While bond yields tend to fall amid low inflation & interest rate cuts, market experts say they’ve been rising due to concerns over tax collections, fiscal deficit & potential impact of US tariffs.
To be truly functional and durable, even eternal, a state doesn’t just need a leader, a party or an ideology. It needs functional and robust institutions.
The BRI will no doubt improve connectivity and boost the world economy. For India the development of the region which fotuitously motivates us to develop our own neglected borders will reduce the threat of terrorism by increasing livelihood opportunities definitely in the long run. The only rogue country Pakistan, may benefit strategically but this is where Chinese cooperation, not just non interference, for mutual benefit can play it’s part.
Srijan Shukla seems to be myopic while approaching the various dimensions. Say for example:
1) Hambantota is not the only example of China taking over strategic assets. There is the example of Port of Doraleh in Djibouti & then the CPEC through Gilgit region because of its geographic locations gives an unique advantage to whoever uses it against India. If 3 out of 5 countries whom China initially helped seems to be taken advantage of by this way, then I have to say this is a design.
2) Yes the Debt Trap problem happens in the long run and the problems the author wrote about happens in short to medium term. But these are the initial signs of the long term problem. Pakistan in last 5 years had to take loan from IMF for 13 times. We can easily understand which direction the economy is going to. And by the way, the extent of crisis is more severe than what has been comprehended by the author.
3) Yes, the BRI project is advantageous for the world economy in the long run. Yes the Chinese have very carefully crafted it to be so because they want the world economy to prosper but under their command, replacing USA’s hegemony it should be them. And there would be no place for countries like India and Japan. As for the connectivity issue, yes it is advantageous and reduces time. This was also suggested by Asian Development Bank when they prepared the ‘logistics survey report’ for BIMSTEC in 2007. Which finally India pursued under it’s bilateral initiative, whether with Myanmar, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka.
4) lastly, I’m absolutely in agreement with the observation of the author in respect to China propping up the inconsequential powers in Africa and Latin America as its stooges. It needs countries like Pakistan, who would do the bidding for the Chinese, just the way West Germany and Britain did for USA.
BRI is on a learning curve. Some serious limitations are showing up, which need to be addressed. However, recipient countries are guided by self interest. They will not deliberately enter into investment agreements that blight their long term financial position or compromise their sovereignty. For India not to participate in BRI is fine. However, it does not help to berate it publicly, as happened two years ago. Not one South Asian neighbour shares this sentiment.
The BRI will no doubt improve connectivity and boost the world economy. For India the development of the region which fotuitously motivates us to develop our own neglected borders will reduce the threat of terrorism by increasing livelihood opportunities definitely in the long run. The only rogue country Pakistan, may benefit strategically but this is where Chinese cooperation, not just non interference, for mutual benefit can play it’s part.
Srijan Shukla seems to be myopic while approaching the various dimensions. Say for example:
1) Hambantota is not the only example of China taking over strategic assets. There is the example of Port of Doraleh in Djibouti & then the CPEC through Gilgit region because of its geographic locations gives an unique advantage to whoever uses it against India. If 3 out of 5 countries whom China initially helped seems to be taken advantage of by this way, then I have to say this is a design.
2) Yes the Debt Trap problem happens in the long run and the problems the author wrote about happens in short to medium term. But these are the initial signs of the long term problem. Pakistan in last 5 years had to take loan from IMF for 13 times. We can easily understand which direction the economy is going to. And by the way, the extent of crisis is more severe than what has been comprehended by the author.
3) Yes, the BRI project is advantageous for the world economy in the long run. Yes the Chinese have very carefully crafted it to be so because they want the world economy to prosper but under their command, replacing USA’s hegemony it should be them. And there would be no place for countries like India and Japan. As for the connectivity issue, yes it is advantageous and reduces time. This was also suggested by Asian Development Bank when they prepared the ‘logistics survey report’ for BIMSTEC in 2007. Which finally India pursued under it’s bilateral initiative, whether with Myanmar, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka.
4) lastly, I’m absolutely in agreement with the observation of the author in respect to China propping up the inconsequential powers in Africa and Latin America as its stooges. It needs countries like Pakistan, who would do the bidding for the Chinese, just the way West Germany and Britain did for USA.
BRI is on a learning curve. Some serious limitations are showing up, which need to be addressed. However, recipient countries are guided by self interest. They will not deliberately enter into investment agreements that blight their long term financial position or compromise their sovereignty. For India not to participate in BRI is fine. However, it does not help to berate it publicly, as happened two years ago. Not one South Asian neighbour shares this sentiment.