Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
For decades, India’s geography was its biggest strategic asset in South Asia. Thecommon borders, historical ties, cultural affinities, and economic interdependence of New Delhi put it in a natural position of regional pre-eminence. But geography alone is no longer enough.
Over the last decade, China has steadily increased its footprint in South Asia through infrastructure investments, connectivity projects and development financing. Beijing has embedded itself in India’s neighbours’ economic fate, from ports and highways to airports and power plants. While New Delhi remains a key partner, it is increasingly confronted with a reality in which influence is measured by visible infrastructure on the ground, rather than historical ties.
The question is not whether China has gained influence in South Asia. The question is whether India can change fast enough to compete.
China’s pattern has been pretty consistent. Beijing has financed major infrastructure projects through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that many developing countries have struggled to finance through traditional means. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has transformed the connectivity and energy infrastructure in Pakistan. Chinese investment in Sri Lanka has financed port, roadway and urban development projects. China has expanded its road connectivity and energy cooperation in Nepal. Bangladesh has also become a big beneficiary of Chinese infrastructure funding.
But these initiatives have not been without controversy. Critics cite financial concerns, lack of transparency and geopolitical interests. But Chinese aid usually yields concrete results for recipient countries – in the form of roads, bridges, ports and power plants.
Infrastructure is important because it creates long term impact. A road changes trade patterns. A port reshapes the logistics network. A large energy project has a long-term impact on economic growth. Such investments build bridges that go beyond diplomacy and are integrated into national development agendas.
India has recognised the challenge and has not been complacent. In the last decade, New Delhi has given more importance to regional connectivity and development cooperation. India’s growing willingness to invest in regional infrastructure is reflected in the India-Bangladesh train and energy lines, the Jayanagar-Kurtha railway in Nepal and the Greater Male Connectivity Project in the Maldives.
The problem is not that there are no Indian projects. It’s the speed of delivery.
Delays in implementation have been one of the most frequent accusations made against India’s regional development efforts. Infrastructure projects regularly encounter problems with bureaucratic processes, regulatory approvals, money and coordination between agencies. China, on the other hand, is known for finishing projects faster, whether it is fair or not.
In South Asia’s smaller republics, speed matters. Governments facing immediate pressures for development often care less about geopolitical competition than about obtaining infrastructure that can produce economic payoffs across electoral cycles.
The nature of the competition is also changing. Traditional conversations about influence in South Asia often involved diplomacy, security cooperation and cultural links. In today’s marketplace, economic connectedness is an increasingly valuable competitive advantage.
Countries throughout the region are seeking investment, energy security, digital infrastructure, logistics networks and access to international markets. China has positioned itself as a supplier of these public goods. If India wants to remain the favored partner, it must follow suit.
This is not to say that we should try to emulate the Chinese model. Unlike many Chinese initiatives, India does not have the financial resources or centralized decision-making mechanisms that are critical. Nor should it seek to replicate in toto the Beijing Approach.
Instead, India has its own unique advantages.
Unlike China, India has deep sociological, linguistic, cultural, and interpersonal ties with much of South Asia. Millions of people from across the region study in India, receive medical treatment at Indian hospitals, consume Indian media and are part of large business networks. The connections help to create a degree of social familiarity that infrastructure can only partly satisfy.
India also benefits from being a democratic partner. Development projects may take more time to finish, but they are often carried out with greater openness, local participation and institutional accountability. In the long run, these elements may reinforce sustainability of partnerships.
But soft power is no substitute for hard infrastructure. A country can have cultural connections with India but also depend on Chinese-built ports, roads and industrial zones. Both are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century.
For New Delhi, the challenge is not just to spend more, but to spend better. Regional partners are unlikely to see a qualitative difference between India and China. Most South Asian states want strategic flexibility and wish to exploit both alliances. The goal for India should not be to drive China out of the region but to ensure that it remains an important partner.
This means faster project implementation, more flexible financing, enhanced regional connectivity measures and being ready to think outside the traditional diplomatic box.South Asia is moving into a new era in which infrastructure has emerged as a key geopolitical tool. Roads, ports, trains and electricity grids are no longer development projects, but strategic assets determining influence over time.
China knew this was coming and prepared for it.
India still has considerable advantages in the region, but they are not to be taken forgranted. The fight for dominance in South Asia is increasingly being fought in cement,steel and electricity.
India’s ability to catch up may not be a question of intent, but a question of moving plansto projects and projects to outcomes.
Submitted by: Anusreeta Dutta
Columnist and climate researcher with experience in political research analysis. ESG research and energy policy
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint