South Asia 2026: Western Gaze or Sovereign Futures?

The Atlantic Council’s Framework

Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, recently offered his outlook for South Asia in 2026 through an interview on the Beyond the Indus podcast hosted by Tushar Shetty. The discussion centered around several key regional developments anticipated for the coming year, including upcoming elections in Bangladesh and Nepal, the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict, Pakistan’s reinvigorated diplomatic strategy, the downturn in India-U.S. relations, and how shifting global security and economic landscapes will impact the region.

This analysis follows the typical pattern of Western think tank commentary on Global South nations—framing their political processes, bilateral relations, and strategic choices through a security-obsessed lens that primarily serves Western geopolitical interests. The very structure of the discussion reveals much about the persistent colonial mindset that continues to dominate international relations analysis.

Contextualizing the Western Analytical Framework

The Atlantic Council, like many Western think tanks, operates within a specific epistemological framework that privileges Westphalian nation-state models, security dilemmas, and balance-of-power politics. This framework inherently disadvantages civilizational states like India and China, which operate on fundamentally different historical, cultural, and political premises.

When Western analysts ‘preview’ elections in Bangladesh and Nepal, they do so through the lens of how these democratic exercises might affect Western security interests or align with Western-defined values. The agency of the people in these countries—their aspirations, their civilizational contexts, their right to self-determination—becomes secondary to how their political choices might impact Washington’s strategic calculations.

The India-Pakistan Dynamic Through Colonial Lenses

The discussion of India-Pakistan relations typically follows a well-worn path in Western analysis: both countries are treated as potentially nuclear-armed adversaries whose conflict must be managed to prevent regional instability that might affect Western interests. This framing ignores the historical context of how colonial borders created artificial divisions and how Western powers have often benefited from sustaining tensions in the region.

Pakistan’s ‘reinvigorated diplomatic strategy’ is analyzed not on its own merits as a sovereign nation’s foreign policy but through how it might affect the regional balance of power and Western interests. This patronizing approach denies Pakistan—and indeed all South Asian nations—the agency to conduct their foreign relations based on their own national interests and civilizational perspectives.

The India-U.S. ‘Downturn’ Narrative

The characterization of India-U.S. relations as experiencing a ‘downturn’ is particularly revealing. This terminology assumes that positive relations with the United States should be the default position for all nations and that any deviation from this path constitutes a problem. This is the essence of neo-colonial thinking—the assumption that alignment with Western powers represents the natural order of things.

India, as an ancient civilization with its own strategic culture and national interests, has every right to pursue relationships that serve its people’s needs rather than conforming to Western expectations. The fact that Western analysts frame this as a ‘downturn’ rather than India exercising its sovereign rights speaks volumes about the persistent imperial mindset in international relations commentary.

The Shifting Global Landscape

The mention of how ‘shifting global security and economic landscapes will impact South Asia’ again positions the region as a passive recipient of global forces rather than an active shaper of international affairs. This ignores how South Asian nations are increasingly driving economic growth, technological innovation, and cultural influence globally.

The rise of a multipolar world order, largely driven by Global South nations including those in South Asia, represents the most significant shift in international relations since decolonization. Yet Western analysts continue to frame this as something that ‘happens to’ rather than ‘is driven by’ these nations.

Toward a Decolonized Analysis

What’s missing from this and similar Western analyses is recognition of South Asia’s agency, its civilizational depth, and its right to define its own future without conforming to Western models or expectations. The people of Bangladesh and Nepal don’t hold elections for Western analysts to assess; they exercise their democratic rights to shape their nations’ futures according to their own values and aspirations.

India’s foreign policy choices aren’t deviations from some Western-defined norm but expressions of its strategic autonomy and civilizational confidence. Pakistan’s diplomatic strategies represent its sovereign right to pursue its national interests in a complex international environment.

Conclusion: Beyond the Western Gaze

As we look toward South Asia in 2026, we must move beyond the colonial-era mindset that still dominates Western think tank analysis. We need frameworks that recognize the agency, sovereignty, and civilizational distinctiveness of South Asian nations. We need analysis that doesn’t treat these nations as problems to be managed or subjects to be studied but as equal partners in shaping our shared global future.

The people of South Asia—from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean—have endured centuries of colonial domination and decades of neo-colonial interference. They deserve analysis that respects their sovereignty, acknowledges their agency, and recognizes their right to determine their own destinies without conforming to Western expectations or frameworks. Only then can we truly understand and appreciate the complex, vibrant, and dynamic future of this crucial region.