The Shifting Pyramid of Power, Pakistan’s Diplomatic Rise and India’s Strategic Silence
In recent weeks, an intense debate has emerged in India regarding Pakistan’s rising diplomatic stature, following its role as mediator and venue for negotiations between the United States and Iran. Iranian and American officials – including US President Donald Trump – have publicly acknowledged Pakistan’s leadership, specifically Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, for their role in precipitating and sustaining the ceasefire, and maintaining channels of communication. While Pakistan is now seen as central to diplomacy around the Iran war, India’s response has been marked by silence – variously interpreted as caution toward Trump or as strategic restraint. India has not criticised Israel or the US for their actions, and this contrast with Pakistan’s rising role has fuelled debate within India’s strategic community about the shifting balance between the two countries. The emerging dynamic suggests a perceptible shift: India appears to be moving from a global power toward the characteristics of a middle power, while Pakistan is emerging as a more consequential regional power with aspirations toward middle-power status. Yet, while Pakistan gains in soft power, it is still nursing a fragile economy. And that matters.
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Visibility: From Exclusion to Centre Stage
Pakistan’s diplomatic visibility has increased not only due to its mediation role but also because of its expanding engagement with Washington and its growing influence in Gulf security. Its relationship with the US – particularly under Trump – has elevated Pakistan’s profile. At the same time, its defence partnership with Saudi Arabia, and possibly a similar security partnership with Qatar, have further reinforced its strategic relevance in the region.
This enhanced diplomatic position has translated into economic and political gains. Saudi Arabia’s pledge of billions of dollars highlights the financial dividends of Pakistan’s rising influence. Since the end of Operation Sindoor (the US-Israel military campaign against Iran), Pakistan has also secured several diplomatic wins, denying India’s efforts to portray it as a state sponsor of terrorism and diplomatically isolate it. India’s efforts have been undermined by Pakistan’s growing alignment with the US as a counterterrorism partner against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, as well as its role in Gaza-related discussions and the Iran crisis. Together, these developments suggest that Pakistan’s recent diplomatic momentum has blunted India’s strategy, raising broader questions about whether the regional balance of power in South Asia is beginning to shift.
For decades, India’s diplomatic strategy towards Pakistan was based on isolation. The argument was that Pakistan’s support for cross-border terrorism made it a pariah state. India used its global standing – its democratic credentials, its economic growth, its relationships with major powers – to marginalise Pakistan in international forums. That strategy has been only partially successful. Pakistan has never been fully isolated. And now, with its mediation role in the Iran crisis, Pakistan has gained a visibility that India cannot easily counter.
The Pyramid of Power: Where Do India and Pakistan Stand?
According to scholars of international relations, states are often understood within a hierarchy of power based on their capacity to project influence and shape outcomes beyond their borders. At the apex are superpowers such as the US and China – states with the ability to project power globally and to shape the international order itself. Their influence spans military, economic and institutional domains on a worldwide scale. The next tier consists of global powers, which, while not able to unilaterally shape the global order, possess sufficient capabilities to project power across multiple regions, as illustrated by Russia. Below them are middle powers, which lack comprehensive global reach and do not dominate multiple regions, yet exert meaningful influence through partnerships and economic and military capacity; countries such as Türkiye, South Korea, Indonesia, and Brazil are often cited as examples. Next are regional powers, which dominate a specific geographic area but have limited ability to project influence beyond it, such as Saudi Arabia in the Gulf. Finally, there are minor powers, comprising most states whose influence remains largely confined within their own borders and whose role in shaping regional or global outcomes is limited.
The Lowy Institute operationalises comprehensive national power by combining hard and soft capabilities into a single analytical framework. It assigns roughly 55 per cent weight to material power – economic size, military capability, and resources – and 45 per cent to softer dimensions such as diplomacy, economic networks, and institutional influence.
Before Operation Sindoor, using the Lowy Institute metric, India would be placed in the second tier from the top as a global power given both its hard power and soft power capabilities, while Pakistan would fall into the second tier from the bottom as a regional power. However, developments over the past few months suggest movement in opposite directions. India’s performance during Operation Sindoor has not been widely seen as commensurate with its perceived stature or the expectations surrounding its rise, whereas Pakistan has been viewed by many as performing above its capacity.
India’s Decline: Silence, Marginalisation, and Falling Rankings
India’s continued silence or restraint – particularly in relation to Trump and major geopolitical developments – has contributed to its marginalisation from key global events. India has not criticised Israel or the US for the war on Iran. It has not offered to mediate. It has not hosted negotiations. It has remained largely silent. This silence has been interpreted by some as strategic restraint – a recognition that India’s interests align more closely with the US than with Iran. But it has also been interpreted by others as weakness – an inability to act as a global power should.
This perception has been reinforced by economic and geopolitical shifts, including a decline in India’s ranking from the fourth to the sixth largest economy and the waning visibility of groupings that once elevated its profile, such as I2U2, BRICS, and the Quadrilateral Dialogue. The Quad (India, US, Japan, Australia) has been less active. BRICS has been distracted by internal divisions. I2U2 (India, Israel, US, UAE) has not produced major deliverables. The platforms that India once used to project soft power have become less effective.
In contrast, Pakistan, without any change in material capabilities, has significantly enhanced its diplomatic profile and relevance. It has not grown its economy. It has not modernised its military. It has not improved its governance. But it has positioned itself as a mediator. It has aligned itself with the US and Saudi Arabia. It has gained visibility. The result is a perceptible shift: India appears to be moving from a global power toward the characteristics of a middle power, while Pakistan is emerging as a more consequential regional power with aspirations toward middle-power status. This evolving dynamic – India trending downward and Pakistan upward in relative standing – may help explain the intensity of current debates within India’s strategic community, as well as the more confident and optimistic mood within Pakistan’s strategic discourse.
The Hard Power Reality: Why Soft Power Shifts May Be Temporary
My final observation for Indian policymakers is that whatever constraints India faces with regard to the US and Israel – whether driven by ideological alignment or dependence on defence technology – the choices it is making will inevitably affect the softer dimensions of its power. While these softer elements can enhance or diminish a country’s influence in global affairs, they are not a substitute for hard power: military capability, a robust economy, demographic scale, and cutting-edge technological capacity. In these foundational areas, there has been no significant relative change between India and Pakistan.
India’s economy, while growing more slowly than before, remains several times larger than Pakistan’s. India’s military, while not fully modernised, is far more capable than Pakistan’s. India’s demographic profile, with a young and growing workforce, is an asset. India’s technological capacity, particularly in space, nuclear energy, and digital infrastructure, is world-class. Pakistan cannot match any of these.
While India remains firm in the elements of hard power, Pakistan, while gaining in soft power, is still nursing a fragile economy. And that matters. A country that cannot pay its debts cannot sustain its diplomatic influence. A country that relies on IMF bailouts cannot project power. A country that faces internal political instability cannot focus on external affairs. Pakistan’s economic fragility is a constraint that no amount of diplomatic visibility can overcome.
The Strategic Challenge for India: Reclaiming the Narrative
India’s strategic challenge is not to match Pakistan’s diplomatic visibility – that would be a race to the bottom – but to reclaim the narrative. India has been silent on the Iran war because it does not want to alienate the US. That is a reasonable calculation. But silence has costs. It signals that India is not a player. It signals that India is resigned to following, not leading.
India could have offered to mediate. It could have hosted negotiations. It could have at least issued statements calling for peace. It did none of these. The opportunity cost of silence is real.
India must also re-energise the multilateral platforms that have elevated its profile. The Quad needs a summit. BRICS needs a common agenda. I2U2 needs a project. India cannot rely on its history or its size; it must actively shape the institutions of which it is a part.
Conclusion: A Perceptible Shift, But Not a Permanent One
The shifting pyramid of power between India and Pakistan is perceptible, but it is not permanent. Pakistan’s diplomatic rise is real, but it is built on soft power – visibility, mediation, alignment – not on hard power. India’s hard power advantage remains overwhelming. The question is whether India can convert that hard power into soft power influence.
India has the resources. It has the capacity. What it lacks, at times, is the will. The silence on Iran is a symptom of a broader hesitation – a reluctance to take risks, to stake positions, to lead. Pakistan, with fewer resources and a weaker economy, has shown that willingness to act can compensate for lack of capacity. India must learn that lesson. The shift is perceptible, but it is not irreversible. India can regain its standing. But it must act.
Q&A: Pakistan’s Diplomatic Rise and India’s Strategic Silence
Q1: What role has Pakistan played in the Iran-US ceasefire negotiations, and why is it significant?
A1: Pakistan served as mediator and venue for negotiations between the US and Iran. US President Donald Trump and Iranian officials have publicly acknowledged Pakistan’s leadership, specifically Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, for their role in “precipitating and sustaining the ceasefire, and maintaining channels of communication.” Pakistan’s diplomatic visibility has increased not only due to this mediation role but also due to its expanding engagement with Washington and growing influence in Gulf security (defence partnership with Saudi Arabia and possibly Qatar). The article notes that Pakistan has secured several diplomatic wins, “denying India’s efforts to portray it as a state sponsor of terrorism and diplomatically isolate it.” India’s response has been “marked by silence.”
Q2: How does the article characterise the “pyramid of power” and where do India and Pakistan stand?
A2: The pyramid of power (based on scholars of international relations and the Lowy Institute framework) has five tiers:
-
Superpowers (US, China): Project power globally and shape the international order.
-
Global powers (Russia): Project power across multiple regions but cannot unilaterally shape the global order.
-
Middle powers (Türkiye, South Korea, Indonesia, Brazil): Exert influence through partnerships, economics, and military capacity but lack comprehensive global reach.
-
Regional powers (Saudi Arabia): Dominate a specific geographic area but have limited influence beyond it.
-
Minor powers: Influence largely confined within their own borders.
Before Operation Sindoor, India was in the second tier (global power) while Pakistan was in the fourth tier (regional power) . However, recent developments suggest India is “moving from a global power toward the characteristics of a middle power,” while Pakistan is “emerging as a more consequential regional power with aspirations toward middle-power status.”
Q3: Why has India’s strategic silence on the Iran war damaged its soft power?
A3: India has not criticised Israel or the US for the war, has not offered to mediate, has not hosted negotiations, and has remained “largely silent.” This silence has been interpreted by some as “weakness – an inability to act as a global power should.” India’s “continued silence or restraint – particularly in relation to Mr. Trump and major geopolitical developments – has contributed to its marginalisation from key global events.” This perception has been reinforced by economic shifts (India’s decline from the fourth to the sixth largest economy) and the “waning visibility” of groupings that once elevated its profile (I2U2, BRICS, the Quad). The article states: “The opportunity cost of silence is real.”
Q4: Despite Pakistan’s diplomatic gains, what are its fundamental weaknesses?
A4: Pakistan’s diplomatic rise is built on soft power (visibility, mediation, alignment), not on hard power. In foundational areas (military capability, robust economy, demographic scale, technological capacity), there has been “no significant relative change between India and Pakistan.” While Pakistan gains in soft power, it is “still nursing a fragile economy.” The article notes: “A country that cannot pay its debts cannot sustain its diplomatic influence. A country that relies on IMF bailouts cannot project power. A country that faces internal political instability cannot focus on external affairs. Pakistan’s economic fragility is a constraint that no amount of diplomatic visibility can overcome.”
Q5: What strategic recommendations does the article offer for Indian policymakers?
A5: The article offers several recommendations:
-
Reclaim the narrative: India has been silent because it does not want to alienate the US, but “silence has costs. It signals that India is not a player… resigned to following, not leading.” India could have offered to mediate, hosted negotiations, or issued statements calling for peace.
-
Re-energise multilateral platforms: The Quad needs a summit; BRICS needs a common agenda; I2U2 needs a project. India cannot “rely on its history or its size; it must actively shape the institutions of which it is a part.”
-
Convert hard power into soft power influence: India has the resources and capacity. What it lacks “at times, is the will.” Pakistan, with “fewer resources and a weaker economy, has shown that willingness to act can compensate for lack of capacity.”
The article concludes that the shifting pyramid of power is “perceptible, but it is not permanent.” India’s hard power advantage remains “overwhelming.” The shift is “not irreversible. India can regain its standing. But it must act.” The silence on Iran is a “symptom of a broader hesitation – a reluctance to take risks, to stake positions, to lead.” Pakistan has shown that “willingness to act can compensate for lack of capacity. India must learn that lesson.”
