How Geographies Define Countries and Their Wars

The Srivijaya Empire. A maritime colossus. From the 7th to the 13th century, it ruled the waves of Southeast Asia.

Its weapon? Geography.

The Malacca Strait—narrow, strategic, indispensable. A lifeline between India and China.

And Srivijaya owned it.

Every ship that passed paid a price.

Spices, silk, and textiles. Transit taxes turned into treasure chests. The empire's wealth swelled. Its influence grew.

Naval supremacy sealed its power. Srivijaya’s fleet patrolled the waters, ensuring no ship defied its authority. Trade flowed under its watchful gaze. No other power dared challenge its grip.

But power wasn’t just brute force. Diplomacy sharpened its edge.

Srivijaya became China’s trusted partner.

A partnership that unlocked privileged access to Chinese markets. Wealth multiplied. Influence stretched far and wide.

Palembang, Sumatra—its heart. A thriving capital.

But Srivijaya’s reach extended to every critical port in the region. Its networks were vast. Its dominance unyielding.

For centuries, Srivijaya’s strategy worked.

Geography, trade, and alliances—a potent trifecta. But empires rise and fall. The tides of history are relentless. Yet Srivijaya's story remains—a testament to the power of vision, strategy, and the mastery of the seas.

You see geography has a far more profound impact on our lives and the world than we realize. Today we want to understand how what is happening in Russia, Syria and India is rooted in their historical geographical context.

How all that shaped these countries and their grand narratives.

Sign up for Drishtikone: Insightful Perspectives on Geopolitics and Culture

Dive into a weekly journey with Drishtikone, where over 2,800 thought leaders from global think tanks, governments, the movie industry, research labs, and academia converge to unravel the intricate threads of geopolitics, history, culture, and societal shifts. Each issue delivers sharp, in-depth analysis and bold perspectives that inform, challenge, and inspire. Be part of the conversation that shapes tomorrow.

Subscribe

Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Please Contribute to Drishtikone

What we do takes a lot of work. So, if you like our content and value the work that we are doing, please do consider contributing to our expenses. Choose the USD equivalent amount in your own currency you are comfortable with. You can head over to the Contribute page and use Stripe or PayPal to contribute.

Greater Iran vs Greater Israel

In his book, "The Power of Geography: Ten Maps that reveal the future of our world", Tim Marshall shares an interesting insight on the importance of Syria to Iran - and by extension to Israel, Saudis, and others. Saudis have viewed Damascus as the bridge from Iran to Beirut.

If you look at the map, you will see what it means.

In October 2022, a new Prime Minister Mohammed Shia as-Sudani took charge in Iraq after months of infighting.

The Iraqi parliament gave its approval to a new 21-member cabinet headed by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani on Thursday. Infighting between different Shiite factions following last year's inconclusive vote left the parliament in a political deadlock. "Our ministerial team will shoulder the responsibility at this critical period, in which the world is witnessing tremendous political and economic changes and conflicts," the new prime minister said after the vote. (Source: "Iraq gets a new government after a year of deadlock" / DW)

The ascendancy of al-Sudani was a victory for Iran in Iraqi politics.

Now look at the geography again.

Iran has been looking to create a "Greater Iran". In December 2020, Mohsen Rezaee, a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander and the then secretary of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council gave a speech at Payame Noor University in Tehran. What he said was very interesting!

The recent events in Syria have led to a dramatic shift in the region's geopolitical landscape.

On December 8, 2024, Syrian rebel forces, primarily led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and their commander Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, launched a swift offensive that culminated in the capture of Damascus. President Bashar al-Assad's regime crumbled under a swift rebel offensive. Leading this insurgency was Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, now known by his real name, Ahmed al-Sharaa, the head of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). His forces rapidly seized key cities, culminating in the capture of Damascus, prompting Assad to flee to Russia under a cloak of secrecy.

Meanwhile, Israel launched a series of major strategic military operations.

Using "security concerns" as the reason, Israeli forces moved into the demilitarized buffer zone of the Golan Heights, an area of significant geopolitical importance.

The Israeli aim is to establish a "sterile defensive area" to prevent hostile entities from gaining a foothold near Israeli territory.

Concurrently, Israel also launched extensive airstrikes across Syria, targeting and destroying substantial portions of Syria's military infrastructure, including strategic weapon stockpiles and naval assets.

These actions were justified as necessary to prevent advanced weaponry from falling into the hands of extremist groups amid the chaos.

Israel says it has launched hundreds of airstrikes on Syria in the days since Bashar Assad's regime collapsed. On Tuesday, the Israel Defense Forces said it had "struck most of the strategic weapons stockpiles in Syria" in 48 hours as part of a push to stop the weapons "falling into the hands of terrorist elements." (Source: "Israel says it has carried out hundreds of strikes on Syria, targeting 'strategic weapons stockpiles'" / Business Insider)

Overall, Israeli campaign had three components:

Airstrikes: The Israeli Air Force conducted over 480 strikes targeting Syrian military assets.  

Of the 480 strikes carried out by the Israeli Air Force, about 350 were manned aircraft strikes targeting airfields, anti-aircraft batteries, missiles, drones, fighter jets, tanks and weapon production sites in Damascus, Homs, Tartus, Latakia and Palmyra, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said. The rest of the strikes were in support of ground operations that targeted weapons depots, military structures, launchers and firing positions. (Source: CNN)

These strikes hit approximately 70-80% of Syria's key military installations, including:

• Airfields and anti-aircraft batteries
• Radar and air defense systems
• Naval vessels and ports
• Munitions stockpiles and weapons depots

Naval operations: The Israeli navy successfully neutralized the Syrian fleet, destroying military vessels at the naval port in Latakia.

The IDF also said its ships struck two Syrian naval facilities, where 15 vessels were docked. Dozens of sea-to-sea missiles were said to have been destroyed. (Source: CNN)

Ground operations: Israeli forces moved into the demilitarized buffer zone established after the 1973 war and beyond, securing strategic positions such as Mount Hermon

As for Mount Hermon, for decades, Israel has controlled the lower slopes of Mount Hermon, even operating a ski resort, while the peak itself remained within Syrian territory. That is now under Israeli control as well.

All these conflicts in the Middle East may have religious undertones, but it is far more than that.

They have their basis in geographical destinies that some powers have etched into maps.

And, this is not a new invention. Geopolitical dominance dictated by the geographical distributions of nations and societies has been around for many a millennium.

Maps. They are far more important than we may believe.

Geography is indeed destiny for many. It is what decides the global geostrategic decisions and actions. Just as Iran and Israel have done.

Let us look at one framework that has underlined most geostrategic thought and actions in thee last century and more.

Mackinder's Heartland

The British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder wrote a seminal paper, "The Geographical Pivot of History," that was presented to the Royal Geographical Society in 1904. In that he shared his famous dictum.

What is this Heartland that he talked about?

Let us understand the three areas that Mackinder divided the world into from a geostrategic standpoint.

1. The Heartland: A vast and strategically significant territory in the heart of Eurasia, encompassing an enormous expanse that stretches from the eastern borders of Europe all the way to the remote reaches of Siberia, and spanning from the towering peaks of the Himalayan mountain range northward to the frozen shores of the Arctic Ocean. This region, specifically defined as the central core of the Eurasian landmass extending from Eastern Europe across the breadth of Siberia, represents one of the world's most geographically significant areas. Characterized by its distinctive landlocked position and natural isolation from maritime access, this expansive territory presents unique challenges for transportation and access while simultaneously harboring an abundance of valuable natural resources beneath its vast surface.
2. The Inner Crescent (Rimland): Surrounding the Heartland lies a diverse and strategically crucial region known as the Inner Crescent, which forms a sweeping arc of territories encompassing several major geographical and cultural areas. This region includes the historically significant and technologically advanced nations of Western Europe, the resource-rich and geopolitically vital Middle East, the demographically dense and culturally diverse South Asian subcontinent, the economically powerful and rapidly developing East Asian nations, and select portions of the African continent. Each of these areas plays a unique and important role in global geopolitics, serving as a buffer zone between the Heartland and maritime powers while maintaining their own distinct characteristics and spheres of influence.
3. The Outer (and insular) Crescent: The Outer Crescent encompasses the major landmasses and territories situated beyond the Eurasian continent, forming a vast geographical ring that includes the entire Western Hemisphere, represented by North and South America, as well as significant portions of the Southern Hemisphere, including the Australian continent, the majority of the African continent, and numerous island chains and archipelagos scattered throughout the Pacific Ocean. These regions, characterized by their physical separation from the Eurasian landmass, maintain their own distinct geopolitical dynamics while simultaneously participating in global maritime trade networks and international relations. Their geographical positioning relative to the Heartland and Inner Crescent creates unique strategic advantages and challenges in the broader context of global geopolitics.

This map illustrates these regions.

Eurasia was the key to world power.

In the chessboard of geopolitics, geography remains destiny. Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory—born of an age when empires sought dominion over the earth—foretold the shadow of power cast by those who rule Eurasia.

The Soviet Union embodied his vision, pushing for Heartland dominance in every move, projecting influence from Eastern Europe to the farthest steppes of Central Asia. This was not mere theory but a chilling reality, as Moscow’s strategic depth became the fulcrum of Cold War tensions.

The United States countered with maritime alliances, echoing Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland Theory, where oceans, not steppes, dictated supremacy. Yet, the collapse of the USSR left scholars debating Mackinder’s relevance in a globalized world.

Nicholas Spykman, an International Relations professor at Yale, shared his framework in two most famous works - America´s Strategy in World Politics and The Geography of Peace.

His interpretation of his theory in the Asian context is quite intriguing and has turned out to be quite correct.

For the last seven decades, the People´s Republic of China (PRC) has risen to become the main target of US´ Foreign Action in the Asia-Pacific Region. One of the first to foresee the future struggle that the US and China would have over what he called the “Asian Rimland”, was Nicholas Spykman. His works exploring the underlying geopolitical features of East Asia and their implications for US national security remain essential to understand modern US-China relations and US Foreign Strategy over the past decades. Following on him just a few years after, General MacArthur complemented pointed at the high geostrategic value of the little island of Formosa –Taiwan— and the need for the US to keeping it under his watch. (Source: "Geopolitical drive: Spykman, MacArthur and why Taiwan matters to the United States" / Global Strategy)

China’s Belt and Road Initiative resurrects the Heartland and Rimland ghost—dominating Eurasian connectivity and seeking control not just of geography but of history.

For power, as Mackinder and Spykman knew, remains rooted in the land.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia made another attempt to sew together the Eurasian leadership back.

That attempt was called the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Eurasian Economic Union: A Pivot of Power in Mackinder’s Heartland?

In the new world geopolitics landscape, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) emerged as a bold experiment, again aligning with the philosophy of Eurasia's centrality in Mackinder's Heartland.

This union is more than an economic pact—it is a geopolitical statement. Signed on May 29, 2014, by Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union came into force on January 1, 2015. Armenia and Kyrgyzstan followed suit, joining a framework that seeks to rival Western-dominated blocs like the European Union and defy China's growing clout in the region.

The EAEU’s integrated market extends across industries—from energy to manufacturing—seeking economic resilience against external shocks. But its ambitions stretch beyond economics. For Russia, the EAEU symbolizes the reclamation of its sphere of influence.

Moscow's attempts to knit together post-Soviet states into a cohesive bloc challenges the Western order.

Yet, challenges persist. Competing visions among member states and China's overwhelming dominance in Eurasian trade complicate its trajectory. The rise of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) often aligns with the EAEU’s objectives but also threatens to overshadow it, turning the union into a secondary player in its own backyard.

As the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2024, it has made progress in economic integration among its member states: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

The EAEU has achieved notable successes, including increased trade volume, industrial growth, and progress toward de-dollarization. 

The most important issue facing the EAEU relates to the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia and Belarus over the war in Ukraine. The sanctions have seriously challenged the Eurasian project: according to Davtyan, the EAEU must now not only consolidate its integration efforts, but also offset or at least mitigate the blow of the economic war. Since the beginning of the “sanctions war,” the EAEU member countries have made significant progress toward dedollarization. The share of settlements in the national currencies of EAEU countries has increased from 74 percent in 2021 to 90 percent in 2023. (Source: "The Impact of the War in Ukraine on the Eurasian Economic Union" / by Irina Busygina / PONARS Eurasia)

In the first half of 2024, the union's GDP grew by 4.5%, with industrial output rising by 4.8% and internal trade increasing by 5.7%

In his remarks in May during the anniversary summit, held in Moscow, President Vladimir Putin said: “Today, the Eurasian Union is an effective and dynamic integration structure.” Our union has been developing and improving its key macroeconomic performance indicators amid a slowing global economy and the persisting illegitimate external pressure we face. In the first six months of this year, the union’s gross domestic product increased by 4.5 percent, which is largely attributable to the existing growth drivers within the union, high investment levels and consumer demand. As a result, in January-June, industrial output increased by 4.8 percent, while agricultural output rose by 3.5 percent, construction was up by 4 percent, while retail trade surged by 8.5 percent. (Source: "Expanded meeting of Eurasian Intergovernmental Council" [October 1, 2024] / The Russian Government)

Despite the confident and "all is good" narrative of the Russian government around EAEU, there are challenges in its stride. Three most important ones are:

1. impact of Western sanctions on Russia and Belarus
2. diverging economic goals among member states
3. difficulties in attracting new members

On December 25, 2023, the leaders of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) etched their ambitions into history with the signing of the Eurasian Economic Path Declaration.

This document isn’t just a roadmap; it is a manifesto of intent—a bold proclamation to carve a future where Eurasia stands as a self-sufficient, harmoniously developed, and globally magnetic force.

The declaration envisions two pivotal horizons: 2030 and 2045. By these milestones, the EAEU aims to evolve from a fledgling economic bloc into a robust macro-region, commanding respect on the global stage. There were 6 main directions for the future of EAEU.

1. Common Market Development: Ensuring the efficient functioning of a common market for key goods and resources.
2. Technological Cooperation: Forming a common space for cooperative interaction and technological development.
3. Transportation and Logistics: Creating a unified transport and logistics space
4. Financial Integration: Establishing a common financial market1.
5. Economic Cooperation: Developing cooperation in fields with integration potential
6. International Presence: Positioning the EAEU as a pole of economic attraction in the international arena

Its aspirations transcend mere trade and GDP figures.

Why would Russia go back to herding the Central Asian countries into a union? There is a historical and, more importantly, a geographical context to how Russia looks at threats that impact it.

Here is a very interesting discussion on the ramifications of geography on Russian strategy.

So when you see Russia ready to go to war with the entire west over Ukraine - the reasons are embedded in its geography and history.

Now let us focus on the Indian subcontinent and how geography has impacted India's future options.

India's Partition and the Great Game

Arthur Conolly, a British officer, the term described the competition primarily between Britain and Russia over Central Asia as the “Great Game”.

The "Great Game" refers to the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Here is a map that helps understand the historical competition between Britain and Russia.

This geopolitical struggle profoundly influenced the politics of the regions we now know as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (then British India). Britain, therefore, wanted to secure the northwestern frontiers of India to prevent Russian incursions.

In fact, they used Afghanistan as a buffer state to block Russian advances. Throughout the colonial rule, they were engaged in wars (e.g., the First, Second, and Third Anglo-Afghan Wars) to influence Afghanistan's leadership.

India's partition post-independence was not an organic happening. It had been planned well in advance.

If you go into the details of the events prior to the independence you will realize that there was a collaboration between the British elite, specifically Winston Churchill, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. They were in touch and planning to create Pakistan as far back as the 1930s.

And, that aligns with the subsequent alignments.

In the 1950s, the U.S. established a secretive air station in Badaber near Peshawar. Officially, it was a communication and logistics base, but it served as a hub for intelligence operations. The base supported Operation Overflight, where U-2 spy planes were launched to conduct high-altitude reconnaissance missions over Soviet territory. The information gathered included details about Soviet missile sites, military movements, and nuclear capabilities.

The U.S. airbases in Peshawar played a pivotal role in Cold War-era intelligence operations, particularly in countering the Soviet Union.

Peshawar's proximity to the USSR allowed the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies to intercept Soviet communications and gather electronic signals intelligence (SIGINT). During the 1980s, the base also played a logistical role in supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, indirectly undermining Soviet forces during their invasion of Afghanistan.

India's Partition was backed and promoted by the Western powers - the UK and the US specifically - for their own benefit. What it did to a civilizational state such as India was nothing short of large scale devastation of not just its people but even future trade prospects.

How Partition Destroyed India's Civilization Trade Routes

Impact of changes in India's geographical boundaries as a result of partition is rarely discussed. Yet, as a growing economy of over 1.4 billion people, it is extremely critical an area to have been analyzed.

Let us look at it a bit.

There is a verse found in Pāli literature, specifically within the Jātaka tales (Buddhist literature). It comes from the Vessantara Jātaka, which is one of the most famous Jātaka stories.

In this story, the verse is part of the narrative describing the journey of traders or seekers traveling for material gain. The Vessantara Jātaka recounts the tale of Prince Vessantara, a previous life of the Buddha, who is renowned for his generosity and selflessness.

यस्स अत्त्थाय गच्छाम, कम्बोजं धनहारका;
यानं आरोपयित्वान, क्षिप्पं गच्छाम द्वारकं-ति।

Why is this important?

Because Ancient Kamboja corresponds to regions that are now part of modern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, and parts of Tajikistan. Specifically, it is often identified with areas around the Hindu Kush mountains and the Pamir region. Key historical references locate Kamboja near the Oxus River (Amu Darya) and the Badakhshan region.

Sadhguru discusses the greatest impact on India from the partition. How partition destroyed ancient trade routes that India had with the Eurasian region. All the way to Damascus and Aleppo.

And he is right!

Indian traders brought high-value goods such as spices, textiles (especially cotton and silk), precious stones (like diamonds), and perfumes through the maritime routes of the Indian Ocean and overland routes passing through Persia and into Aleppo. Aleppo acted as a significant trading post where these goods were taxed before they were redistributed to Europe and the Mediterranean.

During the height of the Ottoman Empire, Aleppo was one of the wealthiest cities in the empire due to its strategic location on the trade routes. Indian merchants were subject to taxes and customs duties as they passed through the Ottoman territories. The tax revenues collected at Aleppo were a substantial source of income for the Ottoman treasury. These taxes funded infrastructure, military campaigns, and urban development in cities like Aleppo.

Before we move forward, let us look at the ancient Silk Route and the connected roads.

The Dvārakā–Kamboja route was not merely a trade route; it was the lifeblood of an interconnected ancient world. Stretching from the Kamboja Kingdom—modern-day Afghanistan and Tajikistan—through the rugged terrains of Pakistan to the thriving ports of Dvārakā (Dvaravati) in Gujarat, this route was a shimmering strand of the Silk Road. Goods, ideas, and cultures flowed seamlessly, weaving India into the intricate tapestry of global trade and influence.

This route finds echoes in Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain scriptures, where its vitality is immortalized.

Along it traveled the fragrant saffron of Kashmir, the indigo of Gujarat, the spices of Kerala, and the silk of China, destined for markets in Sri Lanka, the Middle East, and even the distant courts of Ancient Greece and Rome.

It was the second most important caravan artery linking India to the northwest, where civilizations collided and coalesced. Today it is the hub of jihadi Islamists!

The catastrophic Partition of 1947 severed the ancient route and instead create a hub of fanatic Islamism.

The connections of many a millennium comprising commerce and culture were destroyed along borders drawn in haste.

Trade routes that once pulsed with life became hostile frontiers. The lands that had once thrived on the symphony of caravans and commerce were reduced to a cacophony of division and strife.

This wasn't just a geopolitical fracture—it was a rupture in the spirit of civilizational exchange.

You see, the connections between India and the Mediterranean go back several millennia!

The Aramaic edict of Ashoka: India and Syria

The Aramaic inscription of Laghman, also known as the Laghman I inscription, offers remarkable insights into the ancient trade routes that connected India to the Mediterranean basin.

This inscription, attributed to Ashoka, was carved around 260 BCE on a natural rock slab in the Laghman region of modern-day Afghanistan. Written in Aramaic, it was likely intended for the local population, which still used the language after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire.

The inscription highlights:

• Tadmor (Palmyra) as a key destination along the extensive commercial road linking India with the Mediterranean.
• The approximate distance of 3,800 kilometers (2,400 miles) between India and Palmyra.

Check it below!

• The use of "bows" (QŠTN in Aramaic) as a unit of distance, indicating that Palmyra was about 200 "bows" away from Laghman.

This inscription not only underscores the importance of Laghman as a waypoint but also reflects the advanced understanding of trade, geography, and measurement in the ancient world.

The same thing happened on the Eastern front.

Trade Routes to the Far East

The creation of East Pakistan in 1947 (later Bangladesh in 1971) disrupted India's historical trade routes to the Far East (Southeast Asia and beyond) in several ways.

These disruptions occurred due to changes in territorial boundaries, political dynamics, and lack of infrastructure development, which had historically facilitated trade between the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.

Prior to India’s Partition, the regions of Bengal and Assam served as India's vital eastern corridor, functioning as a natural and efficient gateway that provided seamless connectivity between the Indian mainland and the neighboring territories of Burma (Myanmar) and Southeast Asia.

This strategic geographical positioning facilitated robust trade relationships and cultural exchanges across these interconnected regions.

However, the creation of East Pakistan fundamentally altered this longstanding geographical continuity, effectively severing the direct land route that had historically united these territories.

As a consequence of this territorial division, India's northeastern states—particularly Assam, Tripura, and Meghalaya—found themselves physically isolated from the mainland, resulting in a significant diminishment of their traditional role as vibrant trade hubs and cultural crossroads.

The impact extended beyond land routes, as the traditional river routes that flowed through the mighty Brahmaputra and Padma rivers, which had for centuries served as crucial waterways for transporting goods and facilitating commerce with Burma, Malaya, and the Far East, experienced substantial disruption.

These essential waterways, now traversing through the newly formed territory of East Pakistan (which would later become Bangladesh), necessitated the establishment of new and often complex access arrangements, fundamentally altering the region's traditional patterns of trade and connectivity.

Another impact on Indian trade routes was the loss of Chittagong.

As the preeminent port facility in the Bengal region, Chittagong served as a vital commercial gateway facilitating trade between India, Burma, and Southeast Asia.

Following the Partition, Chittagong's incorporation into East Pakistan significantly impacted India's eastern maritime capabilities.

Subsequently, India was compelled to utilize the comparatively limited facilities of Kolkata (Calcutta) and Haldia, which proved less conducive to managing substantial Far East trade volumes.

The strategic loss of Chittagong necessitated the adoption of extended and more expensive transportation routes to Southeast Asia, thereby diminishing India's competitive position in regional commerce.

Southern Silk Road

The Southern Silk Road, a significant trade network comprising multiple overland routes, established vital connections between India, Burma, China, and Southeast Asia through the regions of Bengal and Assam.

The establishment of East Pakistan subsequently disrupted these historical trade corridors.

The strategic overland passage through Bengal to Rangoon (Yangon) and beyond played an instrumental role in facilitating India's commercial activities during both pre-colonial and colonial periods.

This established route served as a primary channel for the transportation of valuable commodities including tea, timber, oil, and spices, effectively connecting commercial centers from India to Malaysia, Singapore, and other Southeast Asian markets.

The subsequent territorial division resulting in East Pakistan necessitated the implementation of alternative routes circumventing Bangladesh, consequently increasing operational costs and diminishing logistical efficiency.

Geostrategically there was another major blow to India's interests: Chicken's Neck.

India's Chicken Neck

The Northeastern Region of India found itself in a precarious geographical situation, becoming effectively landlocked and dependent solely on the narrow Siliguri Corridor (Chicken's Neck) to maintain its connection to the Indian mainland.

This strategic bottleneck, measuring merely 22 kilometers at its narrowest point, represented a significant vulnerability from both a geopolitical and economic perspective.

The corridor's limited capacity and susceptibility to potential disruption posed ongoing challenges for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services between the northeastern states and the rest of India, creating substantial logistical hurdles and increased transportation costs that hampered the region's economic development.

And India Lost its Trade Dominance in the Far East

The disruptions compelled India to undertake a comprehensive reorientation of its trade routes, leading to a significant shift in transportation patterns.

The nation increasingly relied on maritime routes through major western and southern ports, particularly Mumbai and Chennai, for conducting long-haul international trade.

This strategic adaptation effectively circumvented the previously established overland and river routes that had traditionally traversed through East Bengal. This transformation in trade logistics had far-reaching consequences for regional commerce patterns.

Over time, the dominance in Far East trade underwent a dramatic shift, with emerging regional hubs, most notably Singapore, rising to prominence.

This development effectively diminished India's historical role as a crucial intermediary in the commercial exchanges between the Far East and Europe, fundamentally altering long-established trade relationships and economic dynamics in the region.