IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intstu/v55y2018i4p285-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indian Perceptions of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Gulshan Sachdeva

Abstract

This article has captured evolving Indian narratives concerning One Belt One Road (OBOR) or the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In the context of changing scope of the BRI, perceptions are also evolving. The article has covered wider perceptions, which go much beyond limited official narrative. Broader India–China ties have affected BRI discussions. The sovereignty-related issues concerning the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and broader geopolitical implications within the Indian Ocean Region have overshadowed other aspects of the BRI. India’s participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS had relatively little impact on New Delhi’s perception of the BRI. In fact, the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Economic Cooperation (BCIM) corridor, which was graduated to Track I in 2013, has rather become victim of the BRI geopolitics. Although a large number of independent analysts have argued for a selective participation in the BRI, this has hardly been reflected in government policy. As the BRI progresses, the Indian focus is more on perusing its own connectivity plans (individually or with other partners) and also on showing how some of the BRI projects are creating difficulties for recipient countries. From the earlier geopolitical and developmental aspects of the initiative, the focus is now shifting more towards a political economy analysis of participating countries. Increasing difficulties faced by BRI projects in terms of debt trap, corruption, political controversies, negative environmental implications and overall sustainability of projects are also being analysed in India.

Suggested Citation

  • Gulshan Sachdeva, 2018. "Indian Perceptions of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative," International Studies, , vol. 55(4), pages 285-296, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:intstu:v:55:y:2018:i:4:p:285-296
    DOI: 10.1177/0020881718807359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020881718807359
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020881718807359?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intstu:v:55:y:2018:i:4:p:285-296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.