“Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) is an effort to improve regional cooperation and connectivity on a trans-continental scale. But it is a debt-trap. Do you agree? What are the reservations expressed by India regarding BRI?

China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, aiming to connect Asia, Africa and Europe through infrastructure and trade corridors. As of 2024, over 150 countries are formally part of BRI. However, global experience especially in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Kenya and Zambia indicates BRI projects often lead to rising debt dependency, loss of strategic assets and erosion of sovereignty, prompting concerns of a "debt-trap diplomacy."

Is BRI a Debt-Trap? Arguments Supporting the Claim

1. Unsustainable Debt Burden

• Several participating countries have faced debt distress. Sri Lanka had to lease the Hambantota Port for 99 years to China (2017) after failing to pay its debt considered a classic debt-trap case.
• Pakistan’s CPEC debt is estimated to be US$ 25 billion, contributing to Pakistan’s ongoing macroeconomic crisis.

2. Lack of Transparency and Viability

• BRI loans are often issued by Chinese state banks, with opaque contracts and high interest. Projects are contracted to Chinese firms, limiting local employment and capacity-building.

3. Strategic Military Footprint

• The Gwadar Port (Pakistan) and Djibouti Naval Base (East Africa) signify BRI’s intention to secure strategic maritime control, challenging regional security balance.

4. Environmental and Social Concerns

• Large-scale infrastructure corridors involve displacement and ecological damage (e.g., Lamu Port, Kenya, threatening coastal biodiversity).

Thus, BRI functions not merely as connectivity diplomacy, but as a geopolitical leverage mechanism.

India’s Reservations Regarding BRI

1. Violation of Sovereignty (Primary Concern)

• The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoK), which India considers its sovereign territory.
• India boycotted the BRI Forums (2017, 2019, 2023) citing territorial integrity concerns.

2. Strategic Encirclement “String of Pearls”

• BRI strengthens China’s footprint across the Indian Ocean (Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar, Pakistan).
• This is seen as a strategy to encircle India militarily and economically.

3. Debt and Economic Sovereignty Concerns

India argues BRI pushes nations into debt dependence, destabilizing the region and increasing Beijing’s control.

4. Lack of Transparency and Inclusive Governance

India criticizes BRI for non-competitive bidding, opaque financing, and absence of local stakeholder engagement.

India instead promotes transparent, people-centric connectivity (e.g., International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), Chabahar Port Project, BIMSTEC, IMEC Corridor announced at G20 2023).

5. Security Concerns

Dual-use port and road infrastructure under BRI can be converted for military logistics, threatening India’s maritime security and Indian Navy’s influence.

India’s Alternative Connectivity Approach

While BRI promotes connectivity, it often advances Chinese strategic interests at the cost of partner countries’ economic sovereignty, validating the “debt-trap” criticism in several cases. India’s opposition is rooted in sovereignty concerns, transparency issues, regional security balance, and long-term economic implications. Instead, India advocates sustainable, multilateral, inclusive and transparent connectivity consistent with international norms and national sovereignty.

Thus, India’s stance is not against connectivity but against coercive and hegemonic connectivity.