Geopolitics

India’s Participation in CPEC: The Ifs and Buts
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Courtesy: IDSA | Date : 20 Feb , 2017

It is wishful thinking to argue that participation in CPEC would enhance India’s connectivity options. There are enough cues in history to suggest otherwise. A sequential pattern shows how China and Pakistan have stapled their partnership to India’s strategic detriment: the Sino-Pak Border Agreement 1963, defence and clandestine nuclear and ballistic missile cooperation, and multiple Chinese vetoes at multilateral forums including the UN on issues of critical importance to India have all adversely impacted upon India’s core interests. While still holding out that Kashmir is a bilateral problem, China, at Pakistan’s behest, has built several infrastructure projects in both parts of PoK. In similar flagrant disregard, the CPEC too is being taken forward despite India’s objections. Projections envisaging that India-Pakistan-China tripartite cooperation on CPEC would usher in greater connectivity, stability and establish peace are fanciful unless existing equations transform radically.

For decades, India’s connectivity options on its west have been foreclosed owing to Pakistan’s obstinate resistance to cooperation and its control over PoK. Also, given the longstanding frictions and unstable bilateral ties, it is naïve to reckon that connectivity via Pakistan or PoK would be unproblematic and smooth. Here, it is worth noting how, despite close strategic ties, Pakistan has used its connectivity access as a lever to bully the United States like it did by obstructing the passage of NATO trucks into Afghanistan across the Torkham crossing in retaliation for the US attack on Salala. With India, things could become even more complicated and ugly because of Pakistan’s animus towards India.

What is also being witnessed are views that suggest that CPEC is not simply about China and Pakistan.26 There are several such corridors that fall in the ambit of the expansive transcontinental OBOR, which together will involve more than 60 nations and, therefore, India must shape its stance accordingly. Even if one were to accept such a logic, the sheer number of actors involved is unlikely to effect a material change in India’s position given Pakistan’s control over the corridor’s geographical key and China’s hold over the crucial purse strings. Besides, the relative dearth of instances where India-China-Pakistan have cooperated trilaterally make the CPEC proposition sound too good to be true.

India: obstructionist, outlier?

China’s proclamations about developing a string of connectivity and infrastructure projects in India’s vicinity has stirred political and popular perceptions in countries in the proximate neighbourhood. China’s increasing footprints in the South Asian region is often portrayed as India losing its strategic hold. A case in point is the construction of the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka where China reportedly filled in for India (though there is no official confirmation on whether the project was ever formally offered to India). India’s caution on the BCIM corridor, inordinate delay in moving ahead with the Chabahar Port and reservations on CPEC are being increasingly cited by detractors to present the country as an unaccommodating, reluctant, regional player. Such misrepresentations have cost India dearly. Despite being the largest economy in the South Asian region, the country has suffered a considerable dent in its image due to a perceptible rise in hostile perceptions amongst nations in its contiguity.

Therefore, India must closely watch the geopolitical shifts in and around the subcontinent where China has begun to feature in national calculations. India’s ambitions on expanding multilateral engagement is unequivocally contingent upon the China factor. Whether it is RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) or connecting the CPEC to the International North South Transport Corridor in the longer term, India cannot afford to appear as sitting in “isolation.”27 There is also a strong view that India should not just reject the CPEC as “unviable” and instead think in terms of dealing with a regional order that will inevitably tilt towards China if the project were to succeed.28 Further, India must prepare to deal with challenges stemming from the ongoing realignment between China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Hence, what India needs to do is to generate viable options to secure its interests while not compromising upon genuine strategic/territorial concerns.

India must show resolve in terms of fulfilling the regional commitments that it makes. It must further strengthen existing leverages derived from a diverse geography, demographic size and growth indicators to project itself as an indispensable player in regional development. For instance, India’s vast peninsular expanse could be critical in China’s Maritime Silk Road initiative. Apart from this, India must handle emerging strategic realignments, including proximity to the US, smartly, so as to attain its objectives in the region.

Way ahead: fence-sitter for now

Currently, there is little that India can do to stall CPEC except for diplomatically articulating its objections and make it “un-implementable”.29 But it is unlikely that diplomatic statements alone will cause the project’s deferment. Nevertheless, media reports indicate that India’s persistent objections have become a source of concern for China. Further, China is also concerned about India-Pakistan tensions denting its agenda at least in the CPEC segment of the OBOR initiative. The fate of CPEC, projected as the pivotal flagship project from the OBOR stable, is quite crucial. In the face of India’s reservations, the failure of CPEC to take off would mean a loss of repute for China and Pakistan, something which both countries would try hard to avoid.

Isolated statements from China and Pakistan soliciting India’s participation in CPEC could be part of a strategic mind-game to evoke a sympathetic line of thinking about CPEC inside India. India should consider engaging astutely in this mind-game. It could think in terms of undertaking subtle measures; for instance, sending out feelers that could potentially expose whether the “olive branch” is a real one and China and Pakistan are actually open to India’s participation in CPEC? Meanwhile, India must uphold its specific reservations on the project and draft a strategy to revert suitably in case CPEC is offered formally through official channels. Till things crystallise further, India must wait, watch, weigh and exercise options at hand, and allow the confusion to prevail some more as the ambitious project, shrouded in layers of uncertainty, rolls out. India’s future strategy thrust on CPEC must be based on a careful reassessment of the discernible ‘ifs’ and the plausible ‘buts’.

Courtesy: www.idsa.in

Reference:

1.Text of the Inaugural Address by PM Modi at Second Raisina Dialogue, January 18, 2016.

2.On Corridor Through PoK, Foreign Secretary Jaishankar Says China Should Be Sensitive To India’s Sovereignty,” NDTV, January 19, 2017

3.Abhijit Bhattacharyya, “Joining $46 bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor would be adverse for India, hurt sovereignty,” The Financial Express, January 3, 2017.

4.Sudha Ramachandran, “India and the CPEC project: to oppose or not to oppose?” The Central Asia Caucasus Analyst (CACI), September 10, 2015.

5.China wonders if India will take up Pakistani general’s offer to join CPEC,” Dawn, December 25, 2016.

6.Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, December 23, 2016.

7.Hu Weijia “India should join CPEC to ease tensions with Pakistan and boost growth,” Global Times, December 23, 2016.

8.Sudheendra Kulkarni, “Charting a new Asian history,” The Hindu, September 1, 2015.

9.Ibid.

10.Khaled Ahmed, “Corridor Of Uncertainty,” The Indian Express, December 31, 2016.

11.M D Nalapat, “India should be access to CPEC,” Sunday Guardian, December 24, 2016.

12.No joint military exercise with Pakistan in PoK, Russia clarifies,” The Indian Express, September 24, 2016.

13.Panos Mourdoukoutas, “China Wants Russia To Calm India And Save CPEC,” Forbes, January 8, 2017.

14.India dismayed at UK support to China-Pak corridor,” Deccan Herald, January 13, 2017.

15.Alternative to CPEC, Silk Route through Kashmir: Mehbooba,” Kashmir Reader, January 17, 2017.

16.Tojo Jose, “India and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Project (CPEC): What are the implications?”IndianEconomicy.net, May 28, 2016

17.Divya Soti, “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Challenges for India and US,” South Asia Monitor, May 5, 2015.

18.Ibid.

19.Talmiz Ahmad, “Who’s Afraid of One Belt One Road?” The Wire, June 3, 2016.

20.Rajeev Sharma, “Here’s why Indian strategists should worry about China’s $46 billion funding to Pakistan,”Firstpost, April 21, 2015.

21.Claude Arpi, “For India, CPEC Is a Corridor to Nowhere,” The Pioneer, December 29, 2016.

22.Sudha Ramachandran, “India and the CPEC project: to oppose or not to oppose?”

23.Ravi Bhoothalingam, “One-Belt-One-Road – to Join or Not to Join?” The Wire, June 14, 2016.

24.Shyam Saran, “What China’s One Belt and One Road Strategy Means for India, Asia and the World,” The Wire, October 9, 2015.

25.P.N. Dhar, Indira Gandhi, the ‘Emergency’ and Indian Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2000, New Delhi, p. 192.

26.Behind Pakistan’s CPEC offer,” The Hindu, December 28, 2016.

27.Abhineet Singh, “Chinese Corridors And Their Economic, Political Implications For India,” Swarajya, June 7, 2016.

28.Daniel S. Markey & T.C.A. Raghavan, “The China Pakistan Economic Corridor,” Discussion Highlights, Carnegie India, New Delhi, July 2, 2016.

29.Ashok Malik, “Why is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor such a challenge to India?” The Economic Times, November 16, 2016.

1 2
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Dr Priyanka Singh

Associate Fellow at the Insitute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left