India — strategic and military quagmire |
GEOGRAPHY is destiny. You can be friends or enemies, but cannot change the geography destined for the two neighbours, India and Pakistan. Today Indian scholars lament that the Congress missed the boat by not accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan. Ever since the independence of Pakistan, India has tried to undo it by all means, while blaming Pakistan for nurturing terrorism. India, often portrayed as a victim, is also described as a fountain of state terrorism, attempting to project itself as a regional and even global stabilizer among super powers. In contrast, it is argued that Pakistan established itself as a stabilizer between super powers, as noted by a former RAW chief.
India’s bellicose approach, coupled with Trump’s tariff wars and Israel–US strikes on Iran, has increased pressure on Indian policy makers and contributed to its isolation. The debacle in the eastern sector and Bangladesh moving out of India’s orbit further accentuated this isolation. Pakistan along with Turkey and Egypt emerging as instruments of negotiation to stop war has further deepened India’s frustration. Statements by India’s external leadership against Pakistan also reflect a lack of diplomatic nuance. The question arises whether India has plunged itself into a geostrategic and military trap. The answer is yes—the same trap it once laid for Pakistan.
Over the last decade under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has projected itself as a regional power and even a self-declared global power. Indian polity passed through phases. The ideological journey of Bharatiya Janata Party began from its roots in Hindu nationalism, while its ideological ecosystem, including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, expanded influence through education systems and institutions. Post-Babri Mosque developments strengthened its parliamentary presence and consolidated its political identity. It is argued that a structured ideological system was built, where Hindus are projected as sons of the soil while minorities, particularly Muslims, face targeting. RSS-linked institutions expanded education networks, enabling ideological penetration into bureaucracy, military, judiciary and foreign services, gradually shaping state structures.
Secondly, the BJP-led government undertook massive modernization and armament of defence forces. Diaspora-linked organizations and intelligence outreach expanded globally, where India’s economic rise and IT sector growth supported strategic ambitions. Thirdly, an aggressive foreign policy based on ideological perspectives was pursued. Neighbouring countries were often treated dismissively, while regional groupings like SAARC were weakened. India shifted away from non-alignment and moved closer to the United States camp, redefining its global posture.
India’s foreign policy journey can be divided into four phases. From 1947 to 1962, under Jawaharlal Nehru, India promoted neutrality and non-alignment. The 1962 war with China marked a watershed, after which India increasingly leaned toward the United States for military support, gradually moving away from strict non-alignment. The 1971 war, resulting in the creation of Bangladesh, marked another rise in India’s regional influence. The third phase saw the decline of Congress and the rise of the BJP, which adopted Hindutva as a political slogan and ideological base. The final phase reflects consolidation of BJP power and an offensive foreign policy posture, often linked to ideas of Akhand Bharat and strong centralization of media narratives, described as “Godi media.”
India’s strategic alignment with the United States has two core objectives: countering international pressure on Kashmir after the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A and accessing advanced technology. This alignment also pushed India closer to Israel. Under Modi’s leadership, defence and intelligence cooperation with Israel deepened, reinforced further during high-level visits. In return, Israel extended diplomatic support on Kashmir and Afghanistan-related positions. This convergence allowed strategic use of proxies, particularly against Pakistan. Simultaneously, India cultivated relations with GCC countries and made strategic inroads in Afghanistan.
India–US convergence culminated in defence agreements including BECA, while technological partnerships with Japan strengthened its capacity within the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue framework, positioning India as a counterweight to China. Despite this, India maintained cautious ties with Russia due to long-standing defence dependencies. However, setbacks in Galwan, Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, along with rising internal secessionist movements, exposed structural weaknesses. Military reverses in operations such as Operation Sandor further damaged India’s image, despite diplomatic outreach efforts abroad.
The Modi–Israel alignment is seen as strategically significant, with mutual support on regional issues including Afghanistan. This development raises concerns for Pakistan, as shifting regional frontlines could increase instability originating from Afghan territory. It also symbolizes a broader India–Israel convergence perceived as increasingly adversarial toward Muslim countries. India continues to balance outreach to Gulf States while tightening internal ideological control.
Under the United States’ evolving policy posture, especially during Trump-era strategic expectations, India faces pressure to fully align with Washington. Domestic opposition criticizes the government for aligning with Israel to gain US favour. This has created visible strain in Indian foreign policy, with opposition voices arguing that BJP policies have isolated India and reduced its geopolitical relevance. Conversely, Pakistan’s position is argued to have strengthened, intensifying domestic criticism within India.
Today, India finds itself in a geopolitical quandary, facing domestic criticism and partial international isolation. Military reverses and strategic miscalculations have further weakened its position. Within BJP’s foreign policy framework, dissenting voices are minimal. The broader question remains: how long can India continue confrontation with neighbours while nearly 800 million people remain below the poverty line? Peace, it is argued, is the only sustainable path for progress. Yet geography remains destiny and this regional milieu is increasingly dangerous for Pakistan as well, as India may resort to external adventures to strengthen domestic legitimacy. This demands careful vigilance from Pakistan, alongside stronger internal governance and economic consolidation to ensure national strength and stability.
—The author is a decorated Brigadier (R), participated in the 1965 and 1971 wars, later served 31 years in corporate leadership roles and is an author of two books.