WILL India and Pakistan continue to take the path of confrontation, keeping almost 2 billion human beings in anguish and a perpetual state of war-like situation? This persistent hostility has cast a long shadow over the region, preventing its vast human and economic potential from being fully realized.
The Chinese Prime Minister, on his visit to India in 2019 and recently the Chinese Foreign Minister Yi, during the meeting with Prime Minister Modi and later on in his press conference, conveyed a similar message. The same message was reiterated to Modi on the sidelines of the SCO conference being held in China. It was indicated that there cannot be prosperity and progress in the subcontinent without peace between China, India and Pakistan.
Nevertheless, in response to Pakistan’s offer for talks, Jaishankar, the Foreign Minister of India, gave a statement the other day that no third-party mediation is acceptable to India. Ever since 2014, this has been the BJP stance under the Modi government. It is ironic that, having suffered a shameful defeat in the recent short war in a humiliating way and losing the status of even a regional power, Jaishankar’s ego has not subsided. He is not a politician in the true sense. A civil service officer who rose in the ranks of the Indian Foreign Office to become the Foreign Secretary, he later joined the BJP and adopted their manifesto. A diplomat is always flexible. Negotiations are always the route, even after war. The door is always kept open.
Withdrawal has again been possible through back-channel talks. In the recent past, important negotiations were held between the Soviet Union and Pakistan, leading to the signing of the Geneva Accords, which offered a window for the Soviet withdrawal of forces. Nevertheless, the ego of Mr Modi and Jaishankar has played a vital role in ensuring sour relations between India and Pakistan. They make sure it does not improve. Not that the Congress was a friend either — Congress is a softer face of the coin, but the party upholds the same objectives as the BJP. There has been a strategic sea change in the subcontinent after Operation Sandoor and its failure, in particular in Asia and globally in general. India is not considered to have that muscle, irrespective of the fact that it is a growing economy with large reserves. History shows that countries do not become great or worthy of respect merely by virtue of power and money.
It is ultimately the will of the people and leadership that shapes history. While India’s GDP is large, its wealth distribution remains highly unequal, with most of its population earning less than citizens of many smaller economies. History shows that conviction and unity can outweigh sheer numbers or material strength: the Arab armies, though smaller and less equipped, overcame the Roman and Persian empires; the Taliban resisted American might for two decades before forcing withdrawal. A more recent example is Iran, which, despite suffering heavy losses in leadership, equipment and nuclear assets during its war with Israel, retaliated with such determination that Israel was compelled to seek a ceasefire. This conflict reshaped the Middle East’s strategic balance and elevated Iran’s standing as a formidable power. In this evolving landscape, Pakistan and Iran have drawn closer, forging a strategic embrace that strengthens their position but unsettles Israel and the United States.
Pakistan, Turkey and Iran can form a formidable bloc, especially with support from China and Russia, though such an alignment will not be acceptable to the United States, which is already seeking inroads into Pakistan to stall this union. Pakistan’s victory in the short war against India in May 2025 has, however, compelled the Gulf states to reevaluate their ties with both countries in light of new geostrategic realities. To sustain this enhanced status, Pakistan must work hard militarily and diplomatically, improving external maneuvering and interstate diplomacy. Our embassies remain weak, lacking both funds and expertise. On India’s eastern flank, the new Bangladesh reality has further shifted the balance. Having suffered under Hasina Wajid’s rule and Indian interference in its internal affairs—where even minor appointments required RAW’s consent—Bangladesh has now corrected its course. This shift marks a significant change in the strategic equation, one Pakistan must build upon with foresight.
The emerging alliance between Pakistan and Bangladesh is a major geostrategic shift in the South Asian power balance, making India mindful of future dangers and its incapacity to deal not only with two fronts but three. The tragedy of 1971 was a politico-military error on the part of both Pakistan and Bengali leaders. The people of Bengal voted for Mujeebur Rahman for greater provincial autonomy, not independence. With the ouster of Hasina Wajid, this stands corrected. The new relationship faces multiple internal and external threats and must be converted into long-term economic and defence cooperation, ultimately leading to a union of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The security of Bangladesh hinges on a close alliance with Pakistan. It may be noted that in 1986 an effort was made toward the same purpose, but it was crushed by Indian intelligence. The domestic political scenario of India and its inability to chart a clear diplomatic course is creating problems not only for India but for the region as a whole. Modi is domestically in danger, with voices seeking his resignation and he may venture into a new adventure against Pakistan to shore up his image. Pakistan must not underestimate India. Water terrorism is a new weapon. Pakistan should strengthen its defence potential and consider offensive defence. Naval power needs to be enhanced with Chinese support to ensure dominance in the Indian Ocean. Political and economic stability in Pakistan remains the key.
—The author is a Brigadier Retired, a decorated officer with 32 years of active combat experience, 30 years in corporate sector as MD/COO. A column writer, Researcher and TV analyst.
