South Asia
Saif
Senior Operative
- 13,311
- 7,274
- Origin
- Axis Group
Date of Event:
May 11, 2025
India-Pakistan conflict: implications for South Asia
Serajul I Bhuiyan
Published :
May 10, 2025 23:54
Updated :
May 10, 2025 23:54
The simmering rivalry between India and Pakistan-two nuclear-armed nations tied by decades of distrust, border clashes, and political bitterness-continues to afflict South Asia's quest for regional peace and harmony. The latest flashpoint, set off by a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir and Indian air strikes in Pakistan, has pulled the subcontinent back to the edge of a broader war. While the immediate diplomatic fallout has made headlines around the globe, its more profound implications are being acted out along the region's economic lifelines, diplomatic platforms, and multilateral institutions.
MANUFACTURED TRAGEDY OR STRATEGIC DIVERSION: On April 22, 2025, the idyllic valley town of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir-renowned for its natural beauty and tourist appeal-was on global headlines for a far more ominous reason. A fidayeen attack on a group of unarmed tourists killed 26 and injured dozens, converting a peaceful hill resort into a site of unimaginable slaughter. Indian authorities held Pakistan-based terrorists, and more specifically Jaish-e-Mohammed, responsible for the murders within hours. There was no forensic study, independent inquiry, or open fact-finding before the accusation.
Its military reaction was swift on May 7 with "Operation Sindoor"-a spate of air strikes on targets along the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Islamabad predictably denounced the action as a violation of its sovereignty and threatened to retaliate, taking South Asia to the edge of another military confrontation. The attack reminded us of the Kargil War of 1999, the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, and the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot confrontation. However, this time something else was cooking beneath the official version.
Eyewitnesses' descriptions in Pahalgam set alarm bells ringing. The militants, according to the eyewitnesses, appeared to be very well acquainted with the terrain and curiously enough wore uniforms identical to those of Indian paramilitary forces. False flag theories took the imagination-theories that the carnage was perhaps internally staged to provide a pretext for military intervention or shape national opinion on the threshold of India's general elections. If such allegations were to be established, they would amount to not just a betrayal of democratic trust but a geopolitical powder keg in the region.
The Indian government's narrative was soon picked up and retold unquestioningly by mainstream television channels-often mockingly called "Godi Media," a term popularised by award-winning journalist Ravish Kumar to describe media houses that have become cheerleaders for the ruling BJP rather than independent watchdogs. The channels magnified official claims, drowned out dissent, and demonised questioning voices in the nationalist din.
The Pahalgam attack thus followed a predictable script: tragedy was followed by immediate blame on Pakistan, media hysteria, and an orchestrated demand for military action. However, this time, there is a sense of heightened skepticism among international opinion, civil society, and sections of the Indian public. Independent journalists and human rights groups have already begun to question the official line, demanding open investigations and accountability.
The strike also coincidentally aligns with India's political calendar. With the Modi government coming under growing scrutiny for inflation, unemployment, and erosion of democracy, the Pahalgam tragedy has helped provide a narrative reset-shifting national attention from domestic unrest to foreign peril. This is consistent with past precedents, such as in Pulwama in 2019, when militaristic nationalism had been a winning electoral plank.
Beyond India's frontiers, the consequences are grave. Pakistan has responded with heightened military preparedness, and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) continues to be paralysed by bilateral bitterness. Countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka are stuck in a regional order where diplomacy is hostage to Indo-Pakistani brinkmanship.
Bangladesh's present Chief Adviser, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, is a strong believer in regional peace and has called upon members of SAARC not to indulge in such retrogressive posturing. Reiterating John F. Kennedy's warning that "Mankind must put an end to war-or war will put an end to mankind," Yunus has called for a multilateral SAARC peace commission to investigate cross-border incidents and ease tension before it erupts into open war. He has also proposed stronger regional watchdog institutions to pre-empt disinformation, which all too often fans the flames of violent nationalism.
Lastly, the Pahalgam tragedy can be remembered for its human cost and for what it spoke about the fragility of truth in a hyper-politicised media landscape. If independent journalism, civil society, and diplomacy are further eroded, the ghosts of Pahalgam can haunt South Asia long after the guns go quiet. In the interest of peace, justice, and history itself, this is a time that demands clarity, not expediency; cooperation, not confrontation.
SAARC AT THE CROSSROADS: SAARC, inaugurated in 1985 with the ambitious vision of economic integration, regional peace, and collective advancement for South Asian nations, has time and again failed to live up to its debutante promise. To the core of its chronic underperformance lies the deep and oft-bloodied rivalry between its two most prominent members-India and Pakistan. The suspension of the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad in 2016, following the Uri attack and diplomatic boycotts, was a metaphor for the weakness of the bloc's consensus-driven framework. The inclusion of unanimity in decision-making in the SAARC charter, intended to foster inclusiveness, has instead rendered the organization paralyzed whenever bilateral tensions break out-most often between Delhi and Islamabad.
Recent tensions, marked by rhetoric exchanges, border clashes, and diplomatic withdrawals, have pushed SAARC once more to the brink of irrelevance. Trade corridors have stalled, multilateral discussions have collapsed, and regional development initiatives continue to remain unrealised. Small member states such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka are trapped in this geopolitical gridlock-unable to accrue the complete dividends of regional cooperation because of the intransigence of their larger neighbours.
Here, Yunus, has been a steady and pragmatic voice summoning the resurrection of SAARC through visionary reform. Yunus envisions a regional order not held hostage by zero-sum rivalries but built on shared prosperity, human dignity, and interdependence. He has repeatedly emphasised that SAARC has to be more flexible and functionally delinked from bilateral hostilities, proposing devices such as multi-speed integration-where member states wishing to move ahead faster could do so with joint ventures even if unanimity were not achievable.
In the recent BIMSTEC summit and in bilateral meetings, Yunus has proposed turning SAARC into a conflict-reducing platform, urging India and Pakistan to undertake track-II dialogues, cross-border economic collaboration, and people-to-people contact. Echoing the wisdom of Nelson Mandela, who once said, "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy," Yunus believes that regional collaboration must transcend national egos and past grievances.
GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR BANGLADESH: Geographically positioned and economically rising Bangladesh faces a complex geopolitical scenario amid India-Pakistan competition. Historically leaning towards India, Bangladesh has benefited from bilateral trade and infrastructural connectivity. However, longstanding rivalry between India and Pakistan restricts Bangladesh's involvement in greater regional initiatives under SAARC.
Further, the conflict intensifies security challenges, including the potential for cross-border militancy and refugee influx, that can strain Bangladesh's resources and social fabric. India's abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty, while directly affecting Pakistan, also raises red flags about the politicization of shared water resources, a concern for lower riparian states like Bangladesh.
ECONOMIC FALLOUT AND REGIONAL TRADE DISRUPTIONS: The escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan has profound economic implications for not only the belligerents but the entire South Asian region, and even more so for Bangladesh. As a nation deeply integrated into regional supply chains and reliant on uninterrupted trade routes, Bangladesh is vulnerable to the collateral costs of regional instability. Heightened military tensions and the threat of full-blown war can grind cross-border logistics to a standstill, decelerate port operations, and strangle overland transportation arteries
critical to Bangladesh's export-driven economy-especially in sectors like garments, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture.
Investor confidence, already stretched by global economic uncertainty, will be further undermined by the threat of regional war. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows, so vital to Bangladesh's aspirations for growth, may take a hit as foreign investors take a wait-and-see attitude with increased geopolitical risk. As experience has taught us, capital is allergic to uncertainty, and prolonged instability may scare away long-term infrastructure and manufacturing investment.
Additionally, regional integration processes-such as BIMSTEC trade negotiations and SAARC integration processes, which have been stalled for decades-can be further weakened. As India and Pakistan divert fiscal resources towards defence expenditure, smaller economies such as Bangladesh can be deprived of development assistance, concessional loans, and trade facilitation measures necessary for inclusive growth. The opportunity cost of conflict is thereby not only measured in diplomatic terms but also in developmental terms.
As the late Kofi Annan once appropriately observed, "No nation can prosper in isolation." In a region already challenged by poverty, climate vulnerability, and inequality, the economic costs of Indo-Pakistani antagonism could overturn decades of advances-unless a collective, diplomatic course correction is pursued with alacrity.
CHINA, TURKEY, AND ISRAEL ENTER THE EQUATION: As tensions spiral between India and Pakistan, South Asia's geopolitical chessboard is further complicated by the open and hidden agendas of global and regional powers. China and Turkey have once again signalled strong diplomatic backing for Pakistan, while Israel has reaffirmed its strategic partnership with India, adding ideological, economic, and military dimensions to the crisis.
China's position remains rooted in its "iron brotherhood" with Pakistan, bolstered by pronouncements of solidarity and increased military cooperation, including intelligence sharing and logistical readiness in the Gilgit-Baltistan region. Beijing's support is pragmatic and rooted in its larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a vital lifeline. An unstable South Asia threatens China's long-term infrastructure and energy security interests. Beijing tries to balance India's regional dominance while safeguarding its economic interests by backing Pakistan diplomatically and indirectly in international fora like the United Nations (UN).
Under President Erdo?an, Turkey has been one of the most vocal supporters of Pakistan on Kashmir and regional issues at large. Ankara has positioned itself as a champion of Muslim causes globally and has strengthened its military relations with Islamabad by conducting joint military exercises, selling arms, and sharing intelligence. Turkish leaders have, in recent days, criticized India's airstrikes as "reckless" and called for restraint, thereby projecting Turkish soft power and leadership ambitions in the Muslim world.
In contrast, Israel has emerged as one of India's most significant defence and intelligence partners. Indo-Israeli relations have prospered under the Modi-Netanyahu leadership in the past decade, with massive arms sales, cybersecurity collaboration, and counterterrorism cooperation. Following the Pahalgam attack, several Israeli media outlets and strategic think tanks echoed India's narrative and justified New Delhi's retaliatory strikes as legitimate acts of self-defence. Israeli technology, particularly in surveillance, drone strikes, and border management, is already being utilised in Kashmir, contributing to the region's militarisation.
These alignments mask an ideological convergence below: Hindu nationalism and Zionism have met on securitisation, exclusionary politics, and information war. Israel's rhetorical and material support props up India's military posture while lending legitimacy to its actions globally. Pakistan's increasingly close ties with China and Turkey place the conflict in a broad multipolar framework, globalising polarisation.
This external entanglement of great players not only internationalises the India-Pakistan conflict but also marginalises regional organizations like SAARC. As great power players take sides, the space for neutral diplomacy narrows. For countries like Bangladesh, this is a rude awakening: regional peace can no longer be taken for granted. It must be actively maintained, diplomatically tended to, and geopolitically rebalanced.
STRATEGIC REALIGNMENTS AND DIPLOMATIC CHALLENGES: To respond to the shifting geopolitical environment, Bangladesh may rebalance its foreign policy in pursuit of strategic autonomy. Engaging with other regional groupings, strengthening bilateral relations outside the immediate neighbourhood, and calling for the revival of SAARC without being held hostage by India-Pakistan relations are possibilities. However, such manoeuvres require delicate diplomacy to avoid alienating key partners. Bangladesh's leadership must navigate these complexities to safeguard national interests while promoting regional peace and cooperation.
Traditional animosity between India and Pakistan still looms over SAARC's promise, stalling regional economic integration and reinforcing diplomatic weakness across South Asia. For countries like Bangladesh-pursuing greater global connectedness, inclusive development, and peaceful living-this persistent bitterness poses a double challenge: It disrupts crucial trade corridors and regional supply chains while simultaneously narrowing the space for multilateral collaboration on pressing challenges like climate resilience, migration, and food security.
A new diplomatic architecture is not a desire-it is a requirement-to navigate this minefield. Confidence-building measures, independent conflict resolution mechanisms, and an honest re-evaluation of bilateral tensions must be South Asia's future hallmarks. Under Yunus's visionary leadership, Bangladesh is exceptionally well-placed to lead this revolution. With its rising economic stature, commitment to human development, and neutrality in diplomacy, Bangladesh can be both a moral compass and a facilitator in the revival of SAARC's original mandate of collective prosperity.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it through peaceful means." The time has come for South Asian leadership to transcend narrow nationalism and create a regional order based on cooperation, not conflict, mutual respect, and hegemonic ambition.
Dr Serajul I Bhuiyan is a professor and former chair, the department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
Serajul I Bhuiyan
Published :
May 10, 2025 23:54
Updated :
May 10, 2025 23:54
The simmering rivalry between India and Pakistan-two nuclear-armed nations tied by decades of distrust, border clashes, and political bitterness-continues to afflict South Asia's quest for regional peace and harmony. The latest flashpoint, set off by a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir and Indian air strikes in Pakistan, has pulled the subcontinent back to the edge of a broader war. While the immediate diplomatic fallout has made headlines around the globe, its more profound implications are being acted out along the region's economic lifelines, diplomatic platforms, and multilateral institutions.
MANUFACTURED TRAGEDY OR STRATEGIC DIVERSION: On April 22, 2025, the idyllic valley town of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir-renowned for its natural beauty and tourist appeal-was on global headlines for a far more ominous reason. A fidayeen attack on a group of unarmed tourists killed 26 and injured dozens, converting a peaceful hill resort into a site of unimaginable slaughter. Indian authorities held Pakistan-based terrorists, and more specifically Jaish-e-Mohammed, responsible for the murders within hours. There was no forensic study, independent inquiry, or open fact-finding before the accusation.
Its military reaction was swift on May 7 with "Operation Sindoor"-a spate of air strikes on targets along the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Islamabad predictably denounced the action as a violation of its sovereignty and threatened to retaliate, taking South Asia to the edge of another military confrontation. The attack reminded us of the Kargil War of 1999, the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, and the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot confrontation. However, this time something else was cooking beneath the official version.
Eyewitnesses' descriptions in Pahalgam set alarm bells ringing. The militants, according to the eyewitnesses, appeared to be very well acquainted with the terrain and curiously enough wore uniforms identical to those of Indian paramilitary forces. False flag theories took the imagination-theories that the carnage was perhaps internally staged to provide a pretext for military intervention or shape national opinion on the threshold of India's general elections. If such allegations were to be established, they would amount to not just a betrayal of democratic trust but a geopolitical powder keg in the region.
The Indian government's narrative was soon picked up and retold unquestioningly by mainstream television channels-often mockingly called "Godi Media," a term popularised by award-winning journalist Ravish Kumar to describe media houses that have become cheerleaders for the ruling BJP rather than independent watchdogs. The channels magnified official claims, drowned out dissent, and demonised questioning voices in the nationalist din.
The Pahalgam attack thus followed a predictable script: tragedy was followed by immediate blame on Pakistan, media hysteria, and an orchestrated demand for military action. However, this time, there is a sense of heightened skepticism among international opinion, civil society, and sections of the Indian public. Independent journalists and human rights groups have already begun to question the official line, demanding open investigations and accountability.
The strike also coincidentally aligns with India's political calendar. With the Modi government coming under growing scrutiny for inflation, unemployment, and erosion of democracy, the Pahalgam tragedy has helped provide a narrative reset-shifting national attention from domestic unrest to foreign peril. This is consistent with past precedents, such as in Pulwama in 2019, when militaristic nationalism had been a winning electoral plank.
Beyond India's frontiers, the consequences are grave. Pakistan has responded with heightened military preparedness, and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) continues to be paralysed by bilateral bitterness. Countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka are stuck in a regional order where diplomacy is hostage to Indo-Pakistani brinkmanship.
Bangladesh's present Chief Adviser, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, is a strong believer in regional peace and has called upon members of SAARC not to indulge in such retrogressive posturing. Reiterating John F. Kennedy's warning that "Mankind must put an end to war-or war will put an end to mankind," Yunus has called for a multilateral SAARC peace commission to investigate cross-border incidents and ease tension before it erupts into open war. He has also proposed stronger regional watchdog institutions to pre-empt disinformation, which all too often fans the flames of violent nationalism.
Lastly, the Pahalgam tragedy can be remembered for its human cost and for what it spoke about the fragility of truth in a hyper-politicised media landscape. If independent journalism, civil society, and diplomacy are further eroded, the ghosts of Pahalgam can haunt South Asia long after the guns go quiet. In the interest of peace, justice, and history itself, this is a time that demands clarity, not expediency; cooperation, not confrontation.
SAARC AT THE CROSSROADS: SAARC, inaugurated in 1985 with the ambitious vision of economic integration, regional peace, and collective advancement for South Asian nations, has time and again failed to live up to its debutante promise. To the core of its chronic underperformance lies the deep and oft-bloodied rivalry between its two most prominent members-India and Pakistan. The suspension of the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad in 2016, following the Uri attack and diplomatic boycotts, was a metaphor for the weakness of the bloc's consensus-driven framework. The inclusion of unanimity in decision-making in the SAARC charter, intended to foster inclusiveness, has instead rendered the organization paralyzed whenever bilateral tensions break out-most often between Delhi and Islamabad.
Recent tensions, marked by rhetoric exchanges, border clashes, and diplomatic withdrawals, have pushed SAARC once more to the brink of irrelevance. Trade corridors have stalled, multilateral discussions have collapsed, and regional development initiatives continue to remain unrealised. Small member states such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka are trapped in this geopolitical gridlock-unable to accrue the complete dividends of regional cooperation because of the intransigence of their larger neighbours.
Here, Yunus, has been a steady and pragmatic voice summoning the resurrection of SAARC through visionary reform. Yunus envisions a regional order not held hostage by zero-sum rivalries but built on shared prosperity, human dignity, and interdependence. He has repeatedly emphasised that SAARC has to be more flexible and functionally delinked from bilateral hostilities, proposing devices such as multi-speed integration-where member states wishing to move ahead faster could do so with joint ventures even if unanimity were not achievable.
In the recent BIMSTEC summit and in bilateral meetings, Yunus has proposed turning SAARC into a conflict-reducing platform, urging India and Pakistan to undertake track-II dialogues, cross-border economic collaboration, and people-to-people contact. Echoing the wisdom of Nelson Mandela, who once said, "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy," Yunus believes that regional collaboration must transcend national egos and past grievances.
GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR BANGLADESH: Geographically positioned and economically rising Bangladesh faces a complex geopolitical scenario amid India-Pakistan competition. Historically leaning towards India, Bangladesh has benefited from bilateral trade and infrastructural connectivity. However, longstanding rivalry between India and Pakistan restricts Bangladesh's involvement in greater regional initiatives under SAARC.
Further, the conflict intensifies security challenges, including the potential for cross-border militancy and refugee influx, that can strain Bangladesh's resources and social fabric. India's abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty, while directly affecting Pakistan, also raises red flags about the politicization of shared water resources, a concern for lower riparian states like Bangladesh.
ECONOMIC FALLOUT AND REGIONAL TRADE DISRUPTIONS: The escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan has profound economic implications for not only the belligerents but the entire South Asian region, and even more so for Bangladesh. As a nation deeply integrated into regional supply chains and reliant on uninterrupted trade routes, Bangladesh is vulnerable to the collateral costs of regional instability. Heightened military tensions and the threat of full-blown war can grind cross-border logistics to a standstill, decelerate port operations, and strangle overland transportation arteries
critical to Bangladesh's export-driven economy-especially in sectors like garments, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture.
Investor confidence, already stretched by global economic uncertainty, will be further undermined by the threat of regional war. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows, so vital to Bangladesh's aspirations for growth, may take a hit as foreign investors take a wait-and-see attitude with increased geopolitical risk. As experience has taught us, capital is allergic to uncertainty, and prolonged instability may scare away long-term infrastructure and manufacturing investment.
Additionally, regional integration processes-such as BIMSTEC trade negotiations and SAARC integration processes, which have been stalled for decades-can be further weakened. As India and Pakistan divert fiscal resources towards defence expenditure, smaller economies such as Bangladesh can be deprived of development assistance, concessional loans, and trade facilitation measures necessary for inclusive growth. The opportunity cost of conflict is thereby not only measured in diplomatic terms but also in developmental terms.
As the late Kofi Annan once appropriately observed, "No nation can prosper in isolation." In a region already challenged by poverty, climate vulnerability, and inequality, the economic costs of Indo-Pakistani antagonism could overturn decades of advances-unless a collective, diplomatic course correction is pursued with alacrity.
CHINA, TURKEY, AND ISRAEL ENTER THE EQUATION: As tensions spiral between India and Pakistan, South Asia's geopolitical chessboard is further complicated by the open and hidden agendas of global and regional powers. China and Turkey have once again signalled strong diplomatic backing for Pakistan, while Israel has reaffirmed its strategic partnership with India, adding ideological, economic, and military dimensions to the crisis.
China's position remains rooted in its "iron brotherhood" with Pakistan, bolstered by pronouncements of solidarity and increased military cooperation, including intelligence sharing and logistical readiness in the Gilgit-Baltistan region. Beijing's support is pragmatic and rooted in its larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a vital lifeline. An unstable South Asia threatens China's long-term infrastructure and energy security interests. Beijing tries to balance India's regional dominance while safeguarding its economic interests by backing Pakistan diplomatically and indirectly in international fora like the United Nations (UN).
Under President Erdo?an, Turkey has been one of the most vocal supporters of Pakistan on Kashmir and regional issues at large. Ankara has positioned itself as a champion of Muslim causes globally and has strengthened its military relations with Islamabad by conducting joint military exercises, selling arms, and sharing intelligence. Turkish leaders have, in recent days, criticized India's airstrikes as "reckless" and called for restraint, thereby projecting Turkish soft power and leadership ambitions in the Muslim world.
In contrast, Israel has emerged as one of India's most significant defence and intelligence partners. Indo-Israeli relations have prospered under the Modi-Netanyahu leadership in the past decade, with massive arms sales, cybersecurity collaboration, and counterterrorism cooperation. Following the Pahalgam attack, several Israeli media outlets and strategic think tanks echoed India's narrative and justified New Delhi's retaliatory strikes as legitimate acts of self-defence. Israeli technology, particularly in surveillance, drone strikes, and border management, is already being utilised in Kashmir, contributing to the region's militarisation.
These alignments mask an ideological convergence below: Hindu nationalism and Zionism have met on securitisation, exclusionary politics, and information war. Israel's rhetorical and material support props up India's military posture while lending legitimacy to its actions globally. Pakistan's increasingly close ties with China and Turkey place the conflict in a broad multipolar framework, globalising polarisation.
This external entanglement of great players not only internationalises the India-Pakistan conflict but also marginalises regional organizations like SAARC. As great power players take sides, the space for neutral diplomacy narrows. For countries like Bangladesh, this is a rude awakening: regional peace can no longer be taken for granted. It must be actively maintained, diplomatically tended to, and geopolitically rebalanced.
STRATEGIC REALIGNMENTS AND DIPLOMATIC CHALLENGES: To respond to the shifting geopolitical environment, Bangladesh may rebalance its foreign policy in pursuit of strategic autonomy. Engaging with other regional groupings, strengthening bilateral relations outside the immediate neighbourhood, and calling for the revival of SAARC without being held hostage by India-Pakistan relations are possibilities. However, such manoeuvres require delicate diplomacy to avoid alienating key partners. Bangladesh's leadership must navigate these complexities to safeguard national interests while promoting regional peace and cooperation.
Traditional animosity between India and Pakistan still looms over SAARC's promise, stalling regional economic integration and reinforcing diplomatic weakness across South Asia. For countries like Bangladesh-pursuing greater global connectedness, inclusive development, and peaceful living-this persistent bitterness poses a double challenge: It disrupts crucial trade corridors and regional supply chains while simultaneously narrowing the space for multilateral collaboration on pressing challenges like climate resilience, migration, and food security.
A new diplomatic architecture is not a desire-it is a requirement-to navigate this minefield. Confidence-building measures, independent conflict resolution mechanisms, and an honest re-evaluation of bilateral tensions must be South Asia's future hallmarks. Under Yunus's visionary leadership, Bangladesh is exceptionally well-placed to lead this revolution. With its rising economic stature, commitment to human development, and neutrality in diplomacy, Bangladesh can be both a moral compass and a facilitator in the revival of SAARC's original mandate of collective prosperity.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it through peaceful means." The time has come for South Asian leadership to transcend narrow nationalism and create a regional order based on cooperation, not conflict, mutual respect, and hegemonic ambition.
Dr Serajul I Bhuiyan is a professor and former chair, the department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
