What India next needs to consider is opening a dialogue with Beijing, while remaining mindful of its security concerns. Years of hostility and China’s anti-India posturing, coupled with its hegemonic aspirations, have understandably created an atmosphere of deep distrust. However, the atmospherics are now right for a rethink as to whether current distancing serves mutual interest. The middle path approach justifies seeking out areas of collaboration, especially through enhanced trade and thereby dilute the overdependence on the US market, both for China and for India.

Taken together, these developments should ring alarm bells. The convergence of foreign military-industrial interests, Islamist political forces, and great-power rivalry risks turning Bangladesh into an epicenter of proxy competition and ideological confrontation. For a nation that has paid dearly for its independence and pluralistic identity, the cost of such entanglements may prove far higher than the short-term gains promised by arms deals and infrastructure projects.

Sri Lanka's case highlights the central weakness of the ICC’s complementarity principle. The Rome Statute grants jurisdiction only where states are unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. Sri Lanka maintains functioning judicial institutions, conducts some prosecutions, and has established reparations frameworks, thereby technically satisfying the ability threshold while systematically failing to deliver accountability for conflict-related crimes.

If Davos had a clear centre of gravity this year, it was technology—not geopolitics. The tech industry arrived in force, underscored by high-profile appearances from Elon Musk and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. The message was unmistakable: this is where attention, ambition, and capital are converging. With extraordinary sums being poured into artificial intelligence, unease among lenders and investors is understandable. Yet many executives were keen to reassure markets that fears of an AI bubble were overstated.

Strategically, these developments underscore the importance of regional counterterrorism cooperation and rigorous monitoring of cross-border arms flows. The proliferation of foreign-supplied weapons into Pakistan not only strengthens terrorist organizations but also threatens regional stability. Each attack executed with U.S.-origin rifles or advanced tactical gear reinforces the need for Pakistan’s zero-tolerance policy against militancy while exposing the organized external support networks that continue to embolden groups like the TTP.

It is not easy for a country faced with heavy debt payments to find resources to accelerate domestic growth, exports and infrastructure development. It has to carefully balance infrastructure priorities, social spending, and ongoing economic reforms. Next two years will be crucial for the government  to at least complete the ongoing projects to fulfil major promises while taking up the remaining ones that were temporarily shelved for early implementation.

The India-UAE military equipment cooperation is a burgeoning strategic partnership focused on joint production, technology transfer, and industrial collaboration, moving beyond mere arms sales to build a self-reliant defence ecosystem, support India's 'Make in India' initiative, and establish the UAE as a gateway to African/Middle Eastern markets, creating a mutually beneficial, politically neutral defence bloc for regional stability and economic growth.

The strategic consequences extend well beyond Dhaka. Bangladesh occupies a critical position in the Bay of Bengal, bordering major sea lanes and neighboring one of the world’s most volatile regions. A Bangladesh drifting toward extra-constitutional governance while deepening ties with China and Pakistan would alter regional dynamics in ways that merit serious attention in Washington and European capitals.

Today, India’s grand strategy faces a similarly critical moment—this time shaped not by the Kissinger Doctrine but by the Donroe Doctrine. New Delhi must avoid relying on limited or incremental approaches. Instead, its strategy must be upgraded to a level that allows it to take calculated risks, withstand U.S. diplomatic blitzkrieg, and navigate an anxiety-ridden global order with greater resilience and confidence.

Greenland’s geopolitical prominence illustrates how a distant region can reflect deeper shifts in global power, economics, and security. For countries like India, Greenland is not about territorial ambition; it is a reminder that structural shifts in global power dynamics transcend geography. In a realist world, engagement is not optional; it is necessary for safeguarding long-term interests in a system where power continually redistributes itself. 

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. 

If Washington persists down this path, the response from the Global South will not be submission. It will be coordination. China, Russia, Brazil, India, and others have every incentive to deepen trade, energy, and financial cooperation—not out of ideological unity, but out of defensive necessity. Ironically, Trump’s economic nationalism may succeed in what decades of rhetoric could not - forging a more cohesive Global South.