By S. M. Inam
Indian media has made a striking admission in recent days: Pakistan is no longer simply a regional state; it is now viewed as a formidable rival. This recognition comes not just from military capability but from a broader perception of Pakistan’s growing influence on diplomatic, moral, and ideological fronts. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, custodian of the country’s nuclear arsenal, has emerged as a symbol of strategic balance in South Asia. For New Delhi, acknowledging Pakistan in this way is as much an admission of caution as it is a reflection of respect. Indian commentators have long relied on hyperbolic rhetoric about Pakistan, yet even their language now betrays unease—an unease rooted in years of aggressive policies that have failed to produce the outcomes they promised.
Nowhere is the cost of such policies clearer than in Indian-Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir. For eight decades, the region has experienced persistent oppression, human rights abuses, and a punitive approach to governance. The cumulative effect has been to turn Indian-Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir into what many observers describe as an open-air prison. India’s preference for coercion over political engagement has not brought peace. Instead, it has deepened resentment among Kashmiris and drawn sharp criticism from the international community. Even Indian analysts are now forced to concede that a reliance on force has not produced harmony but rather entrenched instability. Coercion, they admit, has fostered not cooperation but hatred—a reality New Delhi can no longer ignore.
The consequences of such domineering policies are not confined to Indian-Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir. Bangladesh offers another cautionary tale for India’s regional ambitions. Since 1971, New Delhi has sought to exert influence over Dhaka, both diplomatically and politically. For decades, Indian policymakers assumed that proximity and power translated automatically into compliance. Yet this assumption has repeatedly proved false. In recent years, Bangladesh has asserted its foreign policy independence with increasing clarity. The decision by the Bangladesh Cricket Board to withhold its team from India is emblematic. On the surface, it appears as a sporting choice, but in South Asia, cricket has always been more than a game. For decades, India has used cricket as a tool of soft power, a means to signal approval, apply pressure, and cultivate influence. Bangladesh’s refusal, therefore, represents both a political and moral statement. It is a deliberate assertion of autonomy, a rejection of New Delhi’s assumption that regional dominance is a birthright.
Pakistan, having endured similar pressures in cricket relations with India, now finds a moral and diplomatic alignment with Bangladesh. Historically, cricket disputes have mirrored larger geopolitical tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi. When one nation has attempted to politicize sport, the other has often resisted or protested, recognizing the potential of sport to send powerful messages beyond the field. In this context, Pakistan’s potential support for Bangladesh’s stance becomes significant. It is more than a sporting dispute; it is a statement of principle. Seen alongside Pakistan’s own military and strategic operations, including initiatives such as Bunyad-e-Marsoush, India faces mounting scrutiny on multiple fronts. If two of the region’s major cricketing nations assert their independence from Indian coercion, it signals that New Delhi’s ability to project power through cultural or sporting channels is no longer guaranteed.
This growing recognition of Pakistan as a “formidable rival” is not merely rhetorical. The country’s defence capabilities, nuclear deterrence, and professional military leadership have long contributed to regional stability. Under Field Marshal Munir, the armed forces are committed not only to defending national territory but also to preventing escalation through responsible nuclear stewardship. This balance, maintained with discipline and strategic clarity, has effectively neutralized many of India’s traditional threats. New Delhi’s past reliance on assumptions of Pakistani weakness now appears increasingly untenable. The international community, too, is beginning to reassess South Asia’s sources of instability. Far from being the passive actor that Indian discourse has sometimes suggested, Pakistan has become a stabilizing presence, capable of managing crises while preserving its strategic interests.
(The writer is a former government officer and a senior analyst on national and international affairs, can be reached at inam@metro-morning.com)
