India-Armenia Alliance: Strategic Response or Double Standard?

 India's emergence as Armenia's largest arms supplier since 2020 represents a dramatic geopolitical realignment that mirrors Turkey's longstanding support for Pakistan.South China Morning PostAtlantic Council This strategic partnership, worth over $1.5 billion in defense contracts, has fundamentally transformed regional power dynamics while raising questions about diplomatic consistency. Jamestown +2 The evidence reveals a sophisticated strategic calculation rather than simple hypocrisy, with India leveraging Armenia's security needs to counter the Turkey-Pakistan-Azerbaijan axis that emerged after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.

Military support reaches unprecedented levels

India's military assistance to Armenia has been both comprehensive and unprecedented in its scope. The centerpiece of this support is the $720 million Akash air defense system contract , making Armenia the first foreign operator of India's indigenous surface-to-air missile technology. Jamestown +3 This was followed by the $265 million Pinaka multiple-launch rocket system deal and $155 million in ATAGS artillery systems, representing India's first major exports of these advanced weapons platforms. DNA India +6

The transformation has been remarkable in its speed and scale. Armenia has shifted from 94% dependence on Russian arms during 2011-2020 to becoming India's largest defense customer by 2024. JamestownEurasia Review This includes delivery of SWATHI weapon-locating radars worth $40 million, Delhi Defense Review +2 MArG self-propelled howitzers valued at $155.5 million, and sophisticated anti-drone systems worth $41 million. OpIndia +3 The military cooperation extends beyond hardware to institutional relationships, with both countries appointing defense attachés and establishing joint training programs. The Geopolitics +4

Beyond conventional weapons, India has provided Armenia with critical technological capabilities including advanced radar systems, cyber warfare support, and intelligence-sharing mechanisms. Atlantic Council The partnership includes technology transfer agreements that allow Armenia to maintain and upgrade systems locally, ensuring long-term strategic dependence on Indian expertise.

Diplomatic backing evolves from neutrality to support

India's diplomatic position on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has undergone a notable evolution from cautious neutrality to more pronounced support. In September 2020, India's Ministry of External Affairs issued balanced statements calling for cessation of hostilities without taking sides. Ministry of External Affairs However, by September 2022, during renewed border clashes, India's diplomatic language had shifted significantly.

The Indian government began using terms like "aggressor side" when referring to attacks on Armenian territory, while stopping short of explicitly naming Azerbaijan. Business Standard +2 This diplomatic evolution coincided with Pakistan's military support for Azerbaijan during the 2020 war , including reports of Pakistani personnel strategic involvement and coordination. DNA India India's UN representative reiterated concerns about attacks on Armenian civilian infrastructure, marking a clear diplomatic alignment with Armenia's position. Wikipedia

Strategic cooperation has expanded beyond military affairs to include economic partnerships through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), where Armenia serves as a crucial gateway for Indian exports to Europe and Central Asia. OC Media +2 This $2 billion connectivity project positions Armenia as strategically vital to India's Eurasian ambitions, while providing Armenia with economic alternatives to Russian dependence. ORF Online +3

Turkey-Pakistan partnership sets the precedent

Turkey's support for Pakistan represents one of the most comprehensive strategic partnerships in contemporary international relations, providing crucial context for evaluating India's Armenia relationship. Wikipedia Turkey has emerged as Pakistan's second-largest arms supplier , with defense contracts worth over $3 billion since 2018, including the MILGEM naval program ($1.5 billion) WikipediaIsrael Defense and T129 attack helicopters ($1.5 billion).

The partnership extends far beyond military cooperation to encompass unwavering diplomatic support on Kashmir, intelligence sharing between MIT and ISI, and comprehensive economic integration targeting $5 billion in bilateral trade. WikipediaThe Media Line Turkey has imposed a complete arms export ban on India specifically to support Pakistan, Nordic Monitor while providing consistent diplomatic backing during every Indo-Pakistani crisis since 1947.

Military cooperation includes joint exercises, technology transfer for fifth-generation fighter development, and extensive training programs with over 1,500 Pakistani officers trained in Turkey. Wikipedia +2 The relationship has institutional depth through the High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council and formal intelligence-sharing agreements that few bilateral partnerships achieve. WikipediaThe Media Line

Strategic calculations drive both partnerships

The geopolitical motivations behind both relationships reflect sophisticated strategic calculations rather than simple opportunism. India's support for Armenia serves multiple objectives: countering the Turkey-Pakistan-Azerbaijan axis, establishing defense export capabilities, securing alternative connectivity routes to Europe, and filling the vacuum left by Russia's declining influence in the South Caucasus. Atlantic Council

The Pakistan-Turkey-Azerbaijan triangle has formalized through trilateral agreements and "Three Brothers" military exercises , The Times Of Central AsiaAze creating a strategic arc from Central Asia through the South Caucasus to South Asia. JamestownAPRI Armenia This alignment explicitly supports Pakistan's position on Kashmir while providing Azerbaijan with crucial military capabilities during its conflicts with Armenia. India.comJamestown

India's response through the Armenia partnership represents what experts call "soft balancing" - using economic and defense cooperation to counter perceived threats rather than direct military confrontation. The partnership provides India with strategic depth in Eurasia while offering Armenia an alternative to Russian dependence and NATO membership uncertainties. Atlantic Council

Scale and nature reveal different dynamics

Comparing the scale and nature of support reveals distinction important between these partnerships. Turkey's support for Pakistan spans over seven decades with consistent backing across multiple governments and crises. Wikipedia The relationship encompasses historical, cultural, and religious dimensions that create deep societal connections beyond government-to-government cooperation. Wikipedia

India's Armenia partnership, while significant in financial terms, represents a more recent strategic alignment focused primarily on defense and connectivity interests. The relationship lacks the cultural and historical depth of Turkey-Pakistan ties , being driven primarily by strategic calculations rather than identity-based connections.

However, the military dimension of India's Armenia support has been remarkably comprehensive, with Armenia receiving cutting-edge indigenous Indian systems before they were fully deployed by Indian forces. This suggests a level of strategic commitment that extends beyond transactional relationships to genuine strategic partnership. Indian Defense Research Wing

Expert analysis challenges hypocrisy claims

Leading international relations experts and regional specialists provide nuanced perspectives on claims of double standards. Research from Observer Research Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and other prominent think tanks reveals limited expert consensus supporting hypocrisy accusations against India.

Most experts frame both relationships as legitimate strategic responses to regional security challenges. Dr. Vali Kaleji of the Middle East Institute describes the dynamic as "soft balancing" versus "hard balancing" , arguing that Armenia-Iran-India cooperation focuses on economic-transit approaches rather than purely military responses.

Regional experts consistently emphasize that both partnerships serve legitimate security interests in an increasingly multipolar world. The expert community appears to prioritize strategic analysis over moral judgment, suggesting that claims of hypocrisy may be more political rhetoric than substantiated analytical consensus.

Regional implications point to new strategic architecture

These parallel partnerships reflect a fundamental reconfiguration of regional power dynamics that extends beyond traditional geographic boundaries. The emergence of cross-cutting alliance systems challenges existing security architectures and creates new forms of strategic competition.

The militarization of connectivity routes and proxy competition dynamics pose risks for regional stability. South Asian rivalries are increasingly exported to the South Caucasus, while Middle Eastern conflicts influence South Asian strategic calculations. This creates potential for escalation as regional disputes become linked through alliance politics.

The partnerships also reflect the acceleration of multipolarity, with middle powers pursuing independent foreign policies through various alliance structures. Traditional frameworks like CSTO, SCO, and NATO prove insufficient for managing these new competitive dynamics, requiring innovative approaches to multilateral cooperation and conflict prevention.

Conclusion

India's support for Armenia represents a sophisticated strategic response to regional security challenges rather than simple hypocrisy regarding Turkey's Pakistan backing. While both partnerships serve legitimate strategic interests, they reflect different historical contexts, scales of commitment, and underlying motivations. The emergence of these cross-cutting alignments signals a new era of regional competition that challenges traditional alliance structures and requires careful management to prevent escalation and maintain stability.

The ultimate test of these partnerships will be their ability to deliver concrete security and economic benefits while managing the risks of proxy competition and regional escalation. Success will require innovative approaches to multilateral cooperation that account for the new realities of middle power competition in an increasingly multipolar world.

Iran: When Friendship Feels Like a Knife in the Back

 

“Thy friendship often has made my heart to ache: Do be my enemy, for friendship's sake.” —William Blake

There's something grotesquely theatrical about Iran's performance on the Palestinian stage. One moment it's Ahmadinejad sending lofty letters to “Noble Americans,” lamenting Washington's “blind support for Zionism.” The next, Iranian drones and missiles are flowing into Gaza through tunnels and front groups, stirring up chaos with a straight face.

And still, they talk of solidarity.

Words That Burn, Deeds That Bleed

Let's go back to that 2006 letter from Ahmadinejad. “Coercion, force and injustice,” he said—accusing Bush of all three. But look closer at Iran's own playbook. Over the years, Tehran has poured millions into Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not to build schools or clinics, but to fund rocket arsenals and tunnel networks.

Iran doesn't bankroll reconstruction. It bankrolls resistance—forever was dressed in revolutionary poetry.

According to a 2023 US Treasury report, Iran has provided over $100 million annually to Hamas and other Gaza-based militants. The goal isn't hidden: extend Tehran's influence by turning Gaza into a frontline against Israel, and Lebanon into a hostage zone via Hezbollah.

Ahmadinejad once offered himself as a moral compass for the region. What he really offered was a blueprint for proxy warfare.

The World's Wallet vs. Iran's Weapons

Here's the uncomfortable truth no one wants to admit out loud: The Palestinians have become the most foreign-aid dependent society on Earth—and Iran isn't in the donor's club when it comes to civilian life.

In 2024, the biggest contributors to the Palestinian Authority were still the European Union, Norway, and Germany. Even post-Trump, US aid resumed with over $300 million under Biden. The UAE and Saudi Arabia? Back in the top five. Iran? Not listed—not even a footnote in developmental aid.

That's because Iran doesn't build institutions. It builds militias.

It's hard to imagine a strong contrast. While European and Arab donors send salaries for teachers and fuel for power plants, Iran sends drone blueprints and explosives manuals.

One builds a fragile hope. The other ensures it stays fragile.

A Poisoned Kindness

So what does Iran really want?

In 2022, Ayatollah Khamenei echoed the same vision first declared by Ahmadinejad: “The Islamic resistance must be led from Tehran.” It's a geopolitical strategy disguised as pan-Islamic fraternity. And it's worked—at least partially. Gaza burns, Israel retaliates, and the region remains trapped in endless cycles of grievance and retribution.

But more and more Palestinians are seeing through the act.

Privately, PA officials admit they've lost ground to groups tied to Iran—not because of popularity, but because of power. Iran funds the fighters. The fighters silence the critics.

What was once a struggle for statehood has been hijacked into a shadow war for regional dominance.

So Who Are the Real Friends?

It's a question the Palestinians—and the world—need to keep asking.

Friends don't turn your children into martyrs for their own glory.

Friends don't use your grief as leverage in nuclear negotiations.

Friends don't offer solidarity that only comes soaked in blood.

So maybe William Blake was right. Maybe it's more honest to call out an enemy than to cling to the illusion of friendship. Because sometimes, it's not betrayal that hurts most—it's the pretense that it's love.

Hyperlinked Sources:

• U.S. Treasury: Iran’s Support for Terrorism – Treasury statement detailing Iran’s financial backing of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

• European Union: Financial assistance to Palestinians – EU aid commitments to the Palestinian Authority

• U.S. State Department: Resumption of Aid to Palestinians – Overview of U.S. funding for Palestinians under Biden

• Al Jazeera: Iran’s strategy in Gaza – Insight into Iran’s military and strategic role in Gaza

• Reuters: Iran and its regional proxies – Iran’s influence across the region including Hezbollah and Hamas

• BBC: Palestinian Authority foreign aid dependence – Breakdown of foreign aid contributions to the PA over time

• Middle East Institute: Iran’s long game – Analysis of Iran’s ideological and strategic objectives in Palestine

Flames in the Sanctuary: Why Are Synagogues Burning Across the World?

 Flames in the Sanctuary: Why Are Synagogues Burning Across the World?

It's not one isolated spark. It's a slow, unsettling pattern.

From Tunisia to Toronto, Melbourne to Moscow, synagogues—those sacred spaces meant for peace, reflection, and prayer—have been set ablaze. Since October 7, 2023, at least 17 incidents of arson or attempted arson have targeted Jewish places of worship across five continents . You read that right. This isn't just a local security failure. It's a disturbing global wave.

And it forces an uncomfortable question into the open: What exactly is going on?

---

What Changed After October 7?

To understand this chain reaction, we need to revisit a grim date: October 7, 2023 —when Hamas launched its deadliest attack on Israel in decades. What followed was an equally brutal Israeli military response in Gaza. But the political fallout didn't stay confined to the region.

Instead, it metastasized.

Protests erupted globally. Anger spilled over—some of it targeted at governments, some at Israel's policies. But a worrying portion veered into something older, more poisonous: antisemitism .

Suddenly, Jewish communities far from the conflict were being made to answer for a war they did not dare.

Here's what I noticed: These weren't random crimes. They followed headlines. Each attack on a synagogue appeared within days or weeks of major escalations in the Israel-Gaza war. It's as if synagogues became lightning rods for unresolved rage— wrongfully held accountable for the actions of a nation-state thousands of miles away.

---

Are Muslims Behind All These Attacks?

Let's talk honestly.

Some of the perpetrators have been Muslim. Tunisian mobs, for instance, torched El Hamma's ancient synagogue on October 17 amid Gaza solidarity protests. In Berlin, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue by a Syrian refugee. In Moscow, Russian media linked an April 10 arson attempt to a radicalized suspect with foreign ties.

But that's not the whole story .

• The Yerevan, Armenia incident is murky, but local Jewish leaders suspect far-right Christian nationalists.

• In Montreal , one of the attacks occurred on the same day a Jewish school was also shot at. The suspects have not all been named, but community leaders point to rising hate speech—not just Islamist but also from fringe political extremes.

• In France , anti-Jewish rhetoric has surged both in Islamist enclaves and among far-left anti-Zionist groups.

• The Melbourne attacks in December and again on July 4 remain under investigation. No suspect details released—yet the pattern points to ideological motives rather than mental illness or personal vendettas.

In short: No, Muslims are not behind all these attacks. But yes, some of these attackers used Islam— or their idea of ​​it —as a cover for what is ultimately bigotry dressed up as activism .

---

Anti-Semitism in the Mirror of Global Conflict

You ever wonder why Jews get blamed for wars they didn't start?

It's not new. During the Crusades, Black Death, World Wars—Jews were made scapegoats. Now, with Israel's military actions broadcast to every phone on earth, it's happening again. Some can't—or won't—separate Israel from Jewish people as a whole.

But here's the contradiction: Israel is a nation-state. Judaism is a faith. Jews are a people—many of whom disagree with Israel's government. Still, synagogues burn.

That's not criticism. That's hate.

---

What We're Not Talking About

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong.

What if these Arson attacks aren't just about the Middle East? What if they're symptoms of something deeper— a fractured world looking for easy enemies ?

Rising inequality. Refugee crises. Post-pandemic mental health breakdowns. Far-right populism. Islamophobia. Anti-Semitism. They're all woven together in this chaotic global fabric where fear fuels rage, and nuance gets lost.

And maybe—just maybe—we've let social media amplify our darkest instincts. In the race to signal solidarity or outrage, people forget the human cost of dehumanizing anyone .

---

A Final Thought

I lit a candle once in a synagogue in Kraków, Poland—an empty one, turned into a museum. It was silent. Dusty. Sacred.

What happens when those sanctuaries no longer feel safe?

Maybe that's the question we should be asking. Not who threw the match. But why so many people are carrying fire.

Why Don’t We Remember the Aussies Who Rescued Jews in WWII?

 The Forgotten Heroes: Australians Who Sheltered Jews in WWII—And Why Their Stories Matter Now

It begins with a letter.
Faded ink on thin, browned paper. A Jewish mother writes from Vienna in 1938 to a stranger in Melbourne: “Please, I beg you, my child is only nine…”
And—against every bureaucratic roadblock, against growing anti-Semitism in their own press—some Australians said yes.

They didn't do it for praise. Most didn't tell their neighbors. But a few farmers, priests, teachers, and working-class families opened their homes to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Europe.

And today, we barely speak their names.

---

A Memory Nearly Erased

In school, we learn about Gallipoli. We learn about ANZAC valor and mateship. But you almost never hear about the 6,000+ Jewish refugees Australia took in before WWII closed its doors—or the Australians who fought to get them here.

A teacher in Ballarat who forged school records so a Jewish boy could be “enrolled” and thus saved deportation.

A Tasmanian pastor who lied to immigration officials and called a stranger his cousin to help her get in.

A small-town mayor who wrote angry letters to Canberra warning that turning away Jews would be a moral stain we'd never wash off.

Here's what I noticed: these weren't political radicals or polished humanitarians. They were ordinary people with small moral compasses that wouldn't stop buzzing.

---

But Then We Forgot

After the war, Australia moved on.
The Holocaust was “somewhere else.” The Cold War took over. Refugees from Europe became migrants from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Sudan. And the few Australians who had once stood up for Jews… they mostly slipped back into anonymity.

Even the Dunera Boys —those famous Jewish refugees Australia interned in the Outback as “enemy aliens”—are remembered more for the injustice they endured than the civilians who befriended them afterwards.

It's ironic. At a time when antisemitism is rising again—in graffiti, in politics, online—we've let the memory of our resistance to it fade.

Maybe that's the problem.

---

What Could Their Memory Do For Us Now?

What if we taught their stories in high school?

What if ANZAC Day also meant remembering moral courage off the battlefield?

What if multiculturalism in Australia didn't just mean “tolerance,” but remembering the Australians who risked real consequences for strangers who were hated and feared?

In a country that still debates whether to let in desperate people—whether Jewish, Palestinian, Rohingya, Tamil, or Hazara—those forgotten WWII-era heroes might just have something to teach us.

About decency. About backbone.
About saying yes when no one else would.

---

Maybe we'll never know all their names.
But some boy lived because an Aussie mother took him in.
Some girl grew old because a train ticket was bought.
Some bloodline survives—because someone in a weatherboard house said: Come in. You're safe here.

And maybe that's enough.

Or maybe it's just the beginning.

To ground the piece with links or citations:

• The Dunera Boys:
  ABC News – Dunera Boys Remembered

• Jewish Refugees in Australia Pre-WWII:
  Australian Jewish Historical Society

• Case Studies of Rescuers:

  • The story of Father Patrick McGrath (Catholic priest who helped Jews in Melbourne)

  • Look for biographies or papers by Dr. Suzanne Rutland (leading scholar on Jewish Australian history)

• Current Reflections on Antisemitism in Australia:

  • Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) Annual Reports

The Rise of Antisemitism in Australia Isn’t Only a Muslim Problem

 “It’s not just the rockets flying over Gaza. It’s the whispers in cafés, the graffiti on synagogues, and the threats hurled online in Melbourne and Sydney. Something shifted after October 7. And it’s not just overseas.”

That’s what one Jewish student in Sydney told a parliamentary hearing earlier this year. Her voice cracked. Not because of what she saw on the news—but because of what she heard in her own classroom.

We often like to imagine Australia as immune to the ancient hatreds that plague other parts of the world. But the last year has told a different story.

And here's the uncomfortable bit. While some media reports are quick to point fingers solely at Muslim or pro-Palestinian groups, the data and history paint a more complicated, more disturbing picture.

After Gaza, the Fire Spilled Over

It’s no coincidence. The spike in antisemitic incidents in Australia followed the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s relentless retaliation. According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), antisemitic incidents in Australia quadrupled in just one year—from 495 in 2023 to over 2,062 in 2024.

These weren’t just angry tweets. They included

• Graffiti attacks on Jewish schools and synagogues
• Death threats against Jewish public figures
• Physical assaults in suburban shopping centres
• And perhaps most chillingly, arson, such as the December 2024 attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue

Many of these were explicitly tied to the Israel-Palestine conflict. And yes, some were linked to radicalized voices in Muslim and pro-Palestinian circles. But here’s what that headline misses.

This Hate Has Older Roots Than Gaza

Antisemitism didn’t arrive in Australia on a Qantas flight after the Gaza war. It’s been part of the nation’s underbelly for nearly two centuries.

In the 1800s, antisemitic conspiracy theories—about Jews controlling banks, the press, or global politics—were already circulating. Fast forward to today’s algorithms, and these same ideas are reborn as viral TikToks, Reddit threads, and Telegram posts.

The Online Hate Prevention Institute logged nearly 3,000 antisemitic posts in just three months after October 7. That’s more than double the number of Islamophobic posts in the same period.

So, no, it’s not just angry chants at protests. It’s also teenagers sharing Holocaust memes on Discord. It's Facebook groups calling COVID a "Zionist plot." And it's fringe-right podcasts repackaging age-old tropes under the banner of "free speech."

The Dangerous Blur Between Criticism and Hate

Here’s where the debate gets sticky. Can you criticize Israel without being antisemitic?

According to the Jewish Council of Australia, nearly half of the reported "antisemitic" incidents investigated by a recent parliamentary inquiry were actually pro-Palestinian slogans or critiques of Israeli policy—like “From the river to the sea” or even calls for a ceasefire.

Some say that’s deflection. Others argue it’s political speech.

Either way, the confusion allows genuine antisemitism to hide under the radar—and gives bad-faith actors on all sides room to weaponize the ambiguity.

Even Australian politicians aren’t immune. In early 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese publicly rebuked the Greens party for failing to strongly condemn antisemitism within its own activist base. Yet, ironically, those same critics often downplay Islamophobia in the same breath.

It’s a mirror—ugly and cracked—and we’re all standing in front of it.

Not Just “Their” Problem: What the Numbers Reveal

In 2024, there were
• 622 cases of verbal abuse
• 670 incidents involving antisemitic stickers and posters
• 393 acts of antisemitic graffiti
• 65 physical assaults targeting Jewish Australians

Online hate remained four times higher than pre-October 2023 levels even eight months later.

Public attitudes also shifted. A 2024 Scanlon Foundation survey found 13 percent of Australians held negative views toward Jews, up from 9 percent the year before.

This isn’t just a community issue. It’s a national one.

So, Are Only Muslims to Blame?

No.

That answer won’t satisfy culture warriors, but it’s the truth. Yes, some radicalized elements within Muslim or pro-Palestinian groups have used antisemitic rhetoric. And that needs to be named, challenged, and stopped.

But to frame this as a Muslim versus Jewish story is a mistake.

It’s also neo-Nazis online. Conspiracy theorists in Parliament. Far-right influencers repackaging antisemitism as anti-globalist sentiment. White supremacists exploiting the Israel-Gaza war to spread ancient hatreds.

The Jewish community in Australia is caught in the crossfire of all of it.

What Now?

Maybe it starts with better definitions so we can tell the difference between protest and persecution.

Maybe it means holding both Islamophobia and antisemitism up to the same light, with the same urgency.

Maybe it means listening more to the communities affected and less to those trying to score political points off their pain.

Then again, maybe silence says enough.

Pakistan and China’s New South Asian Club: Is SAARC’s Replacement in the Making?

 Imagine a long-running family reunion that never actually happens. That’s been the fate of SAARC – the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation – a once-promising “club” of countries that hasn’t met in years. Why? Mainly because two big members, India and Pakistan, haven’t been on talking terms. Frustrated by the deadlock, Pakistan (with an eager China by its side) is quietly working on a new regional bloc to fill the voidbusinesstoday.in. This fresh alliance would focus on boosting trade and connectivity among South Asian nations – but notably without India as the center player. In a region that’s among the least integrated in the world (only about 5% of its trade is within the neighborhood)thediplomat.com, this development could shake things up. Let’s break down what’s happening in this geopolitical shuffle, in plain language, as if we’re chatting over a cup of chai.

SAARC on Ice: A Club That Stopped Meeting

It helps to know why SAARC became a zombie forum in the first place. Founded in the 1980s with great hopes of regional unity, SAARC brought India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives, and later Afghanistan together under one tent. In theory, they’d cooperate on trade, development, even cultural exchange. In practice? Not so much. SAARC decisions require consensus (everyone agreeing), and the bitter rivalry between India and Pakistan meant nothing major got donethediplomat.com. Think of two quarreling teammates dragging down the whole game. By 2016, things hit rock bottom. That year, Pakistan was set to host the big SAARC summit, but a terror attack in Indian Kashmir (which Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based militants) derailed everythingthediplomat.com. India backed out, and Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan – even Sri Lanka – quickly followed suit in boycotting the meetthediplomat.com. The summit was cancelled and no SAARC leaders’ meeting has happened since 2014thefederal.com. Essentially, SAARC has been in the deep freeze for a decade.

This paralysis has been costly. Many hoped SAARC would foster an EU-like integration in South Asia, but instead it’s “remained hostage” to India-Pakistan animositytribune.com.pk. Trade among neighbors is paltry, travel is restricted, and joint initiatives stalled. India tried some projects (a regional university, a development fund, etc.), but Pakistan blocked a few too – for instance, a plan for cross-border road connectivity in 2014businesstoday.in. In response, India and others started focusing on smaller coalitions that didn’t include Pakistan, like the BBIN group (Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal corridor) and BIMSTEC (linking South Asia with Southeast Asia)businesstoday.inthediplomat.com. Those may sound like alphabet soup, but the message was clear: if SAARC couldn’t function as eight countries together, then do it without the quarrelsome parts. Unsurprisingly, Pakistan was left out of these India-led alternativesthediplomat.com. So by 2023, SAARC was effectively defunct – a club with a fancy logo and legacy, but no meetings.

Enter China (and Pakistan): “If You Won’t Join Our Party, We’ll Throw Our Own”

Here’s where the plot thickens. China has long been an observer in SAARC, eyeing South Asia’s markets and strategic position, but it’s never been a full member (India quietly nixed that idea years ago). With SAARC dormant, Beijing seems to have found another way in. Over the past few months, Pakistan and China have been scheming a new regional alliance – call it SAARC 2.0 minus India, or perhaps a South Asian club with Chinese characteristics. Diplomatic whispers say talks are at an advanced stage between Islamabad and Beijing, and both are convinced that a “new organisation is essential” for regional integration and connectivitytribune.com.pk. In other words, if the old gang can’t get along, form a new gang.

In mid-June, a quiet meeting in Kunming, China signaled that this idea is more than just gossip. Officials from China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh met on June 19 in the Chinese city to discuss the contours of a new grouping focused on trade and infrastructure linksbusinesstoday.in. The goal, reportedly, is to bring in other South Asian countries too – invitations would be open to all the former SAARC members like Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives, and yes, even India (at least on paper)businesstoday.intribune.com.pk. Don’t hold your breath on India actually signing up, though. Everyone and their cat knows that New Delhi is highly unlikely to join a China-backed bloc given its fraught relations with both Beijing and Islamabadbusinesstoday.in. (More on India later.) The real target members are the smaller neighbors who have been left in limbo by SAARC’s failure.

China’s motivation here isn’t purely altruistic friendship, of course. This push dovetails with Beijing’s broader strategy in the region. Remember the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)? China has spent years building ports, roads, and power plants across South Asia. All South Asian nations except India and Bhutan have signed onto BRI projects in some formthediplomat.com. Beijing has even floated its own mini-forums over the years – from a China-South Asia Cooperation Forum to a Trans-Himalayan Connectivity Network with Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistanthediplomat.com. In May 2025, China hosted Pakistan and Afghanistan’s foreign ministers and agreed to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Afghan territorythediplomat.com. So, a new multilateral bloc would give China and Pakistan another platform to align their big plans (CPEC, infrastructure financing, trade routes, you name it) outside of the defunct SAARC frameworktimesofindia.indiatimes.com. It’s like they’re building a new stage to perform on since the old stage went dark. And it sends a message: South Asia doesn’t revolve around India anymore. One Pakistani official candidly said, “The idea is to create momentum in the region, not wait indefinitely for SAARC to move.”timesofindia.indiatimes.com In short, we’re seeing a proactive attempt to rewrite the regional playbook, with China’s heft behind it.

Neighbors’ Dilemma: Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka Caught in the Middle

How are the other South Asian countries reacting to this potential new club? Cautiously, for the most part. These nations – Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka (and don’t forget the Maldives) – have the most to gain from any regional integration. They’re the ones who felt the loss when SAARC stalled, and they’ve been urging for cooperation even as the giants foughtthediplomat.com. But jumping aboard a China-led initiative while India sulks on the sidelines is a tricky game. It’s a bit like being invited to a new friend’s party when your old friend (who hates that new friend) is pointedly not going. Awkward.

Take Bangladesh. It actually sent a representative to the Kunming meeting with China and Pakistan, which raised a lot of eyebrows (especially in New Delhi)tribune.com.pk. Immediately after, Dhaka scrambled into damage control mode. Bangladesh’s foreign affairs adviser, Mr. Touhid Hossain, publicly insisted that “we are not forming any alliance.” The Kunming meet was just “at the official level, not at the political level,” he said, downplaying it as “not anything big and not something structured”timesofindia.indiatimes.com. In plainer terms: Relax, India, we’re not hopping into bed with Beijing and Islamabad. Bangladesh clearly doesn’t want to burn bridges with its huge neighbor India, with whom it shares extensive trade and a long border. Hossain even emphasized that Bangladesh’s relationship with India was just going through a “re-adjustment” phase, and there’s “no lack of goodwill” towards Delhitimesofindia.indiatimes.com. Reading between the lines, Dhaka is hedging – interested in the potential economic upside of a new regional forum, but wary of any perception that it’s betraying India. (It also doesn’t help that Bangladesh is heading for elections and can’t afford to irk any side right now.)

Sri Lanka, for its part, hasn’t made any loud statements yet – unsurprising, perhaps, as it juggles a delicate balance between big partners. Colombo has historically been friendly with China (who bankrolled big projects there) but also relies on India, which stepped up during Sri Lanka’s recent economic crisis. Still, given Sri Lanka’s dire need for investment and trade, it is very likely to welcome any new regional initiative that might spur growth. In fact, sources indicate Sri Lanka is expected to be part of the proposed groupingtribune.com.pk. The same goes for the Maldives, which under its new leadership is tilting a bit more towards China’s orbit. These smaller states see opportunity in a forum that could deliver infrastructure or market access – something SAARC promised but never delivered.

And then there’s Nepal. Landlocked between India and China, Nepal has often felt like the rope in a tug-of-war. Kathmandu has been a strong advocate for reviving SAARC – it even hosted the last summit in 2014 and has repeatedly called for dialogue to resumethediplomat.com. But those calls fell on deaf ears as India and Pakistan remained at odds. Nepal’s frustration with the status quo is real; they want regional projects (roads, railways, energy grids) to move forward. If Pakistan and China’s new bloc offers an alternate path to those goals, Nepal will surely consider it. However, Nepal also knows any overt enthusiasm could rankle India, on whom it depends for transit and trade. It’s a classic Nepali tightrope walk. We might see Kathmandu participate in exploratory talks (they share China’s interest in trans-Himalayan connectivity), but carefully – perhaps hoping India might eventually soften and join too. For now, all these neighbors are playing it cool in public. They’ll likely wait to see a concrete proposal and who else signs on before jumping fully in. After all, nobody wants to be first to ditch a decades-old club (SAARC) for a shiny new one – unless it’s clearly worth it.

India: The Elephant Outside the Room

Let’s talk about the obvious absentee in this story – India. How is India reacting to the idea of a China-Pakistan led “South Asian” bloc? Officially, Delhi hasn’t said much yet (perhaps not wanting to dignify the proposal with a response). But you can bet there’s some quiet fuming in the corridors of power. India sees itself as the natural leader in South Asia – it’s by far the largest economy and has deep historical ties across the region. Being sidelined in its own neighborhood is not a comfortable thought for New Delhibusinesstoday.inbusinesstoday.in. In fact, the whole raison d’être of SAARC originally was partly to balance India’s dominance by having everyone in one cooperative framework. If China swoops in now to create a parallel framework that pointedly includes everyone but India, that’s a geopolitical slap in the face.

To be fair, from India’s perspective, SAARC didn’t die by accident – India froze it as a deliberate policy to isolate Pakistan diplomatically for as long as Pakistan “supports cross-border terrorism,” an oft-cited grievance. Indian strategists likely knew this might open the door for China to increase its influence, but they calculated that bilateral and smaller-group ties (like BIMSTEC) could compensate. Now, with Beijing and Islamabad actively courting India’s neighbors into a new coalition, India faces a tough choice: Does it ignore the new bloc, denounce it, or try to quietly undermine it? Thus far, India has doubled down on other alliances – it’s cozying up with the U.S., Japan, Australia (the Quad) and investing in BIMSTEC for regional cooperation sans Pakistanthediplomat.com. Prime Minister Modi even skipped recent meetings of the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)tribune.com.pk, signaling India’s discomfort in forums where it feels outnumbered by China’s friends. So likely, India will shrug publicly and say, “Well, good luck forming a club without us.” Privately though, Indian officials worry that their neighbors getting too financially tangled with China (via a new bloc projects) could erode India’s clout over time. It’s a soft power battle: highways and rail lines can translate to influence.

New Delhi also knows one thing: geography still gives India a trump card. All South Asian countries (barring Pakistan and Afghanistan) rely on access through India to reach each other. You can’t drive a truck from Bangladesh to Nepal or Sri Lanka without going through Indian territory or waters. That means any new bloc that excludes India might struggle to physically connect its members – unless China invests in some extremely ambitious (and costly) workarounds, like mountain tunnels or port-to-port shipping networks. In other words, India might be thinking: “Sure, have your meetings and MoUs. But good luck building a real supply chain that circumvents us.” This could be a key limitation of the China-Pakistan plan, and Indian analysts are quick to point it out. Will China pour in enough money to make alternate connectivity a reality? Or will this new bloc remain a talk shop if India doesn’t play along? These are open questions.

A New Bloc: Game-Changer or Pipe Dream?

So, is this Pakistan-China “SAARC 2.0” going to fly or flop? At this stage, it’s still just an idea being floated – there’s no official name or launch date yet (diplomats hint a blueprint might emerge by the end of the year, possibly around the next SCO summit)timesofindia.indiatimes.com. But the very fact it’s being discussed at high levels tells us something about the shifting sands of Asian geopolitics. My take: It’s a bold gambit that shows how frustrated countries have become with the status quo. There’s a real desire for economic cooperation in South Asia – whether it’s to trade more easily or tackle shared problems like energy shortages and climate impacts. If the existing setup isn’t delivering (thanks largely to India-Pakistan mistrust), then why not try something new?

However, there are significant hurdles ahead. For one, convincing South Asian nations to sign onto a Beijing-led club openly is not easy. Many of these countries, like Bangladesh and Nepal, want both Chinese investment and Indian goodwill. They will try to avoid choosing sides for as long as possible. If India perceives this bloc as a hostile anti-India alliance, it could retaliate in subtle ways – maybe by tightening trade, or diplomatically pressuring neighbors not to join. We’ve seen hints of that pressure in Bangladesh’s quick denial of any “alliance”timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Also, any new forum would have to prove it’s more effective than SAARC, not just politically aligned. That means actual projects: highways, railways, power grids, trade deals that cut tariffs – concrete stuff that people can see and benefit from. China’s money and Pakistan’s sponsorship might kick-start some of that, but sustained cooperation needs trust among all members. Can, say, Bangladesh and Pakistan cooperate meaningfully if India isn’t in the room? Possibly, but it’s uncharted territory after decades of everyone being used to India’s presence (for better or worse).

Another big question: What about security and politics? Pakistan says this new grouping is “not a political alliance” – it’s trying to brand it as purely about trade and connectivitybusinesstoday.in. That’s smart marketing, since countries like Sri Lanka or Nepal don’t want a military pact, they want economic gains. But in reality, any bloc involving these players will have political implications. For example, if Afghanistan’s Taliban government is included (Pakistan and China have hinted at involving Afghanistanbusinesstoday.in), that itself is politically sensitive. And if the bloc collectively takes positions on issues (say, a stance on regional terrorism, or on dealing with sanctions, etc.), it could get politicized quickly.

From China’s vantage, a successful new bloc would be a diplomatic win – showcasing that Beijing can convene and lead in India’s backyard, enhancing China’s image as the new champion of developing world unity. For Pakistan, it’s a chance to break out of isolation and rebrand itself as a connector of South and Central Asia rather than a spoiler. For the smaller states, it could mean new highways, ports, and power plants – or alternatively, more debt and dependency if not handled carefully. It’s a high-risk, high-reward bet.

As politically curious citizens, we should watch these maneuvers with an open mind but a healthy dose of skepticism. South Asia has been here before – grand promises of brotherhood that fizzled out. Is this different? It might be, if only because the push is coming from outside the traditional Indo-centric model. A neutral-ish convener like China (neutral in South Asian squabbles, at least) could possibly succeed in getting everyone to the table – something India or Pakistan alone couldn’t do. But without India’s massive market and geographic centrality, any new bloc will have an elephant-sized hole.

So, what do you think? Is the Pakistan-China “new bloc” idea a needed shake-up that will finally get South Asian countries working together on trade and development? Or is it a divisive move that could deepen regional fault lines and sideline India, only to stumble against real-world constraints? The coming months should give us a clearer picture. For now, it’s a fascinating twist in the tale of South Asian cooperation – a tale that’s equal parts hope and drama. One thing’s certain: after years of stagnation, the geopolitical chessboard in South Asia is suddenly alive with moves again. Grab your popcorn (or samosas), because this regional soap opera just got a new plotline.

(This post was written in a conversational style to make complex geopolitics accessible. Informed opinions are my own, backed by the sources linked below.)