M Ziauddin

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China appears to be the most logical corollary of globalization. The two countries that have benefitted the most from globalization — China and India – were, therefore, expected to follow through with separate or joint efforts to take globalization to its next logical stage of actually turning the world into a globalized village by reducing physical distances through infrastructural connectivity.

The BRI will directly involve 65 countries, 4.4 billion people and 29% of global GDP ($2.1 trillion). It will be backed by the New Silk Road Fund of $40 billion, the China Development Bank’s $900 billion and the bulk of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) $100 billion. It is estimated that over $1 trillion of “government money” will be involved in building the BRI.

President Xi Jinping hosted the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation from 14th to 15th May in Beijing. Leaders from 28 countries and the UN Secretary-General attended the forum. Delegates of various social sectors from 110 countries 61 international organizations also participated in related meetings under the framework of this Forum. This Forum featured cooperation and win-win results. Delegates reviewed past achievements and charter the future course to realize an early harvest of the Belt and Road Initiative. The event ushered in a new stage and leave a deep mark in history.

To understand the logic of BRI one needs only to see how close New Delhi and Islamabad are but it is more expensive to transport containers by land between the two cities than from Mumbai to London by sea, and takes almost the same time.

The Belt and Road Initiative takes connectivity as its priority, and aims at speed up connectivity of transportation networks by land, sea and air, as well as that between the pipelines, power grids, telecommunication, satellites and internet within Eurasia and with other regions to reduce transaction and people exchange costs, so that products from the inland areas can sell a good price and children from the countryside can have better access to quality education, medical services and internet connection.

However, India was missing from the May 14-15 BRI Forum in Beijing. At least in the contest of Asia it appeared to have isolated itself for no reason at all.

India appears to look at the BRI perhaps with a lot of suspicion and seems even to believe that the Initiative held some kind of threat to its security as well as its economic well-being.

This unhelpful attitude of India is likely to cause the Initiative to yield a lot less than its real potential which would certainly be a tragedy, especially for those developing countries that have been keenly looking forward to benefiting from the Asian Century led by China and India together as the world growth is expected stagnate following the marked slowdown in the growth rates in the US and Europe and the possibility of these countries resorting to protectionism to escape being overwhelmed by the Asian Century.

The Indian security experts attribute their suspicion of the BRI to what they regard as the ‘utter disregard’ exhibited by China towards ongoing territorial disputes between countries.

Additionally, the BRI according to Indian security experts also enables China to increase its security footprint in and around India’s neighborhood. Dubious media reports are being quoted in India which mislead the Indian public into believing that China has begun to station its troops in some parts of AJ&K. These dubious media reports also allege that China has also begun joint patrolling with the Pakistan Army. On the maritime front too, Chinese navy is being seen to have increased its footprint in the Indian Ocean.

Their self-serving suspicions of the BRI seem to have made Indian policymakers to ask irrelevant questions like what the Chinese hope to achieve through the initiative.

One Indian security experts asked: “Is it a geopolitical idea or is it a foreign policy issue? Is it an economic issue or is it a domestic political issue of China? Or is it about the survival of the Communist Party of China? Or is it an organisation where countries can become members and also leave? Nothing is clear.”

Indian security experts rather illogically contend that the BRI might actually drive terrorism from Xinjiang down south to Pakistan, as it was the easiest outlet for the Uighur extremists. Thus, the CPEC, they needlessly fear, might end terrorism in Xinjiang, but actually help sustain terrorism in India through Pakistan.

So the concerned Indians believe the BRI was neither “convincingly transparent” nor “sufficiently consultative” as far as India was concerned.

They also question the safety of the colossal investments made by China in the CPEC in case of a large-scale conflict erupting between India and Pakistan, clearly revealing their hegemonic intentions.

Highlighting what they call the legal and strategic concerns of the BRI and CPEC they allege that 25% of the total investments in CPEC are reserved for security related issues. All the corridors, ports, fibre optics, communication lines etc. that CPEC includes, have got strong military elements, they further argue.

Therefore, no country, including India, they believe would be comfortable with the prospect of a foreign military gaining direct and unchecked access within its ‘sovereign territory’, especially as they allege the People’s Liberation Army already has a strong presence in areas such as Sust near Gilgit-Baltistan.

They believe, these concerns around the CPEC also have a nuclear dimension, which, they warn, might lead India to rethink its military strategy towards Pakistan, which has so far followed a Cold Start doctrine.

Alleging that ever since CPEC has come into being, Pakistan has deployed Hatf XI (Nasr) missiles very close to Indian borders, they said that the security concerns also spread out into India’s maritime safety, given that Chinese are building, according to these Indian security experts, 16 ports, in India’s maritime neighborhood, which all have the underpinnings of strategic designs.

And that the very connectivity that the BRI was promoting has been used by China, they allege, as a strategic tool. “Connectivity, thus, is a very powerful weapon and it can work in many directions,”

The crux of the geopolitical and security concerns India has regarding the project is clearly because of a trust deficit with China. This has been exacerbated by the unwillingness, Indian experts believe, on the part of the two countries to enter into a dialogue to overcome bilateral problems and understand each other’s sensitivities.

They categorically raised this issue by asking, “Why is China not talking to India? India is the largest country in South and South East Asia with respect to OBOR. India has an infrastructure deficit that China can fix, that would take care of China’s excess manufacturing capacity. But why is China not talking to India?

That, they believe, raises questions about what are the Chinese intentions. Why aren’t they entering into an engagement?”

Answering their own self-deceiving questions in this regard, they said the reason for the lack of trust between the two countries was the rivalry between them to become global powers.

China’s aspiration, they believe, is to become the dominant power in Asia. India, on the other hand, they say, is the most important country in South Asia, and has long considered the region to be its backyard.

They concede that China’s rise has challenged India’s hegemony within the South Asian region. And China’s increasing economic influence through the BRI would lead to diminish India’s influence in the region. Indian policymakers are clearly wary of this development.

Another reason, the Indians believe, is the lack of transparency in the manner in which China is pursuing the BRI. In this regard they allege that a number of projects that weren’t originally supposed to be a part of the BRI have now been added to it.

Furthermore, they allege, India has not been consulted despite the significant role it would play in the success of the project. They argue that this is in large part because of lack of clarity among the Chinese themselves regarding the nature and scope of this mammoth initiative. They ask rather rhetorically than for eliciting an answer, “What is OBOR for? Is it for capacity building? Is it for survival of Communist Party of China? Is it for domestic economics, or geopolitics?” This, they believe, compounds the problem, not just for India, but for every country associated with the project.

In the opinion of Indian experts the problems arising out of the BRI have not been adequately discussed. While traditional security has been talked about, non-traditional security threats such as environmental issues and poverty alleviation haven’t been properly examined.

The nature of Chinese political economy, they suspect without reason, will prevent job creation in the countries in which the BRI will operate. They also wrongly critique what they call the ‘coercive nature’ of China’s economic statecraft. And hence, in order to win over India’s trust for the BRI, China would have to take the first step in inviting Indian leaders to talk about their mutual concerns.