10 Questions for Pranav Doshi
1.) What was the core insight or moment that inspired you to write your article on Gulf realpolitik and Pakistan?
After 8 years in the UAE, and trying to understand the social and geopolitical structures of the Arabian Peninsula, what struck me was the growing divergence in strategic maturity between Pakistan and its erstwhile backers in the Gulf. It felt as though the latter was boarding a high-speed train toward modernization and global relevance — while Pakistan remained stuck on a platform, waiting for a train that may never arrive. That contrast, between motion and stagnation, sparked the piece. I wanted to explore how the Gulf’s forward momentum could act as a catalyst, not a critique, for Pakistan to reimagine its own purpose.
2.) You describe a shift in Gulf capitals “from brotherhood to boardrooms.” What do you think triggered this transition from pan-Islamic solidarity to pragmatic realpolitik?
This shift has been driven by a generational change in leadership, urgent economic realities, and an evolving worldview. The new rulers, especially in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have a distinctly cosmopolitan vision for their countries. They are looking outward, not just for trade, but for ideas: how societies coexist, grow, and create prosperity without being trapped by the past. They are actively drawing from global examples of coexistence – places where you can live and let live, innovate, and build.
Just as importantly, they are deeply aware of the instability that surrounds them: Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, all cautionary tales of what happens when ideology overwhelms governance. They know that domestic stability is fragile, and that betting on distant causes or exporting ideological loyalty risks inviting the same chaos home.
That is why the era of pan-Islamic sentimentalism has quietly given way to a hard-nosed realpolitik. There is visible fatigue in Gulf capitals about being drawn into the ideological battles of others, especially when those “brotherhood” ties come at the cost of economic opportunity or internal peace. Today, the question is not “Who shares our faith?” but “Who shares our future?”
3.) India is now seen as the new darling of the Gulf. Do you think this is a sustainable alignment, or are there hidden risks India should be aware of?
Broadly, yes, the alignment is sustainable because it is anchored in pragmatic needs and mutual respect. The Gulf states rely heavily on India for food security, manpower, and a growing share of tech and investment partnerships. India, in turn, views the Gulf not just as an energy supplier but as a long-term strategic partner across trade, infrastructure, and diaspora diplomacy.
But there is also a subtler dimension. Gulf leaders increasingly prize neutrality – they want partners who will not entangle them in great power rivalries. India stands out here. Unlike the West, which often frames engagement through ideological binaries or security blocs, India offers a form of quiet alignment, one that does not demand a side, but delivers steady partnership. For Gulf monarchies that have achieved extraordinary socio-economic transformation in a short time, maintaining internal stability is everything. They see India as a partner that strengthens that effort, not complicates it.
The hidden risk for India lies in domestic optics. If communal tensions at home are mismanaged, they could provide ammunition to India’s critics and affect perceptions, even if governments remain pragmatic. The relationship is strong, but as always in diplomacy, perception management matters.
4.) The BAPS temple in Abu Dhabi is a powerful metaphor in your piece. What does it say about the Gulf’s changing identity?
The temple is a striking symbol of the Gulf’s evolving identity, one that is more confident, pluralistic, and future-oriented. It represents a quiet rejection of old insecurities. The fact that the UAE, a deeply Islamic state, would host the first traditional Hindu temple in the Arab world, not grudgingly, but proudly, speaks volumes. It shows that religious identity and cultural openness can co-exist without contradiction, an ideal that India has always demonstrated to the rest of the world.
It is also a testament to Prime Minister Modi’s diplomatic acumen and reflects India’s growing ability to harness its civilizational depth into diplomatic capital. For years, India had soft power in the region but now it is finally learning how to use it, not just in the Gulf, but across the Arab world. The temple is part of that broader narrative: India being respected not just as an economy, but as a civilizational partner. For the UAE, it is equally significant. It is a gesture of deep respect toward its largest religious minority, the Hindu community, which has played a crucial, and often underappreciated role in the country’s nation-building story. From trade to medicine to education, this community helped lay the foundations of modern UAE, and continues to be central to its future. The temple is both a reward and a recognition.
5.) You argue that Gulf states could play a constructive role in nudging Pakistan toward reform. Do you think leaders in Riyadh or Abu Dhabi are willing to take on that responsibility?
Yes, but quietly. They won’t grandstand, but they are increasingly using economic levers and diplomatic capital to encourage moderation. Their fatigue with Pakistan’s grievance narrative is palpable. Through backchannels, conditional aid, and symbolic moves, such as dialing down OIC rhetoric, they can push Islamabad toward realism. They may not own the outcome, but they definitely shape the incentives.
6.) How has your professional journey across Canada, the UAE, and India shaped your view of geopolitics and economic diplomacy?
It has given me a unique lens across vastly different systems, cultural, economic, and historical. Canada is a young country in the developed world, defined by values-based diplomacy and institutional maturity. The UAE, too, is a “new nation,” but one that has achieved staggering transformation by leveraging its natural resources and strategic geography. India, on the other hand, is an ancient civilization that was once among the world’s leading economies until colonisation drained it to the bone. What is remarkable is how it has staged a comeback, through democratic grit, talent, and ambition.
Interestingly, all three, despite their differences, are bound by the long shadow of British imperialism. Canada still retains the monarchy; the UAE was a British protectorate till as recently as 1971; and India, as I often joke, triggered the first Brexit back in 1947, when the British exited India and didn’t quite recover from it.
This triangulated perspective has helped me appreciate how diplomacy, economics, and identity intersect and how the legacy of the past still echoes, even in very modern contexts.
7.) You often work at the intersection of government, diplomacy, and industry. How do you balance commercial goals with strategic priorities?
I do not try to balance them, I try to align them. A great example was when I worked with a business delegation from Quebec partnering with an Indian state. What opened doors was not the business/economic pitch, it was that their strategic vision that aligned perfectly with the Indian state’s long-term development goals. That synergy made things move faster than any policy memo or business proposal could have.
To me, diplomacy, business, and strategy are interconnected. When you weave them together, understanding the interests of governments, the ambitions of businesses, and the cultural context, that is when real partnerships take shape.
8.) You’ve written on both policy and trade. Do you see writing as a personal calling, a strategic tool, or both?
Both. Writing is where my curiosity meets utility. It allows me to make sense of fast-moving shifts, while also influencing perception. In geopolitics, narratives matter, and writing helps frame them. I see it as a craft, but also a strategic act: to shape agendas, clarify positions, and signal thought leadership.
9.) As someone fluent in English, Hindi, French, and German, how important is multilingualism in forging global partnerships?
It is invaluable, not just for communication, but also for connection. Language is more than a tool; it is a window into how people think, relate, and build trust. I also speak a couple more Indian languages, and have explored more complex tongues like Hungarian, which really stretches your brain in fascinating ways.
Interestingly, I hold an unusual knack: I can learn and internalise the scripts of languages without actually speaking them. I have mastered the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets, for instance, even though I do not speak Russian or Arabic any bit. That process, of understanding the structure and rhythm of a language from the outside, shifts your Weltanschauung. It pushes you beyond borders, both literal and cognitive.
In a world where misunderstandings escalate quickly, and where diplomacy often rests on tone as much as substance, this kind of cultural empathy becomes a superpower. It helps you build relationships that are not just transactional, but transformational. And in today’s fragmented world, we could all use a little bit more of that.
10.) What’s next for you in your writing and strategy work? Are there emerging trends in South-South diplomacy that you find especially promising?
I would like to focus on strengthening South-South diplomacy as a response to the growing use of trade as a weapon, a modern form of bullying rooted in old colonial attitudes. In today’s “Trumpified” world, countries are often pressurised, or worse, penalised, for asserting independent choices. The Global South needs coordinated, unapologetic voices, and it is encouraging to see how BRICS is stepping up to fill that space.
The world must move beyond Western-style blocs and outdated binaries. We need a truly multipolar order, one where the South hold its own unique position and identity, is not dragged into others’ conflicts or penalised for protecting its own interests. Just as importantly, we need to rethink global governance itself. A world where five permanent veto powers can override the will of the majority is no longer tenable. We must build a system that values all voices of reason, not just the loudest one.
While media attention often focuses on North-South deals, I am more interested in South-South trade frameworks, designed to ensure dignity, mutual respect, and freedom from external interference. That is where I would like to contribute more — through writing, strategy, and deeper partnerships.
