As Imran Khan enters his seventies behind bars, the stakes extend far beyond his individual fate. Should his detention continue—or worse, should harm befall him in custody—the consequences could be explosive. Public anger, already simmering, may erupt into widespread unrest, challenging the state’s ability to maintain control.
Bangladesh has survived partition, the liberation war, famine, floods, military coups, and democratic collapse. It has always returned. But returning is not the same as resolving. Fifty-six years after independence, the founding paradox remains: a nation whose birth is still debated cannot fully inhabit its future. The gun salutes will be loud and unambiguous. The questions they echo, however, about what Bangladesh is, who founded it, and whose vision should guide it, remain, as they have always been
For India, this raises complex challenges. Historically, India has positioned itself as a strong advocate of anti-colonialism and sovereignty. However, in the current context, its responses have often appeared measured and cautious, despite the direct implications for its interests—ranging from energy security and regional stability to strategic initiatives such as connectivity through Iran.
For India, the failure is particularly significant as its presidency was an opportunity to translate “strategic autonomy”, the current buzzword in foreign policy circles, into multilateral leadership. True, its response is shaped by structural constraints. The country imports more than 85% of its crude oil, much of it from West Asia and Russia. Some nine million of its citizens live in the Gulf. The United States is its largest trading partner. Iran anchors the Chabahar port project and India’s access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Each relationship is too consequential to risk.
The absence of any form of engagement with Pakistan other than military has narrowed India’s options substantially. As a sovereign state, Pakistan cannot be seen to nor will it bow to coercive tactics. The current Indian establishment’s perennially punitive approach to Pakistan and efforts to humiliate it as an object of domestic ridicule has not yielded any dividends.
For India, this summit offers a dual opportunity. First, to shape a more inclusive multilateralism; one that amplifies the Global South’s priorities on energy, security, and digital equity. Second, to rebuild strained ties with Canada, a relationship marred by recent tensions but too strategically important to neglect.
So if another terror attack happens, will India launch another deep-strike operation with all the attendant risks of escalation? And how long can the tit-for-tat actions continue with the loss of soldiers and civilian lives and homes and attendant costs of military armoury and infrastructure destruction at a time when economic growth and dwindling jobs need all the attention?
The broader picture is clear: drones have dramatically shifted the cost calculus of modern warfare. As analysts have noted, $10,000 drones are now routinely met with $2 million missiles. Only a country capable of producing its own unmanned systems, and adjusting its tactics in real time, can maintain strategic credibility under such conditions.
Bangladesh’s 2024 crisis has significantly strained civil-military relations. The military’s instrumental role in ousting Hasina and installing the interim government has amplified concerns of a deepening praetorian drift. As Yunus’s control weakens amid economic turmoil, law-and-order issues, and geopolitical friction, the military appears increasingly assertive—opposing civilian initiatives and resisting reforms.
The recent clash between Pakistan and India after the Pahalgam attack on April 22 has created concerns in Kabul over Afghanistan’s trade flow. Abdul Latif Nazari, a Taliban deputy minister of economy, emphasized, “Tensions in India-Pakistan relations negatively impact Afghanistan’s economic situation".
The climate crisis isn’t waiting. In South Asia, it’s already arrived — in the form of droughts, deadly heat waves, and flash floods. These are not future risks. They’re happening now. And for communities facing those impacts, a corporation’s sustainability page doesn’t count for much. This region deserves better than slogans. It deserves action that doesn’t just sound good but does good — for the air, for the water, and for the people whose lives are tied to both.
One high-profile case involving a Bangladeshi actress made this painfully clear. When private videos of her were leaked by a former fiance, the fallout was swift—but not for the man who betrayed her. The scrutiny, the mockery, the moral judgment—it all landed squarely on her shoulders. The technology was modern; the public reaction was anything but.
Indian media’s portrayal of Bangladesh as sliding into extremism also threatens to derail valuable regional cooperation initiatives. South Asia is one of the least integrated regions in the world, despite shared histories and cultural ties. Any attempt to isolate Bangladesh or provoke fear-mongering narratives does not serve the interests of the region’s people. India and Bangladesh have enjoyed largely cordial relations in recent years; however such baseless media narratives risk fraying this relationship
Amid reported Indian reluctance, Dhaka has turned to Beijing for a 50-year master plan on river management. This has raised alarms in Delhi, especially as the proposed infrastructure is near the strategically sensitive Siliguri Corridor, a 22-kilometer-wide stretch connecting India to its northeastern states. Dhaka's pivot towards Beijing may ultimately disrupt the regional balance of power.
Trump equated India and Pakistan when he spoke on the ceasefire, erasing the genuinely-earned and the increasingly well-accepted de-hyphenation of two neighbours that were born at the same time but have walked very different paths – India as a secular nation that is an economic powerhouse while Pakistan as a failing democracy that faces economic uncertainty. This re-hyphenation is a sorry picture because it dwarfs India and keeps the nation confined and limited
So, instead of becoming two adversaries and wasting money and men on terrorism and war, both nations should focus on education, health, employment and on building nation specific infrastructure projects. Today, the breed of strong global leaders with ethics and morality is fast disappearing. War between nations is exploited to boost weapon trade.
The consequences are dangerous. Both sides now feel compelled to respond forcefully, fearing that restraint might be perceived as weakness. Pakistan, already grappling with economic and political instability, faces increased pressure to retaliate. For India, any future terror attack is likely to provoke immediate military response. The threshold for conflict has lowered significantly—creating a volatile environment where a single militant operation could ignite full-scale war.
Sri Lanka often finds itself navigating a diplomatic tightrope. While it shares strong cultural, economic, and historical ties with India, it also engages with Pakistan through trade, defense training, and political goodwill. The India-Pakistan rivalry sometimes limits Sri Lanka’s foreign policy options and restricts deeper ties with one country for fear of antagonizing the other.
Pakistan, on the global stage, once again struggled to maintain credibility. In a widely viewed CNN interview, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif failed to present evidence supporting claims of downed Indian jets. When pressed, he deflected by citing “Indian social media,” culminating in a moment of international embarrassment.
