What America doesn't get about South Asia: India and Pakistan can't be equated
For decades, US foreign policy has framed India and Pakistan as parallel actors in a regional rivalry — an outdated assumption rooted in Cold War thinking. This legacy framework has become a liability. It fails to account for how dramatically the two countries have diverged — economically, politically, and strategically — and risks misaligning US interests in a multipolar world.
India, the world's most populous democracy, is poised to become the third-largest economy. It is a global leader in technology and space exploration, and home to a vast and influential diaspora. Its institutions remain rooted in a democratic tradition that supports long-term growth and international engagement. India is increasingly viewed as a stabilising force in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. It plays a leading role in the Quad, recently concluded its G20 presidency, and is deepening partnerships across Asia, Africa, and the West.
Pakistan presents a sharply different picture. Born out of a hasty Partition in 1947 and fractured by civil war in 1971, Pakistan has never fully emerged from the shadow of military control. Civilian governments remain weak and often short-lived. The economy is in recurrent crisis, sustained by external bailouts. Radicalisation continues to permeate parts of the political and military establishment. Journalists, judges, and civil society actors often operate under intense pressure, while political dissent is routinely suppressed.
Washington has contributed to this imbalance. During the Cold War, the US propped up Pakistan as a counterweight to India, and later relied on it as a staging ground during the Soviet-Afghan war and the War on Terror. Even as Pakistan covertly developed nuclear weapons throughout the 1980s, Washington turned a blind eye in the early stages — responding later, by which time the programme was already well advanced. These tactical decisions sidelined Pakistan's democratic institutions, empowered its military intelligence complex, and entrenched a culture of impunity that persists to this day.
The fallout is stark. While India has established its credentials as an important player in a multipolar world and has staked a rightful claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council, Pakistan remains geopolitically transactional and internally unstable. Pakistan's capable citizens — entrepreneurs, academics, reformers — are constrained by a system that discourages institutional reform and relies instead on geopolitical leverage.
The US withdrawal from Afghanistan has only intensified regional challenges. India is left to absorb the consequences: A collapsed Afghan state, rising extremism, and a neighbour with an increasingly fragile grip on security and economic stability. Instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan now reverberates across South Asia, threatening hard-won regional gains.
Despite these realities, parts of the Washington policy establishment continue to default to 'balanced' diplomacy — treating both countries as parallel entities with equal claims on US strategic bandwidth. This misrepresents the regional equation and undermines the US's geopolitical interests and credibility as a democratic ally in Asia.
Some observers argue that this policy of parity is not simply a holdover from the past, but an intentional strategy to keep a rising India in check, viewing it as a potential competitor rather than a partner. If that is true, it would be a grave miscalculation. Such thinking is counterproductive and would suggest that the US has yet to absorb the lessons of its own Cold War-era missteps in South Asia. It also risks alienating one of the world's most consequential democracies. Even though India's foreign policy may not always align with US preferences, it is fundamentally a constitutional democracy with enduring institutions and a vibrant civil society. Pakistan, by contrast, is a military-dominated state whose political cycles and economic direction are shaped more by external influences than domestic consensus.
To remain effective in South Asia, US policy must reflect this asymmetry. Treating India and Pakistan as interchangeable partners sends the wrong signal to allies, undermines US credibility, and weakens regional stability. It perpetuates a flawed narrative that has outlived its strategic purpose.
The time has come for Washington to adopt a more strategic approach that is based on institutional strength, democratic resilience, and long-term alignment, rather than on historical convenience. This shift is not about abandoning Pakistan, but about acknowledging the costs of maintaining a policy of false parity.
In an era of multipolar complexity, where strategic clarity is essential, the US must recalibrate its approach. The stakes — for South Asia and for US influence in the Indo-Pacific — demand nothing less.
The writer is a former Sri Lankan cabinet minister, High Commissioner to India, and founder of the Sri Lankan strategic affairs think tank, Pathfinder Foundation
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
India forms panel for COP-33 that it proposed to host
The Environment Ministry has set up a dedicated COP-33 Cell to address the professional and logistical requirements for the 2028 United Nations climate summit (COP 33), which India has proposed to host. An official order dated July 15 said the COP-33 Cell will function under the Climate Change Division of the ministry. The cell will be headed by the joint secretary (Climate Change) and will include officers at various levels, including consultants and support staff. During his address at COP 28 in Dubai, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had proposed India as the host country for COP 33. If accepted by the UNFCCC, COP 33 would be the second UN climate conference to be hosted by India after COP 8 in New Delhi in 2002. It would follow India's successful presidency of the G20 summit in 2023 and position the country at the centre of global climate negotiations. India has pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 45 per cent by 2030 from 2005 levels, achieve 50 per cent of installed power capacity from non-fossil sources and become net-zero by 2070. According to the government, India's renewable energy capacity has crossed the 245 GW mark, achieving the target of 50 per cent of installed power capacity from non-fossil sources five years ahead of the 2030 deadline.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Why India-UK deal on critical minerals points to New Delhi's anxiety over Chinese grip
The fine print of the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has a signal towards India's growing anxiety over the Chinese chokehold on the critical minerals' supply chain, and how New Delhi is aiming to counter Beijing's dominance in the sector. This follows a similar initiative by the Quad (comprising India, Australia, Japan, and the United States) earlier this month, where they launched an initiative to secure supply chains of critical minerals, as worries grow around China's stranglehold over the resources, which are vital to new technologies. The India-UK Vision 2035, a document outlining the broader collaborative goals of the free trade agreement between the two said that they will work together to develop cutting-edge technology and research, building on the Technology Security Initiative, focused on future telecoms, artificial intelligence and critical minerals, laying the ground for future collaboration on semiconductors, quantum, bio-technology and advanced materials. To further cooperation in critical minerals, the two countries will also establish a UK-India Critical Minerals Guild to 'transform financing standards and innovation', according to a joint statement by the two. 'Together, the two sides will prioritise processing (of critical minerals), R&D, recycling, managing risk to supply chains, market development etc. and will champion circular economy principles and advance traceability,' it said. As part of the deal with the UK, the second phase of the UK-India Critical Minerals Supply Chain Observatory (SCO) will receive £1.8 million in new funding to set up a satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad. The funding will also support developing the world's largest digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain, according to an official joint statement. The SCO is housed within the Industrial Resilience Research Group at the University of Cambridge's Institute for Manufacturing. The first phase, which involved sharing, monitoring, and analysing supply chain data on critical minerals like lithium, copper, nickel, and cobalt, was launched in collaboration with IIT Bombay in October last year. Critical minerals, which include rare earth elements (REEs), are an important component of various cutting-edge hardware, ranging from semiconductors and electric vehicles to jet fighters. Rare earth magnets, especially neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets, are crucial for EV manufacturing, particularly in electric motors. They provide the strong magnetic fields needed for efficient and powerful electric motors, including traction motors that drive EVs. These magnets also play a major role in other EV components such as power steering systems, wiper motors, and braking systems. China has a near monopoly over the production of these rare earth magnets. Following US President Donal Trump's tariff onslaught on other countries in April, China implemented specifically designed bureaucratic hurdles for foreign companies looking to source critical minerals from the country. While the availability of rare earth metals is not limited to China, it is in the efficient processing of these critical elements where Beijing has a substantial lead, which was once enjoyed by the US and Japan. In recent years, Japan has been able to restart some of its minerals processing industry owing to government policies, but countries like the US and India are heavily dependent on Chinese exports of these metals. In response to the US administration's reciprocal tariff heat, China restricted exports of seven heavy rare earth metals including samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium, as well as rare earth magnets. Earlier, it had also banned exports to the US of gallium, germanium, antimony, and other key high-tech materials with potential military applications. India's nascent but slowly growing EV industry has faced a direct impact of Chinese restrictions on export of rare earth magnets. None of the applications made by Indian carmakers to source the critical minerals have yet been accepted by Beijing, with automakers staring at shortages and potential setbacks to production plans. China requires companies to secure an end-user licence, along with an endorsement from the local government that the minerals will not be used for military applications. However, the fact that China has not yet cleared any application from Indian entities is a cause of concern. Worrying still is a fresh insistence from Beijing that instead of sourcing magnets separately, carmakers buy entire electric motor assemblies from Chinese companies, or simply wait for the Chinese authorities to issue export permits to local rare earth magnet producers, as has been done, according to Reuters, for at least four magnet producers that include suppliers to Volkswagen — the first granted since Beijing restricted shipments earlier this year. The German carmaker is said to have lobbied hard with Beijing to get this done. Aggam Walia is a Correspondent at The Indian Express, reporting on power, renewables, and mining. His work unpacks intricate ties between corporations, government, and policy, often relying on documents sourced via the RTI Act. Off the beat, he enjoys running through Delhi's parks and forests, walking to places, and cooking pasta. ... Read More Soumyarendra Barik is Special Correspondent with The Indian Express and reports on the intersection of technology, policy and society. With over five years of newsroom experience, he has reported on issues of gig workers' rights, privacy, India's prevalent digital divide and a range of other policy interventions that impact big tech companies. He once also tailed a food delivery worker for over 12 hours to quantify the amount of money they make, and the pain they go through while doing so. In his free time, he likes to nerd about watches, Formula 1 and football. ... Read More
Mint
5 hours ago
- Mint
Coca-Cola: The surreal thing is actually its brand appeal
Mint Editorial Board Sweet success for The Coca-Cola Company needn't be about sugar sources, or even health addressal, so long as its popular fizzy-drink brand's marketers keep its target market well engaged. It's why Trump's cane nudge didn't make its stock budge. What keeps Coca-Cola cool under pressure is also the real secret of its success: brand power. Gift this article The Coca-Cola Company, based in the US, saw its stock shrug off the cost impact of a revised sweetener plan revealed this week. Earlier too, its share price had been flat after President Donald Trump posted that he'd been 'speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL cane sugar in Coke" in America; it had agreed, he said, and was thankful. As the company told investors a few days later, it plans to launch a cane variant of its fizzy drink this autumn as an extra choice. The Coca-Cola Company, based in the US, saw its stock shrug off the cost impact of a revised sweetener plan revealed this week. Earlier too, its share price had been flat after President Donald Trump posted that he'd been 'speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL cane sugar in Coke" in America; it had agreed, he said, and was thankful. As the company told investors a few days later, it plans to launch a cane variant of its fizzy drink this autumn as an extra choice. This leaves space for business as usual; specifically, for cheaper corn syrup to remain its US bulge-bracket sweetener. It also tips this legendary brand into a swirl of political intrigue. Just recently, Trump's health secretary talked about the risks of corn syrup, all but calling it toxic. Also Read: Bring back The Zing Thing, Coca-Cola In the land famed for its free market, we thus have the spectacle of a nudge that has stunned corn farmers, left folks puzzled over how cane sugar is any better, and prompted critics of the White House to link it with the alleged sway held by a rich sugarcane lobby, one that's happy with sugar prices kept high by an import-tariff shield, but may have spied a sweeter pile of profit in a public sales prod. America is no stranger to dirigiste detours, especially in its farm sector. This intervention, however, is directed at America Inc. Stakeholders include Warren Buffett and perhaps also his fan base of value investors. In symbolic terms, cola market distortion is a blow to the myth of US capitalism being too deeply dug in to display Soviet characteristics. Admittedly, it's not command-and-control. To Coca-Cola's credit, its words betray no hint of giving up its focus on sugar reduction across its beverage portfolio, as shelf offtake dictates and healthy intake demands. So its steady stock can be explained by an impact that's expected to be too soft to disturb a business boasting of a 3% dividend yield. Arguably, though, what keeps Coca-Cola cool under pressure is also the real secret of its success: brand power. That this cola's effect on taste buds was only a minor factor hit home in 1985, thanks to its New Coke fiasco. This was a sweeter version formulated to take on its zesty rival Pepsi, a move it had to reverse in response to a rebellion among Coke loyalists, as Mark Pendergrast tells the tale in For God, Country and Coca-Cola (1993). The company's taste research with blindfold tests was promptly binned for a return to its classic formula—marketed as 'The Real Thing." Also Read: Mint Explainer: Campa Cola and the power of nostalgia Many suspect Coca-Cola's flip-flop was a marketing stunt, which the business denies. If it was a lesson, it's a valuable one. Think of dreams. Even if they engage all five of our senses, we usually recall them as audio-visual. All dream-sellers know this, but Coca-Cola has a special edge in its mass outreach. As a brand, the aural and cursive appeal of its label has no parallel. It rolls easily off the tongue, thanks to four easy syllables—with the curvy letters of each appearing to blend into a flowing sea of red. So familiar is it, that it breezily passes the mirror test: One can 'read' its lateral inversion in a flash. Such brand appeal is an enviable asset, for it frees the cola formula for strategic tweaks in the larger quest to serve an evolving market. Sugar is all but irrelevant. So long as the brand's marketers can creatively keep its target audience engaged by putting a dream—rather than just a soda can—within an 'arm's reach of desire,' to echo an internal slogan, The Coca-Cola Company could surf the frothy waves of a sugar shake-up. It's a real asset. Topics You May Be Interested In
