India to prepare for 3.5 front war as Pakistan, China, Bangladesh hold secret meeting in Kunming... what are they planning?

India to prepare for 3.5 front war as Pakistan, China, Bangladesh hold secret meeting in Kunming... what are they planning?
In the rapidly changing geopolitics, India's security concerns are now taking a new form. Now is not the time when there was a threat on the borders only from Pakistan and China. The '2.5 front war' that General Bipin Rawat talked about a decade ago, now seems to be changing into a '3.5 front war'.
The reason for this is the first trilateral meeting of Pakistan, China and Bangladesh in Kunming city of China recently. This meeting between officials of China, Pakistan and Bangladesh on June 19 was for the first time, but its message was big. China's Deputy Foreign Minister Sun Weidong, Bangladesh's Acting Foreign Secretary Ruhul Alam Siddiqui and Pakistan's Additional Foreign Secretary Imran Ahmed Siddiqui attended the meeting. Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Amna Baloch participated through video link.
The meeting was called 'Development Friendly Trilateral Dialogue', but its diplomatic meaning goes far beyond this. The statement issued after the meeting talked about 'people centric development in the South Asian region'. But given Bangladesh's executive leadership and its recent closeness with China, for India it seems more like a strategic alignment than diplomacy.
Why is India's concern about Bangladesh increasing?
In March 2025, Chief Advisor of the Interim Government of Bangladesh, Prof. Mohammad Yunus, during his visit to China, described Bangladesh as a political and economic partner of China. He had said that China should make way through Bangladesh to reach the market of Northeast India. This was the statement after which India banned Bangladesh's textile products on 17 May. Bangladesh was considered a strategic friend of India as long as Sheikh Hasina was the Prime Minister. However, after Hasina's coup, the interim government led by Mohammad Yunus has increased its closeness with Pakistan and China.
What is the danger of a 3.5 front war?
General Bipin Rawat, while talking about '2.5 front war', had said that India will have to face the challenge of terrorism and internal security along with China and Pakistan. But now this equation seems to be changing after seeing the role of Bangladesh.
Rakhine Corridor: Another emerging tension zone
The Rohingya crisis was discussed in the recent talks between Bangladesh and America. Along with this, Bangladesh's National Security Advisor Dr. Khalilur Rahman has advocated a 'humanitarian corridor' to Myanmar's Rakhine province. This area is very sensitive from a strategic point of view for India, China and Bangladesh. America is also now showing interest in this area.
India must be prepared
India will have to understand the new realities by leaving behind its strategic perspective. It will have to take the issues related to Bangladesh more seriously on both diplomatic and defence fronts. Along with this, it will be necessary to strengthen connectivity, economic blockade and border monitoring in Northeast India. '3.5 Front War' is no longer a fantasy, but an emerging reality. And India will have to be prepared for it.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

24 minutes ago

• First Post

Why Donald Trump is desperate to win Nobel Peace Prize

Donald Trump has once again ranted about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. In a long post on Truth Social, he listed a number of reasons why he deserves it. Now, Islamabad has nominated him for the honour for his 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. But why does the US president long for the validation of the prize so much? read more US President Donald Trump has once again complained about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. AP United States President Donald Trump has made no bones about coveting a Nobel Peace Prize. He brought up the award again while reiterating his claim of ending hostilities between India and Pakistan — an assertion rejected by New Delhi. Trump has mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize dozens of times publicly, be it in his speeches, interviews or campaign rallies. After failing to get the award in his first term, his obsession with the prestigious award has returned. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But why does Trump desire the Nobel Peace Prize so strongly? We will take a look. Trump says 'won't get Nobel Peace Prize' US President Donald Trump reiterated his claims of brokering a peace deal between India and Pakistan, griping he would not get a Nobel Peace Prize for 'stopping' the 'war' between the two South Asian neighbours. In a long post on his Truth Social platform on Friday (June 20), the Republican leader mentioned the prestigious award six times. He listed a variety of reasons why he should get the award. The Republican leader complained he would not get the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Iran conflicts. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what I do,' Trump said in his post. The US President began the post saying he was 'very happy' to report that he, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has arranged a 'wonderful treaty between Congo and Rwanda, in their war, which was known for violent bloodshed and death, more so even than most other Wars, and has gone on for decades.' He went on to say that representatives from Rwanda and Congo will be in Washington on Monday to sign documents, adding that this was a 'Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!' Donald J. Trump Truth Social 06.20.25 05:58 PM EST — Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) June 20, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump said he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.' The US president has claimed multiple times that he halted the 'war between India and Pakistan' . New Delhi has, however, maintained that an understanding to cease fire with Pakistan was reached after direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. Trump then said that he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords' in West Asia, which, 'if all goes well, will be loaded to the brim with additional countries signing on, and will 'unify' West Asia 'for the first time in 'The Ages!'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Abraham Accords, signed during Trump's first term at the White House, are landmark agreements to establish ties between Israel and four Arab countries. Trump ended his post with: 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Trump's obsession with Nobel Peace Prize This is not the first time that Trump has lamented not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He has spoken about it several times, and as per New York Times (NYT), complained 'publicly and privately' about not getting it for nearly a decade. As Trump pushes for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and a peace deal in West Asia, the 'award is looming large in his mind', the American newspaper reported, citing current and former advisers. At an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February, the US president said: 'They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize.' 'It's too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me,' he added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump has been nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize. A wide variety of people can nominate someone for the honour. Last year, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, a Republican from New York, nominated him for brokering the Abraham Accords. Norwegian politician Christian Tybring-Gjedde and a Swedish political figure, Magnus Jacobsson, nominated Trump during his first term. But the esteemed prize evaded the US president. Trump has been nominated once again. In February, Anat Alon-Beck, an Israeli-born professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, submitted a letter to the Nobel committee, arguing that Trump should get the award for his early work on securing a peace deal in West Asia. 'By securing the release of hostages, standing firm against antisemitism, and fostering historic agreements that bring stability to the world's most volatile regions, [Trump] has once again demonstrated why he is a deserving recipient,' Alon-Beck wrote, as per Axios. The Trump administration officials have also rallied behind the US president in his quest for the prestigious prize, which is decided by the Nobel Committee – appointed by Norway's parliament. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The Nobel Peace Prize is illegitimate if President Trump — the ultimate peace president — is denied his rightful recognition of bringing harmony across the world,' Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement earlier. Speaking to Fox News in February, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump deserves a Nobel for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war. 'If it were fairly awarded, I think in a year, he should get it from what I've seen,' he said. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and New York Representative Elise Stefanik have also advocated for Trump winning the Nobel. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. 'At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a ceasefire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond', a statement by Pakistan on Saturday (June 21) claimed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The announcement came just days after the US president hosted Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir at the White House for lunch. Islamabad has parroted Trump's claim that he 'helped settle' the hostilities between the neighbours. ALSO READ: Not so Noble: How the Nobel Prize has become the most controversial award ever Why is Trump pushing for the Nobel Peace Prize? Trump's obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize may have to do with former US President Barack Obama, who had won the award less than nine months after taking office in 2009. Obama, who was a highly controversial choice, got the prize for his 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'. Trump has criticised the Nobel committee for picking Obama for the award. In 2019, the Republican leader said he should get the prize 'for a lot of things, if they gave it out fairly — which they don't. They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. … That was the only thing I agreed with him on.' Towards the end of his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly brought up Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, ranting that he did not deserve the award. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' he said. John Bolton, who was ousted by Trump as his national security adviser in 2019, told NYT, 'The centre of his public life is the greater glory of Donald Trump, and the Nobel Peace Prize would be a nice thing to hang on the wall.' 'He saw that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and felt if Obama got it for not doing anything, why should he not get it?' he said of the US president. While Trump longs for the validation of the Nobel Peace Prize, critics say he does not deserve it, as there is no guarantee he will achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine or in West Asia. They also accuse the US president of aligning himself with aggressors. With inputs from agencies

Business Standard

3 hours ago

• Business Standard

India to face limited inflation impact from oil surge: CEA Nageswaran

India's top government adviser said rising oil prices are likely to have a limited impact on inflation for now and Asia's third-largest economy remains in a relatively favorable position to weather global risks. While high oil prices due to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East is a matter of concern, 'it is still not something that is going to be significant in terms of impact,' Chief Economic Adviser V. Anantha Nageswaran said in an interview on Friday. Cooling inflation, ample liquidity and low interest rates will provide the right conditions for India's economy despite global uncertainties, he added. Brent crude prices rose 20 per cent in the last one month as tensions between Israel and Iran escalated. Soaring oil prices can put pressure on the South Asian nation that is the world's third-biggest importer of crude. It can also stoke inflation and hurt household incomes in a country where private consumption accounts for as much as 60 per cent of the gross domestic product. 'It is too soon to get overly concerned yet,' Nageswaran said, adding that India will be able to absorb the impact of high crude prices if they are short-lived. 'I think it might have to take more than a quarter or even getting into a couple of quarters before we really have to worry.' The government expects the economy to expand 6.3 per cent to 6.8 per cent for the fiscal year ending March. While that pace is lower than the 8 per cent average seen in the last couple of years, India still retains the world's fastest-growing major economy tag. Nageswaran said good monsoon rains, that irrigate more than half of the country's farmlands, will also bode well for the economy. 'The underlying price pressures are quite absent and ample rainfall will also aid India's economy,' he said.

News18

3 hours ago

• News18

‘South Asian' A Term Coined To Bury Pakistanis' Crimes & Indians' Feats

Last Updated: If one wanted to be historically accurate, Indian subcontinent is a more precise term because almost all of it was once part of undivided India that was broken violently into parts Whether one should call the Indian subcontinent 'South Asia' is a debate that keeps getting regurgitated. There have been two latest triggers. First is the coverage of the sordid Pakistani gang-rape saga in which Leftist mainstream media in the West has repeatedly referred to these grooming gangs as 'Asian', in spite of the fact that these groups almost entirely comprise Pakistani Muslim men. It is as if by hiding their real identity, these newspapers and channels are shielding these monsters' sentiments from getting hurt. Whether you call a group of men 'Asian" or 'South Asian", you are erasing the national heritage with an obvious political motive. You are also intentionally hiding the truth. That is what led to the wokism getting the bad rap that it did. Deservedly so. — Anurag Mairal (@mairal) June 17, 2025 Second was a post by Neal Katyal, US Supreme Court lawyer who calls himself an 'extremist centrist". He posted approvingly about Meenakshi Ahamed's book titled Indian Genius: The Meteoric Rise of Indians in America. But guess what? He said the book was about the 'success of the South Asian diaspora". Amused netizens immediately started asking Katyal where he found the reference to 'South Asia', when Ahamed's book is clearly and specifically titled Indian Genius? They asked why this attempt to dilute and nullify the Indian identity? If one wanted to be historically accurate, Indian subcontinent is a more precise term because almost all of it was once part of undivided India, broken violently into parts as a direct aftermath of the British divide-and-rule policy. It was as if the brown, Indian-origin Neal Katyal was enthusiastically furthering the colonial project. In case of the Pakistani rape gangs, by calling a group of men 'Asian" or 'South Asian", one is erasing the national heritage with an obvious political motive and intentionally hiding the truth, people pointed out. I'm sick and tired of hearing the expression 'South Asian" in relation to the ethnicity of the Pakistani Muslim gang rapists of young, vulnerable, white British girls. Asia has over 60% of the world's population. Pakistan, has around 3%. They should not be homogenised. — Chris Davies 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🇬🇧 🇺🇸🟣 (@justchrisdavies) January 15, 2024 Different writers have held up different motives and aspects of the 'South Asia' descriptor. Samyak Dixit, for instance, writes in The Emissary: It's a small insight into how western academia builds consensus over topics and terminology, till the point where you as the subject of categorization are now being described using a term that you've never heard of before. The emotionless nature of the term itself (described by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal as 'politically neutral", which is a phrase worth exploring in itself), seeking to pull out any possible emotion or sentiment (that usually accompanies history) from the description of a region, also displays the American Regime's impulse towards sterility. This, of course, is an obvious extension of the impulse that renames blind people as 'visually impaired", or civilian casualties during war as 'collateral damage", or one that measures strontium radiation levels after a nuclear fallout in 'sunshine units". Like most Americanisms, 'South Asia" is cold, sterile, and designed to be so. The imposition of the term 'South Asia' received the maximum pushback from Indian-origin Americans who took on Western 'Indologists' who propagandised it without having any relationship with India and the subcontinent beyond an academic one. 'South Asia' seeks to describe the land mass that has historically been known in English as the 'Indian subcontinent', usurping 'Jambudvipa' and 'Bharatam' in Sanskrit, and 'Barr-e-Saghir' in Urdu. Venu Gopal Narayanan argues in Swarajya that from an ideological standpoint, it is so much easier to ensnare a pliant young mind if the old links are broken first. 'The forced popularisation of 'South Asia' over all other toponyms, including 'Bharata', was, thus, a key tool in breaking links with the past. Someone somewhere astutely understood that peddling atheism alone wasn't enough in the East, where a non-Abrahamic existence drew moral, spiritual and cultural sustenance as much from its history and geography as it did from a deity," he writes. 'East of Arabia, religion isn't the only opium of the masses; a civilizational ethos and a sacred geography too, join the list. And what better way to change that than by going to the root and changing the descriptor itself?" Indic entrepreneur, publisher, and author Sankrant Sanu had done a Google Ngram search across many scanned books and journals tracing the use of the term 'South Asia'. Squarely blaming CIA for this, he writes in his piece, 'How South Asian is a racist trope of cultural erasure': So, South Asia as a term is negligible till the 1940s, and really starts to be used in the late 1950s and 1960s. This is when the CIA is setting up 'South Asia Studies' departments in US universities. The premise of 'South Asia' is that India was never a nation or civilisation and is simply composed of different 'sub-nationalities' to be grouped together. This is, of course, ahistoric. Even in the Western consciousness, India has been a far more prominent term than 'South Asia'. Shadowy anti-India interest groups took over the cause. In 2015, the South Asia Faculty Group in California brazenly sent letters to the California Department of Education arguing for several changes in the curriculum. It demanded 'most references to India before 1947 be changed to South Asia" and also asked references to Hinduism to be changed to 'religion of ancient India". Thirty-six of these edits had to do with simply eliminating the words 'India' or 'Hinduism' from the curriculum. These diabolical changes would have sneaked into the syllabus, as the California education department was quite amenable. But a massive Hindu backlash began. The Hindu American Foundation collected more than 25,000 signatures of professors, scholars, students and parents under the 'Don't Erase India campaign. It forced the Instructional Quality Commission to retain the word India in every instance with the curriculum framework. While the old civilisation triumphed on that occasion, it underlined how one has to be constantly vigilant against attempts at its erasure by the Left and Islamists. Because words can sometimes inflict much deeper damage than ballistic weapons. Abhijit Majumder is a senior journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Indian subcontinent pakistan south asia United states Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 21, 2025, 11:08 IST News opinion Opinion | 'South Asian' A Term Coined To Bury Pakistanis' Crimes & Indians' Feats