How South Asia’s ‘swing states’ navigate India-Pakistan tensions

The recent flare-up between India and Pakistan over Kashmir was marked by missile strikes, one of the fiercest aerial dogfights since World War II, retaliatory rhetoric, and a shaky cease-fire. However, amid the chaos, a quieter but equally significant shift is unfolding: the recalibration of foreign policies among South Asia’s nonnuclear neighbors. These countries—Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives—are not mere bystanders but strategic actors who must now adjust their positions in response to the conflict’s regional consequences. Known as the ‘swing states,’ they deserve greater attention before the next escalation in the India-Pakistan rivalry.

India-Pakistan crises have traditionally been viewed as isolated bilateral issues, rooted in historical grievances and nuclear deterrence. Yet, each episode—whether the 2019 Balakot incident or the current Kashmir flare-up—creates ripple effects that challenge the diplomatic, economic, and strategic standing of the region’s smaller, nonnuclear states. This time, the stakes are particularly high, as these ‘swing states’ must balance their strategic hedging efforts with China, now a central player in the geopolitical landscape.

Bangladesh: From alignment to ambiguity

Bangladesh finds itself in a precarious position. Following the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s pro-India Awami League government in August 2024, the country is navigating internal fragility and external recalibration. Civil society, nationalist voices, and Islamist groups are increasingly skeptical of what they see as Indian interference in Bangladesh’s internal politics—particularly given India’s role in sheltering Hasina and maintaining support for the Awami League. Hasina’s party was recently banned by Bangladesh under its anti-terror laws following a United Nations report that accused the former government of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests.

As anti-India sentiment grows, Dhaka may feel compelled to reassert a more independent or oppositional stance. India has heightened security measures around the Siliguri Corridor, a critical link to its northeastern states, amid Bangladesh’s deepening ties with China and its reported agreement to a United Nations proposal for a humanitarian-aid corridor into Burma’s Rakhine State. Although framed as a humanitarian initiative, Indian analysts interpret this as part of a broader trend of external encroachment in India’s strategic backyard.

This is particularly volatile for India. It faces a Bangladesh that may lean harder into diversifying its infrastructure via China, renewing engagement with Pakistan, and framing neutrality as sovereignty. Bangladesh has accused India of pushing at least 260 people—likely including migrants and refugees—into the region, prompting concerns about border security and regional stability.

Sri Lanka: Navigating economic and security challenges

Sri Lanka has long maintained a delicate balance between India and China, but the India-Pakistan conflict has intensified its focus on economic and security partnerships. The country’s strategic position between the two powers makes it a key player in regional diplomacy. Sri Lanka’s government has sought to deepen its economic ties with India while maintaining a cautious relationship with China, particularly in light of rising tensions in the region. However, the conflict has also raised concerns about Sri Lanka’s ability to manage its relationships with both powers without falling into a precarious position.

The Sri Lankan government has also faced domestic pressure to distance itself from India, particularly in the wake of the recent flare-up. This has led to a reevaluation of its foreign policy, with the government seeking to maintain a neutral stance while managing its economic and security relationships with both India and China. This balancing act is particularly challenging in a region where the India-Pakistan rivalry is a major concern for all parties involved.

Nepal: A country caught between two giants

Nepal, a landlocked country between India and China, has long been a key player in South Asian geopolitics. The India-Pakistan conflict has further complicated Nepal’s position, as the country seeks to maintain its neutrality while managing its economic and security ties with both powers. Nepal’s government has sought to maintain a balanced approach, seeking to maintain good relations with both India and China while also pursuing its own development goals.

However, the conflict has also raised concerns about Nepal’s ability to manage its relationships with both powers without falling into a precarious position. The country has also faced domestic pressure to distance itself from India, particularly in the wake of the recent flare-up. This has led to a reevaluation of its foreign policy, with the government seeking to maintain a neutral stance while managing its economic and security relationships with both India and China.

Bhutan: Quiet hedging in a noisy region

Bhutan, a small Himalayan country with close ties to India, has long maintained a policy of quiet hedging. The country has historically aligned with India while maintaining a cautious relationship with China. The India-Pakistan conflict has not dramatically altered Bhutan’s foreign policy, but it has added pressure on Thimphu to reassess its strategic environment, particularly as India’s regional bandwidth narrows and Chinese overtures in the north intensify.

Bhutan’s foreign policy is defined by minimalist diplomacy and self-protective slowness, rather than binary choices. While the Kashmir flare-up does not dramatically alter Bhutan’s foreign policy, it adds pressure on Thimityu to quietly reassess its strategic environment, particularly as India’s regional bandwidth narrows and Chinese overtures in the north intensify.

Maldives: Between militarization and backlash

The Maldives, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean, has long maintained a cautious relationship with India. The country’s president, Mohamed Muizzu, won the 2023 election with an “India Out” campaign, which framed Indian military presence on the archipelago as an infringement of Maldivian sovereignty. Muizzu has since moved to recalibrate the country’s foreign policy orientation, including by asking Indian troops to pull out from his island nation.

However, the India-Pakistan conflict has also raised concerns about the Maldives’ ability to manage its relationships with both India and China. The country’s hedging strategy, balancing regional power interests while cultivating leadership on climate security, relies on maintaining diplomatic maneuverability. The India-Pakistan conflict narrows that space, as the Maldives faces increasing pressure to take a stand on the issue.

Strategic hedging, under pressure

What ties these disparate responses together is a common strategy: hedging. These five “swing states” have, in recent years, mastered the art of calibrated ambiguity. They seek economic gain from and security cooperation with multiple powers—India, China, and the United States—without being drawn into hard alliances. This allows them to maximize autonomy and avoid capture, whether through aid dependency, military pressure, or infrastructure entanglements.

Yet, India-Pakistan crises stress test this architecture. Each episode forces these “swing states” to signal their preferences, take rhetorical positions, or manage public backlash, which is often at the expense of their preferred strategy of quiet recalibration.

Washington must take note

The United States increasingly views India as a pillar of its Indo-Pacific strategy, but India’s regional leadership is only as strong as its relationships with its neighbors. A South Asia in which every India-Pakistan skirmish pushes the “swing states” toward anti-India sentiment or deeper engagement with China is a region less stable—unfavorable for US interests.

At the same time, the United States continues to prioritize maritime-centric approaches and groupings such as the Quad in its Indo-Pacific strategy, focusing primarily on the Chinese threat to maritime stability. While it does so, it is sidelining the very terrain where regional contestation is already unfolding: in continental South Asia. Such contestation has taken place over land connectivity, subregional diplomacy, maritime security, and crisis responses among the five nonnuclear countries.

If Washington wants to invest in long-term regional stability in South Asia, it must understand not only the loud actors, but also the quiet strategists—the five “swing states.” Ignoring their pivotal roles risks ceding ground to rival powers and destabilizing South Asia’s fragile geopolitical balance, with consequences far beyond the subcontinent.