The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s extensive infrastructure and connectivity project, significantly influences South Asia’s geopolitical and economic framework. This article analyzes the differing regional developments in South Asia in light of China’s connectivity initiatives, emphasizing India’s strategic reaction. India staunchly rejects the BRI, mostly due to sovereignty and security apprehensions associated with initiatives such as the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through the contested region of Jammu and Kashmir. While several South Asian nations participate in China’s plan, India seeks alternate connectivity pathways, such as the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), to preserve regional autonomy and mitigate Chinese influence. The article also examines the geostrategic foundations of the BRI and the extensive international reactions it has provoked. The USA, Japan, the European Union, and Australia oppose the BRI, driven by concerns regarding China’s growing power and the potential destabilization of the current global order. In contrast, Russia provides strategic assistance to China’s goal. India’s security policy, shaped by the “String of Pearls” theory, frames China’s emerging maritime presence in the Indian Ocean as a challenge to India’s regional dominance and national security. Despite significant opposition, the article examines the existence of pro-BRI elements in India, uncovering a complex domestic dialogue that weighs economic prospects against strategic prudence. India’s strategy integrates diplomatic engagement and strategic alliances to cultivate a multipolar connectivity framework that advances sustainable development and regional stability. This analysis elucidates the contrasting paradigms of connectivity in South Asia: China’s state-centric, infrastructure-intensive approach against India’s multifaceted, partnership-oriented strategy. In the concluding statement, the article observes South Asia’s connectivity trajectory would be influenced by how regional stakeholders navigate the opportunities and challenges presented by the BRI, India’s counteractions, and the intricate interactions with global powers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
S et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: