Categories
Huffington Post (UK) Journalism Sport

Chelsea Need to Focus On January Transfers And Barcelona

Languishing 14 points behind leaders City, Chelsea would do well to shift focus to the Champions League, after due reinforcements in the January transfer window

Before their stumble in the away London derby game against West Ham, Chelsea had won six and drawn one of their previous seven matches, including the Alvaro Morata header-inspired 1-0 home victory over Manchester United.

And yet, the chances of retaining the League looked all but improbable even before the defeat to The Hammers because of Manchester City’s imperious form and its formidable fourteen-point lead over third-placed Chelsea. As things (read current form and points tally) stand, Chelsea – or any other team for that matter — can win the League only if City themselves decide to squander the advantage.
Chelsea manager Antonio Conte seemed to have thrown in the towel for the title race after the defeat at the London Stadium:

“When you lose four games my experience, my previous experience tells me that it’s impossible to fight for the title. In 16 games to lose four games it means the target must be another.”

But Chelsea supporters need not drop their shoulders. They should see this as an opportunity. With the League defence prospects all but evaporated, Antonio Conte can opt to give his all to the biggest one of them all – the Champions League.

Of course, a 1-1 home draw with Athletico Madrid at home in the last group stage match meant that Chelsea’s horror show in Rome has came back to haunt them, as they finished second in the group – and got paired with Barcelona in the 16 draw.

The first leg will take place at Stamford Bridge on Tuesday February 20 and Chelsea will travel to the Nou Camp on Wednesday March 14.

Not the best way to start the knock-out stage, right?

Yes; and no. Chelsea are one of the bogey teams for Barcelona, if you subscribe to the term. The 2011 Champions League Champions from London, who had broken Barcelona hearts with a come-from-behind win in the second leg of that year’s semi final at the Camp Nou, are unbeaten in the their last seven matches with the Catalan giants. How many teams boast of statistics like that!

The two sides have met 15 times previously, with the bragging rights being split almost unnaturally evenly – five wins apiece for the two sides and five draws. Beat that in terms of offering an even contest.

Barcelona manager Ernesto Valverde has already expressed his respect for the opposition and singled out the threat that Alvaro Morata poses to his side in the last-16 tie:

“It’s a tough draw for us because of the magnitude of the opposition. With the signing of Morata they’ve added pace in attack, while (Eden) Hazard is very good between the lines.”

What makes things very interesting in the meeting of the two former champions is the record of Lionel Messi. Royal blue goalpost is certainly his most favourite target. The five-time Ballon d’Or winner is yet to score against the reigning Premier League champions in his eight attempts thus far! And what do they say about all Messi teams – stop Leo and you win more than half the battle against Barca. Or some percentage of that.

Of course, it is never that straight-forward. But the point is, unlike what the ‘armchair (read “social media”) experts’ might tell you, this is a tie that can go either way.

Antonio Conte alluded to something similar in a press conference when he exhorted his players, especially the mercurial Eden Hazard, to go for it across the two legs against Barcelona:

“The tie will see Eden Hazard come up against Lionel Messi and Conte has issued a war cry to his most influential player and his team-mates. ’This type of game is a good chance for every player to show the right value, not only for Hazard, but for every player in the right way.”

Even prior to the clarion call by the boss, the Blues dressing room was prepared for the pairing – and is said to be not too daunted by the task ahead.

But if the assured calm needs to kick the talk on the pitch, there will have to be a couple of additions to the squad during the January transfer window. Conte has gone hoarse crying for reinforcements since the beginning of the season. With the Premier League defence probably gone, the Chelsea hierarchy might finally heed to the request.

But the simple action now could prove to be a tricky one – what with most A-listers would’ve already played the group stages of the Champions League, making them ineligible to play for Chelsea in this season. So, while a Sandro from Juventus is a must for the long term, short and mightily important objectives demand Chelsea augment their defence (David Luiz suspect and Antonio Rudiger and Gary Cahill both not the most reliable currently) and midfield (since Tiémoué Bakayoko clearly needs more time) with immense talents from sides that have not featured in this year’s Champions League.

Consider this – four very good matches out of the remaining seven, and Chelsea could actually be a champion. I know you are thinking, “if wishes were horses”. But the emphasis is not here on the number of matches. It is about how straight-forward, though not easy by any stretch of imagination, it is to plan – as against planning for 22 more matches in the Premier League.

By the time you read this, Chelsea would have already played Huddersfield Town at the John Smith’s Stadium. Another loss for Chelsea can really put everything at stake, but a win might offer precious little to change the eventual fate. And that is indeed the point of this piece.

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Journalism

Doklam: China’s War Drums and the India-Bhutan Treaty

 

This article was first published on the Foreign Policy Association blogs here.

Summing up the general state of awareness in the world that we are living in, an overwhelming majority of the world seems to be either unaware of or unconcerned about the potentially catastrophic confrontation building up in the last two months in the Himalayas between India and China, the world’s two largest countries, which also happen to be the world’s second and the fourth largest economies, and, most worryingly, two nuclear armed nations that have the world’s most well-oiled defense apparatus.

The standoff, which is threatening to spiral out of control from the Chinese side, started when the one-party led Communist nation’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) started constructing a motorable road from Dokola in the Doklam area towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri on June 16, 2017.

Bhutan, which believes the area is its territory, swiftly reacted, and in a press release issued on June 29, 2017, stated clearly that “the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of its agreements with China“.

The Bhutanese foreign ministry further said:

” Boundary talks are ongoing between Bhutan and China and we have written agreements of 1988 and 1998 stating that the two sides agree to maintain peace and tranquillity in their border areas pending a final settlement on the boundary question, and to maintain status quo on the boundary as before March 1959. The agreements also state that the two sides will refrain from taking unilateral action, or use of force, to change the status quo of the boundary. Bhutan hopes that the status quo in the Doklam area will be maintained as before 16 June 2017.”

At the core of the dispute is the question of where the final tri-boundary point — the point at which India, China, and Bhutan meet — lies.

China argues that the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction is at Mount Gipmochi (Gyemo Chen), much south of Batang la, the place that India and Bhutan consider as the tri-junction.  China claims 89 sq km in Doklam (along Gamochen at the border, to the river divide at Batangla and Sinchela, and down to the Amo Chhu River) as its own.

But it is one of only four areas – as per Bhutan – over which China and Bhutan, who do not have diplomatic relations, have a dispute and have had 24 rounds of talks. China, however, claims much more than that and considers a total of seven areas as disputed areas.

China, it may be noted, has territorial disputes with virtually every neighbour of its. And if its conduct in the South China Sea and with Japan over Senkaku Islands is any indication, China does not really believe in giving in to other nation’s claims.

Therefore, much before the official press release by Bhutan, and just two days after the construction work by China began, on June 18, 2017, India sent around 270 troops, with weapons and two bulldozers and stopped the Chinese troops from constructing the road.

In a 15-page document released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on the same day, Beijing said that “over 270 Indian soldiers, carrying weapons and driving two bulldozers advanced more than 100 meters into the Chinese territory to obstruct the road building of the Chinese side, causing tension in the area.”

It further accused India of raising the number of Indian soldiers to 400.

India’s ministry of defence, however, brushed aside the Chinese accusation of escalation and said that India has been maintaining 350-400 troops at Doklam ever since the stand-off began.

The Indian action is in accordance with the India-Bhutan Treaty of Friendship of 1949, which advocated India’s guiding role in Bhutan’s diplomatic and defense affairs.  Though the 1949 treaty was superseded by a new friendship treaty of 2007 that replaced the provision that made it mandatory for Bhutan to take India’s guidance on foreign policy.

The 2007 treaty provided broader sovereign rights to Bhutan by, for instance, not making it mandatory for Bhutan to take India’s permission in matters such as arms imports. But it did not alter much the inherent attached interests of the two nations.

Article 2 of the 2007 India-Bhutan Treaty says:

In keeping with the abiding ties of close friendship and cooperation between Bhutan and India, the Government of the Kingdom of Bhutan and the Government of the Republic of India shall cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.

While sovereignty is the principal concern for Bhutan, the dispute for India beyond just the size of the territory in Doklam.

Picture Courtesy: Indian Defence Review

India is alarmed that if the Chinese do complete the motorable road in the Doklam area, it will give China an imposing access to India’s strategically vulnerable ‘chicken’s neck’ in the Siliguri Corridor, a 20km wide corridor that links India’s seven northeastern states to its mainland.

It may further be noted that Bhutan’s own administrative apparatus can get severely compromised if the Chinese inhabit Doklam as Bhutan’s communications network as it is connected through Siliguri in India.

At the moment, it is a stalemate. India is refusing to pull back its troops from the area that it says belongs to Bhutan. And China is threatening a bigger war every new day.

UPDATE:

As on August 28, 2017, India and China reached a consensus on disengagement of border personnel at the  faceoff site. A release by India’s ministry of external affairs said:

In recent weeks, India and China have maintained diplomatic communication in respect of the incident at Doklam. During these communications, we were able to express our views and convey our concerns and interests.

On this basis, expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site at Doklam has been agreed to and is on-going.

.

Categories
Huffington Post (UK) Journalism Sport World Diary

Chelsea Remains The Team To Beat

This article was first published on The Huffington Post (UK Edition) here.

If there was one message that rose above all the others after the engaging and edgy Premier League encounter between Tottenham Hotspurs and Chelsea at Wembley, it was that despite all the doomsayers pronouncements about disharmony and dejection at Stamford Bridge, the rest of the teams in the league would have to work desperately hard to take the trophy off Chelsea’s hands.

Chelsea’s defence organiser and captain Gary Cahill, midfield creator Cesc Fabregas and stand-alone genius Eden Hazard, were all missing – while new signing Tiemoue Bakayoko and last year’s hero Pedro were both far from 100% fit. Add to that a new boy up front, a new boy in the back three, and an old boy in a new position in the midfield – and you know why playing the last year’s runners-up was always going to be an exercise of having the back against the wall for Chelsea.

But that didn’t matter in the end. Because Chelsea proved to have something that only the real champions have – self-belief, tenacity, and an enormous sense of timing.

They went forward in the first seven or eight minutes and should have been a goal up if Morata had not missed a sitter by heading out a sublime cross by César Azpilicueta. Then, as they realised that Spurs were getting into the game, they decided to ‘allow their opponents to come to them’. And when got their second opportunity, they made the most of it with the man of the match Marcos Alonso scoring the first goal of the match via a sublime, world-class free kick. And then it was back in the trenches, till Mitchy Batshuayi scored an unfortunate own goal. With barely any time left, Chelsea went out again, got lucky because of first Hugo Lloris’ unfathomable throw straight down the middle and then bungling it decisively by letting Alonso’s shot from an angle under him.

That play was Chelsea manager Antonio Conte’s well thought-out switch to 3-5-2(Willian just behind Morata) from the last year’s 3-4-3.

The Italian had set up what is known as the catenaccio tactical system. In Italian, catenaccio means ‘door-bolt’, thereby implying closing any opportunities for the opponent to score. Well, one can argue that is another name for ‘Mourinho’s Parked Bus’. The difference is that in the case of Mourinho, it was a natural style for him for all seasons whereas Conte’s approach was a dire tactical response to a dire situation.

Conte used the catenaccio tactical system like most Italian teams are known (accused?) to use it – a counter-attacking option wherein the team sits back, hopes to get one or two chances to invade the opponent’s box, make use of the chances, and then apply the ‘door-bolt’ to things.

Mitchy almost spoiled it. But Alonso made sure that in the end, it worked out precisely as planned.

In other words, injuries, suspensions, and depleted squad size or not, Conte is not only aware of and open to a variety of tactical options but also has the ability to quickly drill them decisively into a team that has its own share of impetuous personalities. This, again, is something that only the real champions have in them.

The game on Sunday, the first-ever league game at the national stadium, typified the recent abrasive clashes between the London rivals. A red card looked round the corner at many stages of the match – with my Blues fans taking to social media to ask how Jan Vertonghen’s tackle on Victor Moses was any different from the one that saw Chelsea captain get a straight red in the match against Burnley. But it was amply clear to viewers that Chelsea players seemed to be under strict instructions from Conte to avoid getting a red fourth match in the running.

Just as one defeat was not the end of the world, one victory is not a panacea for Chelsea’s problems. The questions remain: Would Morata be able to fill the big shoes of Diego Costa? And hey, when is that saga going to end – before it starts affecting the dressing room in a major way? Is Bakayoko really an upgrade on Nemanja Matic? Where are the defence backups?

But if the victory at Wembley is anything go by, we can be sure that Chelsea are the champions of England not because of ideal circumstances of the previous season. They are champions because they can fight to win despite everything. And that’s why Antonio Conte’s Chelsea remains the team to beat.

Categories
Huffington Post (UK) Reflection

Death Of A Pet

This post was first published on the Huffington Post (UK) here.

The final resting place

As with most mornings, I was reading the newspaper in bed while my pet turtle Tobi was in the water in his transparent plastic container by our bedroom window. This was his hour of basking in ‘passive sunlight’. But something felt different. I noticed that he was in an unusually calm floating state for a bit.

I tapped the container near his head: “Tobi, what’s the matter, buddy?“

He immediately responded by opening his mouth in a threatening manner – it looked an image straight from the Jurassic Park. Now, he was always the feisty one, but this one was a first. “Rascal,” I cursed him lovingly and went on to my business.

A few minutes later, when I returned to the room, he was in almost the same state. I knew something was wrong. I picked him out of the water to have a close look. Nothing. I put him on a flat surface – and for the first time, his neck mimicked his body and rested – limp – on the surface. Normally, he would have pulled back his neck into his shell when being put on the floor.

It was time to rush to his doctor.

It happened all so quickly that it is not difficult to see his arrival as an event of yesterday.

My daughter has long been persistent about having pets at home. So it was only a matter of time before we brought ‘something’ home. Fortunately, though, we managed to pull her ambitions significantly back from dinosaurs (well, not quite), to make her agree to the smallest and, what we imagined to be, the most manageable pet – a 40-gram, two-month-old red-eared slider turtle (terrapin) that could live in a small glass flask.

We might as well have gone for fish, but turtle seemed more exotic. Such was the discerning passion!

But once we bought him home, it was love at the first movement – what with the little brat being a feisty mover both in water and across the floor. We named him Tobi Rawat.

Soon, our individual and collective days began with “Good Morning Tobi“ and culminated in “Good Night Tobi“. We would talk with him incessantly. We really believed that he understood it all, and responded precisely with his movements and – hell – even facial expressions.

None of us would feel alone at home as long as Tobi was there, well, somewhere in the house.

He was an absolute box office too. His method of basking in afternoon sun was the stuff of legends. He would rest his body on his bottom shell (‘Plastron’), stretch out all his four limbs in the air, pull out his neck to the maximum and then, almost with disdain towards us lesser mortals, turn the neck on one side. He would then stay like that for many minutes, oozing copious amount of well-earned arrogance. Such swagger!

And then, that morning, he rested still, floating in the water.

It was time to rush to his doctor.

Dr Mugdha Rakshit, founder of the Happy Pets Clinic and alumni of the Royal Veterinary College, University of London, was quick to sense it after taking Tobi in her expert hands.

“What happened,” she asked me, without caring much for a reply. “He’s no longer there“.

I was shocked beyond my wits.

Almost at that instant, as the doctor worked her seasoned fingers and palms on the little one, Tobi moved ever so slightly and then opened his mouth.

Yes, just the way he did that at home when I had tapped his container.

“He’s gasping. Not entirely with a lot of life left within,” explained the doctor.

It became difficult for me to forgive myself when she said that Tobi probably had left us 30-45 minutes ago.

Did I leave him to die in the water – when he perhaps was gasping for life? There is no way I could’ve guessed. He was a water species. He was in the water.

“Maybe there was an insect bite or something and there was a hypersensitive reaction to it, causing perhaps a paralysis that caused him to drown in water.”

Perhaps. No tests were carried out to ascertain the absolute cause.

I sunk to an unknown low for a couple of days.

The doctor has since suggested that we go for another one.

I’m not so sure about that one.

For starters, I’m not at a place currently in life – emotionally – where I can withstand more such losses.

That apart, I’ve never been a ‘pets type of a person’. I can’t say with any sort of conviction if that is because of any philosophical reservations that I might be having at the sub-conscious level.

For instance, writing in the Journal of Philosophy, Jessica Du Toit of the Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, USA, asks the question, “Is having pets morally permissible?“

It reads in line with many other similar voices. Presenting ‘The Case Against Pets’, Rutgers (USA) law professors Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton argue that “domestication and pet ownership violate the fundamental rights of animals.”

In her line of reasoning, Du Toit says:

“[…] we need to consider whether (a) pets are harmed as a result of their being pets and, if so, whether these harms outweigh the benefits; and (b) pets are wronged as a result of their being pets“.

The argument – or the premise, if you will – becomes quite pertinent in the light of the fact that our doctor kept on reminding us, “management is the key”. ‘Right amount of sunlight’, ‘freedom to choose between water and basking on rough stones’ etc formed the key to ‘management’.

I believe we did just as well as anybody with that. But did we do just as Tobi would’ve wanted it? Precisely as he would’ve wanted?

Who can ever tell? And that might be the whole point of Du Toit and her community.

Tobi was with us for barely 11 months. At the risk of embarrassing myself, I just don’t quite feel the same after him. He weighed 60 grammes, just about filled my palm, and – from what I am told – he, as a species, couldn’t have been too keen on human interaction either.

So what explains this sinking feeling?

Did he, with his presence, help me plug a hole within, somewhere?

Tobi, buddy, I miss you. You were my first.

Categories
Change Communication Cinema Communication Health Communication

Toilet: Ek Development Communication Katha

Official Poster: Toilet: Ek Prem Katha

Akshay Kumar is fast emerging as a very unlikely bearer of varied and content-driven Hindi cinema. Derided by the reigning Hindi cinema establishment and its audience bank as ‘Bharat Kumar 2.0’ for his off-screen nationalistic messages and works, the prolific actor’s latest film – despite its shortcomings – could end up as a case study on development communication, or Communication for Development (C4D), in the Indian context.

Director Shree Narayan Singh’s Toilet: Ek Prem Katha (TEPK) is a social satire revolving around Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Swachh Bharat Abhiyan.

Keshav (Akshay Kumar) and Jaya (Bhumi Pednekar) are natives of two adjoining rural neighbourhoods of Mathura district in Uttar Pradesh. After a brief period of wooing and cajoling by Keshav, Jaya gives in and the two get married.

But the marriage begins on a disastrous note when Jaya finds out that there is no toilet in the Keshav household – and, after many unsuccessful attempts to fit in, walks away from him.

Left with no other option, Keshav sets out to make things right – and, in the process, takes on the well-entrenched mindsets, social barriers, and the administrative mechanisms of our country.

Acknowledged in the end credits of the film, avid news readers are able to recollect that the genesis of the film lies in the real life story of a young girl Anita Bai Narre from Betul, Madhya Pradesh.

But there have been a few other similar instances too. For example, Kanpur girl Neha Shrivastav had walked away from marriage just four days prior to the date for the same reason. Neha told the media at the time that she had taken the step after getting inspired by a Vidya Balan advertisement about toilets at home.

The two examples are significant. The former has given birth to a C4D driven movie while the latter took inspiration from a C4D message to give birth to a social reaction (from an individual, to begin with).

Put together, the examples illustrate the symbiotic relationship between C4D and society. On the one hand, C4D is about understanding and giving a voice to the needs of the society, but on the other, it is also about drawing out a response from the society by means of that voice.

TEPK is a good example of being an agent of both ends of the cycle.

If a thoroughly utilitarian social communication featuring film star Vidya Balan – in an old DAVP packaging – could inspire a young woman in a conservative society like Kanpur to call off a monumental social milestone like marriage, then the ripple effects of the latest Akshay Kumar film can potentially be immense – especially in those sections of the society that are exposed to and influenced by Hindi cinema.

For, mind you, unlike, say the Vidya Balan communication, a film like TEPK intrinsically possess many elements that stay in the heads and minds of those exposed to it. For instance, Hans Mat Pagli song, a rare old-world melodious composition in the voice of Sonu Nigam, is a runaway hit. How can the person crooning the song not remember, every once in a while, the subject of the film?

Then there is the hilarious episode of the leading man getting married to a buffalo (not a spoiler, it was revealed in the film’s first trailer itself) to fight off the ‘Manglik Dosh’. The episode is played indirectly throughout the film – making it just as memorable as the basic premise of the film. Sometimes, it is imperative to illustrate how archaic some of the beliefs ‘look to the naked eye’ to force the believers to rethink them.

Again, which film had this scene? Ah, the film about building toilets at home, especially for the women of the family.

Then there is that rather strong view by the head of the family on the “impossibility of the Sacred Tulsi (Holy Basil) plant sharing the courtyard with a toilet”. It forms one of the milestone episodes of the film.

And we are not even talking about the very obvious subjects of not just humiliation but security hazards for women who are forced to answer nature’s call in the open. TEPK actually begins by highlighting (via the headlights of a tractor, if you will) the issue.

In other words, TEPK weaves together many such social issues into the singular premise of the film viz., building a toilet at home. And thereby talks about it in a complete socio-cultural context (of a sizeable section of the vast Indian society).

Using the story of the lead pair, their immediate families, and their surroundings, TEPK seems to stay true to the various United Nations (UN) organisations’ approach towards C4D via the following four interlinked goals:

  1. Behaviour Change Communication (in TEPK, it is primarily about the head of the house)
  2. Communication for Social Change (in TEPK, it relates to changing the thinking of both the panchayat and the villagers)
  3. Communication for Advocacy (in TEPK, the stress on overall sanitation is put through advocacy at local and regional government machinery)
  4. Strengthening an Enabling Media and Communications Environment (in TEPK, the lead pair not only makes use of an insider at a major Hindi daily but also media at large)

As per the United Nations Development Group (UNDG),

“the greatest challenge the communicator faces is the preparation and distribution of development messages to millions of people in such a way that they are received and understood, accepted and applied. If they accept this challenge they will be able to get the people to identify themselves as part of a society and a nation. This identity will help in harnessing these human resources for the total welfare of the individual and community at large“.

This is where TEPK scores. It has made sure that the message is indeed received, understood and accepted by millions. It manages to do so by using an enchanting mix of humour, romance and the quintessentially Indian high pitch drama at places.

There is absolutely no doubt about the acceptance of the film by rural folks. But will they ‘apply’ the C4D message?

Well, “Mera Desh Badal Raha Hai“. And I am optimistic that the film would have a ripple effect – of whatever magnitude – in some geographies of the so-called Hindi belt. That is why I believe the film might end up becoming a case study on development communication in the decades to come.

All theories aside, however, TEPK is an enjoyable family watch. The author took his 67-year-old mother along and she loved it. “More such films should be made,” she said.

Not without its flaws, go watch the film for absolutely smashing performances by Akshay Kumar, Bhumi Pednekar and Divyendu Sharma. The direction is very good at most places. The editing, adroit at most places, could have been tighter in the second half.

Warning: You might end up humming ‘Hans Mat Pagli’ for the remainder of the day after watching the film.

3 stars for the cinema; 5 for being an agent of change.

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Journalism

China’s ‘Colonial Investments’ Run into Rough Weather in the Indian Subcontinent

This analysis was first published on Foreign Policy Association (NY) Blogs here.

With protests against China’s investments taking a volatile shape in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Pakistan, it is safe to say that the country’s ambitious expansion via economics in the Indian subcontinent is not going as well as Beijing had imagined.

On February 2nd, one person died and more than a dozen got injured when a protest against a $2.4-billion Chinese-backed power plant in Bangladesh turned violent.

The protesters believe that the construction of the coal-fired plant 265 km south-east of Dhaka will cause widespread displacements, disturb graveyards, thereby snapping a sentimental link with the land (too), and damage the environment.

When the agreement was signed for the project, which was expected to begin power generation by the end of 2019, it was touted as the symbol of Chinese-Bangladeshi relations.

In the most recent violence linked to Chinese investment in Myanmar in the third week of February, Hundreds of workers in Myanmar attacked a Chinese garment factory in Yangon, destroying equipment and briefly making seven Chinese workers captive. It took joint efforts of the Chinese embassy and the local police to secure the release of the Chinese workers.

Though this particular incident was related to the sacking of an employee, anti-China sentiment has been rising recently in Myanmar, leading, for instance, the shelving of plans to build a huge dam on the Irrawaddy River.

Similar resistance is also seen in the construction of an oil pipeline in Myanmar, a country that had a good trade and political relations with China at a time it was facing international sanctions due to the military rule.

Elsewhere, a month earlier, in January, scores of people were injured in southern Sri Lanka during a protest against allowing China to build a port and surrounding industrial zone.

The project involved probable displacement of many thousands of people living in villages near Hambantota port, about 250 km south-east of the capital Colombo.

The protesters believe that the area is being turned into “a Chinese colony”. Giving credence to their fears is the fact that the Sri Lankan government is finalizing a 99-year lease of the entire port area to a Chinese-owned company.

In Pakistan, a country with which China’s friendship has recently acquired a proverbial turn, and is said to be “deeper than the seas and higher than the mountains”, the problems are two-fold:

A section of the intelligentsia share the fears of the Hambantota port protesters – that about Pakistan, as a matter of speaking, becoming a Chinese enclave by not negotiating well the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an under-construction $54 billion economic corridor in Pakistan, that aims to connect Gwadar Port in Balochistan province in the southwestern Pakistan with Xinjiang in far-western China.

Then there is a more violent opposition in place too – that by groups that have long been demanding independence for Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province. Only this week, the Baloch activists blew up a part of a bridge that belonged to CPEC. More than 15,000 troops are designated by the Pakistan government to safeguard the corridor, and the 7,000 Chinese personnel working on it.

Pakistan squarely blames its neighbour India for all the violence in its country, especially that which targets the CPEC.

India, on the other hand, and while denying any role in Pakistan’s internal violence, has raised concerns about the CPEC passing through some areas of the Kashmir region, which it calls Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), and claims it to be a part of its sovereign territory.

The incidents across four countries in the Indian subcontinent—especially the problems of the ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka—reflect the probability of there eventually being a resistance to what experts like Brahma Chellany, a geostrategist and, among other, a fellow of the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, calls “China’s Debt-Trap Diplomacy”.

Addressed in other forms elsewhere by other experts, the term generally refers to China’s ploy to dominate geopolitics via economics, especially that part of economics that involves mega infrastructure investments in underdeveloped and often restive states where the need for investment outbids the need for geopolitical considerations.

For the purpose of brevity, let’s just focus on Chinese investments in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

When the world was apparently against Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s then president, in his bid to brutally crush the deadly terrorist organisation Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), China had readily come forward with not just arms but also economic packages like Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) of nearly $14 billion in the decade spanning 2005-2015. ODA was offered for infrastructure, energy, and services projects at an interest rate of 2-5%. Hambantota Port Development was one of the biggest recipients of the assistance.

Unfortunately for Sri Lanka, Hambantota port, built in 2008, today generates almost no noteworthy revenue—while the adjoining Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport, which became operational in 2013, was dubbed as the “world’s emptiest airport” by Wade Shephard, author of a forthcoming book on China’s “One Belt, One Road”.

Writing for Forbes, Wade mentions that the cost of paying off the airport alone was topping $17 million per year.

In another article for the same publication, Wade mentioned, “All in all, the Hambantota fiasco is sending a clear message to Beijing: showing up with bags of money alone is not enough to win a new Silk Road”.

The twin issue of the port and the airport was enough for the opposition to topple Rajapaksa, almost a cult hero in the country for making it free of 26-year-old LTTE terrorism, in the 2015 presidential elections.

Things have not been smooth for Chinese investments in the country ever since. For instance, a deal about Chinese-owned companies (government proxies in general) taking over 80% of Hambantota port for a 99-year lease for about $1 billion, was scheduled to be signed in January—but has now been postponed indefinitely due to mass protests.

Pakistan poses even greater challenges to Chinese investments. There, China has to deal not only with Baluchistan militant factions that are calling for independence but also international considerations like India claiming a part of the Kashmir region that is currently held by Pakistan—and from where the much-touted CPEC highways pass—to the possibility of Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia fuelling the fire in Baluchistan for their own geopolitical and sectarian interests.

On the business side too, the history of Gwadar port does not inspire much confidence. Despite Phase II of Gwadar getting completed as far back as in 2008, barely any ships anchor there and little freight handling is recorded.

Then there are stray voices in the Pakistan intelligentsia too expressing doubts about the terms and conditions of CPEC, which remain shrouded in mystery, and often also about the host nation become a (notional) Chinese enclave or colony.

Some of the statements and concerns might be exaggerated but the fact remains that uneven usage of Chinese investments, local and social-political bearings of the investments, and, most of all, suspect ability of the financed projects in particular and financed nations, in general, are raising formidable questions to the Chinese steps in the Indian subcontinent. Bulldozing its way multi-billion dollar speed vehicles might not be the answer that Beijing might be hoping for.