From deterrence to dominance: India’s dangerous pursuit and the future of South Asia

In the high-stakes world of international politics that is dominated by realist discourse, a nation’s military arsenal often speaks louder than its diplomacy. Military advancements are never just technical achievements; they are a clear window into a state’s true intentions and future ambitions. Viewed through this lens, recent reports of India’s impending long-range ballistic missile tests are not just a footnote in a defense journal. But they instead pose a definite risk to the already fragile strategic balance in South Asia. While every nation rightfully possesses the means to self-defense, India’s pursuit of the Agni-V and the anticipated Agni-VI raises a fundamental question: why does a country need weapons capable of striking targets thousands of kilometers beyond its stated adversaries? This is not deterrence. This is a dangerous lurch away from its declared policy of “Minimum Credible Deterrence” and onto a perilous path that leads away from defense and squarely towards aggression.

Unsurprisingly, policymakers in Delhi justify this aggressive program under the convenient guise of “China-centric” security compulsions. But this argument simply lacks credibility. A quick look at a map reveals the truth: the operational ranges of these missiles extend far beyond China, capable of reaching deep into Europe, Africa, and even parts of North America. The China Card, therefore, is not a reason; it is a smokescreen. Behind it lie India’s true ambitions: to establish unchallenged hegemony in South Asia and project itself as the net security provider of the Indian Ocean Region. In his influential book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer identifies this exact behavior as “Offensive Realism.” This theory states that powerful nations are perpetually driven not just by a need to be secure, but by an insatiable quest to dominate their rivals.

The implications of this posture are not regional, but profoundly global, threatening to shatter the delicate strategic equilibrium that has maintained a tense peace for decades. When a nation aggressively pursues capabilities that create the illusion of a viable ‘first-strike’ option against other major powers, the entire structure of mutual deterrence begins to crumble. India’s long-range missiles, especially when armed with MIRV technology, provide a false sense of security that is not just misguided; it is exceedingly dangerous on a global scale. As an analysis by Feroz Khan for the Stimson Center suggests, it is precisely this kind of perceived technological advantage that can embolden hawkish elements within a state to consider reckless military doctrines, gambling that they can control the escalatory ladder. Such a mindset, when held by a state with intercontinental reach, puts global peace in jeopardy.

What makes this situation even more alarming is the blatant hypocrisy of the international community, particularly the United States. Western powers, who present themselves as champions of the global non-proliferation regime, have maintained their silence on India’s expansionist ambitions. Their efforts to integrate India into exclusive forums like the MTCR and the NSG are a clear display of this double standard. Principles that are stringently applied to other nations are conveniently jettisoned when it comes to India. This selective morality not only weakens the global non-proliferation architecture; it gives India a green light to pursue its hegemonic designs. This is not a new concern. As far back as 2006, strategic analyst Richard Speier warned in Arms Control Today that the West’s preferential treatment of India was dangerously short-sighted and would directly contribute to its expansionist ambitions, regardless of the cost to regional stability.

Predictably, every missile test by India adds fresh fuel to a relentless arms race. This dangerous cycle is a perfect illustration of what the renowned political scientist Robert Jervis, in his seminal 1978 work, termed the “security dilemma.” As Jervis argued, the tragic irony is that when one state takes so-called defensive measures, its neighbors perceive them as an undeniable threat and are compelled to respond in kind, leading to a situation where arsenals grow but everyone feels less secure. India’s Agni program is a live demonstration of this dynamic, forcing both Islamabad and Beijing to react and pushing the entire region closer to becoming a volatile tinderbox.

Worse still, this ‘might is right’ approach is actively corrupting India’s diplomacy. When a nation becomes infatuated with its military strength, dialogue is often the first casualty, replaced by a reliance on coercive diplomacy, the language of threats and intimidation. We have seen this alarming trend in its recent dealings with Pakistan, where meaningful engagement has given way to bellicose rhetoric. The acquisition of these long-range missiles will only entrench this arrogant posture, severely eroding the already slim chances for peaceful coexistence and ensuring that South Asia remains a prisoner of perpetual tension.

It is clear: India’s missile program has long since abandoned the pretense of minimal deterrence. What we are witnessing today is the unmistakable ambition of a nation driven not by a need for security but by a quest for dominance. The international community must wake up to the reality that these weapons are not harmless symbols of prestige; they are the instruments of a reckless pursuit that could push the entire region into a devastating conflict. For Pakistan, sitting on the sidelines is not an option. It must respond with strategic foresight, continually enhancing its deterrence while tirelessly exposing India’s hegemonic designs on every diplomatic front. The world has been put on notice. The only question now is whether it will act before it is too late.