By: Drishti Gupta, Research Analyst, GSDN

The triangular relationship between the United States, Pakistan, and India has historically shaped the geopolitics of South Asia. Washington’s policies toward Islamabad and New Delhi have often oscillated, influenced by Cold War alignments, counterterrorism priorities, nuclear proliferation concerns, and, more recently, the strategic competition with China. In the mid-2020s, signs of a renewed U.S. Pakistan engagement have surfaced. Washington has increased diplomatic outreach, revived selective military cooperation, and emphasized the importance of Pakistan in counterterrorism, nuclear stability, and regional geopolitics. For India, these developments are worrying. New Delhi views U.S. support for Islamabad as potentially emboldening Pakistan’s military establishment, reviving its strategic leverage, and complicating India’s role as Washington’s key partner in the Indo-Pacific.

This article examines the historical roots of U.S.–Pakistan relations, current drivers of re-engagement, and the strategic implications for India. It draws upon verified figures, historical records, and contemporary analyses to provide a comprehensive assessment.

Historical Context: US–Pakistan–India Balancing

The U.S. Pakistan relationship has been marked by cycles of intense engagement and sharp estrangement. The U.S.–Pakistan relationship has swung between close cooperation and estrangement. In the Cold War era, Pakistan joined SEATO (1954) and CENTO (1955), becoming a key U.S. ally and receiving over US$ 5 billion in aid during the 1980s Afghan jihad. Ties soured in the 1990s when U.S. aid was cut under the Pressler Amendment due to Pakistan’s nuclear program. After 9/11, relations revived as Pakistan was named a major non-NATO ally and received more than US$ 20 billion (2002–2011) for counterterrorism and Afghan operations. Meanwhile, U.S. ties with India strengthened, culminating in the 2008 civil nuclear deal.

This dual-track policy strengthening India as a democratic partner while maintaining Pakistan as a counterterror ally has been a consistent source of Indian unease.

Pakistan’s Renewed Strategic Utility for the U.S.

The CRS report identifies Pakistan as “vital to U.S. interests” owing to its role in terrorism, Afghan stability, nuclear security, and regional tensions. Washington’s renewed engagement is shaped by four key factors.

First, counterterrorism cooperation remains essential, as Pakistan hosts groups like the Haqqani Network, TTP, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose activities gained renewed relevance after the Taliban’s 2021 takeover in Afghanistan. Second, Pakistan’s nuclear program estimated at 170 warheads by SIPRI (2024) and expanding rapidly continues to raise U.S. concerns about proliferation and security. Third, China’s growing influence through the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has heightened U.S. worries about Pakistan drifting further into Beijing’s orbit. Finally, Pakistan’s recurring financial crises, including its near default in 2023 that required a US$ 3 billion IMF bailout, provide Washington with economic leverage through its role in international lending institutions.

U.S. Assistance and Defense Cooperation with Pakistan

From 2001 to 2017, Pakistan received over US$ 33 billion in U.S. assistance, including:

• US$ 14.5 billion in Coalition Support Funds (CSF) to reimburse Pakistan for counterterror operations.
• US$ 4 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to purchase U.S. weapons, including F-16 fighter jets, attack helicopters, and night-vision equipment.
• Billions in economic support funds (ESF) for infrastructure and governance.

Although aid declined sharply after 2018 under the Trump administration, reports since 2022 indicate renewed U.S. efforts to provide military spare parts, training programs, and limited defense equipment to Pakistan. For India, such support raises alarms given Pakistan’s history of diverting counterterror funds toward conventional military capacity against India, especially in the context of Kashmir.

Indian Concerns Over U.S.–Pakistan Rapprochement

India’s anxieties about U.S.–Pakistan engagement stem from both historical experience and strategic logic. A key concern lies in arms transfers:

U.S.-supplied F-16s, officially designated for counterterrorism, were deployed by Pakistan during the 2019 Balakot crisis, reinforcing Indian suspicions about misuse. Diplomatically, Islamabad has often leveraged its ties with Washington to internationalize the Kashmir issue, despite India’s firm stance that it remains a bilateral matter. Counterterrorism is another fault line. New Delhi argues that U.S. dependence on Pakistan in this domain overlooks Islamabad’s selective approach acting firmly against anti-state groups while allowing anti-India militants to operate. Finally, the China–Pakistan–U.S. triangle heightens Indian concern, as even limited American engagement could inadvertently bolster Pakistan’s bargaining position with both Washington and Beijing, complicating India’s strategic environment.

China Factor: Strategic Triangles in South Asia

China’s presence looms large in the U.S.–Pakistan relationship. With CPEC investments exceeding US$ 60 billion, Beijing has entrenched itself as Pakistan’s economic lifeline and security partner. The U.S. seeks to avoid Pakistan becoming a full Chinese satellite state, but India views this triangulation skeptically. For New Delhi, U.S. engagement with Pakistan under the pretext of “countering China” could legitimize Pakistan’s role without reducing the risks to India.

U.S.–India Partnership: A Strategic Counterweight

Despite concerns, India remains Washington’s long-term bet in Asia. The Quad grouping (U.S., India, Japan, Australia), defense agreements such as COMCASA, LEMOA, and BECA, and the 2023 iCET framework on emerging technologies underscore the U.S. commitment to India. India has become the largest arms export market for the U.S., with defense trade growing from US$ 200 million in 2000 to over US$ 20 billion in 2023. Yet, New Delhi fears that tactical U.S. reliance on Islamabad in Afghanistan or counterterrorism may dilute the credibility of Washington’s India-first strategy.

Policy Recommendations for India

To mitigate risks from U.S.–Pakistan rapprochement, India should:

1. Engage Washington Proactively: Ensure U.S. policymakers are briefed on India’s concerns over arms transfers and military aid.
2. Leverage Strategic Autonomy: Balance ties with the U.S. while maintaining defense cooperation with France, Russia, and Israel.
3. Regional Diplomacy: Deepen ties with Gulf states, ASEAN, and Africa to offset Pakistan’s narrative.
4. International Platforms: Use FATF and UN Security Council mechanisms to highlight Pakistan’s terror networks.
5. Economic Leverage: Showcase India’s market and investment potential as a counterweight to Pakistan’s instability, reminding Washington where its long-term interests lie.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s deepening engagement with the United States is driven by Washington’s counter-terrorism priorities, nuclear security concerns, and China-containment strategy. While this engagement may appear tactical, it poses significant strategic anxieties for India. History demonstrates that U.S. support—military, financial, or diplomatic—has often emboldened Pakistan’s military and destabilized South Asia. For India, the task ahead is clear: reinforce its role as Washington’s most reliable partner in Asia, while ensuring that any U.S.–Pakistan rapprochement does not translate into security costs for New Delhi.

As South Asia remains entangled in great-power rivalries, India must play a nuanced balancing act, combining diplomacy, economic strength, and military modernization to ensure that its strategic interests are not compromised.

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

The recent Russia-India-China (RIC) Trilateral relations uniting to form an alternative power bloc against the United States has become a topic of intense discussion in global politics. Through platforms like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and bilateral engagements, these countries have signalled their intent to reshape the global economic and political landscape. These nations, with their significant populations, growing economies, and military capabilities, are increasingly asserting their influence on the global stage, seeking to create a counterbalance to Western hegemony. As the world transitions toward a multipolar order, the growing cooperation among these three nations, driven by shared interests and strategic alignments, raises questions about their potential to challenge the longstanding dominance of the United States. This group opposes unilateralism and supports the idea of a multipolar global governance model. The RIC triangle has the potential to reshape the international system in which Asia speaks with a stronger voice, multipolarity gains ground, and new forms of regional cooperation are tested against the limits of history, mistrust, and competing ambitions.

What derived this relation

US President Donald Trump’s trade war has hit countries trading with Russia by imposing steep tariffs. Now, India’s oil imports are facing penalties as high as 50%. The goal was to cut Russia’s export revenue and push India to scale back ties. The recent economic crisis between US-India relations has been one of the greatest crises for Indian diplomacy in decades. The fresh Trump tariffs which have specifically targeted BRICS countries, and India in particular, have once again made India suspect of the USA. In a world marked by turbulence, fractured alliances, and the decline of unquestioned Western supremacy, the rationale for closer strategic cooperation between Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing is stronger than ever.

The rise to the idea of RIC and multipolar world was drawn from the post-Cold War euphoria. In the late 1990s, foreign minister of Russia Yevgeny Primakov proposed a “strategic triangle,” in which they aim to break free of Western dominance and reassert Eurasia as a geopolitical centre. Over the years, it facilitated over 20 ministerial-level meetings, fostering cooperation in foreign policy, economics, & security among the 3 nations. Unipolarity of U.S. had forcing sanctions and crisis have pushed Russia closer to the East, India forced to maintain its balancing act with Moscow and the United States, and China has emerged as the rival to Western global influence. Unlike Western alliances bound by shared ideology, the RIC triangle unites three countries with sharply different political systems. Yet all shares a preference for independent foreign policies, resistance to Western dominance, and a vision of a multipolar order.

India and Russia share a Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership that has grown for over 70 years. Their ties cover trade, defence, energy, science, and technology. Russia supplies a big part of India’s oil, and both countries are building an “Energy Bridge” with nuclear, hydrocarbons, hydel, and renewable projects. Together, they can Western banking systems by transacting in their own national currencies—rupees, yuan, and roubles—bolstering regional connectivity. This trilateral cooperation extends beyond trade to industrial modernisation in aerospace, advanced materials, and mining technology, emphasising self-reliance and diminished dependence on Western technologies. Defence cooperation, highlighted by India’s push for indigenous weapon manufacturing, further fuels economic growth and technology sharing, supported by regular dialogues and joint exercises with Russia.

Change in global power dynamics

Together, Russia, India, and China account for nearly 30 million square kilometres, over 2.5 billion people, vast natural resources, and combined GDP approaching one-fifth of global output. China is the world’s second-largest economy, India has become the fastest-growing major economy, and Russia remains a formidable military and energy power. They hold the world’s second largest, fourth largest (soon to be third) and 11th largest economies and account for 23% of the world’s GDP.

India, China, and Russia are employing several key mechanisms to bypass the US dollar in trade settlements and reduce reliance on Western financial systems. RIC have established currency swap arrangements to settle trade in their own national currencies, allowing them to bypass the dollar and avoid sanctions. This enables direct conversion and payment without using the dollar as an intermediary currency. This structure facilitates trade settlements purely in Indian rupees without converting to the dollar. Together, these mechanisms provide a survival strategy under US sanctions and trade restrictions, reducing transaction costs and financial vulnerabilities by creating a multipolar trade settlement environment outside the dollar sphere.

For example, China and Russia do nearly 95% of their trade settlements in yuan and roubles. India’s trade with the Russia-led EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) has jumped to $69 billion in 2024, mainly through Russian oil. India’s exports to Russia have also doubled in recent years, rising from $2.39 billion in 2019 to $4.88 billion in 2025. Both countries are even looking to restart a rupee-ruble payment system to cut down dependence on the dollar. India and Russia actively use rupees and roubles in growing trade volumes, including energy imports to India.

Their combined power extends beyond economics. The trilateral relation between Russia, India and China is game-changing. RIC consists of a third of the world’s population and a fifth of the global landmass. Each of the three nations are geopolitical power in their own neighbourhood, i.e., Russia in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; India in South Asia and the Indian Ocean; China across East Asia and the Pacific. Scientifically, technologically and industrially, they are amongst the leaders in the world and possess vast resources of oil, gas, food and minerals. They are amongst the top four military powers of the world, after the US.

China brings industrial capacity and financial resources, India contributes human capital and technological dynamism, and Russia offers energy, natural resources, and defence technologies. A stronger RIC framework could evolve into a regional platform for security cooperation. And most importantly they could counterbalance Western dominance in setting global norms. In global forums such as BRICS, the G20, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, closer RIC alignment enhances the ability of emerging powers to shape debates on trade, climate change, finance, and technological development.

Challenges and future prospects

Russia often views RIC primarily as a geopolitical lever against the West, India tends to fluctuate between Eastern and Western ties, China envisions RIC as part of a broader Eurasian architecture anchored by its Belt and Road Initiative. Russia remains protective of its influence in Central Asia, India remains wary of China’s closeness with Pakistan, China must balance its ties to Islamabad with its desire for stable relations with New Delhi. Sino-Indian boarder tensions are unsolved and India’s ties with the western States and its role in QUAD is concerning for Russia to oppose western hegemony. This alignment with Western powers complicates India’s role in any anti-U.S. alliance. While India maintains a policy of strategic autonomy, balancing its relationships with both Western and non-Western powers, its deepening ties with the United States, particularly in defence and technology, create a delicate balancing act. These mismatched priorities dilute momentum remain the most serious fault in the relation. All this problem shows how fragile this trilateral relation could be and how important it is to resolve these obstacles in order to achieve the common goal.

Russia’s economic constraints further complicate the equation. While it possesses significant military and energy resources, its economy is heavily reliant on energy exports and is significantly smaller than those of China and India. Western sanctions have further weakened Russia’s economic position, making it dependent on China for trade and investment. Another critical factor is the differing national priorities of these three countries. China’s aggressive foreign policy and territorial ambitions often clash with the interests of its neighbours, including India. Its dominance in any potential alliance could create unease for India and Russia, both of which value their sovereignty and strategic independence. India may hesitate to fully commit to an anti-U.S. alliance, especially if it risks alienating key partners like the United States, which provides critical technology and investment.

Despite these challenges, the potential for India, China and Russia to form an alternative power bloc cannot be dismissed. The global order is undergoing a profound transformation, with the rise of multipolarity challenging the unipolar dominance of the United States. The growing influence of non-Western institutions like BRICS and the SCO reflects a broader shift toward a more balanced global system. The economic dimension of this potential alliance is particularly significant. By promoting trade in local currencies and developing alternative financial systems, these countries aim to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and Western financial institutions. This shift could have far-reaching implications for global trade and finance, weakening the United States’ ability to use economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. Moreover, their combined technological advancements, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence, space exploration, and renewable energy, could position them as leaders in the next phase of global innovation.

Conclusion

The potential of India-Russia-China Trilateral relation is yet to be defined since its more rhetoric than reality. However, the trio’s capabilities grow as the rivalry between U.S. and RIC deepens. Indeed, its progress since 1998 has been uneven and often symbolic but in the fast-moving world, Russia-India-China cannot afford disunity. The RIC triangle is an unfinished project and may not become a formal alliance. But it demonstrates that flexible and multipolar world that provides diversity while pursuing shared strategic interests. If the trio can overcome mistrust, it has the potential to become not only a stabilizing force in Eurasia but many other countries. In a century where power is diffusing and old hierarchies are fading, the RIC trio may well prove to be one of the keys to building a more balanced and multipolar world.

If Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing can strengthen their strategic planning, institutionalize cooperation, and draw lessons from other multilateral experiments, the RIC triangle could rise from a rhetorical construct into a genuine pillar of global governance. These developments signal a robust and growing alliance designed to challenge the current global economic order, create new supply chains, and foster a global system prioritising independence, resilience, and regional currency use, marking a shift from unipolar Western dominance to a more diversified multipolar world order.

By: Brig AJA Pereira, SM (Retd)

“The great danger of the modern world is that we are drowning in information but starved for wisdom,” warned historian EO Wilson. In the last two decades, digital technologies have shrunk the world into a smartphone which is just a click away from global currents of news, outrage, and protest. This easy and cheap access has empowered individuals, democratized information, and amplified voices that were once silent. But it has also made societies more vulnerable, exposing fault lines within nations and creating fertile ground for unrest. The paradox of our age is clear: the world has become smaller, but far more divided.

The story of digital revolutions began in Tunisia when the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in 2010 set off a firestorm, carried not just by word of mouth but by Facebook posts, X hashtags, and YouTube videos. The Arab Spring spread across North Africa and West Asia, toppling regimes and unsettling entrenched powers. Similar waves of unrest touched Ukraine, leading to the Orange Revolution, and rippled further into South and Southeast Asia. In our immediate neighbourhood, Pakistan saw protests against corruption and military dominance, Sri Lankan economic crisis morphed into mass unrest, Bangladesh’s student protests snowballed and now Nepal is simmering with same volatile mix of popular frustration and internet-fuelled dissent. What unites these disparate movements is not geography, ideology, or leadership but technology. Social media platforms, almost all owned by the Western world provide the launch pad for outrage, stage for mobilization, and the echo chambers for anger.

These platforms that connect families also spread calls for disobedience, glorify violence, and erode faith in institutions. It is no longer a secret that the content individuals consume is curated not by choice but by algorithms. A subtle tweak in ranking systems or recommendations can amplify anger, spread disinformation, or radicalise entire groups. This begins by igniting internal strife due to economic inequality, corruption, or governance failures, followed by digital amplification and mass mobilization which leads to breakdown of law and order followed by regime change or instability. This “playbook” is not accidental. It thrives on societal divides and digital manipulation, leaving nations fractured long after the protests fade. The pattern has repeated with disturbing similarity across countries.

For China, these “digital revolutions” are existential threats of external manipulation disguised as popular uprisings. Unlike other nations, China has invested in a fully indigenous digital ecosystem i.e. WeChat (WhatsApp, Facebook, PayPal combined), Douyin (TikTok), Weibo (X), Xiaohongshu (Pinterest and Instagram), Bilibili (YouTube), Zhihu (Quora), Youku (YouTube and Netflix) etc. These platforms operate under strict surveillance and censorship by the Chinese Communist Party, ensuring that narratives challenging the state are swiftly neutralized. The “Great Firewall” keeps Western platforms largely out, insulating the population from external influence. In this way, China has created a digital sovereignty model that prioritizes regime stability above individual freedom.

Pakistan has a nationwide firewall to block and filter internet content with advanced technology from China’s Geedge Networks, with components from the U.S and France. Countries like Russia, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, and Myanmar have also implemented similar systems of censorship and control influenced by Chinese technology and policies.

India presents the opposite picture. We are deeply reliant on Western technologies be it Google’s Android, Apple’s iOS, Microsoft’s Windows, Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube etc. Nearly every aspect of our digital life is dependent on foreign operating systems, hardware, and platforms. Layered on top of this is our own social reality which is fractured along caste, religion, language, and class. These divides make us particularly vulnerable to the same “digital revolution” playbook that has destabilized our neighbours. A single manipulated narrative, amplified through millions of smartphones, could easily tip local unrest into nationwide crisis.

In order to be a global power, we must secure our digital sovereignty. We need to accelerate the creation of homegrown social media platforms, search engines, and digital tools that can compete with foreign platforms while ensuring accountability. Investment in secure, indigenous operating systems, chips, and cloud infrastructure is critical to reduce dependency on external powers. A robust legal and regulatory framework must define how foreign platforms should operate in India. Citizens must be educated to identify disinformation and resist digital manipulation. A digitally literate society is less prone to being swayed by orchestrated narratives. Ultimately, the best defence is unity. Addressing internal inequalities and promoting social cohesion will blunt the effectiveness of digital triggers.

Digital technologies have shrunk the world but have also turned local sparks into global wildfires. The revolutions from Tunisia to Tehran and Sri Lanka to Nepal reveal a consistent pattern of unrest amplified by Western-controlled social media, leaving societies weakened and divided. To prevent becoming the next domino in this chain of digital revolutions, we must build indigenous capacity, reduce foreign dependency, and strengthen our social cohesion to survive and prevail in the digital age.

By: Shreya Dabral, Research Analyst, GSDN

South Asia has never been an example of simple geopolitics, in which the bitterness of history, the hostility of the region, and international strategic interests intersect. The warming of relationships between Pakistan and Bangladesh is one of the more recent changes that are transforming the strategic environment of the region. These two countries, which fought and were bitter foes in the past, linked through culture, language, and geography, and are separated by a bloody past-are starting to consider a path of diplomatic, economic, and security partnership.

This newfound intimacy poses numerous problems to India, which has hitherto enjoyed great leverage in Bangladesh and has a strained but a tactically indispensable relationship with Pakistan. To go with the diplomatic adjustments are regional security ramifications, economic impact and overall Indian orientation to its geopolitical strategy. It is important to understand such developments, drivers of these developments and the possible effects of such developments to assess the strategic posture of India in South Asia.

History: Common Ground to Division

The history of the present geopolitical situation has its origins in South Asia. The division of British India in 1947 gave birth to Pakistan, a country with separated wings (geographically) West Pakistan (modern-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (modern-day Bangladesh). Since its formation, Pakistan had struggled with integrating East Pakistan politically, economically, and culturally. East Pakistanis believed they had been politically sidelined, exploited economically, and inherently neglected in terms of cultural practices and governance as West Pakistan prevailed within national institutions, commerce and administration.

In 1971, this situation came to a breaking point. The autonomy requested by East Pakistan triggered a military crackdown by West Pakistan that caused many atrocities and humanitarian crisis. Strategic, humanitarian, and political interests made India intervene and thus created Bangladesh. The Bangladesh population was profoundly scarred psychologically by the war with a legacy of mistrust of Pakistan that continues to date.

Bangladesh adopted an Indian-friendly foreign policy to a great extent after independence and began cooperating with India economically and in security matters. Meanwhile, Pakistan was diplomatically isolated in the subcontinent, and it had a limited and mostly ceremonial relationship with Bangladesh. It is against this historical background that India had a long history of influence in Bangladesh, owing to a joint struggle, similarity of culture and strategic interests.

The Political Change of Direction and Foreign Policy Reorganization in Bangladesh

Political change took place in Bangladesh in August 2024. When the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, was ousted after a mix of civil unrest, student movement, and extraneous factors, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus which started having an anti-India stance and started gravitating towards China & Pakistan. This was a break of the conventional India-focused foreign policy in Bangladesh.

The strategic pivot in Bangladesh has several reasons behind it:

• Economic Diversification: Bangladesh has also been pursuing a solution to excessive reliance on India in trade and investment. Interaction with Pakistan will provide access to new markets, joint ventures, and export opportunities especially in the textile industry, farm produce and technologies.

• Strategic Autonomy: Bangladesh presents its independence at the regional level, by balancing its relations with India and Pakistan. An attitude like that makes Bangladesh seem less of a satellite of one power, giving it a greater diplomatic advantage.

• Security Concerns: Overlapping areas of common interest in defensive cooperation have been established in counterterrorism, maritime security and calamity control. The willingness to cooperate is demonstrated by the fact that Bangladesh has been part of the military drills organized by Pakistan, such as AMAN-2025.

• Domestic Political Signalling: The new administration wants to demonstrate itself as a decisive force in foreign affairs, exercising agency to its audiences back home and projecting experience abroad.

• Historical and Cultural Interactions: The culture and language that binds Pakistan and Bangladesh together is gradually re-discovered with uneven speed due to the historical wrong and as a new platform to build another partnership.

Strategic Motivation in Pakistan

With its past diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation, Pakistan is particularly happy about the prospect of renewed interaction with Bangladesh:

• Diplomatic Bait: Co-operative Bangladesh would increase the influence of Pakistan in the region, and Islamabad would be able to offset the traditional influence of India in Dhaka.

• Economic Cooperation: Bangladeshi markets and trade access would provide Pakistan, opportunities to augment exports, share investments and strengthen its economic position within South Asia.

• Strategic Signalling: As long as Pakistan balances its strategic interests and can project a vision that involves reconciling the region, it should be perceived as malleable and as reflecting a wish to resolve historical animosities.

• Regional Deals: Greater integration with Bangladesh will open opportunities to do coordinated business with China, which will enhance the strategic position of Pakistan through India.

Economic Cooperation and Implications

Pakistan and Bangladesh are going through nascent economic cooperation:

• Trade Agreements: The two countries have started negotiating to lower trade barriers, consider tariff concessions, and promote joint ventures in the industrial sphere. This may involve joint ventures in textiles, pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

• Investment Opportunities: Pakistan is looking at investing in Bangladeshi industries (especially the energy and infrastructure) which might have been earlier on, attracted Indian investment.

• Dynamics of Regional Markets: Regional level economic initiatives would alter the flow of trade, slightly weakening the old-standing economic advantage of India in Bangladesh. An example is the re-placing of regional supply chains to garments or raw materials with Pakistan, which would impact the market share of India.

• Long-term Economic Realignment: The sustained collaboration can stimulate other area participants to consider multilateral initiatives with Pakistan-Bangladesh, which will form a new economic bloc in the eastern region of South Asia.

Defense and Security Cooperation

The most delicate aspect of the rapprochement between Pakistan and Bangladesh is perhaps defense cooperation:

• Military Exercises: The involvement of Bangladesh in drills organized by Pakistan especially the maritime security exercises show the coordination of operations and common interests.

• Intelligence Sharing: There have been talks of counterterrorism intelligence exchange, which is a reflection of common apprehensions with regard to transnational security threats.

• Strategic Posture: Although not blatant, this type of cooperation will require the recalibration of India in the eastern border and in the Bay of Bengal. Even a restricted version of a joint strategy between Bangladesh and Pakistan will have a shaping impact on the Indian regional strategic decisions.

• Counterterrorism Dynamics: Pakistan has been accused in the past of leveraging regional networks to spread extremism. Further cooperation with Bangladesh may make it difficult to track cross-border terrorist activities even inadvertently, by India.

Diplomatic and Regional Implications

The developing Pakistan-Bangladesh alliance should also be considered in the context of the geopolitics of the region:

• China and its influence: China is a strategic partner to Pakistan, and a potential investor to Bangladesh, meaning that improved Bangladesh-Pakistan relations will advantage China. Planned programs in line with Chinese infrastructure projects have the potential to support a further strategic presence of Beijing in South Asia.

• The Role of the United States: U.S involvement in South Asia, policy changes in relation to Pakistan, Bangladesh and India will determine the future of bilateral relations. A change in American strategic priorities can change the cost-benefit calculus of both Dhaka and Islamabad.

• Regional Forums: Regional blocs like SAARC and BIMSTEC can be used as the platforms of increased Pakistan-Bangladesh collaboration, which can leave India behind unless New Delhi takes the initiative.

• Geopolitical Message: New relationships indicate to the world that old animosity can be put aside in a practical way and the relationships in the South Asian region redefined. India has to read these signals and alter its regional diplomacy.

Implications for India

This changing partnership poses a complex environment to India:

• Strategic Enforcement: Greater cooperation between Pakistan and Bangladesh has the potential to impact the eastern security dynamics of India, thereby putting a strain on strategic choices in the Bay of Bengal and frontier areas.

• Economic Competition: Dislocation of investment and markets out of India by the joint trade and industrial projects would affect the regional economic competition and commercial interests of India.

• Security Dilemmas: Intelligence and maritime coordination between Bangladesh and Pakistan may require re-alignment of the Indian defense planning.

• Diplomatic Constraints: A shift in favour of Pakistan lowers the bargaining power of India in Bangladesh and may lessen its influence in the regional forums and multilateral bargaining.

• Historical Sensitivities: Unresolved issues of the 1971 war, such as unresolved grievances, can have a latent effect on the foreign policy of Bangladesh and this makes the task of India to have a strategic presence in Bangladesh difficult.

Indian Strategic Options

India needs to take a multi-pronged approach to offset such developments:

• Firm Bilateral Relationships: The relationship with Bangladesh should be reinforced through trade, investment, cultural exchange and infrastructure cooperation, which is also imperative to reestablish authority.

• Economic Incentives: There are specific economic packages, joint ventures and technology alliances that can be applied to counter the increasing attractiveness of Pakistan.

• Defense Cooperation: Joint security drills, maritime cooperation, and counterterrorism cooperation will aid in ensuring that India has a strategic advantage.

• Cultural Diplomacy: Education, media and people-to-people exchanges: imports and exports build a sense of goodwill and enhance historical bonds.

• Regional Leadership: Active involvement and membership in SAARC, BIMSTEC and other regional groups will mean that the interest of India is represented and the Bangladesh-Pakistan axis does not turn its back on New Delhi.

• Strategic Communication: The articulation of the vision of regional stability, economic development and security of India will be clear and will help to sway the perceptions of international interests.

Case Studies and Hypothetical Scenarios

• Maritime Security in Bay of Bengal: Imagine that Pakistan and Bangladesh are co-operating in conducting naval patrol. India would require a greater level of surveillance and may even plan with the other regional allies to have free navigation and ensure strategic balance.

• Economic cooperation in Textile: A hypothetical joint venture in the production of garments between Pakistan and Bangladesh may compete directly with the Indian exports, forcing India to innovate or give incentives to keep business.

• Sharing of Intelligence on Counterterrorism: In case Pakistan and Bangladesh liaise on intelligence, India has to come up with similar systems of ensuring that it is in the know on the possible cross border threats.

These situations depict practical challenges India has to look forward to in order to retain security and influence.

Conclusion

The increasing intimacy between Pakistan and Bangladesh is a radical change in the geopolitical situation in South Asia. In the case of India, the consequences are diverse- in security, economic, and diplomatic terms. Although the rapprochement presents possible risks, it also offers an opportunity to India to re-strategize its policy and increase bilateral involvement and re-establish its status as a regional leader.

India can overcome these changes by taking a proactive, subtle, and strategic course of action, including diplomacies, economic incentives, defense partnership, and cultural interaction. The Bangladesh Pakistan axis can redefine the regional dynamics however with the site and proper planning, India can preserve its interests, keep the region stable and remain in an influential position in South Asia.

By: Sanjay Mummana, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Middle East is never just a desert between Asia and Africa; it is the place of the birth of empires, of religions, and of civilizations in conflict. Yet, when the world today thinks of this land, one word comes to mind: war. From the fall of the Ottoman Empire to the wars going now, the Middle East has seldom been a peaceful place. One conflict ends another begins, as if the region is trapped in an endless cycle. Peace in Middle East isa question shaped by both politics and history. Let us first examine the history of the Middle East, to understand the roots of its persistent conflicts.

The 1910s and 1920s: Promises and Betrayals:

The first decade of the twentieth century changed the history of the Middle East. At that time, Britain was still very dependent on oil from the United States (U.S.), and the American position on anti-colonialism made the British nervous. To reduce dependence, they turned to the oil-rich Middle East and chose to break the Ottoman Empire’s hold on the region. Arabs who had rebelled against the Ottomans thought that Britain promised them independence through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence but their fate had already been sealed. On May 16, 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the land between Britain and France, and on November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, without regard to the Arab majority living there. The Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920) ended the Ottoman Empire and divided its territories among the European powers. By the 1920s, instead of actual independence, Arabs were given artificial states under foreign rule, sowing mistrust and conflicts that continue to this day as well.

The 1930s and 1940s: Rising Nationalism and the Birth of Israel:

In the 1930s, anger grew in Arab lands under European control, especially in Syria, Iraq, and Palestine. Jewish migration to Palestine increased, and pushed further by Nazi persecution, which led to clashes with local Arabs. After the Holocaust, pressure rose to create a Jewish homeland, and on November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared unilateral independence, and the very next day Arab countries attacked, starting the first Arab-Israeli War. Jews lost millions of lives in the Holocaust, finally got a place to live, and when others tried to take it away, they fought till the last drop of blood and won. For Arabs, it was the opposite. They saw it as their land unfairly given to others. For Palestinians, it was the Nakba (“catastrophe”), when many were killed and hundreds of thousands were forced from their homes.

The 1950s and 1960s: The Age of Coups and Wars:

Arab nationalism grew stronger in the 1950s and 1960s. Leaders like Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt wanted to unite Arabs under socialism and reduce Western control. This came to a head during the Suez Crisis on October 29, 1956, when Egypt took control of the Suez Canal. Britain, France, and Israel attacked, but they were forced to withdraw under pressure from the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Arab-Israeli conflict rose again on June 05, 1967, in the Six Day War, when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and Golan Heights, causing more Palestinian displacement.

The 1970s and 1980s: Oil, Peace, and Proxy Wars:

The 1970s were transformative. On October 06, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched the Yom Kippur War against Israel to regain territories. Israel pushed back, the Arab oil producers then used the “oil weapon,” cutting supplies to the West and quadrupling the prices. This showed the world the power of Middle Eastern oil. At the same time, there were efforts for peace. On September 17, 1978, the Camp David Accord between Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin, led by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, resulted in Egypt officially recognizing Israel. While Sadat was praised abroad, at home he was assassinated on October 6, 1981, by extremists who saw peace with Israel as betrayal. The February 11, 1979 Iranian Revolution also reshaped the region. Iran removed U.S. backed Shah and became an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini, opposing Western influence and encouraging Islamist movements across the Middle East.

The 1980s were violent. The Iran-Iraq War (1980 – 1988) took the lives of more than a million people. Saddam Hussein, with the help of the West and Arab countries, attempted to prevent Iran, but the war did not conclude with a victory. From 1975 to 1990, Lebanon was during a civil war involving Israel, Syria, and numerous local militias. Israel invaded Lebanon in June 6, 1982 to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which only led to more fighting. It was also the period in which the Shiite militant organization Hezbollah was born, backed by Iran. The First Intifada started in December 9, 1987 with mass protests, boycotts against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

The 1990s and 2000s: Hope, Terror, and Occupation:

In August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, shocking the Arab world. On January 17, 1991, a U.S.-led coalition launched Operation Desert Storm. Soon, Saddam’s army was defeated and Kuwait was freed. But U.S. troops stayed in Saudi, which angered many Arabs. This presence became one of the reasons extremists like Osama bin Laden later turned their anger against the West.

Even in this tense time, the 1990s gave some hope for peace. On September 13, 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shook hands. Later Jordan also signed peace with Israel. For a short while, it seemed peace might be possible. But this hope was shaken when, Rabin was killed by an Israeli extremist. His death showed that peace could be destroyed not only by enemies but also from within one’s own side.

The first decade of the 21st century was even more turbulent. On September 11, 2001, the U.S. was attacked by al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, in the 9/11 attacks. This resulted in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban who were sheltering al-Qaeda. Two years later March 20, 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was captured and executed on December 30, 2006, but such weapons were not found. The war left Iraq unstable with bombings, sectarian violence, and the rise of new extremist groups that would later become ISIS.

The 2010s and 2020s: The Arab Spring and Continuing Struggles:

The Arab Spring (2010-2011) originated in Tunisia and spread throughout the Arab world. Ordinary people took to the streets demanding freedom and dignity, revolting against rulers. Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in Egypt. Muammar Gaddafi was killed in Libya. But in Syria, the protests lead into a civil war that drew in world powers and produced the worst refugee crisis.

The 2020s began with some hope for peace. On September 15, 2020, the Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later a few other Arab states. However, this peace did not include the Palestinians. Later, the Israel–Gaza conflict broke out on October 07, 2023, leaving Gaza in ruins. Syria is still stuck in war, Yemen faces one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, and Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to compete for power.

Recently U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran because they feared that if Iran built nuclear weapons, it would threaten the whole region. Their worry was also linked to the groups Iran supports. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a powerful militia and political force that has fought many times with Israel. Hamas in Gaza is the group leading the fight against Israel and is behind many rocket attacks. The Houthis in Yemen are fighting a long war against the Saudi-backed government and have targeted ships and cities in Saudi. Because of these ties, many countries see these groups as terrorist organizations. Iran’s backing of them, along with its nuclear ambitions, made it a key target of U.S. and Israeli action.

Looking back at the past century, several factors have kept the Middle East locked in a cycle of conflict. In my view, some of these are as follows:

• The Middle East is a mix of ethnic groups (Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Armenians, Jews, Copts, etc.) and religious groups (Sunni and Shia Islam, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, and Judaism). These identities have been used historically and politically to divide people even more. The Sunni–Shia divide has been one of the deepest tensions. Saudi, as the leading Sunni power, is strongly backed by the U.S., while Iran, the main Shia power, supports Shia-linked groups in different countries. To spread its influence, Iran relies on proxy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. The goal of these proxies is not only to weaken Iran’s rivals but also to spread Shia dominance in the region. Whenever these groups gain more ground, Iran’s influence grows, creating constant friction with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and their allies.

• After World War I, Britain and France drew borders without any regard to existing tribal, ethnic, or religious realities. This produced states with internally divided populations. As a result, in many countries, certain groups became minorities and were denied equal rights. Many conflicts, such as those between Israel and its neighbours, the Kurdish, and tensions in Iraq and Syria, have their origins in these colonial era decisions.

• Large oil, gas, and mineral reserves have been both a blessing and a curse. Wealth creation has been accompanied by internal power struggles, wars, and foreign interventions as control over resources is constantly contested. Often, competing claims have worsened tensions within countries and across borders.

• Decades of authoritarian rule, corruption, and fragile institutions have left many states incapable of providing for the basic needs of their populations. This failure has led to public anger, revolutions, and extremist movements, as seen in the Arab Spring and the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

• Middle Eastern oil has made the region a playground for global powers. The U.S. relies on Saudi Arabia not just for oil but also to maintain a strong Sunni front against Iran. On the other hand, Russia and China lean towards Iran. China is the largest importer of Iranian oil and pays using its own currency, giving China a strong economic lifeline and leverage against U.S. sanctions. For Russia, Iran is strategically important because it acts as a barrier against NATO expansion and holds key gas pipeline routes that connect to Europe and Asia. This great power rivalry means that local conflicts are often turned into proxy wars between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.

• One of the biggest dangers comes from the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Israel sees this as an existential threat, as it fears that if Iran gets nukes, they could be passed down to proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis. If such groups were ever to gain nuclear capability, the region could face uncontrollable chaos. This fear drives constant strikes, sanctions, and political pressure to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Although there have been peace treaties, like the Oslo and the Abraham Accords, the Middle East is still full of conflicts. Real peace does not come just from signing agreements. It needs solving deeper problems. History shows that change is possible. Europe, once torn apart by many wars, rebuilt itself by talking and working together. This led to the European Union, where countries cooperate for shared goals. The Middle East can also move toward lasting peace if its nations focus on working together instead of fighting.

At this moment each nation and organization pursue its own interests, and the interests are not similar very often. And this is why peace operations cannot work. Imagine the fight as a tree – the top branches can be cut away but the roots of religion, identity, and history run deep. Without resolving the issue at root level, violence will continue to reappear. According to Mahabharata, in war there are no winners or losers but only widows and orphans. In the Middle East, this is particularly so where the common people bear the brunt. Leaders should prefer knowledge over vengeance, hope over fear, and long-term peace rather than immediate benefits. Then only peace will cease being a dream, and become a reality.