Khalistan as a Strategic Buffer: Rethinking Regional Stability in South Asia
Dr. Masood Tariq
Independent Political Theorist
Karachi, Pakistan
drmasoodtariq@gmail.com
May 13, 2025
——————————————–
Abstract:
This article reassesses the Khalistan movement through the lens of strategic theory and international law. Moving beyond religious or secessionist framing, the article argues that an independent Punjabi buffer state could serve as a structural solution to the protracted India-Pakistan conflict.
Drawing on Cold War legacies, regional realignments, buffer state theory, and self-determination principles, this analysis explores the viability of Khalistan as a neutral zone of de-escalation.
It further incorporates recent developments in diaspora activism and major power engagement to underscore the relevance of reimagining Punjabi autonomy as a pathway to regional peace.
——————————————–
Keywords:
Khalistan; buffer state; South Asia security; Indo-Pakistan conflict; self-determination; federalism; Punjab
——————————————–
Table of Contents
(1). Introduction
(2). Historical Context:
Partition and the Fracturing of Punjab
(3). Buffer State Theory:
Strategic Precedents
(4). Geopolitical Interests and Diaspora Dynamics
(5). Internal Stakeholders and Ethnic Alignments
(6). Economic Integration Potential
(7). International Law and Self-Determination
(
. Conclusion
(9). References
——————————————–
(1). Introduction:
The protracted hostility between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, remains one of the gravest threats to South Asian and global stability. Despite intermittent peace talks, bilateral treaties, and third-party mediation, durable peace remains elusive.
This article reintroduces the concept of buffer states into the South Asian strategic framework, proposing that Khalistan be viewed not merely as a secessionist demand but as a structural response to entrenched geopolitical contradictions. A neutral, Punjabi state could provide insulation, reduce direct confrontation, and promote a new era of economic and diplomatic engagement.
——————————————–
(2). Historical Context:
Partition and the Fracturing of Punjab:
The 1947 Partition of British India resulted in one of the most traumatic and violent dislocations in human history, particularly in the Punjab region.
As part of a broader Western Cold War strategy, Punjab was split between India and Pakistan, fragmenting a cohesive civilizational unit.
This division militarized the Indo-Pak frontier, disrupted agrarian and trade networks, and caused long-term cultural trauma.
The severing of irrigation systems, kinship ties, and linguistic unity created a permanent fault line that continues to fuel bilateral animosity.
——————————————–
(3). Buffer State Theory:
Strategic Precedents:
Historically, buffer states have been employed to manage tensions between rival powers. Notable examples include Nepal between British India and Qing China, and Mongolia between the USSR and China. During the Cold War, U.S. policymakers considered buffer zones in South Asia to limit Soviet and Chinese influence (CIA 1966).
In this light, Khalistan can be envisioned as a functional buffer, providing strategic insulation between India and Pakistan while enabling soft diplomacy and economic corridors.
Buffer state theory, grounded in neorealist international relations thought, posits that geographic buffers reduce the likelihood of direct military confrontation and incentivize cooperative security arrangements.
——————————————–
(4). Geopolitical Interests and Diaspora Dynamics:
Recent global developments have elevated the Khalistan issue in international discourse:
United States:
Although official support is absent, archival evidence and the Pannun case (2023) reflect increasing American concern about the internal stability of India and diaspora rights.
Canada and UK:
The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and related diplomatic fallout have intensified the focus on Sikh separatism and diaspora mobilization.
China:
While not overtly involved, China’s interest in undermining Indian regional dominance and protecting the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) positions it as a tacit observer.
Pakistan:
Consistently supports Khalistan as a strategic counterbalance to Indian hegemony.
Diaspora Groups:
Organizations like Sikhs for Justice have internationalized the demand through referenda, legal campaigns, and lobbying.
These dynamics suggest that Khalistan is no longer merely a regional issue but a node in global strategic calculations.
——————————————–
(5). Internal Stakeholders and Ethnic Alignments:
Domestically, support for a confederal or autonomous Punjab extends beyond Sikh nationalists. In India, regional movements in Tamil Nadu and other Dravidian areas view Punjabi autonomy as a precedent for broader linguistic and regional assertion.
This internal mosaic of support and resistance underlines the need for an institutional rethinking of federal arrangements in India.
——————————————–
(6). Economic Integration Potential:
A buffer Punjab could serve as a regional economic engine. World Bank modelling (2023) suggests that a reintegrated Punjabi economic zone could see up to 8% annual GDP growth through cooperative infrastructure—railways, water-sharing, and energy grids. Drawing from the Indus Waters Treaty, bilateral commissions could manage shared resources.
——————————————–
(7). International Law and Self-Determination:
The right to self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 1.2) and UNGA Resolutions 1514 and 2625, provides a legal foundation for peaceful, democratic aspirations of stateless nations. While India invokes territorial integrity, international law permits new states in cases of systematic exclusion or denial of internal autonomy.
Reimagining Khalistan within this framework offers a legal and moral basis for structured negotiations, particularly if under international observation.
——————————————–
(. Conclusion:
Khalistan reframed as a strategic buffer, offers a compelling alternative to perpetual conflict. Rather than a threat to sovereignty, it could act as a stabilizing bridge between two fractious neighbours. As global and regional powers reconfigure their interests, revisiting Punjab’s autonomy may yield durable peace and renewed federalism in South Asia.
——————————————–
(9). References:
Ahmed, Feroz. 2013. Pakistan: The Garrison State. Oxford University Press.
Bhattacharyya, Harihar. 2010. Federalism and Regionalism in India. Routledge.
CIA. 1966. Declassified South Asia Geopolitical Files. Central Intelligence Agency.
Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. University of California Press.
Jalal, Ayesha. 1994. The Sole Spokesman. Cambridge University Press.
Kapoor, Rajiv. 2020. “Strategic Buffers in South Asia.” South Asian Security Review 12(3).
SIPRI. 2022. South Asia Conflict Trends. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Small, Andrew. 2015. The China-Pakistan Axis. Oxford University Press.
Tatla, Darshan Singh. 1999. The Sikh Diaspora: The Search for Statehood. UCL Press.
Tully, Mark, and Satish Jacob. 1985. Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle. Pan Books.
UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (1960), 2625 (1970).
Varshney, Ashutosh. 2003. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life. Yale University Press.
——————————————–
Author Biography
Dr. Masood Tariq is a Karachi-based politician and political theorist. He formerly served as Senior Vice President of the Pakistan Muslim Students Federation (PMSF) Sindh, Councillor of the Municipal Corporation Hyderabad, Advisor to the Chief Minister of Sindh, and Member of the Sindh Cabinet.
His research explores South Asian geopolitics, postcolonial state formation, regional nationalism, and inter-ethnic politics, with a focus on the Punjabi question and Cold War strategic alignments.
He also writes on Pakistan’s socio-political and economic structures, analysing their structural causes and proposing policy-oriented solutions aligned with historical research and contemporary strategy.
His work aims to bridge historical scholarship and strategic analysis to inform policymaking across South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
Leave a Reply