related_image_(3)

The newer Blocs are taking shape based on geo-strategy, geo-economics, and geopolitics. While geo-economics cannot be seen as void of geopolitics, India seems to be taking more interest in the geostrategic domain to tackle its regional conflicts with extra-regional support. India’s participation in QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) is perhaps in the same vein. However, India is isolating itself in the region, and hence, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) remains dormant due to New Delhi’s lack of participation given its enduring rivalry with Pakistan.

The primary purpose of any regional bloc remains interconnectedness for better communication, travel and tourism, movement of people, goods and services, sociocultural connectivity, and information-sharing. However, in spite of the core objectives of SAARC being all of the above, India continues to block the accomplishment of any of these objectives.

The geostrategic location of South Asia as a sub-region has significant attraction due to its connectivity with Central Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, and the warm waters of the Arabian Sea. Moreover, its linkage with China at multiple points make it extremely business-friendly. Unfortunately, India, with the largest landmass and population, is not participating actively in any of the regional organisations.

Pakistan appears to be making full use of the opportunity afforded through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is a flagship project under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China. Pakistan’s landmass, perhaps, young population, has the capacity to offer yet another regional cooperative mechanism, which can have a multitude of benefits for all stakeholders. While reviving the age-old Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) with Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan as its founding members, it can be expanded to include Russia, China, and Afghanistan. The inclusion of Afghanistan would give access to Central Asia and Russia would have access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea. While Turkey would give easy access to Europe, Iran would open the doors to the Middle East. Pakistan could, hence, act as a bridge for the North-South, and Westward flow of people, goods and services for a population of over two billion.

On the other hand, India has chosen a path of collaborating with extra-regional and technologically developed states as its strategic partners. QUAD is comprised of the US, Japan, Australia, and India. “The core objective of the Quad is, to secure a rules-based global order, freedom of navigation and, a liberal trading system.” No matter what the stated aims and objectives QUAD holds, its apparent aim is to counter China’s global economic rise and military development in the region. This is because China has several territorial disputes in each of its regions: with India in Arunachal Pradesh in South Asia, and active disputes with multiple countries in the South China Sea. More importantly, though, China’s economic rise to the top is unstoppable now and therefore, US-led alliances are making an effort to slow down Chinese progress as space and military power as much as they can. For this purpose, the US may even be taking the risk of a limited military engagement over Taiwan even though China would be avoiding it.

An Evolving Global Order (EGO) is being drawn along two distinct lines – geostrategic and geo-economic, while geopolitical considerations are omnipresent. Surprisingly, India has chosen to join geostrategic formations which do not have regional linkages. India has active disputes with Pakistan (Jammu & Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachen, water conflicts, etc.), as well as with China (Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, etc.).

India’s participation in QUAD may also be in the hope to get substantial support to settle its scores with Pakistan. However, India’s move would push Pakistan further towards China to address the evolving strategic imbalance in South Asia. India’s acquisition and deployment of the S-400 AD system and induction of French Rafale aircraft has already created a situation where Pakistan has no option but to enter into a conventional arms race unwittingly. For the same purpose, Pakistan is exploring its options and perhaps may soon induct J-10C aircraft from China and concurrently expedite its development and deployment of cruise missiles.

While Pakistan has embarked upon a journey under its developing geo-economic domain to redress its economic woes, India has decided to drag it back into the geostrategic domain where territorial security would eat up efforts necessary to ensure human security. However, India seems to be ignoring its active disputes with China where it is losing ground in Eastern Ladakh. Moreover, India’s claims that it is prepared for a two-front scenario, based on the hope of extra-regional support would increase the probability of a larger conflict in the region, which may not remain restricted to South Asia alone.

Dr. Zia Ul Haque Shamsi is Director Peace and Conflict Studies at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in Daily Times. He can be reached at [email protected]

Image Source: Etfa Khurshid Mirza


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »