Are T-14's enough to change the overall forces balance equation in the region with Pakistan and China? Not really. Will it be the best tank in the entire subcontinent (or the whole continent for that matter), most likely yes. But it doesn't sway the power balance in favor of India, not on its own. If they even end up fielding it, which isn't even certain yet.
Personally, I see it as an attempt at a symmetrical forces Ballance response to the Chinese. It'll look good on paper, but that's all that'll achieve. The problem is, China won't respond in a symmetrical (tank vs tank) way, in the event of a real war. China has vastly more intelligence-gathering capacity than India, particularly space-born assets. China is also incredibly strong (arguably a world authority) on AI, machine learning, and so on. Not least because it has a lot of military significance, in the era of unmanned, autonomous, and intelligence assets. So China has the luxury of dictating the terms of engagement. It'll choose an approach to minimize casualties and cost. The only time they'll fight on symmetrical terms is through the sort of fistfights you see on Ladakh. Which China came out on top btw
Or international competition like tank biathlons. Chinese (who used their own tanks) came 2nd place most of the time, after Russia (host). Indian's..... Let's just say after coming last in 2017, they've stopped competing.
Also unlike India, China also designs and develops its own equipment based on its own specific technical requirements and national interests. India just buys off-the-shelf equipment and shoehorns it to fit their particular tactical and strategic needs. Doesn't always work. Just like how their fancy Bofor field guns completely failed in Kargil. Pakistani artillery wasn't better either. One valuable lesson that conflict showed is how one can't use SEA LEVEL-based plotting calculations, at the sort of altitudes and atmospheric conditions in the Khagil theatre that took place. You can't even use the same hardware even. Chinese learned this from analyzing the conflict, and have developed purpose-built equipment accordingly. The VT-5/Type-15 is another example of equipment specifically designed for high-altitude mountainous warfare. It will alloy PLA to deploy armor to areas Indian's cannot. It's a similar thing with the Spice bombs in balakot. Works very well in the middle east, evidently didn't work well in very undulating terrain that can mess up navigation and guidance systems.
Other than bragging about having the best tank in the region, I don't see it shifting the balance that much. Leaving that aside, it's a very capable tank. If Pakistanis had it, they'd be bragging about it, as they did with VT-4s, or T-80UD (arguably most capable tank in the subcontinent for its time) acquisition before that.
As for the premise of tanks being absolute (just bc your enemy can afford fancy tanks), most armies don't think so. The T-14 produced a very symmetrical response in the west for new or upgraded MBTs. Airpower and drones alone aren't enough to win wars by themselves either. If that was the case, the coalition wouldn't have been lost Afghanistan. The one-sided coalition military victory in both gulf wars wasn't achieved by air power alone. They deployed a heck of a lot of tanks and ground assets. The fact is, airpower cannot control and hold territory on its own, for a meaningful amount of time. Men on the ground do. Support by armor, airpower, air defense units, intelligence, drones, etc etc. Everything has its place on the chessboard.
