THE SUBCONTINENTAL PARADOX: AMERICA’S SHORT MEMORIES AND INDIA’S LONG HORIZONS

A New Cold War Reborn: India in the Age of Transactional Empires

“India’s strength is not in coercion but in continuity—the civilisational memory of a state that has outlived empires which once claimed to shape its destiny.”

The geopolitical theatre of 2025 resembles not a new era but the resurrection of an old pattern, where great powers once again search for pliable client states to fight their peripheral battles. What has changed is not Washington’s grand strategy but its dwindling strategic patience and growing dependence on transactional arrangements. In this shifting world order, India stands out as the last major power that refuses to be purchased, pressured, or puppeteered. In contrast, Pakistan—once again orbiting Washington—replays its old role as a rent-seeking military subcontractor, eager to exchange sovereignty for foreign indulgence.

The optics of Field Marshal Asim Munir’s repeated White House receptions, celebrated by Islamabad’s ruling elite as diplomatic “revival,” are revealing not because they elevate Pakistan, but because they expose the depth of American insecurity in a world where US primacy is eroding and where India has emerged as one of the few nations capable of independently shaping regional outcomes.

Every American pivot back to Pakistan over the past seven decades—from Eisenhower to Reagan to George Bush Jr.—has been animated by one formula:

Use Pakistan for short-term tactical advantage.

Ignore the long-term strategic blowback.”

The Biden era temporarily restrained this impulse. But Trump’s return to office has revived the familiar American fantasy—a belief that the Pakistani military can still deliver geopolitical outcomes at discount rates. This belief is ahistorical, strategically unsound, and divorced from the structural transformations occurring across Asia.

“While the West oscillates between allies and clients, India stands anchored in strategic autonomy—a power that does not bend with the winds of transactional diplomacy.”

India, unlike Pakistan, is not scrambling for relevance.

India is shaping the region—economically, militarily, and diplomatically.

Yet the Washington–Rawalpindi spectacle has revived old anxieties among some Indian commentators who fear that America’s flirtation with Pakistan signals a reversal. In reality, it signals American short-term desperation, not strategic conviction. India’s rise has not slowed; Pakistan’s decline has not reversed. The United States is merely rediscovering the psychological comfort of old habits—even if these habits produced disasters from Afghanistan (1980s) to 9/11 (2001) to Taliban 2.0 (2021).

History is repeating itself not because the world lacks new choices, but because the American establishment refuses to confront its own past miscalculations in South Asia.

Civilizational India vs. Rentier Pakistan: Divergent Paths

“Washington’s embrace of Pakistan is a recurring mistake; India’s rise is a recurring fact.”

For nearly a millennium, Indian statecraft has survived invasions, colonisation, and ideological tides. No major Asian power can claim similar civilizational continuity. India’s foreign policy therefore draws from an ancient wellspring of strategic autonomy—Kautilya’s realism, Ashoka’s diplomacy, Akbar’s pluralism, and Nehru’s non-alignment.

Pakistan, by contrast, has no pre-colonial nationhood, no civilizational identity, and no strategic doctrine beyond insecurity toward India. Its military elite has built the country’s geopolitical identity around two pillars:

1. Perpetual victimhood

2. Perpetual dependency

Pakistan’s rulers have mastered the art of converting geopolitical insecurity into monetary profit. Washington’s renewed embrace of Pakistan is therefore not a victory for Islamabad but a recycling of its old mercenary role.

India does not seek to replace Pakistan as a “frontline state.”

India seeks to shape the rules, not play the role of a geopolitical foot soldier.

Why India Must View the US–Pakistan Revival With Cold Realism

“In the long arc of history, transient deals fade, but civilisational states endure. India is one.”

Trump’s embrace of Munir is, at its core, a tactical move. It mirrors previous moments when Washington outsourced unsustainable missions to Pakistan:

• 1950s–60s: SEATO & CENTO

• 1980s: Afghan jihad, CIA–ISI cooperation

• 2000s: War on Terror patronage

• 2020s: China-containment fantasies

• 2025: Gaza stabilisation & Bagram re-entry ambitions

Each phase ended with regional chaos, global blowback, and American disillusionment.

India, unlike the US, has learned from history.

India understands that Pakistan’s loyalties are rented—not earned.

No Pakistani military ruler—from Ayub Khan to Yahya to Zia to Musharraf to Munir—has ever honoured a strategic commitment longer than the cash flow behind it.

India’s Civilizational Posture: Detached Strength, Not Insecure Reaction

The current geopolitical churn vindicates India’s civilizational detachment. New Delhi has not reacted emotionally to Trump’s overtures toward Rawalpindi. Instead, India has quietly strengthened:

• The QUAD (US–India–Japan–Australia)

• I2U2 (India–Israel–UAE–US)

• IMEC Corridor (India–Middle East–Europe)

• Maritime security with France, Japan, and Australia

• Energy-trade integration with Saudi Arabia & UAE

• Strategic coordination with Russia on Eurasia

• Strategic alignment with Europe on Indo-Pacific

India’s rise is structural; Pakistan’s visibility is theatrical.

Even with Trump’s unpredictable impulses, Washington’s long-term calculations remain unchanged:

Without India, the Indo-Pacific collapses.

“For India, stability is interest; for Pakistan, relevance is survival; for America, loyalty is negotiable.”

Without Pakistan, nothing collapses.

That is the unspoken truth shaping American policy—even when Trump refuses to say it aloud.

The Pakistan–US Tango:

A Temporary Intersection of Weaknesses

Pakistan is strategically bankrupt, economically insolvent, diplomatically cornered, and internally fragmented. Trump’s transactional instincts see Pakistan not as a partner but as an expendable subcontractor.

What binds Trump to Pakistan’s military today is not ideology but mutual insecurity:

• Washington wants cheap geopolitical labour

• Pakistan wants legitimacy and dollars

This is precisely why India must remain outwardly calm but internally vigilant.

India has faced far greater challenges—from Nixon’s China–Pakistan axis of 1971 to the post-9/11 US indulgence of Pakistan.

Each time, India emerged stronger and more respected.

Today, India is no longer a regional power; it is the pivotal Indo-Pacific power—courted simultaneously by Europe, the Gulf, East Asia, and even the United States itself.

The Gaza Factor: Why Pakistan Was Chosen Over India

Trump’s plan for Gaza reflects classic American shortsightedness. The US wants:

• Muslim troops without Muslim political complications

• Arab legitimacy without Arab responsibility

• Stabilisation without American casualties

India, as a secular democracy with deep ties to both Israel and Palestine, cannot supply soldiers to an occupation zone dominated by Islamist militias.

Pakistan, however, excels at exporting security personnel.

It has historically supplied mercenaries to:

• Saudi Arabia

• Bahrain

• Jordan

• UAE

• The covert Afghan proxy war

Thus, Pakistan fits Washington’s Gaza needs not because of strength but because of disposability.

India is not disposable, and therefore cannot be used as a cheap stabilisation force.

A New Geopolitical Reality: India No Longer Needs US Approval

“India does not seek hegemony—it seeks equilibrium. But equilibrium is impossible when major powers chase short-term gains.”

One of the defining features of Modi-era diplomacy is the rejection of moral dependency on Western approval. India today negotiates with:

• Washington as an equal

• Beijing as a rival

• Moscow as a partner

• Europe as a collaborator

• The Gulf as a strategic extension

• Africa as a developmental partner

Pakistan cannot claim such autonomy even rhetorically.

Trump’s praise for Pakistan is not a setback for India but a reminder that American foreign policy remains episodic, not civilizational.

India’s foreign policy, rooted in civilizational confidence, is patient, long-term, and deeply grounded in strategic memory.

This is why India outlasts transactional empires.

This is why India will outlast America’s periodic indulgence of Pakistan.

The Seven-Decade Pattern: Why America Always Returns to Pakistan — and Why It Always Backfires

If history teaches anything, it is that the United States suffers from recurring amnesia when it comes to Pakistan. Every decade, Washington convinces itself that Rawalpindi’s generals can once again be molded into “moderate allies” capable of serving American interests at bargain rates. Yet every such cycle ends the same way—strategic embarrassment for the US, regional blowback, and renewed instability.

The tragedy lies not only in America’s inability to learn, but in its refusal to accept that Pakistan’s military establishment has never acted as an ally of any nation. It behaves, instead, as a geopolitical extortion syndicate, monetizing insecurity and exporting instability.

India has seen these cycles for 70 years.

And India has learned to prepare for the end of every illusion.

The First Cycle (1950s–60s): The Birth of Pakistan as a ‘Hired Ally’

In the earliest years of the Cold War, Washington believed it could build a chain of security alliances to encircle the Soviet Union and China. Pakistan, hungry for recognition and arms, marketed itself as the “Muslim anchor of Western defence.”

The US, seduced by Pakistan’s manufactured narrative of indispensability, inducted it into:

• SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization)

• CENTO (Baghdad Pact)

This was the first instance of American strategic gullibility colliding with Pakistani opportunism.

Pakistan used US weapons not against communist forces but against India—as seen in:

• The 1965 war, where US-supplied tanks rolled into Indian territory

• The repression in East Pakistan, executed under the shadow of American aid

When Washington realised the betrayal, the damage had already been done.

India remembers this pattern.

The Second Cycle (1970s–80s): The Afghan Jihad and the Creation of Global Jihadism

The second cycle was the most catastrophic—for Pakistan, for the US, and for the world.

The CIA–ISI collaboration during the Soviet-Afghan war turned Pakistan into the global headquarters of jihadism. Billions of dollars in American money and Saudi petrodollars flowed through Pakistan’s military establishment.

The result?

• The birth of the Taliban

• The empowerment of Al-Qaeda

• The militarisation of the Pakistani deep state

• The Islamisation of Pakistan’s society

• The globalisation of terrorism

American short-termism created a monster that outlived its masters.

India paid the first price for this American naïveté, suffering decades of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and beyond. The world paid the next price on 9/11.

Yet, astonishingly, Washington has again forgotten its own role in manufacturing the very forces that now threaten it.

The Third Cycle (2000s): ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’—A Reward for Duplicity

After 9/11, instead of penalising Pakistan for sheltering Osama bin Laden, Washington rewarded Pakistan with:

• Major non-NATO ally status (2004)

• Billions in aid

• F-16 upgrades

• Covert subsidies to the ISI

While Washington publicly demanded counterterrorism cooperation, Pakistan privately:

• Protected Taliban leaders

• Sheltered Al-Qaeda remnants

• Attacked Indian targets (2001 Parliament, 2008 Mumbai)

• Milked American funds to strengthen anti-India jihadist groups

Finally, in 2011, the US discovered Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, living comfortably under the nose of the Pakistani military.

Even then Washington refused to sever ties with Rawalpindi.

American leaders, embarrassed, continued the relationship because they feared the Pakistani military more than they distrusted it.

The Fourth Cycle (2010s–2020): Pakistan’s Pivot to China, America’s Delusions Continue

As Pakistan became China’s junior colony under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Washington finally began reducing military aid and shifting toward India.

Yet, the American establishment—especially defence circles—never fully abandoned Pakistan, because:

• It needed supply routes for Afghanistan

• It feared Pakistan’s nuclear instability

• It hoped Islamabad could still influence the Taliban

All three assumptions collapsed.

But Trump, driven not by strategic logic but by transactional instincts, has reopened the door for Pakistan’s military—out of convenience, not conviction.

The Fifth Cycle (2025): Trump Revives the Old Habit

Trump’s decision to twice host Asim Munir—while downplaying India’s role—appears puzzling only if viewed without historical memory.

Pakistan sells itself to the US on three manufactured narratives:

1. ‘We are essential to Muslim world diplomacy.’

False. Gulf monarchies trust India more than Pakistan today.

2. ‘We understand Afghanistan better than anyone.’

True—because Pakistan created the Taliban and continues to shelter its factions.

3. ‘We can lend Islamic legitimacy to American plans.’

Misleading—since Pakistan’s street rejects American alignment completely.

Trump fell for the same Pakistan-for-hire model that has repeatedly blown up in America’s face.

Why the US Returns to Pakistan Despite the Evidence

Three structural reasons explain this American relapse:

(1) American Presidents Hate Paying for Wars

Pakistan offers cheap militarised labour.

India does not.

A Pakistani general can deploy thousands of soldiers abroad without parliamentary oversight or public protest—as seen in Yemen, Bahrain, and Jordan.

India cannot and will not.

(2) America’s Bureaucracy Retains ‘Cold War Muscle Memory’

Pentagon planners still fantasise about using Pakistan as a:

• logistics partner

• counterbalance to China

• mediator with the Afghan Taliban

• manager of Muslim public opinion

All these fantasies have failed.

Yet bureaucracies persist long after logic evaporates.

(3) Pakistan’s Military Elite is the World’s Most Skilled in Exploiting Superpowers

Rawalpindi has monetised every American insecurity:

• 1950s Soviet expansion

• 1970s Iranian revolution

• 1980s Afghanistan

• 2000s terrorism

• 2020s Middle East fragmentation

Pakistan is not a strategic actor.

It is a geopolitical parasite—feeding on American anxieties.

Why India Must Respond with Strategic Detachment, Not Panic

India’s foreign policy has matured beyond reacting emotionally to American moves. India recognises six realities:

Reality 1: The US cannot solve any Asian conflict without India.

Whether QUAD, Indo-Pacific, South China Sea, or supply chains—India is indispensable.

Reality 2: Pakistan is a liability Washington will again regret.

This cycle will end the same way all previous cycles have.

Reality 3: India–US ties now have bipartisan, long-term foundations.

They are rooted in economics, technology, and China-balancing—not personalities.

Reality 4: Trump’s foreign policy is showmanship, not strategy.

New Delhi understands this better than any capital.

Reality 5: India’s rise is irreversible.

India’s GDP, defence modernisation, demographic advantage, diplomatic network, and global partnerships far exceed Pakistan’s.

Reality 6: India plays the long game.

Civilizational powers outlast elected mood swings.

“The world’s oldest civilisation does not need validation from the world’s youngest empires.”

The Coming Storm: Why Pakistan’s Renewed Relevance is a Mirage

Pakistan’s temporary revival in Washington hides a dangerous contradiction:

Pakistan is internally collapsing at the very moment it seeks external relevance.

• Economic bankruptcy

• Political disarray

• Provincial rebellions

• Rising extremism

• Water scarcity

• Demographic pressures

• Dependence on China

• Growing anti-US sentiment

Trump’s embrace may embolden the Pakistani military, but it cannot reverse Pakistan’s structural decay.

For India, this is not a threat—it is an opportunity to shape the regional security architecture without appearing interventionist.

Understood.

I will now deliver SECTION 3, written fully in the Brahma Chellaney hard-realist style—sharp, critical, India-centric, rich in geopolitics, and civilizationally confident.

Gaza, Grandstanding, and Geopolitical Theatre: Why Pakistan Became Trump’s Pawn—and Why India Refused the Bait

If Trump’s Gaza plan represents anything, it is not the promise of peace but the return of old imperial habits: great powers outsourcing messy wars to expendable client states. Gaza has become the latest arena for this geopolitical theatre, and Pakistan—ever willing to hire out its soldiers and sovereignty—has positioned itself at the front of Washington’s bidding queue.

The Americans require a Muslim face for what is fundamentally a Western project. They seek “Islamic legitimacy” without Islamic agency. They want Muslim troops without Muslim political demands. And among the Muslim-majority states capable of fielding disciplined troops, only Pakistan is desperate enough to offer itself as a subcontractor.

India, by contrast, declined the bait not out of hesitation but out of strategic wisdom.

A civilizational power does not enter theatres that provide prestige without purpose. India’s refusal to participate in Gaza’s “security architecture” is not reluctance; it is statecraft.

The United States sought a force that is:

• Muslim enough to appease Arab street rage

• Disposable enough to be blamed if things go wrong

• Authoritarian enough to deploy troops without domestic debate

• Dependent enough to obey without negotiating

This describes Pakistan—not India.

The Gaza “Peace Plan”: A Colonial Mandate in New Packaging

Trump’s so-called “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” is less a peace plan and more a revival of colonial-era mandate governance, with the United States playing the role of supervisory empire and Muslim states executing the ground-level policing.

Trump’s idea of a “Board of Peace” chaired by himself is an unmistakable throwback to Western oversight bodies that once governed Mandate Palestine, Iraq, and Transjordan. The idea that Pakistan—a country unable to police its own cities—can stabilise Gaza is geopolitically absurd yet symbolically useful for Washington.

For the US, Pakistan is simply:

• cheap manpower

• easy deniability

• a ready-made authoritarian apparatus

This is why Trump embraced Asim Munir with such theatrical affection—because Munir fits the role of a disciplined executioner, not a strategic partner.

The Real Reason Trump Needed Pakistan: Arabs Won’t Bleed for Gaza

Arab governments, despite fiery public rhetoric, are unwilling to send their own soldiers into Gaza because:

1. They fear a domestic uprising

2. They reject being seen as Israel’s police force

3. Their militaries are risk-averse and overstretched

4. Their legitimacy is fragile

Saudi Arabia and UAE prefer writing cheques, not writing the names of dead soldiers. Egypt fears being re-entangled in Gaza. Qatar prefers diplomacy over military burden-sharing. Jordan faces internal instability and refugee pressures.

Thus, when the US surveyed the Muslim world for a force that can:

• take casualties

• absorb blame

• survive domestic backlash

• follow American orders

Pakistan was the only candidate irresponsible enough to volunteer.

The Pakistani Military’s Calculated Enthusiasm

For Pakistan’s military establishment, Gaza is not a humanitarian duty; it is a business opportunity. The army seeks:

• American approval

• Gulf money

• International legitimacy

• A distraction from domestic failures

• A chance to appear relevant again

Under Munir, the Pakistani military is reviving Zia-ul-Haq’s old tactic: sell the army abroad for dollars and geopolitical leverage.

Pakistan’s “Islamic credentials” are a geopolitical commodity.

And the Americans are willing buyers.

That is why Islamabad is pushing narratives such as:

• “Pakistan is the Muslim world’s only nuclear power.”

• “Pakistan can stabilise Gaza.”

• “Pakistan has historic legitimacy.”

None of these claims withstand scrutiny.

But they appeal to Washington’s desire for an obedient partner.

Why India Does Not—and Must Not—Join Western Mandated Missions in the Arab World

India’s refusal to participate in Trump’s stabilisation scheme is rooted in realism:

1. India will not bleed for a conflict it did not create.

India has no obligation to enforce a ceasefire in Gaza or police militant groups spawned by decades of regional dysfunction.

2. India will not serve American optics.

Trump seeks image management, not peace. India does not legitimise foreign political theatrics.

3. India will not damage ties with either Israel or Palestine.

New Delhi maintains rare credibility with both sides—a diplomatic capital too valuable to squander.

4. India does not deploy troops under unclear mandates.

UN peacekeeping is structured, neutral and legitimate.

Gaza peacekeeping under US direction is the opposite.

5. India rejects neo-colonial burden sharing.

India supports Palestinian statehood, not foreign policing of Arab lands.

6. India has long-term stakes in the Middle East’s stability.

Indian workers, investments, diaspora, and energy security are too important to risk in an ill-defined intervention.

India does not outsource its morality or foreign policy to any capital—not Washington, not Tel Aviv, not Riyadh.

The Deeper Geopolitical Reality: India is Already the Middle East’s Stabilising Power

Few Americans realise the extent to which India has become the civilizational and economic anchor of the Gulf:

• India is the largest trading partner of the UAE.

• India is Saudi Arabia’s second-largest source of skilled labour.

• India is building strategic infrastructure in Oman, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

• The IMEC corridor runs because of India—not Pakistan.

• Israel’s tech ecosystem thrives on Indian talent.

The Middle East today is being shaped not by Pakistan’s military diplomacy but by India’s:

• workforce

• investments

• digital infrastructure

• strategic partnerships

• technology transfer

• soft power

• civilizational goodwill

India is the only major power trusted simultaneously by:

• Israel

• UAE

• Saudi Arabia

• Qatar

• Oman

• Egypt

• Jordan

• Iran

Pakistan cannot claim even one of these relationships on equal terms.

Pakistan’s Domestic Volcano: Why Gaza Deployment is Destabilising for Rawalpindi

While Pakistan’s generals salivate at the prospect of renewed relevance, they are ignoring a fundamental contradiction: the Pakistani street is violently opposed to any cooperation with the US or Israel.

Deploying Pakistani troops to Gaza could trigger:

• Islamist uprisings

• Anti-army riots

• Pashtun protests

• Baloch insurgent backlash

• Political implosion

The Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) protests are merely a preview.

Pakistan’s military is about to discover that exporting soldiers abroad while suppressing dissent at home is strategically suicidal.

Rawalpindi has overestimated itself and underestimated its society.

Why India Must Watch—but Not Intervene

India has three interests in Gaza:

1. Preventing regional instability

2. Protecting Indian lives in the Middle East

3. Maintaining long-term goodwill with both sides

India gains nothing by participating.

India gains everything by staying neutral, stable, and credible.

Trump’s theatrics will end; India’s regional relationships will endure.

India must therefore observe Pakistan’s reckless venture with careful detachment.

History will do the rest.

The Pakistan Illusion: Internal Fragmentation, Economic Bankruptcy, and the Myth of Strategic Relevance

If there is a single country in the world whose self-image diverges most violently from reality, it is Pakistan. Every decade Pakistan convinces itself—and attempts to convince others—that it is a “pivotal state,” a “regional stabiliser,” or an “Islamic power.” Yet every credible metric narrates a different story: Pakistan is not a rising power but a collapsing geography held together by an overstretched army and international bailouts.

Trump’s embrace of Pakistan has temporarily revived Rawalpindi’s delusions of grandeur.

But geopolitics is not shaped by perceptions—it is shaped by capacity.

And Pakistan’s capacity, across every domain, is in terminal decline.

1. Economic Bankruptcy: A State Sustained by Loans and Illusions

Pakistan’s economy is not merely weak; it is structurally insolvent.

The country survives on:

• IMF rescues

• Saudi deposits

• UAE rollovers

• Chinese loan restructuring

• Remittances from a shrinking diaspora

It is a country whose:

• tax base has collapsed,

• exports have stagnated,

• industrial capacity has eroded,

• currency is in free fall,

• debt repayment consumes more than half of government revenue.

Pakistan’s foreign reserves can barely cover four to six weeks of imports during crisis cycles. The country’s per capita income has fallen below Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Inflation crossed 30–40% multiple times. Food insecurity is rampant.

Yet Pakistan’s generals still speak the language of “strategic parity with India,” a claim as absurd as North Korea claiming parity with South Korea.

No great power—not the US, not China, not the Arab world—takes Pakistan’s economic claims seriously.

2. A Military Obsessed With India, Blind to Its Own Crises

Pakistan’s military is the only functional institution left in the country, but even that description is generous. The military is less a national defence structure and more a commercial conglomerate with an army attached.

It controls:

• real estate

• agriculture holdings

• construction businesses

• banks

• manufacturing units

• transport networks

• housing societies

Pakistan’s generals have monetised militarism.

Every military crisis is an opportunity to extract foreign funds.

Every geopolitical engagement is a chance to claim relevance.

But this militarised state is brittle.

A military that:

• cannot defeat ragtag insurgents in Balochistan,

• cannot control TTP terrorism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,

• cannot secure its own GHQ from militant attacks,

is in no position to stabilise Gaza—or any foreign conflict.

The Pakistani army may excel in coups and property schemes, but on the battlefield it suffers from poor morale, doctrinal confusion, and institutional decay.

3. Internal Fragmentation: A Country Coming Apart

Pakistan today resembles a quasi-federation on life support, with centrifugal forces pulling it apart:

Balochistan:

Decades-long insurgency, mass disappearances, and a population hostile to the state.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:

TTP resurgence, tribal militancy, and civil authority collapsing.

Sindh:

Ethnic tensions between Sindhis and Mohajirs; Karachi run by mafias.

Punjab:

The only functioning province, now destabilising due to political manipulation.

Gilgit-Baltistan:

Protests over land, resources, and constitutional neglect.

Pakistan is a country where the central government rules only in theory. The military is overstretched and untrusted. And terrorism—far from being defeated—has become a parallel ecosystem.

4. Political Legitimacy: A State Without a Democratic Core

Pakistan today is not a constitutional republic; it is a military-led hybrid regime.

• Elections are manipulated.

• Prime Ministers are disposable.

• Parliament is a ceremonial stage.

• Judiciary is weaponised.

• Political parties are crushed on military orders.

No civilian government in Pakistan can form foreign policy.

No parliament can reject military ventures abroad.

This is why Pakistan could offer troops for Gaza within hours—

because the military does not need public consent.

This political hollowness is precisely why Washington finds Pakistan useful.

Client states with weak institutions are easier to coerce.

5. The Strategic Myth: Pakistan Believes It Is Indispensable—It Is Not

Pakistan’s foreign policy is built on the idea that great powers need it for:

• Afghanistan

• counterterrorism

• Muslim coalition politics

• China–US backchanneling

• Iran containment

• Middle East deployments

This belief is outdated.

The world has changed. Pakistan has not.

India’s rise has redefined South Asian geopolitics:

• India is a $4.1 trillion economy.

• India is central to the Indo-Pacific strategy.

• India is pivotal to QUAD.

• India is a near-peer power vis-à-vis China in the Indian Ocean.

• India is a technological and manufacturing hub.

Pakistan simply does not matter at this scale.

Even China, Pakistan’s “iron brother,” uses Pakistan today for:

• Gwadar access

• leverage against India

• cheap labour

• limited military cooperation

But Beijing refuses to treat Pakistan as an equal.

Even CPEC is being quietly downsized.

6. Why the West Occasionally “Resurrects” Pakistan

Pakistan’s importance is cyclical, not structural.

It becomes briefly relevant when:

• the West needs a Muslim proxy

• the US wants deniability

• the Middle East needs foot soldiers

• China wants regional leverage

These are transactional upticks, not strategic partnerships.

Every time Pakistan is elevated, it is for someone else’s purpose—not its own.

The latest Gaza enthusiasm must be understood in this context.

Pakistan is not being empowered;

Pakistan is being used.

7. India’s Strategic Patience: Watching a Neighbour Dig Its Own Grave

India’s approach toward Pakistan is built on non-intervention and strategic distancing:

• No economic entanglement

• No political legitimisation

• No engagement beyond minimum diplomatic protocol

• No security concessions

• No mediation via foreign powers

India’s strategy is simple:

Let Pakistan’s contradictions exhaust themselves.

Pakistan is not a rival; it is a perpetual crisis zone.

For India, the real challenge is managing:

• China

• the Indo-Pacific

• the Middle East

• global supply chains

• technology leadership

• economic growth

Pakistan does not figure in India’s long-term strategy except as a security liability.

A Country Imploding at Home Cannot Stabilise Conflict Abroad

Pakistan’s willingness to take on the Gaza mission reveals not strength but desperation.

It wants global responsibility without domestic capacity.

It wants strategic prestige without economic foundations.

It wants recognition without reform.

The world sees through this contradiction.

Washington sees Pakistan as expendable.

Beijing sees Pakistan as a buffer.

The Arab world sees Pakistan as hired muscle.

India sees Pakistan as a cautionary tale.

Pakistan’s myth of strategic relevance is collapsing under the weight of reality.

Understood.

Afghanistan, Bagram, and the Great Power Contest: Why the US Courts Pakistan While India Builds Long-Term Anchors

If there is one theatre that exposes the illusions of American grand strategy and the duplicity of Pakistan’s military establishment, it is Afghanistan. No other region demonstrates so clearly how great powers repeat mistakes, how client states exploit imperial fatigue, and how India—unique among regional actors—operates on the basis of long-term civilizational memory rather than short-term opportunism.

Afghanistan is not merely a battleground; it is a graveyard of geopolitical illusions.

It buried British imperialism.

It exhausted the Soviet Union.

It humiliated the United States.

And now, once again, Washington seeks to re-enter Afghanistan—this time through the back door, using Pakistan as the doorman.

The American Strategy: Outsourcing Failures to Pakistan, Again

Trump’s renewed engagement with Pakistan must be understood in the context of one unchanging fact: the US has never forgiven itself for abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2021. Washington wants a re-entry, but not boots on the ground. It needs:

• a logistical partner,

• an intelligence facilitator,

• an intermediary with the Taliban,

• a bridge to hostile tribal networks.

Pakistan sells itself as all four.

But this is the same Pakistan that:

• sheltered Osama bin Laden,

• protected the Haqqani Network,

• nurtured the Taliban for three decades,

• sabotaged US counterterrorism,

• closed NATO supply routes at will.

Washington knows this.

Yet Trump still gravitates toward Islamabad for one reason: Pakistan is easy to use and easier to blame.

Every American president discovers—too late—that Pakistan cannot be controlled.

Trump is repeating the mistake.

The Bagram Dream: America Wants a Footprint, Pakistan Wants a Leash

The United States remains obsessed with Bagram Air Base—its most formidable military installation in South Asia before the hasty Afghan retreat.

Bagram represented:

• air supremacy,

• intelligence dominance,

• regional power projection,

• counterterrorism reach into Central Asia,

• and the ability to check both Iran and China.

Trump wants Bagram back—not as a full-scale base, but as an operational footprint under the guise of counterterrorism. Washington knows India will never be part of such a plan and that Iran won’t cooperate. Central Asian states are now under deeper Russian and Chinese influence.

Thus, for logistical access, the US is forced to look once again at Pakistan.

Rawalpindi smells opportunity.

Pakistan’s generals want:

• US dollars,

• legitimisation after years of isolation,

• strategic attention,

• an excuse to revive their “indispensable ally” myth.

They are willing to bargain Afghan access in exchange for political backing and economic survival.

This is not strategic alignment.

It is transactional blackmail—Pakistan’s preferred statecraft since the Cold War.

India’s Afghan Strategy: Slow, Patient, and Civilizational

Where the US behaves like an interventionist empire and Pakistan like a predatory middleman, India behaves like a civilizational power.

India does not chase Afghanistan;

India nurtures Afghanistan.

Unlike Pakistan, India does not use Afghan soil for covert wars.

Unlike the US, India does not enter with soldiers.

Unlike China, India does not impose debt.

Unlike Russia, India does not play ideological games.

India’s Afghan engagement rests on five pillars:

1. Development Without Conditionality

India has built:

• the Afghan Parliament,

• the Zaranj–Delaram highway,

• the Salma Dam,

• power infrastructure,

• hospitals,

• schools,

• training programs.

India builds assets that Afghanistan keeps.

2. Respect for Afghan Sovereignty

India has never dictated political outcomes in Kabul.

Pakistan toppled governments; India built institutions.

3. Deep Historical and Cultural Memory

India’s connection to Afghanistan predates the maps of modern states.

Kabuliwalas, Gandhara roots, Buddhist influences, shared trade routes — India sees Afghanistan not as a battleground but as a civilizational corridor.

4. Strategic Patience

India knows regimes come and go.

Afghanistan’s geography does not.

5. Partnerships with Iran and Russia

The India–Iran–Russia axis around:

• Chabahar Port,

• the International North–South Transport Corridor,

• counterterrorism

  provides India a route into Afghanistan independent of Pakistan.

This is long-term statecraft—something Pakistan’s coup-addicted leadership has never mastered.

Pakistan’s Afghan Myopia: A State Addicted to Strategic Depth

Pakistan views Afghanistan through a paranoid lens:

• A friendly Kabul is strategic depth.

• A hostile Kabul is a security threat.

• Pashtun nationalism is existential danger.

• Indian presence is unacceptable.

Pakistan’s military doctrine treats Afghanistan not as a sovereign state but as a buffer zone. This mindset has produced endless instability:

• Taliban manipulation

• training of insurgents

• proxy militias

• cross-border terrorism

• closure of trade

• mass deportations

The result today is that Pakistan has lost control of:

• the western border,

• tribal regions,

• TTP infiltration,

• the goodwill of Afghans.

The Taliban government openly blames Pakistan for its own failures.

Even China, once Pakistan’s patron, has grown frustrated at the uncontrolled terrorism affecting CPEC.

Pakistan’s Afghan strategy has collapsed.

But Rawalpindi refuses to learn.

The Real Contest: India’s Long Game vs. Pakistan’s Quick Fixes

Pakistan wants leverage.

India wants stability.

Pakistan wants control.

India wants access.

Pakistan wants strategic rents.

India wants economic corridors.

Pakistan uses militants.

India uses development.

This is why Indian influence, even without boots on the ground, outlasts every Pakistani intervention.

The US Dilemma: Depend on Pakistan, Alienate India, or Accept Reality

Washington’s choices are shrinking:

• It cannot pressure India.

• It cannot trust Pakistan.

• It cannot confront China.

• It cannot abandon Afghanistan permanently.

Trump hopes he can balance contradictions with theatrics.

But geopolitics punishes illusions.

If the US overinvests in Pakistan, it will:

• alienate New Delhi,

• undermine its Indo-Pacific strategy,

• push India closer to Russia,

• and embolden China.

Every American mistake in Afghanistan has strengthened China.

Every American indulgence toward Pakistan has harmed India.

The pattern persists.

India’s Strategic Posture: Detached, Calculated, and Unapologetic

India must:

• Maintain ties with the Afghan people

• Deepen the Iran partnership

• Expand the Chabahar corridor

• Develop intelligence capabilities in Central Asia

• Avoid direct involvement in Taliban politics

• Prevent Pakistan from monopolising US attention

• Keep American illusions at arm’s length

• Prepare for long-term instability

Unlike Pakistan, India does not panic at every shift in Kabul.

India thinks in decades, not election cycles.

The Lesson of History: Empires Chase Afghanistan; Civilizations Outlast It

The British entered Afghanistan three times.

The Soviets invaded once.

The Americans stayed twenty years.

Pakistan has interfered for fifty years.

India is the only actor whose influence persists without a single soldier on Afghan soil.

This is the difference between a strategic parasite and a civilizational state.