India’s Renewed Outreach to Afghanistan: A Delicate Diplomatic Shift

Yes, India is indeed upgrading its engagement with the Taliban government in Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to reopen its embassy in Kabul after more than three years of limited operations. This marks a significant — and cautious — recalibration in New Delhi’s foreign policy toward a country with which it shares deep historical, cultural, and economic ties.

Background: From Withdrawal to

Reconnection

When the Taliban seized power in August 2021, India, like most other nations, swiftly evacuated its diplomats and suspended its official presence in Kabul. At that time, New Delhi’s stance was one of wait and watch, reflecting deep concern about the Taliban’s past links to terrorism and their implications for India’s security interests, particularly regarding Pakistan-based extremist groups.

But ever since the past two years, ground realities have shifted. The Taliban, as it sought world legitimacy and economic relief, was more amenable to initiate negotiations. India, for its part, realizes that it is neither strategically nor long-term viable to fully isolate Afghanistan — especially since China, Pakistan, Iran, and Russia have all maintained or expanded their presence in Afghanistan.

 Plans to Reopen the Embassy

It is said that India has been making logistical and security preparations to re-establish its full-fledged embassy in Kabul, which has been operating in a limited form since 2022 under a “technical mission.”

It has largely handled the distribution of humanitarian assistance, monitoring of development projects, and visas for Afghan students and patients traveling to India.

A formal re-opening would be India’s most openly diplomatic engagement with the Taliban government so far — an exercise of pragmatism and symbolism. It signifies India’s desire to exercise influence over Afghanistan and protect its investments, which amount to over $3 billion in infrastructure and relief activities since 2001.

 India’s Strategic Motivations

India’s fresh initiative is driven by a mix of security, economic, and geopolitical interests:

• Counteracting Pakistani Influence: Pakistan has dominated Kabul for decades. Reopening an embassy enables India to restore a foothold and ensure that Afghan ground is not used against India.
• Humanitarian Obligation: India has supplied wheat, medicine, and COVID-19 shots to Afghanistan despite the Taliban regime. Strengthening diplomatic ties enables smoother delivery of aid to Afghans.
• Regional Stability: A stable Afghanistan is beneficial to India’s connectivity and trade interests in Central Asia, particularly under projects like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
• Engagement over Isolation: India prefers to engage the de facto powers to influence developments rather than letting a vacuum fall into the lap of their rivals like China or Pakistan.

Diplomatic Tightrope: Recognition vs. Engagement

It must be noted that India has not yet recognized the Taliban regime officially, but nor will it do so at this time. It’s an issue of practical engagement more than political approval in order to restore its embassy.

• New Delhi continues to hold out for inclusive politics, women’s empowerment, and counter-terror commitments as the terms of full diplomatic recognition.

This realistic approach allows India to defend its interests without deviating from the general international belief of action under the leadership of the United Nations.

Broader Implications & International Reactions

• The international community has largely interpreted India’s action as a pragmatic and necessary step. The Western nations, many of whom have limited contact with the Taliban, view India as a trusted interlocutor who can help moderate the regime’s attitude.
• While Afghans themselves, above all those recipients of Indian scholarships, medical aid, and development initiatives — have in general been welcoming the shift as one made by a friend over a long time, rather than an exchange ally.
• India’s re-engagement with Afghanistan during the Taliban period is a diplomatic balance of the tightrope kind — a balancing act that is a mix of realism and humanitarian sensitivities. By reopening its embassy and upgrading relations, New Delhi aims to be a player in the changing political landscape of Afghanistan, protect its people-to-people ties, and prevent the country slipping further into isolation.

It is a modest but important shift — one that reflects India’s growing self-assurance as a regional power that can promote its national interests without compromising moral and strategic imperatives.

 2025 Nobel Peace Prize Winner: María Corina Machado

María Corina Machado, who has long been an outspoken advocate of democratic reform in Venezuela, was the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for demonstrating “courageous leadership and dedication to the restoration of democracy in her country.”

For many years, Machado was politically harassed, excluded from voting, and targeted for her security, but she continued to mobilize Venezuelans calling for free and fair elections. Her triumph is evidence of international recognition of those who are resisting authoritarianism in Latin America.

Her Nobel victory was met by human rights activists, Western countries, and democracy campaigners as a stern reminder that moral courage and nonviolent resistance still can triumph even in hostile political climates.

Donald Trump’s Nobel Aspirations and Global Attention

Donald Trump was discussed in some quarters of politics and the media as a potential future recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, mainly for his previous diplomatic efforts such as:

• Shepherding the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states in 2020.
• Negotiating with North Korea during his presidency.
• Accepting credit for maintaining relative global stability through “peace through strength” policies.

His own supporters believed these actions put him in a place to be deserving of international praise for promoting peace through unconventional means. Critics argued that his divisive rhetoric and foreign policy agenda made this remote, though.

 Why the Nobel Committee Chose to Award Machado, Not Trump

The Nobel Committee action was an affirmation of its dedication to grassroots human rights activism and not geopolitics concessions or diplomacy of the person.
Machado’s peaceful resistance of Venezuela’s brutal regime was aligned with the roots of the Nobel Peace Prize — nonviolence, liberty, and human dignity.

By contrast, Trump’s international relations style, though sometimes daring, was often seen as political and transactional, and this most likely dented his candidacy with the committee.

Global Reaction

The news elicited different reactions across the world:

• Democrats of democracy welcomed Machado’s honor as needed.
• Trump supporters protested the action, calling it political and contending that the Nobel Committee overlooked Trump’s diplomatic successes.

Most watched it as a symbolic act — that in an era of populism and authoritarian rule, the Nobel Committee chose to reward resilience, moral courage, and human rights activism over power or politics.

Final Thoughts

Donald Trump’s rout of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize by María Corina Machado is a bigger global message: actual peace is not built through bargaining, but through unyielding courage and the protection of democratic values.

While Trump’s political record is contentious, Machado’s victory is a testament to persistence — that even in one of the world’s most repressed nations, the fight for freedom is a cause worthy of the world’s finest accolades.

 What “Distributional Effects” Are

When economists refer to distributional effects, they’re wondering:

How do tariffs’ costs and benefits fall on society’s various groups?

Tariffs don’t only increase the price of foreign goods—they redistribute income among consumers, manufacturers, and the government. Notably, this redistribution can benefit some groups at the cost of others.

 The Key Stakeholders in the Tariff Narrative

Consumers:

• Households are nearly always the initial losers. Tariffs increase the cost of foreign imports and occasionally domestic substitutes as well. Whether it’s electronics, apparel, fuel, or food, typical families pay more for the same items.
• Poverty-level families tend to feel the crunch more intensely because they allocate a higher percentage of their income towards consumption staples.
• More affluent families might be able to absorb the expense more readily, yet even they experience a reduction in purchasing power.

Domestic Producers / Industries:

• Those producers that are in competition with imports are typically the primary beneficiaries of tariffs.
• For instance, if a nation sets a 25% tariff on imported steel, home steel manufacturers will be able to sell more at increased prices.
• Protection can help preserve jobs temporarily in such industries and spur domestic investment.

But there’s a catch: the tariff cuts back on competition, which sometimes induces inefficiency and slows long-term innovation.

Government / Treasury:

• The government raises tariff revenue, which can be substantial, particularly for high-volume tariffs.
• In other nations, tariffs are a significant source of revenue for the government to finance public services.

But this revenue is taken directly from customers, so it’s not an overall “gain” to the economy—it’s simply a redistribution from families to the state.

Exporters and Upstream Industries:

• Tariffs can also indirectly harm domestic companies that use imported inputs.
• As an example, car companies utilizing imported components will have to pay more and pass it on to customers or take reduced profit margins.

Moreover, foreign retaliation may target exporters, cutting down sales abroad.

How the Distribution Plays Out

Economists tend to imagine this in a supply and demand diagram, pointing to three places:

• Consumer Loss: The biggest area, of higher prices and less consumption.
• Producer Gain: Smaller, in favor of domestic producers insulated from competition.
• Government Revenue: Piles a small offset to the losses.

The take-home point is that the consumer loss typically exceeds the producer gain plus government revenue, resulting in a deadweight loss. That is, whereas some gain, the overall economy is made worse off.

 Real-Life Examples

U.S.–China Tariffs (2018–2020):

• Winners: U.S. steel and aluminum producers.
• Losers: Higher-paying consumers of electronics, appliances, and machinery; farmers who lose out on retaliatory tariffs on soybeans and pork.
• Outcome: U.S. net welfare loss, with the gains very concentrated in a select number of industries.

India’s Protective Tariffs:

• Protective tariffs on smartphones initially benefited local players such as Reliance Jio and local assembly plants.
• Higher smartphone prices and imported accessories were paid by consumers.

Export sectors occasionally lost out owing to retaliatory action from trading partners.

 Social and Political Implications

Tariffs generate distributional effects that help account for why trade policy is politicized:

• Workers in industries that are protected by tariffs favor them, but consumers and industries that export oppose them.
• Poor households might experience the biggest burdens of costs of necessities, so tariffs would be regressive.
• Concentrated large gains (such as one industry or firm) are highly organized and politically mobilized, but losses spread over millions of consumers are less transparent.

This unevenness frequently structures debates on trade policy: special-interest lobbying against low prices for everyone.

More Than Economics: Long-Term Consequences

Tariffs even affect structural change within the economy:

• Labor reallocations: Workers flow into protected industries, potentially dampening innovation and productivity growth over the long term.
• Investment behavior: Local firms may grow in response to protection, but they can also relax without global competition.
• Global trade relationships: Tariffs can lead to retaliation, hurting exporters and potentially moving jobs overseas.

Thus, though some sectors might prosper briefly, the overall distributional impact can produce inefficiencies and disparities that last well past the imposition of the tariff.

 Summary in Simple Terms

Consider tariffs as a redistribution of wealth with an underlying cost:

• Winners: A few domestic producers and the government treasury.
• Losers: The majority of consumers, poor families, exporters, and firms that depend on foreign inputs.
• Net impact: The economy generally loses efficiency and overall well-being, although some groups gain.

In a way, tariffs are similar to providing a small treat to some industries at the cost of making millions of people pay a more expensive grocery bill. The benefits being concentrated give rise to political support, but the spread costs silently reduce overall well-being.

What “Economic Welfare” Actually Is

In economics, welfare is not only government assistance or people’s social programs. It means the general well-being of individuals within an economy — generally quantified in terms of:

• Consumer welfare (how satisfied consumers are with goods and services),
• Producer welfare (domestic producers’ profits and incomes), and
• Government revenue (taxes collected, including tariffs).

When trade is unfettered, nations specialize in products they make best — the principle of comparative advantage. Consumers pay less and have more choices, and producers can sell in international markets.
When tariffs come into the equation, that efficiency is disrupted.

How Tariffs Work — and Where Welfare Is Lost

A tariff is like a tax on foreign goods. Let’s consider a simple scenario:
Your nation imposes a 20% tariff on foreign steel. The government earns some revenue, domestic steel manufacturers gain since their products become comparatively cheaper, but consumers (and industries that consume steel) pay higher prices.

Here’s what occurs in welfare terms:

• Consumers lose since prices rise — they pay more or consume less.
• Domestic producers gain since they get to sell at higher prices and have less foreign competition.
• The government gains tariff revenue.

But… some of the consumer loss does no one any good. It’s a deadweight loss — raw inefficiency brought about by misshapen prices and lower volume of trade.

So tariffs certainly redistribute welfare (to producers and the state at the expense of consumers), but they decrease overall welfare because the consumer losses outweigh the gains elsewhere.

Measuring the Loss — The “Deadweight” in Action

Economists represent this on supply-and-demand diagrams. In the absence of tariffs, imports meet the difference between what domestic producers provide and what consumers want. When tariffs increase prices:

Consumers purchase less,

• Some efficient foreign producers are cut out,
• Domestic producers increase, even if they’re less efficient.

That misallocation of resources — making something domestically that could have been imported at lower cost — is the welfare loss.

• Quantitatively, research estimates that
• For low tariffs (such as 5–10%), welfare losses are low — usually under 0.1% of GDP.
• For massive tariffs (such as in the course of trade wars), losses can accumulate to billions of dollars.

In the case of the U.S.–China tariff war (2018–2020), for example, estimates indicated:

• U.S. consumers and businesses paid about $50–60 billion a year in additional expenses.
• The net loss of welfare to the U.S. economy was approximately 0.3–0.4% of GDP, or roughly $80 billion — even considering government tariff revenue.

That’s an enormous price for a policy designed to “protect” jobs.

 The “Optimal Tariff” Exception

Economists do identify one theoretical exception — the “optimal tariff” argument. If a large nation (such as the U.S. or China) is able to drive world prices, it might, in theory, be able to impose a tariff that helps it slightly enhance its terms of trade — getting foreign sellers to reduce their prices.

In that unlikely instance, some of the burden is transferred overseas, and domestic welfare may rise somewhat.

But only if:

• If other nations fail to retaliate, and
• If the tariff is minor and short-term.

In reality, retaliation is sure to follow, erasing any benefit and often making everyone worse off globally.

 Beyond Numbers — The Human Side of Welfare

• Models can be heartless, but tariffs have human effects.
• Consumers pay more for necessities such as food, fuel, or electronics.
• Exporters are driven out of foreign markets as trading partners retaliate.

Employees in sheltered industries may be helped in the short term, but those in export-oriented or input-intensive industries tend to lose jobs or work fewer hours.

Tariffs can have a regressive impact in developing nations as well — affecting poorer households disproportionately because they spend a larger percentage of their incomes on traded products. And over the long term, that disparity itself is a welfare problem.

A Broader Economic Ripple Effect

Tariffs also have ripple effects on supply chains. Today’s industries are all interconnected — think of smartphone parts from 20 countries. A tariff on just one input can increase dozens of downstream firms’ costs. That not only lowers efficiency but can hinder innovation and investment.

Companies waste time and dollars adjusting to tariff change — rearranging supply chains, locating new suppliers, or transmitting costs — rather than using that money for productivity or R&D. That long-term drag is another, less obvious, type of welfare loss.

 When Policymakers Still Opt for Tariffs

Even with the welfare loss, governments occasionally employ tariffs as short-run tools:

• To shield infant industries until they can compete.
• To defend national security industries (such as defense or energy).
• To react against unfair trade practices (dumping or subsidies).

These arguments have political traction, but economists caution that protectionism creates a habit — industries become complacent, lobbying to maintain tariffs even after they no longer exist. The temporary cure turns into a chronic disease.

In Simple Terms

If we step back from the graphs and models, the reasoning falls into place:

• Tariffs make some people better off — mainly certain producers and governments — but they make many more people worse off.
• The overall economic pie shrinks, even if one slice grows larger.

So yes, tariffs do reduce welfare, usually by creating inefficiencies, raising consumer costs, and distorting production. The exact size of the loss depends on how open the economy is, what goods are taxed, and how trading partners react — but history consistently shows that open economies grow faster, innovate more, and enjoy higher living standards than closed or protectionist ones.

 How Can We Guarantee That Advanced AI Models Stay Aligned With Human Values?

Artificial intelligence was harmless when it was just primitive — proposing tunes, creating suggestion emails, or uploading photos. But if AI software is writing code, identifying sickness, processing money, and creating readable text, its scope reached far beyond the screen.

And now AI not only processes data but constructs perception, behavior, and even policy. And that makes one question how we ensure that AI will still follow human ethics, empathy, and our collective good.

What “Alignment” Really Means

Alignment in AI speak describes the exercise of causing a system’s objectives, deliverables, and behaviors to continue being aligned with human want and moral standards.

Not just computer instructions such as “don’t hurt humans.” It’s about developing machines capable of perceiving and respecting subtle, dynamic social norms — justice, empathy, privacy, fairness — even when they’re tricky for humans to articulate for themselves.

Because here’s the reality check: human beings do not share one, single definition of “good.” Values vary across cultures, generations, and environments. So, AI alignment is not just a technical problem — it’s an ethical and philosophical problem.

Why Alignment Matters More Than Ever

Consider an AI program designed to “optimize efficiency” for a hospital. If it takes that mission too literally, it might distribute resources discriminatorily against vulnerable patients.

Or consider AI in the criminal justice system — if the program is written from discriminatory data, it will continue to discriminate but in seemingly ideal objective style.

The risk isn’t that someday AI will “become evil.” It’s that it may maximize a very specific goal too well, without seeing the wider human context. Misalignment is typically not because of being evil, but because of not knowing — a misalignment between what we say we want and what we mean.

• As much as alignment is not dominion — it’s dialogue: how to teach AI to notice human nuance, empathy, and the ethical complexity of life.
• The Way Forward for Alignment: Technical, Ethical, and Human Layers
• Alignment of AI involves a multi-layered effort: science, ethics, and sound government.

1. Technical Alignment

Researchers are developing models such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) where artificial intelligence models learn the intended behavior by being instructed by human feedback.

Models in the future will extend this further by applying Constitutional AI — trained on an ethical “constitution” (a formal declaration of moral precepts) that guides how they think and behave.

Quantum jumps in explainability and interpretability will be a godsend as well — so humans know why an AI did something, not what it did. Transparency makes AI from black box to something accountable.

2. Ethical Alignment

AI must be trained in values, not data. What that implies is to make sure different perspectives get into its design — so it mirrors the diversity of humanity, not a programmer’s perspective.

Ethical alignment is concerned with making sure there is frequent dialogue among technologists, philosophers, sociologists, and citizens that will be affected by AI. It wants to make sure the technology is a reflection of humanity, not just efficiency.

3. Societal and Legal Alignment

Governments and global institutions have an enormous responsibility. We start to dominate medicine or nuclear power, we will need AI regulation regimes ensuring safety, justice, and accountability.

EU’s AI Act, UNESCO’s ethics framework, and global discourse on “AI governance” are good beginnings. But regulation must be adaptive — nimble enough to cope with AI’s dynamics.

Keeping Humans in the Loop

The more sophisticated AI is, the more enticing it is to outsource decisions — to trust machines to determine what’s “best.” But alignment insists that human beings be the moral decision-maker.

Where mission is most important — justice, healthcare, education, defense — AI needs to augment, not supersede, human judgment. “Human-in-the-loop” systems guarantee that empathy, context, and accountability are always at the center of every decision.

True alignment is not about making AI perfectly obey; it’s about making those partnerships between human insight and machine sagacity, where both get the best from each other.

The Emotional Side of Alignment

There is also a very emotional side to this question.

Human beings fear losing control — not just of machines, but even of meaning. The more powerful the AI, the greater our fear: will it still carry our hopes, our humanity, our imperfections?

Getting alignment is, in one way or another, about instilling AI with a sense of what it means to care — not so much emotionally, perhaps, but in the sense of human seriousness of consequences. It’s about instilling AI with a sense of context, restraint, and ethical humility.

And maybe, in the process, we’re learning as well. Alleviating AI is forcing humankind to examine its own ethics — pushing us to ask: What do we really care about? What type of intelligence do we wish to build our world?

The Future: Continuous Alignment

Alignment isn’t a one-time event — it’s an ongoing partnership.
And with AI is the revolution in human values. We will require systems to evolve ethically, not technically — models that learn along with us, grow along with us, and reflect the very best of what we are.

That will require open research, international cooperation, and humility on the part of those who create and deploy them. No one company or nation can dictate “human values.” Alignment must be a human effort.

 Last Reflection

So how do we remain one step ahead of powerful AI models and keep them aligned with human values?

By being just as technically advanced as we are morally imaginative. By putting humans at the center of all algorithms. And by understanding that alignment is not about replacing AI — it’s about getting to know ourselves better.

The true objective is not to construct obedient machines but to make co-workers who comprehend what we want, play by our rules, and work for our visions towards a better world.

In the end, AI alignment isn’t an engineering challenge — it’s a self-reflection.
And the extent to which we align AI with our values will be indicative of the extent to which we’ve aligned ourselves with them.