India’s role in South Asia: time to honour Delhi Agreement

4 minutes, 23 seconds Read
South Asia, with its intertwined histories and complex relationships, remains one of the most volatile regions in the world. The 1974 Delhi Agreement, signed between Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, was envisioned as a step towards lasting reconciliation, one that would help the nations move beyond historical grievances and forge a path toward cooperation.

However, decades later, rather than fostering regional stability, India has positioned itself as the dominant power, often at the expense of Pakistan. From perpetuating the terrorism narrative to influencing Bangladesh’s policy against Pakistan, India’s approach has largely contributed to the fragmentation of South Asian unity.

The latest military standoff between India and Pakistan, which erupted in May 2025, was yet another reminder of the fragile peace between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The conflict began after India launched missile strikes on Pakistan, citing retaliation for an April 22 terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that left 26 people dead.

Pakistan denied any involvement, but India proceeded with Operation Sindoor, targeting alleged militant infrastructure deep within Pakistani territory.

Pakistan responded with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos, striking Indian military sites in a show of force. The skirmishes escalated further, with both sides engaging in drone warfare, marking a new chapter in their military confrontations. The conflict ended with a US-brokered ceasefire, but the damage – both physical and diplomatic – was already done.

The depiction of Pakistan as a perpetual antagonist gained momentum after the Kargil War, when India aggressively pushed the idea that Pakistan was solely responsible for regional instability. Following the 2008 Mumbai attacks, this narrative reached new heights, with India successfully framing Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism in international forums.

This rhetoric served multiple purposes. Firstly, it justified India’s refusal to engage in third-party mediation over Kashmir, despite Pakistan’s repeated calls for international arbitration. Secondly, it enabled India to diminish the legitimacy of the Kashmiri freedom movement, recasting it as a product of Pakistan-based extremism rather than a genuine struggle for self-determination. Thirdly, it created an atmosphere in India that fostered hostility, ensuring that any peace initiatives would be met with suspicion or outright rejection by the Indian public.

Beyond its own borders, India actively exported this narrative to Bangladesh, a country with historical grievances against Pakistan dating back to 1971. India played a significant role in ensuring that Bangladesh remained firmly within its sphere of influence, cultivating an anti-Pakistan sentiment that has led to strained relations between Dhaka and Islamabad.

Under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government, Bangladesh increasingly aligned itself with India’s position. One of the most visible manifestations of this was the controversial war crimes trials that had targeted pro-Pakistan elements.

However, the political landscape in Bangladesh underwent a dramatic transformation in 2024 when mass protests and military intervention led to the ousting of Sheikh Hasina. The uprising, fueled by public dissatisfaction with her government’s authoritarian policies and economic mismanagement, culminated in her exile to India. With Hasina gone, Bangladesh has taken significant steps to mend its relations with Pakistan, marking a new chapter in regional diplomacy.

The new Bangladeshi leadership has actively sought to rebuild ties with Islamabad, recognising the mutual benefits of economic and strategic cooperation. Trade agreements have been revisited, diplomatic channels reopened, and a renewed sense of partnership has emerged. This shift has not only strengthened Pakistan-Bangladesh relations but has also challenged India’s long-standing influence over Dhaka.

India’s influence over Bangladesh was evident in its support for Hasina’s government, particularly in the controversial war crimes trials that targeted pro-Pakistan elements. India actively encouraged Bangladesh to distance itself from Pakistan, reinforcing the idea that Pakistan was the perpetual antagonist in South Asia.

Moreover, India’s economic and military dominance left Bangladesh with little room to maneuver independently. Trade agreements, defence collaborations and diplomatic pressure ensured that Bangladesh remained within India’s sphere of influence, often at the expense of its relations with Pakistan. However, with Hasina’s removal, Bangladesh has begun to assert its independence, signaling a shift away from India’s shadow.

India’s strategy of isolating Pakistan and asserting its dominance in South Asia has reached a breaking point. The recent military conflict demonstrated that Pakistan is capable of defending itself, and India’s aggressive posturing has only fueled instability. The Delhi Agreement was meant to foster cooperation, not perpetuate hostility. If India truly wishes to be a responsible regional power, it must abandon its antagonistic approach and engage in genuine dialogue.

Confidence-building measures, such as reopening diplomatic channels, restoring trade relations and allowing third-party mediation, could pave the way for a more stable South Asia. Instead of using neighbouring countries as a tool to weaken Pakistan, India should encourage regional unity based on mutual respect and shared economic interests.

India’s role in South Asia has largely been defined by its desire for dominance. By fueling anti-Pakistan sentiment and leveraging neighbouring countries as a tool for regional influence, India has perpetuated instability rather than fostering cooperation. The time has come for India to rethink its strategy and embrace diplomacy over aggression.

Honouring the 1974 Delhi Agreement would be a step in the right direction — one that acknowledges the shared history of South Asia while paving the way for a future built on peace and mutual respect. The region’s prosperity depends not on rivalry, but on the ability of its leaders to recognise that cooperation, not conflict, is the way forward.

Similar Posts