logo
What America doesn't get about South Asia: India and Pakistan can't be equated

What America doesn't get about South Asia: India and Pakistan can't be equated

Indian Express3 hours ago

Written by Milinda Moragoda
For decades, US foreign policy has framed India and Pakistan as parallel actors in a regional rivalry — an outdated assumption rooted in Cold War thinking.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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Blood, bombs and a Nobel? Pakistan chokes on Trump nomination after US bombs Iran
Blood, bombs and a Nobel? Pakistan chokes on Trump nomination after US bombs Iran

Time of India

time15 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Blood, bombs and a Nobel? Pakistan chokes on Trump nomination after US bombs Iran

What began as a bold diplomatic gesture, Pakistan recommending former US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, has quickly turned into a political embarrassment. The move, announced Friday and formalised through a letter signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, cited Trump's self-proclaimed efforts in preventing escalation during the recent India-Pakistan standoff. But within hours, the US bombed three of Iran's key nuclear facilities- Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz- in a joint operation with Israel. That single event has flipped the narrative and ignited widespread condemnation inside Pakistan. 'Afghan blood is on his hands' Critics point not just to Trump's recent actions but to his broader legacy of war and destabilization. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo 'How can a man with the blood of Afghans and Palestinians on his hands claim to be a peacemaker?' asked Maulana Fazlur Rehman , leader of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F), at a party event in Murree. He demanded the government withdraw Trump's nomination immediately. Fazl slammed Trump's history of supporting Israeli military operations across Palestine, Syria, Lebanon—and now Iran. 'Trump's claim of peace has proven to be false,' he said, adding that the nomination appeared to be driven by Pakistani leaders' enthusiasm over Trump's lunch meeting with Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir. Live Events Political outrage mounts Voices from across Pakistan's political spectrum have joined the backlash. Former senator Mushahid Hussain said on X: 'Since Trump is no longer a potential peacemaker, but a leader who has willfully unleashed an illegal war, Pakistan government must now review, rescind and revoke his Nobel nomination!' He further accused Trump of being manipulated by 'Netanyahu and the Israeli war lobby,' and warned that the former US president had committed the 'biggest blunder of his presidency.' 'National embarrassment' Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) was among the first to formally condemn the US strikes, labeling them 'unprovoked' and expressing 'total support' for Iran's sovereignty. Raoof Hasan, head of PTI's political think-tank, called the Trump nomination a 'cause of unmitigated shame and embarrassment' and blasted the government for what he described as a misstep that undermines national legitimacy. Diplomats and Activists Speak Out The backlash extended beyond politicians. Former ambassador Maleeha Lodhi termed the decision 'unfortunate,' saying it failed to reflect public sentiment. Veteran politician Afrasiab Khattak described it as 'sycophancy,' unfit for responsible diplomacy. Jamaat-i-Islami chief Naeemur Rehman said the move 'undermines our national dignity,' while author Fatima Bhutto posed a pointed question on X: 'Will Pakistan withdraw its nomination for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?' A diplomatic blunder? The backlash highlights a deeper discomfort with aligning Pakistan's foreign policy narrative with a figure whose record includes drone strikes, Middle East escalation, and backing regimes accused of war crimes. As journalist Mariana Baabar noted, 'Today Pakistan does not look too good either,' sharing the official post announcing the nomination.

Saviour to Satan: The seeds of Iran-US hostility
Saviour to Satan: The seeds of Iran-US hostility

India Today

timean hour ago

  • India Today

Saviour to Satan: The seeds of Iran-US hostility

Tehran, November 4, 1979. The winter air burnt with rage, a smouldering fire of angry chants and angry fists pounding the sky. 'Death to America!' roared the crowd. 'Destroy the Big Satan,' fumed Iran's spiritual the chaos, a tidal wave of students crashed against the iron gates of the US Embassy. Inside, a young attache, hands trembling, clutched a phone, desperately trying to reach Washington: 'They're coming over the walls,' his voice to control the rising tide, the gates buckled. The mob surged forward, and a revolutionary flood engulfed the compound. For 444 days, 52 Americans would become pawns in a game of vengeance, their captivity a wound that would scar the souls of two nations, leading to almost five decades of animus. This is a story of two friends becoming bitter foes. A tale of the US turning from the saviour to the 'Big Satan.' To understand this rupture, we return to the post-World War II era, when oil and Cold War rivalries sowed discord.1949-1952: The Oil ConspiracyDuring the second great war, Iran was an ally of the Allied powers, its sovereignty guaranteed by the English, Americans and Soviets. In the aftermath of World War II, Iran's vast oil reserves had made it a pawn in a global chess game. By 1949, the great rivals of the Cold War, pro-Western and pro-Soviet, circled like vultures, each craving young Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, sat uneasily on his Peacock Throne, his rule already scarred by violence. The battle for Iran's oil started with a winter of intrigues and February 5, 1949The faint echo of Pahlavi's footsteps on the ancient stones of Tehran was shattered by the sound of gunshots. Pahlavi escaped unhurt in the attempted assassination near Tehran University. According to The New York Times, the bid on the Shah's life, allegedly orchestrated by the Tudeh Party (Communists), was a stark warning: Iran was a battleground for pro-Soviet and pro-Western forces, each vying for control of its black June 1950, General Ali Razmara became Prime Minister in the midst of rising demands for wresting control of Iran's oil fields from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), later British Petroleum, which had long siphoned wealth to British coffers. Before Razmara could act, he was silenced on March 7, 1951, when an assassin's bullet felled him in a Tehran the breach stepped Mohammed Mossadegh, a nationalist, known for his ascetic life and emotional outbursts. 'The Iranian people will no longer be slaves to foreign interests,' Mossadegh declared. On April 28, 1951, he nationalised AIOC, igniting the ire of the between Mossadegh and the Shah over oil policy reached a breaking point. On July 17, 1952, Mossadegh resigned, and Ahmed Ghavam was sworn in as PM. Tehran erupted. For three days, rioting tore apart the city. Within five days, the Shah, under relentless pressure, bowed to the will of the people and reinstated Mossadegh. The nationalist leader returned, stronger than ever. The stage was set for more bloodbath, and anarchy.1953: The Sinister PlotAcross the seas, in the smoke-filled halls of Washington and London, a different plan was taking shape. MI6 agent Christopher Montague Woodhouse, a key player in the Iran saga, laid out the stakes. 'Mossadegh's nationalisation of Anglo-Iranian Oil is a direct threat to Britain's economy,' he argued. 'If he aligns with Moscow, we lose the Persian Gulf.' (All the Shah's Men: Stephen Kinzer, 2003).By March 1953, the CIA drafted a scheme to topple Mossadegh and install a government more pliable to Western interests. On April 16, a detailed study titled 'Factors Involved in the Overthrow of Mossadegh' concluded that a coup was feasible. In Nicosia, Cyprus, on May 13, CIA and British intelligence officers huddled in secret, sketching the outlines of a plot that would reshape Iran. By June 10, in Beirut, the final coup plan was reviewed, and on June 19, it was submitted to the US State Department and the British Foreign Office. (Based on a timeline published by The New York Times)advertisementCIA Director Allen Dulles approved the plan, codenamed TPAJAX, with a budget of $1 million—peanuts for a nation's fate and its vast reserves. 'We had to act,' Dulles wrote in a CIA memo, declassified in 2013, 'to secure Iran's oil and block communist inroads.' On July 1, Britain's Prime Minister gave his approval, followed by President Eisenhower on July 11. The die was AjaxThe plan was intricate: bribe politicians, sway clerics, organise thugs for street protests, and unleash propaganda. The CIA spent $100,000, buying 'loyalty in parliament, press, and streets,' according to one account. Newspapers, paid by the CIA, vilified Mossadegh as a Soviet stooge. Radio broadcasts, scripted by operatives, warned of godless communism. The West's propaganda machinery churned out lies and rumours, creating a facade of anarchy and July 25, Princess Ashraf, the Shah's twin sister, arrived in Tehran from France, tasked by the CIA with convincing the monarch to sign a decree dismissing Mossadegh and naming General Fazlollah Zahedi, a lifelong royalist, as premier. It came with a chilling warning from the CIA, revealed later in declassified documents: 'Should the Shah fail to go along Zahedi would be informed that the United States would be ready to go ahead without the Shah's active cooperation.'advertisementMossadegh, sensing the gathering storm, moved decisively. On August 4, he held a referendum to dissolve Parliament, consolidating power amid suspicions of British and American plotting. On August 13, the Shah, under intense CIA pressure, signed the decrees dismissing Mossadegh and appointing Zahedi.A Failed CoupTehran, August 15, 1953. Inside a CIA safehouse, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, the grandson of US President Theodore Roosevelt, and mastermind of Op Ajax, chain-smoked nervously, waiting for the radio to crackle. Disguised as a businessman in sharp linen suits, he had entered Iran a few days ago to oversee the plot to topple Mossadegh. 'We're on the edge of history,' he'd later recall, 'and it could all collapse in a heartbeat.'Colonel Nematollah Nassiri, a Shah loyalist, gripped a royal firman, ordering Mossadegh's dismissal, in his trembling hands. As his jeep halted near the PM's humble residence, a surprise was waiting. Tipped off in advance, Mossadegh had alerted his troops, who immediately arrested Nassiri. The Shah, nervous and indecisive, fled to Baghdad, leaving Tehran to burn. Zahedi also disappeared into a safehouse in the mountains on the Flees Iran After Move to Dismiss Mossadegh Fails,' The New York Times screamed on August 17. 'The attempt to remove the Premier was made at midnight. The 72-year-old Premier was clearly master of the situationThe Government-authorised story is that alert Army officers foiled a palace guard coup after the plotters had been betrayed by Colonel Muntaz.'But Roosevelt wasn't ready to give up. Ignoring orders to abort the mission, he shot back: 'I'm still in the game.' Within a few days, Roosevelt would roll the dice again.(Next: The Game Begins)

The Pentagon Pizza Index: How pizza orders may predict global crises
The Pentagon Pizza Index: How pizza orders may predict global crises

Business Standard

time2 hours ago

  • Business Standard

The Pentagon Pizza Index: How pizza orders may predict global crises

It's not an intelligence leak or satellite feed. It's not even a diplomatic whisper. It's pizza. A fresh slice of conspiracy or perhaps insight is doing the rounds again. This time, it's tied to the escalating Israel-Iran tensions. And at the heart of it? A quirky, yet strangely compelling indicator known as the 'Pentagon Pizza Index'. On the evening of June 12, an unusual spike in pizza delivery activity was reportedly observed near the Pentagon, the five-sided nerve centre of the US Department of Defense. According to the X account 'Pentagon Pizza Report', which tracks open-source data on local pizza spot activity, four pizzerias—We, The Pizza, Domino's, District Pizza Palace, and Extreme Pizza—saw a sharp rise in orders just before 7 pm ET. 'As of 6:59 pm ET nearly all pizza establishments nearby the Pentagon have experienced a HUGE surge in activity,' the account posted. Hours later, Israel launched a surprise military operation targeting Iranian nuclear and missile facilities. The proximity of events fuelled speculation—and reignited the theory that a sudden surge in pizza orders near key US military installations often signals a looming geopolitical flashpoint. A theory baked over decades While it might sound like something out of a Netflix thriller, the idea has roots going back to the Cold War. Soviet spies reportedly tracked late-night pizza deliveries around Washington, suspecting it reflected heightened military readiness. They even coined a term for it: Pizzint—short for 'pizza intelligence'. As Frank Meeks, the former owner of 43 Domino's outlets in Washington, told the Los Angeles Times in 1991: 'The news media doesn't always know when something big is going to happen because they're in bed, but [pizza] deliverers are out there at 2 in the morning.' He pointed to one particular night—August 1, 1990—when the CIA ordered a record 21 pizzas. Hours later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, triggering the Gulf War. CNN's then-Pentagon correspondent, Wolf Blitzer, even reportedly said, 'Bottom line for journalists: Always monitor the pizzas.' Fast forward to now, and the tradition continues, albeit through the lens of digital breadcrumbs. The Pentagon Pizza Report uses tools like Google Maps' 'Popular Times' feature to spot traffic spikes at pizzerias around Arlington County, Virginia. The June 12 data? It came just before 'Operation Rising Lion', Israel's major military move. What the experts say Alex Selby-Boothroyd, Head of Data Journalism at The Economist, also gave the theory a nod on LinkedIn, writing, 'The Pentagon Pizza Index has been a surprisingly reliable predictor of seismic global events—from coups to wars—since the 1980s.' Still, officials are understandably cautious about endorsing pizza-fuelled predictions. When asked by Fox Business, the US Department of Defense said it had 'nothing to offer' on the matter. A Pentagon spokesperson further told Newsweek that the activity observed by Pentagon Pizza Report did "not align with the events" and reminded the public that there are 'many pizza options available inside the Pentagon, also sushi, sandwiches, donuts, coffee, etc".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store