Geopolitics – Page 2 – Brown Pundits

Pakistan as India’s Ukraine?

The chart above lays out “strategic partners” for 2025. Pakistan lists China, Türkiye, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and assorted others. India, by contrast, shows Israel. But the real issue isn’t who collects more flags; it’s whether any of Pakistan’s patrons will ever raise its HDI, improve infrastructure, or embed long-term stability.

I’m interested to hear what the commentariat thinks of this moment. India’s foreign policy is already locking it into superpower status. Pakistan remains reactive, borrowing survival from whoever will lend it.

The analogy that strikes me: India–Pakistan resembles Russia–Ukraine, except if Ukraine had kept nuclear weapons. The parallels are strong:

Ukraine, like Pakistan, is a breakaway sibling — the “other half” of a civilizational whole.
Ukraine, like Pakistan, survives by appealing to larger patrons.
And interestingly, the GDP ratio gap between Russia and Ukraine is almost exactly the same as between India and Pakistan (please fact check me).

Just as Ukraine is considered the homeland of the Russian Empire (Kievan Rus’), Pakistan carries the legacy of Partition as the “Indus homeland.” That symmetry makes the analogy more than superficial.

On Kabir: I understand his consistent emphasis on Muslim rights and Muslim nationalism. Readers should be aware of that lens. I’m not moderating him out, but I would caution the commentariat against being gaslit into endless provocations by Kabir. The question here is not identity politics, but the direction of Indian and Pakistani foreign policy in a critical moment in global history (decades are happening in weeks).

Trump Has Birthed Eurasia

I’ve been busy, but I can’t shake the feeling that we’re living through the beginning of a new world.

It was acute with the SCO summit; not just through the headlines, but the atmospherics. The handshakes, the body language, the ease. It’s the kind of thing that barely registered in Western media, but Modi’s presence, standing shoulder to shoulder with Xi, Putin, and Pezeshkian, felt like the curtain rising on a new geopolitical epoch.

And at the center of it all? Donald J. Trump. Not by design, of course. But by consequence.

🔥 The Modi Factor Continue reading Trump Has Birthed Eurasia

Borders, Blind Spots, and the Mirror Game of South Asia

A recurring tension in South Asian discourse is the question of consistency: how states interpret borders, secession, and sovereignty; not in principle, but in practice.

Liberalstan’s case is that India acted selectively in 1947: Junagadh saw a plebiscite, Hyderabad faced military action, and Kashmir was referred to the UN. From this perspective, India chose whichever method suited its interests in each case. To Liberalstan, this isn’t pragmatism, it’s hypocrisy. The charge: if self-determination wasn’t good for Kashmir, why should it be for Balochistan? And what of Sikkim, Goa, Pondicherry, Khalistan, Nagaland, or the Naxalites?

Hindustan’s reply is rooted in realpolitik: decisions were shaped by demography, geography, and threats; not abstract norms. Q.E.A. Jinnah’s attempt to absorb Junagadh and court Jodhpur are seen as deliberate provocations, since Junagadh was Hindu-majority, non-contiguous, and largely symbolic (home to Somnath). After that, New Delhi abandoned any illusions of standard rules. From Hindustan’s view, Liberalstan’s moral framing is not only naïve but deeply asymmetrical; ignoring 1947, 1965, Kargil, Mumbai, and the long shadow of Pakistan’s own interventions.

When it comes to Balochistan, Hindustan notes its accession was closer to annexation, comparable to Nepal or Bhutan vanishing into India. Three major insurgencies since the 1960s complicate the narrative of “finality.” But here, Liberalstanflips the script: what is labeled a disputed territory in Kashmir is declared settled in Balochistan. This inversion doesn’t go unnoticed.

In truth, both sides are mirrors. Each demands flexibility for itself and finality for the other. Each invokes “consent”selectively; whether that of a prince, a people, or a state. The tragedy, perhaps, isn’t inconsistency but the absence of a shared regional framework for self-determination. One not held hostage by grievance, revenge, or exception.

Until then, accusations of hypocrisy will persist, each side fluent in the other’s blind spots.

Let Hindus Decide for India

There’s a quiet but persistent coalition, inside and outside India, that seems intent on denying Hindus the right to define their own future. It includes unreformed Islamists who refuse to reckon with modernity, English-speaking liberal elites still shadowboxing for Nehru, minorities with veto power but no stake in cohesion, and a chorus of Western (and increasingly Chinese) voices, eager to manage India’s trajectory from afar. What unites them? A shared discomfort with Hindu political consolidation.

Let’s be clear: Hindu identity is not a new construct. Whether you place its roots 3,000 or 5,000 years ago, it’s one of the world’s oldest living civilizational continuities. That identity has always been plural, regional, and evolving. But it has also always been there; visible in memory, ritual, geography, and language. Today, that identity is waking up to its political form. And it will not be put back to sleep.

Hindutva is not going anywhere. Nor is the Indian Union. Those who hoped Kashmir would stay outside this arc have already seen the direction of travel. Pakistan’s decision to opt out of Hindustan, and then build an identity against it, has led not to strength but to strategic stasis. Bangladesh, too, for all its cultural richness, now stands as a separate civilizational lane. And so we arrive at the core truth: Hinduism and India are coterminous.

This isn’t a call for exclusion. But it is a reminder that those who opted out do not get to dictate terms to those who stayed in. That includes foreign commentators and diasporic gatekeepers alike. There is a difference between pluralism and paralysis. There is a difference between nationalism and denial. And if majoritarianism is the anxiety; perhaps the deeper fear is that Hindus are no longer apologizing for being the majority. Let India decide. Let Hindus decide. Let the world, finally, learn to listen.

Resistance, Realignment, and the Roads Not Taken

First, a brief acknowledgment: Kabir remains one of the pillars of this blog. His consistency, depth, and willingness to engage with the hardest questions are invaluable. I don’t always agree with him—but the conversation would be much poorer without his voice. The post is a series of reflections—stitched together from the comment threads.

I. Gaza: Beyond the Pale of Language

The death of a 19-year-old TikToker, Medo Halimy, in South Gaza this week caught my eye—not because it was the most horrific (foetuses are sliced in two in Gaza as Dr. Feroze Sidwa* attests). But because having seen his video, it just made the death so immediate (yes that is a cognitive bias).

At this point, to debate whether what is happening is a genocide feels grotesque. It clearly is. The scale, the intent, the targeting of civilians and children—it’s all there. The legal frame collapses under the moral weight. We are witnessing something darker than war: ethnocultural suffocation & demographic extinction, broadcast live and met with diplomatic shrugs. But the world is watching inspired by the very brave Bob Vylan duo (UK punk-rap duo opposing imperialism, recently denied US visas):

Something stirs and pricks beneath the rubble.

II. The Huma Moment: A Civilizational Reversal? Continue reading Resistance, Realignment, and the Roads Not Taken

What Was the Point of Israel’s Iran Strike?

The Limits of Provocation

At some point, the world will have to ask: what exactly was Israel hoping to achieve?

In the days following the dramatic escalation between Tel Aviv and Tehran, we are left not with clarity but with a deepening sense of confusion. If the intention was to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, there is little to show for it—centrifuges still spin, scientists remain in place, and the infrastructure of Iran’s deterrent capability stands unshaken. If the aim was to trigger chaos within the Iranian regime, then that too has failed—Tehran did not descend into disarray; it retaliated, measured and intact. And if the goal was symbolic, to remind the world of Israel’s reach and resolve, then the moment has already passed, clouded by questions of proportionality, legality, and consequence.

For all the fire and fury, the strike landed with the strategic weight of a gesture. Continue reading What Was the Point of Israel’s Iran Strike?

The West’s War of Decline

Dear friends,

I just wanted to share a thought that’s been on my mind lately. Yes, Trump has attacked Iran — but Iran hasn’t responded in any major way. That in itself is telling. It seems less a climax than a provocation, more bait than strategy. In truth, this might be part of a larger Western pattern: in its long twilight, the West no longer seeks peace but relevance — and sometimes, relevance requires war.

I recently heard a wild claim: that Norway was positioning a remote island of 150 people to tempt a Russian invasion, hoping to activate NATO’s mutual defence clause. Whether true or not, it captures something of the moment — the performative anxiety of a declining order, looking for conflict to reaffirm its own centrality.

As Amar writes, “It is heart-wrenching to see Iran being bombed by two nuclear states, while it remains a signatory to the NPT and compliant with IAEA inspections.” He recalls living in Tehran in 1980, a schoolboy witnessing warplanes above Mehrabad and the skies of Tehran blazing with anti-aircraft fire. That memory isn’t abstract — it’s personal, etched in smoke. His excellent comment is after the jump: Continue reading The West’s War of Decline

🕊️ On Iran, Israel, and the Right to Self-Defense

Why loving Israel, believing in peace, and opposing regimes means defending Iran’s right not to be bombed.

Dear Friends,

I don’t usually write about politics. And when I do, I try to centre peace — not provocation.

Anyone who knows me knows I have always believed in the dignity of Israel, the rights of Palestinians, and the intertwined destinies of both peoples. I love Israel. I love Iran. I believe in Palestine. I believe in peace. And I believe that each nation — each people — has a right to their own story, their own future, and yes, their own defense.

Which is why I write today, with care and some sorrow, in response to the recent Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Let me be clear: I oppose the Iranian regime. Vehemently. I stand with the brave women and men who chanted “Zan, Zendegi, Azadi” — women, life, freedom. But I cannot condone this unprovoked assault.

Read the rest at this link and please subscribe to my newsletter.

🧠 Inside the Mind of Trump: Empire, Restraint, and the Hemispheric Gamble

As an aside the latest FP’s post “India’s Great-Power Delusions” will make an interesting future post

Ten years ago, Donald Trump descended a golden escalator and upended American politics. He entered the White House not as a politician, but as a brand. Today, as the world stands at multiple geopolitical flashpoints—Israel–Iran, India–Pakistan, China–Taiwan—the question is not just what will Trump do, but what kind of world does Trump want to preside over?

Comeback King or New Emperor?

The interlude of Biden’s presidency—whether viewed as rightful or rigged—has only intensified Trump’s mythos. He is no longer just the comeback kid; he is the comeback king in a time when cries of “no king” echo through a fractured republic. A decade on from his initial successful run, he should be an elder statesman but in fact he’s just getting started with another 3 years to go. It’s unparalleled influence in the American Republic since FDR who managed to dominate the 30’s through to the mid 40’s; Trump will be the dominant force in US politics from mid teens through to at least 2029. Continue reading 🧠 Inside the Mind of Trump: Empire, Restraint, and the Hemispheric Gamble

Why Iran Is Not Iraq

These reflections are evolving, and may shift without warning. The winds of change—Divine or otherwise—do not move by human forecast.

In the Western imagination, the idea that Iran could somehow be “dealt with” like Iraq is a dangerous illusion—one rooted not just in hubris, but in historical illiteracy.

Yes, Iraq was once the cradle of civilization. From Ur to Babylon, and later Baghdad under the Abbasids, its glories are undeniable. But geopolitically, Iraq is a lowland nation—deeply enmeshed within the Arab Mashreq, itself a corridor between Egypt and the Persianate world, susceptible to invasions, internal fragmentation, and competing powers.

Iran, by contrast, is a fortress civilization.

Continue reading Why Iran Is Not Iraq