It did not take long for the fallout from the latest handshake between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi to ripple across the subcontinent. Like an echo from a darker time, the region once again finds itself teetering on the edge—not because of any organic surge of tension but because of a calculated choreography between two populist leaders whose mutual interests feed off spectacle. As soon as the American president wrapped up his public embrace of his Indian counterpart, India appeared ready with its next act: a staged terror incident, followed swiftly by bold and unilateral political moves, not unlike the ones the United States has executed under the guise of national security in distant geographies.
In this troubling symphony of power politics, India has begun playing to a distinctly American rhythm. The response was swift and heavy-handed: declarations of intent to cross borders, threats of water warfare, and an abrupt shift to Cold War-style diplomacy. It is a script eerily familiar to Pakistan, which spent the better part of the past two decades being coaxed into similarly theatrical confrontations by its own entanglements with Washington. Back then, every drone strike and troop deployment came dressed in the costume of regional stability and global peacekeeping. But behind the mask was always a clearer goal: American interests first, others negotiable.
Modi, ever the tactician, appears to be borrowing from this playbook. He stands today not just as India’s leader, but as a performer on a global stage where optics can often drown out outcomes. The handshake with Trump was not just a diplomatic formality; it was theatre – symbolic, exaggerated, and deeply revealing. In Trump, Modi sees a mirror: a leader embattled at home, yet determined to project strength abroad. Modi’s own challenges—diplomatic setbacks in Bangladesh, faltering regional alliances, and a restive domestic audience—require a diversion. So what better way than to manufacture a crisis, elevate tensions, and ride the wave of nationalism that inevitably follows?
Trump, on his part, seems to have found in Modi a willing partner in performance. Isolated by critics, estranged from once-loyal allies, and trapped in conflicts of his own making—whether in the Middle East or the Pacific—he appears to be treating India not as an ally, but as an instrument. In the midst of his sparring matches with China and Russia, another confrontation—one that doesn’t require American boots on the ground but offers the illusion of control—must feel like a welcome distraction. The standoff between India and Pakistan is not new, but this iteration carries a different weight. The stakes are no longer confined to the two countries or even to the subcontinent.
The tremors of this crisis are being felt in Beijing and Moscow, where both China and Russia are watching their investments, particularly those tied to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), with mounting anxiety. What was once a beacon of regional cooperation now flickers under the threat of disruption? And all of it, once again, stems not from any military logic but from political vanity. India’s threat to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty is a particularly dangerous gambit. This treaty, signed in 1960 under the watchful eye of the World Bank, is one of the few enduring symbols of cooperation between the two nations. Its terms are explicit: any alteration must be mutual.
The water from the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum belongs to Pakistan under the accord, while India retains rights to the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. Any unilateral move to alter this balance is not merely aggressive—it is illegal. And yet, the rhetoric pours forth like floodwater through a broken dam. Alongside the water threats came diplomatic severances. The Attari border was shut down, visas revoked, officials expelled. Pakistani military attachés were declared persona non grata. It is a deliberate campaign of disengagement, a thinning of diplomatic ties in favor of inflammatory headlines. It all followed the tragic shooting in Pahalgam, occupied Kashmir, where 26 people, including foreign nationals, lost their lives. As expected, Pakistan was blamed almost immediately. No thorough investigation, no verifiable evidence. Just accusation, amplification, and then retaliation.
Such patterns are not new, but the scale and pace have changed. We now live in an era where information travels faster than truth, where perception can be weaponized with a tweet or a soundbite. Modi’s government seems to understand this all too well. Every action—no matter how provocative—comes wrapped in the language of counterterrorism, draped in flags, broadcast with certainty. Pakistan, as ever, plays the role of the eternal antagonist in India’s carefully managed narrative, regardless of the facts. Yet, in this regional theatre of power and provocation, it is the people who suffer. Border communities brace for conflict. Families fear conscription. Markets reel under uncertainty. And the specter of nuclear escalation remains the silent but ever-present character in this grim play. Neither Trump nor Modi seems particularly interested in the consequences that spiral out of their decisions. For them, power is performance, and applause is validation.
But it must be said plainly: this is not sustainable. This is not diplomacy. This is not leadership. It is recklessness packaged as strength. It is showmanship in place of strategy. And it is dangerous. The subcontinent deserves more than this. It deserves a future not dictated by the vanities of its leaders but shaped by the resilience of its people. Cooperation—not confrontation—must define the years ahead. There is more at stake than headlines and votes. There is water, life, history. There are generations waiting for peace to finally become more than a slogan. It is time to stop performing and start governing. The world is watching, yes. But more importantly, so are the people who live between these borders—people who have lived with war, loss, and division for far too long. The least their leaders owe them now is not another crisis, but a chance at calm. A chance at truth. A chance at peace.
