Opinion | Understanding India’s Position in South Asian Context

Former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee once said , “ Let us together commence a journey of peace, harmony and progress in South Asia,” his statement perfectly captures the shared aspirations of the South Asian region which is bounded by history, culture, and geography. South Asia, comprising Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, is home to nearly one-fourth of the world’s population, making it a critical centre of human activity and potential. It is a region of striking diversity . Diversity in sense of religion , culture, geography , history, language and political systems. Yet also it has persistent political tensions and economic disparities. South Asia matters to the world in more ways than one. It’s home to nearly a quarter of humanity, it is a region brimming with ever-growing consumer market that fuels global trade. Its economies are among the fastest growing . Strategically, South Asia sits at the meeting point of the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia, with the Indian Ocean’s busy sea lanes carrying much of the world’s oil and goods. Its stability or instability can have impact far beyond its borders . At the same time, South Asia holds the Himalayan water towers that sustain life across much of Asia, making it central to the planet’s climate future. And beyond the numbers, its cultures, religions, and diaspora spread a soft power that reaches every corner of the globe, shaping how the world eats, prays, celebrates, and dreams

For centuries, the countries of South Asia have been bound together by threads of shared history — the flow of empire , the clash of civilizations , spread of religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, and centuries of trade, migration, and cultural exchange. From the Mauryan and Gupta dynasties to the Mughal Empire and the British Raj, the region has often revolved around the Indian subcontinent as its political, economic, and cultural centre. These historical commonalities fostered a sense of interconnected destiny, even when political borders changed . Today, the ties remain not just in history and culture, but in the common challenges the region faces like poverty, climate change, cross-border terrorism, water disputes, and the pressures of rapid urbanisation. In both eras, India has stood at the centre of this interconnectedness. Historically , South Asia has acted as a indo-centric region. In the present, India is both a key player in tackling regional issues and, at times, a part of the disputes themselves. Whether offering aid after natural disasters, mediating political crises, or negotiating trade and energy partnerships, India’s role remains indispensable. Yet, the same scale of its influence means its inability to resolve certain problems e.g the strained relations with Pakistan to stalled regional integration that is felt across the whole neighbourhood. In South Asia’s shared past and in its shared present, India is the figure that others cannot ignore, for better or worse.

India’s centric role in South Asia is rooted in its post-independence vision of solidarity and cooperation. As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement and a key architect of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 . India remained and advocate of mutual coexistence , especially with the nation who have been subjugated by colonial powers . Historic moments such as India’s support for the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, its peacekeeping mission in Sri Lanka in 1987, and its intervention in the Maldives in 1988 to quell a coup , cemented its role as a regional stabilizer.

India’s centrality in South Asia can be analysed through several dimensions — geopolitical, economic, security, cultural, and diplomatic . Each of which reflects both the strengths and the limitations of its leadership role in the region. From a geopolitical perspective, India’s vast landmass, its location at the heart of the subcontinent, and its command over critical sea lanes in the Indian Ocean naturally position it as the anchor state of South Asia. The country shares borders with almost every other nation in the region, giving it the potential to be a hub for connectivity . However, this very dominance often triggers a counter-reaction , smaller neighbours such as Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives sometimes perceive India’s proximity and influence as encroachments on their sovereignty and autonomy, prompting them to seek external balancing through China or other extra-regional actors. Economically, India serves as the largest market in South Asia, offering access to investment capital, technological expertise, and a skilled workforce. It is a key trade partner for countries such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, and has initiated projects aimed at regional economic integration, including the BBIN (Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal) motor vehicles agreement and various power-sharing grids. Yet, despite these efforts, intra-South Asian trade remains disproportionately low — among the lowest for any regional bloc in the world. Much of this stagnation stems from deep-rooted political frictions, particularly between India and Pakistan, and from protectionist tendencies that undermine the vision of a truly integrated South Asian market. In the security sphere, India plays a multifaceted role. On one hand, it acts as a stabilising force, providing military assistance and training to regional armies, conducting joint exercises, and participating in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy, and disaster relief operations. On the other hand, its own unresolved disputes — most prominently with Pakistan over Kashmir remains among the most volatile flashpoints in global security. Furthermore, India’s willingness to intervene in the domestic affairs of neighbours, whether in Sri Lanka during its civil war or in Nepal during constitutional crises, has been interpreted by some as necessary stabilisation and by others as overreach. Culturally, India wields a form of soft power unmatched in the region. Bollywood films, Indian television channels, music, yoga, cuisine, and its global diaspora shapes how South Asia is perceived worldwide. This gives India a good influence . As said by Condoleezza Rice “ Power is nothing unless you can turn it into influence.” Cultural influence often works to India’s advantage, building goodwill and fostering people-to-people ties. Yet, cultural dominance can also produce resentment when it overshadows or commercialises the traditions of neighbouring states, leading to a perception that South Asian culture is synonymous with Indian culture at the expense of diversity. Diplomatically, India engages actively with regional and extra-regional forums. It is a founding member of SAARC and a leading figure in BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, and the Quad alliance. It regularly positions itself as a bridge between developing nations and global powers, advocating for the interests of the Global South. However, the inability of SAARC to function effectively, largely due to India–Pakistan tensions, reflects the constraints of India’s leadership when bilateral disputes override multilateral cooperation. Moreover, India’s strategic partnerships with the United States, Japan, and Australia, while enhancing its influence, sometimes create unease among its South Asian neighbours about the alignment of its regional agenda with broader Indo-Pacific strategies.

India’s central position in South Asia, while often portrayed as a strategic advantage, also exposes it to a wide range of challenges and criticisms that complicate its leadership ambitions. One of the most persistent problems lies in **bilateral disputes**, particularly with Pakistan. The unresolved Kashmir conflict, recurring border tensions, and mutual mistrust not only paralyse SAARC’s functionality but also polarise regional alignments, making genuine multilateral cooperation difficult. Even beyond Pakistan, India’s relations with smaller neighbours such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives have been periodically strained due to disagreements over borders, trade terms, and political interference, with some leaders accusing New Delhi of adopting a “big brother” approach. Another challenge stems from China’s expanding presence in South Asia . Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has provided smaller states with alternative sources of investment and infrastructure development, weakening India’s economic leverage. In countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, Chinese-funded projects have sometimes been preferred over Indian offers, either because of perceived generosity or fewer political strings attached. This competition forces India into a defensive posture, often reacting to Chinese moves rather than setting the regional agenda itself. Domestically, India’s own governance and development constraints also undermine its regional leadership. Persistent poverty, inequality, and infrastructural gaps limit its ability to project a model of development that smaller neighbours can easily emulate. Moreover, political shifts at home such as rising nationalism and communal tensions can affect its image abroad, making it harder to promote an inclusive vision of South Asia. Cultural diplomacy, while a strength, is also a double-edged sword. India’s overwhelming presence in the entertainment and media space can be perceived as cultural hegemony, leading to resistance from countries seeking to assert their own identities. Similarly, water-sharing disputes, particularly with Bangladesh and Nepal, have been flashpoints where India’s policy is criticised for prioritising its domestic needs over regional fairness. Finally, institutional limitations in regional cooperation remain a major obstacle. India’s reluctance to fully commit to SAARC due to Pakistan’s involvement has left the forum largely inactive, and while alternative groupings like BIMSTEC have gained traction, they do not yet match the inclusivity or potential of a truly pan-South Asian platform. Critics argue that India’s tendency to bypass or stall multilateral mechanisms when its interests are not fully met undermines its credibility as a consensus-builder.

From a political science standpoint, India’s leadership in South Asia exemplifies the complexities inherent in regional hegemony. While India’s demographic size, economic capacity, and strategic influence position it as the natural regional power, its leadership is continually negotiated through a web of interstate rivalries, historical grievances, and institutional constraints. The persistence of bilateral conflicts, competing great power influences, and uneven regional integration demonstrate that leadership in South Asia cannot rely solely on material power or geographic centrality. Instead, it demands sustained diplomatic engagement, multilateral cooperation, and sensitivity to the sovereignty and identities of smaller neighbours. India’s future role will thus depend on its ability to reconcile national ambitions with regional stability — a delicate balance that will shape not only South Asia’s trajectory but also the broader dynamics of global order in the decades to come.

nabeeljehangir885@gmail.com