Political controversies often fade with the news cycle. Others linger because they reveal something larger than the statement that sparked them. The controversy surrounding Madan Rathore president of the Rajasthan unit of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), belongs to the latter category.

By suggesting that India would stand with Pakistan in a hypothetical conflict between Pakistan and the United States because Pakistan is a neighbouring country, Rathore ignited a predictable political storm. His subsequent clarification that the remarks were taken out of context did little to quiet the debate. Opponents accused him of undermining the nationalist posture that has long been central to the BJP's political narrative, while supporters argued that his comments had been selectively interpreted.

Yet the significance of the episode lies not in partisan point-scoring but in the geopolitical question it inadvertently raises: in the twenty-first century, what matters more in foreign policy, geography or strategy?

For Bangladesh and the wider South Asian region, this question is increasingly important.

Geography Is Permanent, Alliances Are Not

One of the oldest principles of international relations is that geography is destiny, at least to some degree. States may choose their allies, but they cannot choose their neighbours.

The Indian subcontinent illustrates this reality more vividly than most regions in the world. India and Pakistan emerged from the same colonial legacy in 1947. Despite decades of hostility, multiple wars, unresolved territorial disputes and recurring diplomatic crises, they remain tied together by geography.

That reality extends beyond India and Pakistan. Bangladesh cannot alter its location between India and the Bay of Bengal. Nepal cannot move away from India and China. Sri Lanka cannot relocate from the strategic crossroads of the Indian Ocean. Geography imposes constraints and opportunities that no government can ignore.

Viewed from this angle, Rathore's underlying argument is not entirely without intellectual foundation. Neighbouring states often have compelling reasons to avoid complete rupture. Their economies, environmental systems and security concerns frequently overlap. Even adversaries remain interconnected.

However, geography alone does not determine foreign policy. If it did, international relations would be far more predictable than they actually are.

The Rise of Strategic Realism

The modern international system operates according to a different logic. States increasingly define their relationships through strategic interests rather than geographical proximity.

India's relationship with the United States offers a striking example. The two countries are separated by oceans and belong to entirely different regions. Yet over the past two decades, they have developed one of the world's most significant strategic partnerships. Defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, technology transfers, semiconductor development, maritime security and Indo-Pacific initiatives have brought New Delhi and Washington closer than at any point in their history.

Meanwhile, India's relationship with Pakistan remains burdened by deep mistrust despite sharing one of the world's most sensitive international borders.

This contrast highlights an important truth. In contemporary geopolitics, strategic alignment often matters more than physical proximity.

The same pattern can be observed globally. Australia views the United States as its principal security partner despite being thousands of kilometres away. European countries depend heavily on transatlantic alliances. Gulf monarchies maintain strategic relationships with powers far beyond their immediate neighbourhood.

The lesson is straightforward: geography creates realities, but interests create alliances.

South Asia's Strategic Transition

The Rathore controversy emerges at a time when South Asia itself is undergoing a significant geopolitical transition.

The old assumptions of the post-Cold War era are increasingly giving way to a more fluid and competitive regional order. China's rise has altered the strategic balance across Asia. American influence remains substantial but faces new challenges. Middle Eastern powers are investing more actively in South Asian economies. Regional governments are diversifying their partnerships to avoid overdependence on any single power.

This transformation has encouraged what international relations scholars call "multi-alignment."

Rather than choosing one camp over another, states increasingly seek relationships with multiple centres of power simultaneously.

India engages closely with the United States while maintaining links with Russia. Pakistan strengthens ties with China while preserving relations with Washington and Gulf states. Bangladesh pursues economic partnerships with China, strategic cooperation with India, and development engagement with Western countries.

The assumption that countries automatically side with neighbours or traditional partners has become increasingly outdated.

The Bangladesh Perspective

From a Bangladeshi perspective, the controversy offers an especially useful lens through which to analyse regional politics.

Bangladesh's foreign policy has long been shaped by a pragmatic understanding of geography and strategic autonomy. The country shares deep historical, economic and cultural ties with India. At the same time, China has become an important development and infrastructure partner. The United States remains one of Bangladesh's most significant export markets, while Gulf countries host millions of Bangladeshi workers and contribute substantially to remittance flows.

Dhaka's experience demonstrates that modern diplomacy is rarely a choice between one relationship and another. Instead, it involves managing multiple partnerships simultaneously.

For Bangladesh, the central lesson is that foreign policy cannot be reduced to emotional narratives or geopolitical slogans. Economic growth, energy security, trade access, technological advancement and regional stability require engagement with diverse actors.

This reality is particularly relevant at a time when great-power competition is intensifying across the Indo-Pacific.

Bangladesh's success over the past two decades has depended largely on its ability to avoid becoming trapped in zero-sum geopolitical rivalries. Rather than choosing sides, successive governments have sought to maximise national interests through balanced engagement.

The same principle increasingly applies throughout South Asia.

The Limits of Nationalist Rhetoric

Another important aspect of the debate concerns the gap between domestic politics and international realities.

Nationalist rhetoric often thrives on simple narratives. Countries are portrayed as friends or enemies, allies or adversaries. Such frameworks may be politically effective, but they rarely reflect the complexity of international relations.

Foreign policy operates in a world of contradictions.

Countries cooperate on some issues while competing on others. Strategic partners disagree. Rivals negotiate. Economic interests frequently override political differences.

India itself provides numerous examples. Despite tensions with China, bilateral trade remains extensive. Despite longstanding partnerships with Russia, New Delhi continues to deepen ties with the West. Despite tensions with neighbouring states, India consistently seeks regional influence through economic and diplomatic engagement.

This is not inconsistency. It is realism.

The challenge for political leaders across South Asia is to translate this realism into public discourse. Excessive reliance on nationalist narratives may generate short-term political gains, but it can obscure the strategic calculations that actually drive state behaviour.

## Why This Matters Beyond India

The larger significance of the Rathore episode lies in what it reveals about South Asia's intellectual approach to geopolitics.

Too often, regional debates focus on personalities, political parties and controversial statements while neglecting the structural forces shaping the region's future.

South Asia today faces challenges that transcend national boundaries: climate change, energy insecurity, water management, food security, migration, supply-chain resilience and technological transformation.

None of these challenges can be addressed effectively through confrontational rhetoric alone.

For countries like Bangladesh, which depend heavily on regional stability for continued economic growth, the quality of political discourse matters. Public discussions that encourage a more sophisticated understanding of international relations are ultimately more valuable than those that reinforce simplistic geopolitical binaries.

Beyond the Controversy

Ultimately, the debate surrounding Madan Rathore's remarks should not be reduced to a partisan dispute within Indian politics. Its real value lies in the broader question it raises about how states navigate an increasingly complex world.

The answer is not found in choosing between neighbours and strategic partners. Successful states understand the importance of both.

Geography remains important because it cannot be changed. Strategic partnerships remain important because they help countries achieve their national objectives. Foreign policy succeeds when governments recognise the distinction between permanent geographical realities and evolving political alignments.

For Bangladesh, this is more than an academic observation. It is a practical necessity. Situated at the intersection of South and Southeast Asia, and increasingly important within the Indo-Pacific landscape, Bangladesh's future will depend on its ability to balance geography with strategy, neighbourhood diplomacy with global engagement, and regional realities with national interests.

That may well be the most important lesson to emerge from this controversy.

In the end, neighbours remain constant, but strategic equations evolve. The states that prosper are those capable of understanding both realities simultaneously. In an era of growing geopolitical uncertainty, that is a lesson not only India and Pakistan but the entire South Asian region would do well to remember.

(The writer is a Geneva-based financial crime compliance specialist in private banking, columnist and poet. He writes on economic governance, global financial integrity and international affairs and can be reached at shahidul.alam@bluewin.ch)