Strategic objectivity would suggest that India's preference should be for a sustained United States embedment in Afghanistan till such time political democracy takes roots and the Afghan National Army is built up to at least 500,000 strong to take charge of Afghanistan’s security.
LOL, actually and literally.

This article seems based on the premise that Taliban/Pakistani control of Afghanistan would pose an unacceptable threat to India. That premise, however, is not supported. What threat would a Taliban-led Afghanistan pose to India that does not already exist?

Also unaddressed here is the potential cost to India of sustaining a prolonged military occupation of Afghanistan, especially with the access limitations that would be posed by a hostile Pakistan. Attempts to pacify and stabilize Afghanistan are notoriously prolonged, expensive, and unsuccessful... why would one expect India to succeed where the Soviets and Americans failed?

Aside from the very substantial cost, isn't it possible that the risks to India's security posed by military involvement in Afghanistan, including the possibility of escalation to war with Pakistan, would exceed the risks posed by a Taliban return?

Certainly India would love to see the US stay in Afghanistan: the U presence gives the jihadi community both a distracting target and an incentive to keep their heads down, and if the US pulled out the jihadis would likely turn more of their attention to India. I'm not sure it makes sense for the US to stay there for that reason though... and the likelihood of democracy taking root any time in the near future has got to be pretty low.