KASHMIR has long been a flashpoint and the main reason why India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since gaining independence in 1947.
It also remains the basic factor why relations between the two countries have remained sour and never normalized.
Both have different points of view as far as the issue is concerned but Pakistan’s point of view is plain and simple- implement the UN Resolutions taken in 1949 and hold plebiscite which India is persistently refusing as it knows what the outcome would be.
World once again saw both nuclear countries in deadly situation two weeks back but thanks to global reaction, wisdom prevailed but not before India learnt that it is superior technology Pakistan had, due to which India was contained.
The recent military escalation between India and Pakistan — sparked by a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India-occupied Jammu & Kashmir — reignited fears of a wider regional conflict.
India blamed Pakistan for harbouring militant groups responsible for the attack, a claim Pakistan firmly denied.
Hostilities intensified with tit-for-tat operations.
Although a ceasefire was brokered under US diplomatic pressure, the truce remains fragile.
Should escalation resume again, this would mark the fifth major war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
While this might appear to be a localized South Asian issue, its reverberations are felt far beyond.
In an interconnected Asia, regional flare-ups trigger cross-border ripples.
East Asia and Southeast Asia are not immune.
For China, a close ally of Pakistan and strategic rival of India, the conflict presents a diplomatic dilemma.
Stability is critical for Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which traverses the volatile region of Gilgit-Baltistan.
However, overt involvement risks entangling China in direct confrontation — something it would rather avoid.
China’s carefully worded response, calling for “restraint and peaceful resolution,” while emphasizing the protection of strategic joint projects, reflects this tightrope diplomacy.
The conflict poses indirect yet serious challenges.
Chief among them is the diversion of US strategic focus — a concerning scenario as Taiwan faces sustained pressure from Beijing.
A distracted Washington, preoccupied with crises elsewhere, creates strategic breathing room for China to increase coercion.
Moreover, the spectre of nuclear escalation between India and Pakistan undermines regional stability and investor confidence.
Taiwan’s economy, deeply tied to global supply chains, could face shocks from increased insurance premiums, trade disruptions and energy price hikes, particularly if maritime tensions affect the Indian Ocean shipping routes.
In Southeast Asia, over 40% of global trade passes through the Strait of Malacca, linking ports in India, Pakistan and the Gulf.
Any disruption from India-Pakistan tensions could raise logistical costs and affect regional economies.
Diplomatically, escalating conflict may pressure historically neutral ASEAN states to take sides, testing the bloc’s unity—already strained during the Ukraine war.
Domestically, countries like Malaysia and Singapore are witnessing digital clashes between Indian and Pakistani Diaspora communities, raising concerns about social unrest.
The crisis highlights that peace in Asia cannot be pursued in isolation.
South Asian instability affects East and Southeast Asia alike.
ASEAN must move beyond symbolic statements and invest in preventive diplomacy and platforms for mediation.
As nuclear-armed states teeter on the edge of war, the need for proactive regional engagement is urgent.
This is not a distant conflict—it is a direct challenge to Asia’s collective stability and global peace.
India-Pakistan crises have long been treated as isolated bilateral issues, bracketed as local grievances and nuclear deterrence.
However, each episode, whether Balakot in 2019 or the present-day Kashmir escalation, creates cascading effects that test the diplomatic, economic and strategic footing of the region’s smaller, non-nuclear states.
This time, the stakes were especially high, as these “swing states” must increasingly calibrate their stance with China, which is now a central part of the geopolitical equation.
The neighbours – Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives, none of which has nuclear weapons, are not simply bystanders to the crisis.
They are strategic actors who may now look to recalibrate their foreign policies in response to the conflict’s regional aftershocks.
These are the “swing states” and they deserve far more attention before the next escalatory episode in the India-Pakistan conflict.
What ties these disparate responses together is a common strategy.
These five “swing states” have, in recent years, mastered the art of calibrated ambiguity.
They seek economic gain from and security cooperation with multiple powers—India, China and the United States—without being drawn into hard alliances.
This allows them to maximize autonomy and avoid capture, whether through aid dependency, military pressure, or infrastructure entanglements.
Yet, India-Pakistan crises stress tests this architecture.
Each episode forces these “swing states” to signal their preferences, take rhetorical positions, or manage public backlash, which is often at the expense of their preferred strategy of quiet recalibration.
The US increasingly views India as central to its Indo-Pacific strategy, but India’s regional leadership hinges on strong ties with neighbouring states.
Ongoing India-Pakistan tensions risk pushing South Asia’s “swing states” — Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives — closer to China, destabilizing the region and undermining US interests.
Despite this, Washington remains focused on maritime security and the QUAD, neglecting continental South Asia, where real competition is unfolding through land connectivity, sub-regional diplomacy and crisis response.
These non-nuclear swing states, navigating great power rivalries through calibrated ambiguity, are pivotal to regional stability.
By overlooking them, the US risks ceding influence to China and further destabilizing South Asia’s fragile balance.
For lasting stability, Washington must broaden its strategic lens to include these quieter but crucial actors shaping the region’s future.
—The writer is Former Civil Servant and Consultant (ILO) & International Organisation for Migration and author of seven books. ([email protected])
