Hardened nationalism and nuclear neighbours

South Asia cannot afford hardened nationalism between nuclear states. Nor can smaller economies absorb the shocks of overreaction triggered by identity-driven politics.

India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has witnessed a sustained consolidation of religious symbolism with executive authority. Symbolism matters in politics. When the head of government visibly embodies religious partisanship, it reshapes both internal dynamics and external perception. Over time, that symbolism influences policy posture, diplomatic flexibility, and the tone of national engagement with neighbors.

This trajectory is not abstract. In 2000, Modi was appointed Chief Minister of Gujarat; the following year, large-scale communal violence left approximately 2,000 people dead. In 2014, he led the BJP to a parliamentary majority and later, as Prime Minister, authorised the 2019 Balakot airstrike, marking a rare cross-border use of air power between nuclear-armed neighbours. In his second term, his government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and introduced the Citizenship Amendment Act which, for the first time, introduced religion as a criterion within India's citizenship framework. These developments collectively marked a significant shift in India's internal and external political posture.

South Asia's fragile stability has long depended on one foundational reality: that its largest state, India, projected pluralism as a governing principle rather than majoritarian dominance as political doctrine. For decades, India's internal diversity — religious, linguistic and philosophical — acted as a stabilising force across a volatile post-colonial region.

When pluralism narrows in the region's largest democracy, the consequences extend beyond its borders. Escalatory rhetoric reduces diplomatic maneuverability during crises. Political consolidation around identity increases polarisation at home and heightens the risk of cross-border radicalisation cycles. In a region marked by unresolved disputes and nuclear capability, even symbolic hardening can raise the probability of miscalculation.

Regional governments, from the Gulf to Bangladesh and beyond, have strong economic incentives to maintain stable relations with India. But stability is not merely transactional; it rests on political predictability and plural legitimacy.

Support, endorsement or normalisation of increasingly majoritarian governance may appear pragmatic in the short term. Yet over time, it risks legitimising a political model that narrows civic space, builds confrontation and increases regional volatility. The cost of this normalisation may not be immediate, but it accumulates, increasing exposure for economies deeply tied to labour mobility and trade integration.

The question facing regional policymakers is not whether to maintain relations with India. That is inevitable. The question is whether engagement will be accompanied by principled signaling, as regional players must understand that long-term stability depends on plural political orders, diplomatic openness, and restraint in moments of tension.

India's increasingly visible alignment with hardline security-oriented governments, including its deepening strategic embrace of Israel and its calibrated engagement with authorities in Afghanistan, further reinforces this trajectory. Strategic partnerships are natural in international politics, but when such alignments are framed through the language of civilisational struggle or muscular nationalism, they signal a preference for force-centred deterrence over diplomatic elasticity.

In a region already marked by unresolved disputes and nuclear capability, this posture narrows space for de-escalatory signaling during crises. The optics of solidarity with governments known for uncompromising security doctrines may consolidate domestic political strength, yet they also shape external perception, suggesting that confrontation, rather than calibrated restraint, is becoming the default mode of engagement.

Regional actors must weigh short-term alignment against long-term equilibrium. Endorsing trajectories that narrow pluralism may offer immediate diplomatic comfort, but it carries deferred strategic cost — one the region cannot afford to discover in the midst of crisis.