LETTERS – March & April 2026
Transactional America and Strategic Autonomy
Dear Editor,
Amit Agnihotri’s examination of the United States’ 2025 National Security Strategy highlights a big shift from ideological leadership to transactional engagement. The emphasis on “give and take” diplomacy signals a departure from the post-war order that many nations had come to rely upon.
For countries like India, this shift presents both opportunity and risk. On one hand, a less interventionist United States allows greater strategic autonomy. On the other, the weakening of alliance-based security frameworks introduces uncertainty, particularly in the Indo-Pacific where balance-of-power dynamics remain delicate.
What is striking is the relegation of strategic partnerships to commercial considerations. If this approach persists, smaller and middle powers may increasingly hedge their bets, engaging multiple actors rather than aligning with any single bloc.
In this evolving landscape, India’s long-standing doctrine of strategic autonomy appears prescient. The challenge now is to operationalise it effectively, balancing economic engagement, security cooperation and regional leadership without overdependence on any one power.
The era of predictable alliances may be ending; adaptability will define the winners of the new order.
Rohit Sen
Kolkata, India
Gen-Z Protests: Reform or Rupture?
Dear Sir,
Y.S. Gill’s analysis of youth-driven unrest in South Asia provides a timely warning about the structural fragility of democratic systems in the region. The emergence of Gen-Z as a political force, as outlined in the article, reflects not merely generational impatience but systemic failure to deliver economic mobility and institutional accountability.
However, there is a risk in romanticising youth-led mobilisation. Leaderless movements, while powerful in disrupting entrenched elites, often struggle to translate energy into durable political outcomes. As seen in Nepal and Bangladesh, the transition from protest to governance remains uncertain and vulnerable to co-option by ideological or sectarian forces.
The real challenge, therefore, is not the rise of youth activism but the absence of institutional pathways to absorb it constructively. Without political reform, these movements may oscillate between hope and instability.
Governments must recognise that repression is no longer a sustainable response. Engagement, inclusion and economic reform are no longer optional—they are essential to prevent democratic turbulence from becoming systemic breakdown.
Farah Qureshi
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Crime Without Consequence
Dear Editor,
Neville De Silva’s “Crime and Punishment” is a sobering reminder that political transition does not automatically translate into institutional renewal. His central argument—that crime in Sri Lanka is not episodic but systemic—deserves particular attention.
What stands out is the persistence of impunity despite a change in political leadership. This suggests that the problem lies less with governments and more with the structural entanglement between political patronage and law enforcement. When institutions are conditioned to serve power rather than the rule of law, electoral change alone cannot dismantle entrenched networks.
Sri Lanka’s path forward must therefore prioritise institutional independence—particularly of the police and judiciary—over short-term political gains.
Dilan Jayawardene
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Letters with full name and complete address may be emailed to asianaffairsuk@gmail.com; asianaffairs94@gmail.com Letters may be edited and rewritten for space or
clarity.