Washington, DC – From the corridors of ancient history, Kautilya’s Artha Shastra stands as a testament to the enduring intellect of Indian civilization. Its principles, once wielded by emperors, resonate anew in Dhruva Jaishankar’s Vishwa Shastra, a work that calls for the rediscovery of Bharat’s essence. This is no ordinary resurgence. It is a call to see the world not through the gaze of the West but through the prism of an indigenous worldview. This revival mirrors a similar movement in China, where historical maps are redrawn to assert territorial claims and civilizational pride. Together, India and China, these civilizational giants, navigate the modern geopolitical labyrinth by looking backward—to their roots, myths, and histories— to forge paths forward.
But the present is unrelenting. Across the geopolitical landscape, the fires of war blaze. The Middle East groans under the weight of two wars, while Ukraine continues to bleed from a conflict that reshapes the balance of power in Europe and beyond. These wars, their ripples extending to the farthest reaches of Asia, threaten the careful calibrations of foreign policy in New Delhi and Beijing. For in their revivals of civilizational identity, both India and China must contend with the sharp realities of modern power struggles.
On November 30, 2024, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made a startling claim when speaking with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov: the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria was orchestrated by the United States and Israel, a deliberate act to destabilize the region. Assad’s fall, sudden and catastrophic, was marked by the loss of Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama provinces—territories that slipped through his grasp in days. The protests, once whispers of dissent, swelled into a roar that toppled statues and shattered symbols of his father’s legacy. Assad fled, his family in tow, as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebranded offshoot of al-Qaeda, seized power.
HTS, under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Golani, has cast off its past as an extremist outfit, seeking instead to present itself as a nationalist force. Yet the shadows of its history linger. The group’s ascendancy may stabilize Syria in the short term, but many fear that the vacuum left by Assad’s regime will bring chaos far worse than his autocracy. The specter of unrestrained violence looms, a grim reminder that the fall of one regime rarely heralds the dawn of peace.
The fall of Assad was not an isolated event. Ankara, increasingly exasperated with its inability to bring Damascus to the negotiation table, made a calculated decision. Realizing that political dialogue with Assad was futile, Turkey gave the Syrian rebels the greenlight they had long awaited. As soon as a ceasefire in Lebanon was announced on November 27, the rebels launched a coordinated offensive. The timing was deliberate. Iran, overstretched in Syria and with Hezbollah focused on Lebanon, was no longer capable of fortifying Assad’s regime. This strategic opening allowed the rebels to press forward without risking accusations of collaboration with Israel—a significant shift in the balance of power in the region.
This is a tale the world knows well. Dynasties rise and fall, their endings often marked by the toppling of statues—a symbolic erasure of the past, in Syria, the Hafez al-Assad statue.
In Sri Lanka, the Rajapaksa family’s grip was broken when protesters pulled down the statue of their patriarch. In Bangladesh, a similar fate befell the monument to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as Hasina’s rule crumbled under pressure. These events echo across South Asia, tied together by whispers of external influence. Was it the raw power of public outrage, or were these revolutions guided by unseen hands?
At a conference on ‘Colour Revolutions and the Evolving Global Order: Challenges to Sovereignty and Democracy‘ in Phnom Penh where I was present, hosted by Cambodia’s Royal Academy (IRIC), the debate turned to these very questions. A Russian scholar, his voice edged with suspicion, asked pointedly, “Have we not seen this pattern before? These color revolutions, are they not the work of a familiar hand?” The implication was clear: the West, particularly the United States, has long been accused of engineering regime changes to suit its strategic interests. In the halls of this conference, the narrative of Western meddling in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh gained traction.
India finds itself at a delicate juncture amidst this storm of accusations and uncertainties. A defense analyst in New Delhi remarked, “Only the CIA could orchestrate Hasina’s removal,” a sentiment that underscores the pervasive mistrust of Western intentions in the region. Meanwhile, the South Block, home to India’s foreign ministry, moves with deliberate caution. The stakes are high, for India’s choices will reverberate not only in South Asia but across the global stage.
The next occupant of the White House inherits this delicate balancing act. In January 2025, Donald Trump will return to power, stepping into a world riddled with instability. On his social media platform, Trump declared, “Assad has fled. Russia failed him. Ukraine drains their strength.” His words frame Assad’s fall as both a failure of Russian resolve and a triumph for Western strategy. Yet his calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine and negotiations for peace ring hollow against the backdrop of strategic ambitions that continue to fuel the flames of conflict.
Even as Trump’s rhetoric turns to the success of Israel in containing the Axis of Resistance in the Middle East, he faces a world where the chaos of war emboldens extremist forces. The instability in Syria, Ukraine, and beyond threatens to spill over into regions long considered stable. “Too many lives are being so needlessly wasted, too many families destroyed, and if it keeps going, it can turn into something much bigger, and far worse. I know Vladimir well. This is his time to act. China can help. The World is waiting!” explained Trump. The fires of unrest, once ignited, spread with terrifying speed, consuming the certainties of the old world order.
Amidst this upheaval, India stands as a pivotal player. As Penny Wong, Australia’s Foreign Minister, noted at a discussion hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Singapore, “India is a critical player.” Yet the question remains: how will India wield its influence? Will it align itself firmly with the Western-led security architecture, a framework built on shared values and norms of the liberal order? Or will it chart a course uniquely its own, one that balances its civilizational identity with the demands of the modern world?
The answers are far from clear. India’s foreign policy is a tightrope walk, balancing strategic autonomy with the pressures of an increasingly polarized world. The specter of investigations into Adani’s dealings in the United States complicates this further, as does the delicate handling of its relationships with China and Russia. These relationships are not merely diplomatic; they are reflections of deeper alignments, rooted in shared histories and mutual suspicions of the West.
And yet, amidst this uncertainty, there is hope. For all the cynicism of strategic circles, there exists a belief in the power of diplomacy and dialogue. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, devastating as they are, have also created opportunities for new alliances and understandings. The question is whether nations like India can rise to the occasion, navigating the complexities of a world in flux with wisdom and restraint.
India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr S. Jaishankar, has articulated this challenge with clarity: “We have today two major conflicts taking place simultaneously. This is putting the entire international system under great stress.” His warning underscores the delicate balance required in these times—a balance that hinges on diplomacy’s capacity to quell tensions and foster cooperation. In this crucible of crises, India’s role is neither passive nor peripheral. Its growing influence in global affairs positions it as a mediator, a negotiator, and potentially a bridge-builder between competing blocs. As the world seeks pathways to peace, India’s navigation of these turbulent waters will be watched closely, not just for its ability to manage its own interests but for the example it sets in exercising wisdom, restraint, and the will to engage in meaningful dialogue.
In the end, the revival of ancient wisdom may not be enough. Civilizational pride, though potent, must contend with the harsh realities of power and conflict. As India and China look to their pasts for guidance, they must also grapple with the demands of a present that is relentless in its challenges. The choices they make will shape not only their destinies but also the fate of a world teetering on the edge of transformation.
The crossroads are clear. What remains uncertain is the direction humanity will take. In this moment of flux, the question is not whether history will repeat itself but whether we have the courage to shape a future that transcends the cycles of failure and violence that have defined so much of the past.
Asanga Abeyagoonasekera
Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is the Foreign Affairs Editor at Global Strat View. Hewas a technical advisor to Sri Lanka’s Governance Diagnostic Report by IMF, a Senior Fellow at the Millennium Project in Washington DC, member of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the National Press Club in Washington DC. and the author of ‘Teardrop Diplomacy: China’s Sri Lanka Foray’published by Bloomsbury (2023).
