Five years have passed since the Taliban swept into Kabul, not with a constitutional mandate, but with the brute force of military conquest. The world watched, condemned, and drew a hard line: recognition would be conditional. The checklist was clear: form a broad-based government, include women, and protect the rights of over two million schoolgirls. Five years later, the checklist remains unsigned, the ink long dried in the bottle. Yet the regime is surviving. De-facto control is increasingly outweighing de-jure legitimacy, and the Taliban's tenure in Kabul serves as a masterclass in realpolitik, revealing that in the absence of global consensus, survival is its own form of victory.

History offers precedents. The Bolsheviks in 1917, the apartheid-era Bantustans, and modern separatist entities in Sri Lanka and Ukraine all established de facto territorial control but languished in a diplomatic grey zone as unrecognised international pariahs. The Taliban are the latest inhabitants of this domain. Unlike their historical counterparts, however, they are thriving in the void. The recognition gap was partially bridged last year when Russia extended formal recognition and signed military cooperation deals. China, India, and the European Union continue to engage on trade, security, and migrant deportations, treating the Taliban as necessary interlocutors. The United States, holding the moral line, refuses direct engagement, leaving the core issue of legitimacy unresolved. Yet the question persists: does it matter if America refuses to say your name, if the rest of the world is taking your calls?

To understand........

© The Nation