans.

Outrage as a Career: Congress’s Persistent Script

The Congress party has turned outrage into a full-time occupation. Whether it’s the Rafale deal, abrogation of Article 370, or India’s outreach to Afghanistan, the formula is the same: find an issue, distort it, and blame Modi. The facts are irrelevant; what matters is the optics.

Rahul Gandhi’s feminism is no different. It is selective, situational, and shallow. He is outraged when women journalists are denied entry by the Taliban but unmoved when his own party boycotts or humiliates them. He lectures the government about “standing up for women” while presiding over a party that still refuses to elect one as its president without a Gandhi surname.

The Congress party’s feminism, much like its politics, is performative: a tool for visibility, not conviction.

When Congress’s Hypocrisy Collides with Taliban’s Gender Brutality

The Vienna Convention guarantees the inviolability of embassies. The MEA respected that law. The Taliban exposed its medieval mindset. And the Congress exposed its hypocrisy.

Rahul Gandhi’s feminism ends where his ego begins. His outrage is opportunistic, his understanding superficial, and his politics perpetually at odds with India’s realities.

While India navigates a minefield of geopolitical tensions — balancing ties with Kabul to counter Islamabad, keeping an eye on Beijing’s deceit, and managing Dhaka’s instability — the Congress party remains busy performing morality plays on Twitter.

India needs diplomacy. Congress needs drama. And that, in essence, is the difference between governance and grandstanding.