India is not opposed to infrastructure development in the region, but it is concerned about the strategic implications of certain Chinese-led initiatives.
It is the nature of the negotiation between the United States and Pakistan—the most important external players in the Afghan conflict—that will determine the outcome.
Former Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s “relaxed realism” on external issues stands in marked contrast to the liberals on the left and the nationalists on the right, who framed India’s international policies in extreme terms.
If China returned to genuine neutrality on the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan, it could make it a lot easier for New Delhi to set aside its sovereignty argument on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
Any easing of tensions with Afghanistan and India will significantly boost Pakistan’s prospects for economic advancement at home and the elevation of its international standing.
Rather than debate India’s future with Pakistan's Prime Minister-designate Imran Khan in terms of “loves me, loves me not,” Delhi should focus on strengthening its position in Afghanistan, which once again is poised to shape Pakistan’s relations with India.
The election of Imran Khan makes little difference to Pakistan's India policy, which is controlled by the army and the so-called state institutions.
Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-Buddhist community should combat global isolation and the recent rise of extremist groups by using their Buddhist faith to strengthen transnational ties.
New Delhi should aim to become a leader in financial intelligence. But there are several things the central government needs to do before it can solidify that leadership.
India’s continuing political challenges with China’s Belt and Road Initiative have been matched by New Delhi’s enduring difficulties in advancing its own connectivity initiatives.