India's strategic response to the Belt and Road Initiative

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been in the limelight for the last decade because of its ambition to reshape the global economic and strategic landscape. This initiative of China has received mixed reactions from nations, with a lot of support and criticism at the same time. As we know, the relationship between India and China has been a roller coaster ride. India has been vocal against the BRI since its launch. This report gives a contextual analysis of BRI and India’s concerns regarding it. It also highlights the key stakeholders, like the US, Japan, and EU, and their approach towards the BRI. The report highlights opportunities and risks and provides some policy recommendations.

Contextual analysis

The BRI was launched by China in 2013 and is considered one of the most significant infrastructure projects in human history¹. Initially, BRI planned to connect East Asia and Europe through a network of roads. However, the project expanded to Africa, Oceania, and Latin America almost a decade after its launch. Since the launch of BRI, China has portrayed it as a win-win project for its partner countries and has invested millions of dollars in its partner countries. Despite the project's economic benefits, BRI faces criticism for its lack of transparency and hidden geopolitical motives.

India has been vocal against the BRI, and its primary concern has been the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The CPEC is the flagship² project of BRI, which passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India claims that China has violated its sovereignty under this project by not respecting its territorial integrity and reputation. India’s main concern regarding the CPEC is the presence of the Chinese military in PoK, which poses significant security concerns for India’s security.

Apart from CPEC, the Indian government has raised concerns that BRI could lead to excessive debt burdens. India claims that the large amount of loans under BRI leaves smaller nations with unstainable debts and eventually makes them compromise their sovereignty and economic stability. The Hambantota port³ case in Sri Lanka has added more to India's concerns, as China leased a Sri Lankan port for 99 years. Various scholars have described this incident differently; some claim it was debt trap diplomacy, and others claim the contrary.

Another concern regarding BRI for India has been China's increasing investment in South Asia. In recent years, China has increased its investments in countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. These increased investments have challenged India’s traditional influence⁴ in the neighborhood. India believes China is using its economic might to make new regional partners historically aligned with it. Under the Maritime Silk Road (MSR) initiative, China has increased its influence in the Indian Ocean region, challenging India’s maritime security. India has initiated different counters by aligning with its regional and global partners to counter China's growing regional influence.

Counters of India

Historically, India has adhered to a policy of strategic autonomy and non-alignment. However, China's increased regional influence has pushed India to adopt a more proactive strategy. Through platforms like QUAD⁵, India has strengthened its partnerships and alliances with like-minded countries, such as Japan, the US, and Australia. These countries are promoting the policy of a free and open Indo-Pacific, portraying a united front against China’s expansion.

India has been trying to counter China’s BRI through economic, strategic, and diplomatic measures. Under India's Act East Policy⁶, it has been trying to strengthen its ties with ASEAN nations through trade, infrastructure projects, and defense agreements. India has initiated alternate infrastructure projects like the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway, etc. India has invested in and gained access to strategic ports like Oman’s Duqm Port and Iran’s Chabahar Port to counter China’s “Strings of Pearls” strategy. India’s presence in these ports has helped it secure access to vital trade routes and given it a geopolitical edge in the Indian Ocean Region. India has also been increasing its defense ties and promoting joint naval drills, like Malabar exercises, to enhance its maritime capabilities and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Key players and stakeholders

Japan: BRI has challenged Japan's traditional position as the region's infrastructure development leader. Since BRI’s launch, Japan has shown a dual approach, with cautious and conditional acceptance. Japan views the BRI’s economic benefits but does not neglect that it could significantly affect the balance of power in the region. Japan has also initiated alternate infrastructure development projects to counter the influence of BRI.
United States: With BRI’s developments in the last decade, Washington believes BRI is a tool of China’s grand strategy to challenge US domination and interests worldwide. BRI has emerged as a significant catalyst for the “threat inflation” issue regarding the United States’ image of China. The US has been promoting the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) policy and cooperating with its partners in platforms like QUAD to counter the growing Chinese influence.
European Union: The EU also plays a key role in countering the influence of BRI. The EU believes that BRI is a tool China uses to undermine global trade norms and promote non-transparent means of development. The significance of the Indo-Pacific region for the EU’s trade has compelled the EU to initiate countermeasures to stop China’s growing influence. The EU has launched initiatives like Global Gateway⁷, an alternative to BRI that promotes high-quality and transparent infrastructure projects. EU has also been collaborating with countries like India to promote connectivity projects based on shared values and adherence to International norms.

Opportunities and risks

Opportunities

The Investments in strategic ports like Duqm and Chabahar enhance India’s connectivity by providing it with an alternate trade route to Central Asia, which earlier transited through Pakistan
It also allows India to challenge Chinese dominance in the Gwadar port of Pakistan, which is just 170 km away from Chabahar.
India’s policies, like the Act East Policy, help it promote stronger diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with its neighbors and beyond.
Participation In alliances like QUAD helps India strengthen its maritime security and promote the vision of Open Indo-Pacific, which challenges China’s expansion.

Risks

India’s economic limitations hinder its ability to match the scale of China’s investments under the BRI.
Many ASEAN nations rely on Chinese investments and trade, which makes it challenging for India to present itself as an immediate alternative.
The projects that India has launched to counter BRI have shown little to no results because of bureaucratic delays and policy inefficiencies.
India has also been too slow to take on the leadership of countering China, showing a rather heavy dependence on the US in the ideological and operational space.

Policy recommendations

India needs to work on executing and accelerating the completion of investment projects that it has implemented to counter China. India should strengthen its partnerships with regional and global allies like the US, Japan, and Australia and focus on joint infrastructure projects and defense agreements.

India must expand its maritime security network and increase joint naval and military drills with like-minded countries to counter China’s “String of Pearls “and “Grey Zone” activities.

India should promote its soft power diplomacy by introducing educational and cultural exchanges with African, Southeast, and Central Asian countries.

India should also try to improve its ties with China by initiating diplomatic dialogues and agreements. This will help reduce tensions and create a framework for peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion

India’s response to BRI reflects a strategic blend of countermeasures to safeguard its sovereignty and regional influence. Despite launching initiatives like the Act East policy and partnerships with allies such as Japan and the US, India’s commitment to promoting alternatives to BRI is not without challenges. Economic hurdles and delays in the execution of the projects are hindering the effectiveness of these initiatives. The financial and political turmoil in neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Myanmar complicates India’s regional aspirations. India has made progress in strengthening its maritime presence and regional alliance, but it also needs to address its internal bottlenecks and accelerate infrastructure deadlines to counter BRI effectively.