According to realist paradigms, nuclear weapons can be seen as the ultimate guarantee of national security and when there will be no restrictions, states will strive to dominate or achieve parity. Lapse of New START can thus create worsening security dilemmas, where efforts of any state to enhance its deterrent value is seen as a threat, and the state retaliates. The position of nuclear weapons as power projectors will, therefore, be more intense.
Some analysts are of the view that Sri Lanka’s differential access — full executive level for India versus foreign ministry level for China — may reflect Sri Lanka’s carefully calibrated foreign policy. Sri Lanka is leveraging India for urgent, high-impact assistance and wider policy coordination and engaging China for strategic reassurance and medium-to-long-term cooperative alignment that is less intertwined with immediate executive decisions.
India’s challenge, and opportunity, lies in mastering torque rather than seeking a mythical centre of gravity. In a world defined by flux, leverage matters more than alignment, and agility matters more than allegiance. Strategic autonomy will not be preserved through rigid doctrines, but through continuous recalibration anchored in national interest, economic resilience, and confidence in India’s civilisational depth.
India’s response to Iran’s crisis illustrates the dilemmas facing middle powers navigating a polarised global order. While reaffirming principles of sovereignty, non-intervention and dialogue, New Delhi has largely confined itself to cautious diplomacy. For a country that positions itself as a voice of the Global South and a defender of strategic autonomy, such restraint invites scrutiny. Silence at moments of legal strain is never neutral. It contributes to the gradual normalisation of coercive precedent.
The time has come for New Delhi to consider formally recognizing the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. The downsides are minimal; the strategic dividends substantial. Engagement would not mean endorsement of ideology but acknowledgment of geopolitical reality.
Taliban’s human rights record, particularly its regressive misogynistic policies are well known. No doubt developing relations with Taliban is a geostrategic requirement. But why did India have to ban women reporters from attending the joint press conference by the two foreign ministers?
The Modi-Trump conversation may appear transactional, but its implications are strategic. If the trade agreement concludes by November, it could mark a turning point, redefining not just tariffs, but the trajectory of India’s global engagement.
The Yunus-led interim government appears, at present, to be leaning toward China. That makes sense in the short term: Beijing offers quick cash, infrastructure projects, and military hardware without raising questions about democracy or human rights. Yet the government’s near-total neglect of India is strategically reckless. Geography cannot be wished away
Far from isolating Russia, weakening China, or bending India and Brazil to Washington’s will, Trump's policies are uniting the Global South in ways unthinkable just a decade ago. They are creating new supply chains, strengthening regional blocs, and forcing nations to embrace economic self-determination.
For now, Washington still holds the advantage at sea. Its fleets and bases across the Indo-Pacific keep Malacca under watch, reminding Beijing that maritime power remains America’s strongest card. But on land, China is advancing incrementally, building assets and leverage that could at some point tilt the balance. The contest between the American thalassocracy and China’s continental reach has only just begun.
While there would be several strategic reasons for India to invite Muttaqi to India, New Delhi’s decision is being seen by women of Afghanistan as a betrayal. Under the Taliban’s misogynist edicts, women have been deprived of most human rights, including the right to education and assembly, reduced to faceless entities in the background where the world appears to have forgotten they exist.
India is the world's second-largest producer and consumer of potatoes, with 51.30 million tons harvested in 2020. China leads the way, producing 78.24 million tons of potatoes in 2020. Together, the two nations account for more than one-third of global potato output (359.07 MT).
The politico-corporate nexus in India is a reality; corporates are given prized land since they substantially fund elections, because of which enormous bank loans given to them are written off periodically. In 2020, the government allotted 150 sq km of Ladakh pasture land to corporates with no safeguard to locals, who fear this may increase further, aggravating climate change and adversely affecting ecology.
Women’s experience and role often remain invisible in global climate discussions. Representatives of major countries discuss economics and technology at international conferences, but the real suffering of local women is not included. Yet women know how to save seeds in farming, conserve rainwater, or save families during disasters.
Bangladesh risks not just unrest in its hills but becoming an unwilling participant in a global proxy war. The fires of Khagragachi may be small compared with the wars across the border, but left untended, they could burn far beyond Bangladesh’s control.
The question now is will these idiocies continue with the first India-Pakistan match of the 2025 Women’s World Cup scheduled on October 5, 2025. There may be more India-Pakistan matches in this series. Besides, the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles also includes cricket.
While India will hope to repair broken relations with the US, this is a defining moment when we are likely to witness the designing of a strategically decisive foreign and security policy. The Act East policy will, certainly, grow stronger reflecting the reality of the Rising East.
The Sharif-Yunus meeting, albeit routine, acquires a sharper edge because both Pakistan and Bangladesh are at loggerheads with India. The pervasive sense right now is that New Delhi is diplomatically besieged even as Islamabad craftily navigates its way out of its staggering economic crises and perpetually fractious polity.
Bangladesh stands at a knife’s edge. Yunus’ Islamist-driven regime, cloaked in the language of reform, is orchestrating the most dangerous assault on the country’s security in decades. Its outcome will not remain confined to Dhaka. It will destabilize India, threaten the Gulf, embolden jihadists, and export terror into the West.
