top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger...

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger geopolitical churn in which alliances, energy, trade, currencies and economic coercion are becoming interconnected. India finds itself almost at its centre. The emerging Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan security equation deserves particular attention. Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial and energy influence; Türkiye possesses considerable military strength, NATO experience and an expanding defence industry; Pakistan brings a large military establishment and nuclear capability with the open support of Washington. Any arrangement containing a collective-defence commitment naturally acquires significance beyond ordinary diplomatic cooperation. Alongside it, another strategic convergence has gradually developed among India, Israel and the UAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as a formal military alliance. Yet geopolitics does not operate through defence treaties alone. India's extensive defence and technology relationship with Israel, its rapidly expanding economic and strategic partnership with the UAE, and the UAE-Israel relationship following the Abraham Accords have created considerable common ground. I2U2—bringing together India, Israel, the UAE and the United States—added another institutional dimension. Thus, without necessarily becoming opposing military camps, two interesting strategic formations are visible across West Asia: Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan and the looser India–UAE–Israel convergence. Balancing Challenge India faces a similar balancing challenge. The Gulf is not a distant geopolitical theatre for New Delhi. Nearly nine million Indians live and work there. India's energy security, investments, trade and remittance flows are closely connected with the region. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor also requires relative stability across this geography. Polarisation in West Asia can therefore rapidly become an Indian economic and strategic problem. There is another question Indian planners cannot ignore. If a future India-Pakistan confrontation escalates, how would any collective-defence commitment involving Pakistan be interpreted by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye? It would be alarmist to assume that either country would automatically enter a conflict against India. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has substantial economic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with New Delhi. Nevertheless, defence planners are paid to examine possibilities before they become crises. While these equations develop in India's neighbourhood, economic pressure is emerging from Washington. The US Senate has voted 86–11 for legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia by targeting major purchasers of Russian energy. The measure could authorise tariffs reaching 100 per cent against goods from countries continuing large-scale purchases of Russian oil and gas, with India among those potentially exposed. China is powerful enough to shrug off similar challenges from the West." However this does not mean that America has already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on India. Further legislative steps remain necessary, and presidential waiver provisions are important. But the overwhelming Senate vote carries a political message that New Delhi cannot dismiss. Tariffs are no longer merely tools of trade protection; they have become instruments of geopolitical coercion. Washington's argument is understandable: revenues from Russian petroleum help sustain Moscow's economy during the Ukraine war, and reducing those revenues increases pressure on Russia. But in that case what about European countries who too were/are customers of Russian oil? India's question is equally legitimate: who should determine where India purchases the energy required by more than 1.4 billion people? If Russian crude remains commercially advantageous and helps contain domestic energy costs, New Delhi cannot reasonably be expected to make every energy decision according to another country's geopolitical priorities. Strategic partnership cannot become strategic obedience. This is where BRICS enters the larger picture. India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and will host its leaders at an unusually sensitive moment. BRICS is no longer merely the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its expansion has considerably increased its demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. More importantly, discussions around BRICS increasingly touch a sensitive nerve in Washington: alternative payment mechanisms, local-currency trade, development finance and the possibility of gradually reducing dependence upon the dollar-dominated international financial system. The BRICS Summit this time is poised to take some decisive steps which may affect western interests especially US. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

The Forgotten Legacy of Thailand’s ‘Death Railway’

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

In 1957, David Lean’s Academy Award-winning film ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ captured global audiences. However, it left a bitter taste for the very men whose harrowing experiences inspired it—those who laboured on the Burma Railway, colloquially dubbed the ‘Death Railway.’

During World War II, as Imperial Japan expanded its empire across Southeast Asia—encompassing Malaya, Singapore, and the Philippines—a critical challenge emerged: Allied submarines were sinking Japanese supply ships faster than they could be replaced. This left the Japanese Army in Burma dangerously exposed. To address this vulnerability, the Japanese sought an overland route to supply their forces, and thus the ‘Death Railway’ was born.

Between December 1942 and October 1943, around 60,000 Allied POWs, alongside nearly 200,000 Tamil, Malay, and Burmese labourers, toiled under appalling conditions to construct the Bangkok-Rangoon railway. British engineers had previously deemed the project impossible due to the treacherous terrain of the disease-ridden tropical jungle. Yet, the Japanese possessed a seemingly inexhaustible supply of manpower, primarily drawn from the fall of Singapore and the Dutch East Indies.

The Japanese transported these 60,000 British, Australian, Dutch, and American servicemen to the Thai town of Kanchanaburi, where the railway’s construction would begin. Simultaneously, POWs were dispatched to build the railway from the Burmese side, aiming to connect the two ends at the Three Pagodas Pass. In just 15 months, the 415-kilometer railway, complete with its bridges, was completed. What defies belief is that this colossal undertaking was executed by men who were often sick, malnourished, and brutalized. Under the Japanese ethos, any man who could stand was expected to work—malaria or dysentery were inconsequential to them.

The conditions faced by POWs and civilian labourers during the construction of the railway were horrific. Their diets consisted mostly of rice with little meat, while diseases like malaria, cholera, and dysentery spread rapidly. Medical care was almost non-existent. No Red Cross supplies arrived. Figures like Lt. Col. E.E. Dunlop, known as ‘Weary Dunlop,’ advocated tirelessly for better treatment despite overwhelming odds. Tragically, the plight of civilian workers was even worse, with around 100,000 perishing, and among the POWs, approximately 12,500 died in agonizing conditions, as the Japanese had not signed the Geneva Convention and regarded surrender as dishonourable.

Accounts from former POWs, such as John Coast’s ‘Railroad of Death,’ reveal the grim reality they faced, while war artist Leo Rawlings’s ‘And the Dawn Came Out Like Thunder’ poignantly captures their suffering through sketches.

The survivors’ resentment stemmed from the film’s portrayal of their experiences. Lt. Col. Philip Toosey, on whom Alec Guinness’s Oscar-winning portrayal of Col. Nicholson in ‘River Kwai’ was based, was a distinguished officer captured during the fall of Singapore. Contrary to the film, Toosey actively tried to sabotage the railway project by infesting the wooden bridge with termites and consistently advocated for better treatment of his men, often enduring torture at the hands of his captors.

Toosey developed a complicated relationship with a Japanese Sergeant Major, Saito, who later testified in his defense during war crimes trials. When Lean’s film was released in the 1950s, it sparked outrage among the POW community, who felt it misrepresented their suffering and bravery. Toosey’s gentle nature did not allow him to publicly contest the portrayal, but his men insisted he address it, leading him to publish a letter clarifying the truth.

Julia Summers, Toosey’s granddaughter, examines these grievances in her poignant work ‘The Colonel of Tamarkan,’ detailing her grandfather’s struggles with memories of his captivity.

The Bangkok-Rangoon Railway stands as a testament to the human capacity for endurance and sacrifice, revealing a complex tapestry of cruelty, kindness, and resilience. It is a story that evokes profound emotions, and visiting the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Kanchanaburi—where many of these men lie buried—serves as a haunting reminder of their harrowing journey.

(The writer is a practising advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and a military history enthusiast.)

Comments


bottom of page