Sanjay Pandey

Coal mining in India has had a long and complicated history, deeply intertwined with colonial exploitation, economic development, and contemporary corruption. What began as a means to sustain the British industrial and military complex has evolved into one of the key drivers of India’s economic and industrial growth. However, beneath this progress lies a murky world of mismanagement, mafia control, and policy failures that have significantly impacted both the workforce and national revenues.

The history of coal mining in India can be traced back to 1774, during the tenure of Warren Hastings. The East India Company initiated coal mining in Raniganj, West Bengal, along the western basin of the Damodar River. This was not to fuel India’s economic growth but to power British weapon factories and industries. The first shaft coal mine was opened between 1815 and 1820 in Raniganj. By 1843, the Raniganj coal fields were transferred to the renowned Bengali businessman Prince Dwarkanath Tagore, leading to the establishment of M/s Carr Tagore & Co., later evolving into Bengal Coal Company.

It was only in the 19th century that organized coal mining commenced in India. However, colonial policies ensured that coal production remained under British control, with Indian resources benefiting the imperial economy rather than the native population.

Post-Independence Nationalization and Growth

After independence, the coal industry was largely unregulated and dominated by private players, leading to erratic production and exploitative labor practices. Recognizing the strategic importance of coal, the Indian government under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi initiated the nationalization of coal mines in two phases during the 1970s:

1. 1972 – Nationalization of coking coal mines.
2. January 30, 1973 – Nationalization of non-coking coal mines.

This led to the formation of Coal Mines Authority Limited (CMAL), later merged into Coal India Limited (CIL) on November 1, 1975. The registered headquarters was established at 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata.

Over the years, CIL expanded, incorporating entities such as National Coal Development Corporation (NCDC) and Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). By January 1, 1993, Coal India had seven coal-producing subsidiaries, along with a planning and design institute that operates today as the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI).

India’s Coal Reserves and Production

As of today, India’s coal reserves stand at a staggering 193,777 million tons, making it one of the world’s largest coal producers. The country also possesses 6,500 million tons of lignite reserves. The leading coal-producing states are:

As of today, India has 449 active coal mines, with Coal India Limited operating 50 stockyards to manage production and distribution.

Despite its vast reserves and strategic importance, India’s coal sector has been plagued by corruption and inefficiency. Coal transportation mafias, contractor favoritism, and administrative collusion have resulted in financial losses running into thousands of crores.

Key Issues Plaguing the Sector:

1. Collusion Between Transport Mafia and Officials – Fake documentation and inflated invoices have resulted in huge financial losses to Coal India and its subsidiaries.
2. Project Shutdowns Due to Poor Management – Several coal projects have been shut down, with management blaming workers, while underlying issues remain unaddressed.
3. Politicization of Labor Unions – Major coal labor unions, including INTUC, AITUC, CITU, HMS, and BMS, have allegedly supported the shutdown of projects for their vested interests.
4. Systemic Irregularities in Coal Transportation – Reports indicate that fake transport claims have been used to siphon off crores from coal companies.

Economic Blockades and Regional Politics

Jharkhand has been at the center of India’s coal economy, with its rich reserves fueling industries across the country. However, political movements like Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and AJSU have leveraged economic blockades as a tool to pressurize the central government.

One of the most significant blockades occurred in June 1989, when JMM enforced a six-day economic blockade that severely impacted industrial production nationwide. By halting coal transportation, they brought industries to a standstill, forcing the central government to engage in dialogue regarding Jharkhand’s statehood demand.

The Future of Coal in India

With climate change concerns and global pressure to transition to renewable energy, India faces a paradox. Coal remains the backbone of its power generation, yet over-reliance on it contradicts global sustainability goals. While renewable energy projects are gaining traction, coal remains irreplaceable in the short term. The government must balance economic imperatives with environmental responsibilities, ensuring cleaner mining technologies and improved efficiency.

However, without tackling corruption, mismanagement, and mafia dominance, coal mining will continue to be a sector where economic potential is squandered due to systemic inefficiencies. If India is to truly capitalize on its coal reserves, it needs transparent policies, strict governance, and accountability at all levels.

The question remains: will India clean up its coal sector, or will it remain a dark spot in the nation’s economic and industrial landscape?

( Author, a seasoned bilingual journalist, is an expert on Jharkhand’s sociopolitical landscape.He can be reached at pandeysanjay945@gmail.com)

The High Cost of Diplomacy

Amit Pandey

In an era where diplomacy shapes a nation’s global standing, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s extensive foreign visits have become a defining feature of India’s international engagement. With ₹258 crore spent on 38 trips between May 2022 and December 2024, these visits raise a crucial question—are they an indispensable investment in India’s strategic and economic future, or an extravagant burden on taxpayers? While diplomacy is an essential tool for fostering international partnerships, securing trade deals, and enhancing geopolitical influence, the sheer scale of expenditure on these visits has sparked a heated debate.

Supporters argue that Modi’s diplomatic outreach has significantly elevated India’s position on the global stage. His engagements with world leaders have facilitated major trade agreements, strategic defense partnerships, and increased foreign investments, all of which contribute to India’s long-term economic and security interests. Under his leadership, India has assumed a more assertive role in global affairs, participating actively in forums like the G20, BRICS, and the Quad alliance. These visits have also reinforced India’s soft power, drawing global recognition for its technological advancements, infrastructure projects, and cultural influence.

However, critics question whether the benefits of these foreign trips outweigh their financial burden. At a time when India faces pressing domestic challenges such as inflation, unemployment, agrarian distress, and struggling public healthcare, is it justifiable to allocate such vast sums to diplomatic engagements? While international partnerships are crucial, does the Indian taxpayer receive tangible returns from these high-profile visits? The lack of transparency regarding the expenditure breakdown only fuels skepticism—could these trips be conducted more efficiently to reduce costs?

Another contentious issue is whether these diplomatic missions are genuine strategic necessities or political grandstanding. Modi’s foreign visits are often accompanied by massive public receptions, elaborate speeches, and extensive media coverage, projecting a carefully curated image of India’s rising global stature. While such optics enhance India’s brand abroad, they also raise concerns about whether these visits are strategically planned or merely serve as political spectacles to bolster domestic support. Compared to other world leaders who prioritize selective and high-impact engagements, does Modi’s frequency of travel truly translate into superior diplomatic outcomes?

Furthermore, while India has undoubtedly gained diplomatic leverage, critics argue that the government must prioritize domestic governance with the same vigor. If ₹258 crore can be spent on foreign visits, why does public healthcare remain underfunded? Why do essential social welfare programs continue to face budgetary constraints? The fundamental question remains—can a developing nation afford such grand diplomatic expenditures when millions struggle with basic necessities?

Diplomacy is an indispensable aspect of leadership, but its effectiveness should be measured not by the number of trips undertaken but by the tangible outcomes they deliver. At a time when governance requires a fine balance between global aspirations and local priorities, the justification for such large-scale spending remains a contentious issue that cannot be overlooked. As India charts its path forward, it must assess whether its diplomatic strategy aligns with the real needs of its people or if it risks becoming an exercise in extravagance at the cost of domestic welfare.

The Cost Breakdown: What Are We Paying For?

The most recent data shared by the government reveals that PM Modi’s 38 foreign trips between 2022 and 2024 amounted to ₹258 crore. This includes official visits, security arrangements, transport logistics, and the media representation necessary to cover these high-profile events. One of the most expensive of these visits was the Prime Minister’s trip to the United States in June 2023, which cost the Indian government over ₹22 crore.

It’s essential to understand the nature of these expenses. Apart from the obvious costs of flying a high-ranking official with a security detail across the globe, there are numerous other factors at play. These include hotel arrangements, transportation, diplomatic events, and security measures that come with the territory when a leader of a country embarks on international tours. For example, the media contingent, which covers these trips in full, adds to the cost, as does the presence of large diplomatic and business delegations.

The government’s detailed breakdown of these costs shows that various countries and visits came with different price tags. A trip to Nepal in May 2022 was relatively modest, with ₹80 lakh spent. However, other visits, like to Japan in May 2023 and the U.S. in June 2023, had significantly higher costs – ₹17 crore and ₹22 crore, respectively. These expenses are a direct reflection of the complexities of modern-day diplomacy, which often involves high-level political meetings, business engagements, and large ceremonial gatherings.

 Historical Context: The Rising Costs of Diplomacy

The most recent figures raise a pertinent question: are these trips more expensive than they have been in the past? Looking at data from earlier years, particularly before 2014, the costs of foreign trips were significantly lower. For instance, trips to the United States (2011), Russia (2013), and France (2011) cost ₹10.7 crore, ₹9.9 crore, and ₹8.3 crore, respectively.

It’s important to note, however, that these figures are not adjusted for inflation or changes in global circumstances. With the growing importance of high-profile state visits, the size of the delegations, and security concerns in today’s world, it is no surprise that the cost of such visits has risen. The world today is not the same as it was in 2011. With rising global tensions, enhanced security protocols, and a more dynamic media presence, costs are naturally going to increase.

Yet, even with these factors in mind, the jump in expenditure is hard to ignore. How do we justify such a significant increase in expenditure when the country faces mounting domestic challenges? Is it an investment in India’s global standing, or is it a misuse of public resources?

The Value of Diplomacy: Is It Worth the Price?

Supporters of the Prime Minister argue that these foreign trips are critical to enhancing India’s stature on the world stage. Each of these visits is seen as an opportunity to strengthen economic ties, bolster national security, and secure future trade deals. For instance, Modi’s U.S. trip in 2023 was not just a diplomatic mission but a platform to solidify the growing India-U.S. partnership in defense, trade, and technology. Similarly, visits to nations like Japan, Russia, and France were geared towards strengthening strategic partnerships that can have lasting economic benefits.

However, the question of whether these costs are justified remains. The government often highlights the business deals and economic partnerships that follow such trips. But can these benefits be quantified in such a way that justifies the substantial costs incurred? Or is there a more prudent way to engage in diplomacy that doesn’t require such lavish spending?

The true value of these trips lies not just in short-term gains but in their long-term impact on India’s global standing. For example, attracting foreign investment, forging strategic partnerships, and promoting India as a hub for innovation are outcomes that may take years to materialize. If these trips eventually lead to job creation, better trade deals, and stronger global influence, the initial costs may be viewed as an investment. Yet, whether this investment pays off for ordinary citizens remains an open question.

The Transparency Issue: Where’s the Breakdown?

While the government has provided an overview of the costs associated with these trips, it has been criticized for not providing a more detailed breakdown of where exactly the money is going. For example, how much is being spent on the Prime Minister’s personal security? What is the cost of transportation for the accompanying delegations? How much is the media coverage adding to the bill?

Such transparency is crucial, especially when public trust is at stake. Without detailed insights into how taxpayer money is being spent, it’s easy for the opposition to criticize the high costs as being wasteful. Providing a clear, itemized breakdown of these expenses would not only ensure greater accountability but also address any concerns about misuse of public funds.

Moreover, when these figures are released, the government should also consider providing comparative data on the costs of similar trips taken by other world leaders. This would allow for a more informed discussion on whether the expenditures are reasonable or if there are areas where savings could be made.

The political implications of these expenditures are immense. For opposition parties, especially the Congress, these figures are a goldmine for criticism. They argue that the government’s priorities are misplaced. At a time when India is grappling with economic difficulties, high inflation, and social inequality, spending ₹258 crore on 38 foreign trips seems excessive.

On the other hand, Modi’s supporters believe that these diplomatic missions are necessary for strengthening India’s position on the world stage. They point to the growing influence of India in international forums like the United Nations, the G20, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, attributing this success to Modi’s foreign policy. For them, these trips are investments in India’s future, securing partnerships that will pay off in the long run.

This divide in perspective highlights the ongoing struggle between fiscal conservatism and strategic global engagement. While both sides make valid points, it’s clear that the debate is not just about the costs of these trips but about the broader direction of India’s foreign policy and economic priorities.

 Rethinking the Costs of Diplomacy

As India continues to rise as a global power, the costs associated with its diplomatic efforts will likely increase. While these trips are an essential part of PM Modi’s foreign policy, the growing expenditure warrants careful scrutiny.

The question is not whether diplomacy is important, but whether the current model of conducting it is cost-effective. The government must consider finding a balance between maintaining a strong international presence and ensuring that taxpayer money is spent wisely. Transparency, accountability, and clear justifications for the costs of these trips will go a long way in addressing public concerns and ensuring that India’s global ambitions are realized in a fiscally responsible manner.

At the end of the day, the price of diplomacy should be weighed not just in monetary terms but in terms of the long-term benefits it brings to the citizens of India. Only then can we determine whether the cost of these high-profile foreign trips is truly worth the investment.

Amit Pandey

In a country where the common man struggles to make ends meet, inflation eats into salaries, and job opportunities remain elusive, the news of a 24% hike in MPs’ salaries lands like a thunderbolt. Is this a reflection of economic prudence, or does it expose the widening gap between those who govern and those who are governed? While the government insists on fiscal discipline, cutting down research grants, outsourcing university jobs, and leaving thousands of government vacancies unfilled, it has shown remarkable generosity when it comes to its own pockets. If austerity is the call of the hour, why does it apply only to the struggling middle class, the salaried employees, and the unemployed youth, while lawmakers grant themselves a comfortable raise without opposition?

This is the same government that justified job stagnation by pushing the narrative that street vendors, vegetable sellers, and even roadside snack vendors could be the torchbearers of India’s entrepreneurial dream. If selling pakoras is now considered dignified employment, why then do MPs need a fatter paycheck? Why does the economic burden never trickle up to those in power? The contradiction is glaring—while government employees are forced to make do with a meager 2% Dearness Allowance (DA) hike, citing economic distress, MPs unanimously approve their own raise without debate. How does this align with the claim that the government is struggling financially? If the economic crisis is real, should lawmakers not set an example by tightening their belts rather than loosening them?

The question remains—why do government employees, from high-ranking bureaucrats to fourth-class staff, not unite in protest against the systematic erosion of their financial rights? Why does collective bargaining seem impossible for those who serve the nation while unity among politicians is unwavering when it comes to personal financial gains? Ideologies may differ, party symbols may change, but when it comes to self-interest, Parliament speaks in one voice. If salary hikes for MPs can be sanctioned effortlessly, why can’t the same urgency be applied to long-pending employee promotions, better working conditions, and a reasonable DA increase?

The government’s priorities are laid bare. A country where research is undervalued, universities are forced into outsourcing, and public sector jobs remain unfulfilled cannot claim to be on a path of development. When was the last time Parliament unanimously stood for the working class, the jobless, or the financially squeezed government employees? If lawmakers can secure their futures without resistance, who will fight for the millions left behind?

Let’s break it down.

The Announcement

 The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs issued a notification, officially increasing the monthly salaries of MPs by a significant 24%. While some may view this as a reasonable adjustment given the inflationary pressures that have plagued the country in recent years, others see it as yet another example of a disconnect between the people and their representatives. The new salary now stands at Rs 1.24 lakh per month, up from the previous Rs 1 lakh. In addition, the daily allowance for MPs has been raised from Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500. The increase is also extended to former MPs, with pension hikes ranging from Rs 25,000 to Rs 31,000 per month, and additional pension for every year of service beyond five years being raised from Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500 per month.

But what does all this mean for the average Indian citizen, the ones who voted for these very MPs and have to make ends meet every day?

 The Economic Rationale: Is It Justified?

At first glance, the government’s rationale for this salary increase seems grounded in reason. The notification cites the Cost Inflation Index (CII) specified in the Income Tax Act of 1961, which accounts for the increasing cost of living. After all, salaries and allowances of public officials should, theoretically, reflect the changing dynamics of inflation, just like any other sector of the economy.

However, let’s consider the context. According to data from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), inflation has been a persistent issue in India for years, particularly in the food and fuel sectors. The common man has felt the heat of rising costs, especially with essentials becoming more expensive. While the increase in salaries for MPs might seem justified on paper, is this the right time to increase the salaries of elected representatives?

Take a moment to think about it. Average workers, who have also been dealing with rising prices, often see little to no increments in their salaries. In fact, many have faced job losses, wage cuts, and layoffs. The situation for farmers and blue-collar workers is even more dire. So, when MPs, who are supposed to represent these people, receive a substantial pay raise, one can’t help but question the fairness of the situation. It raises the uncomfortable question: are politicians too insulated from the economic realities of their constituents?

The Political Fallout: The Trust Deficit

For a country that is struggling with trust deficits in its political system, this hike might not sit well with the people. The truth is, the common man is already disillusioned with the political establishment. Elections, while hotly contested, often reveal a bitter reality – voters feel that they have no choice but to pick the “lesser evil” among candidates. Scandals, corruption, and a perceived lack of accountability continue to plague India’s political system.

In this context, a pay hike for MPs can be viewed as a tone-deaf move by the government, further deepening the divide between the political class and the public. For many, it’s hard to justify why MPs should get a raise when so many people are struggling to get by. 

Additionally, MPs already have significant perks, ranging from government-provided housing, free travel, and hefty pensions post-retirement. A salary hike at this juncture, when unemployment is on the rise and economic recovery is slow, risks exacerbating the public’s frustration with the political system.

The Psychological Impact: A Disconnect

India, like many other democracies, is based on the principle that the elected officials are “servants of the people,” working on behalf of their constituents. However, every move made by these politicians seems to further this feeling of a growing divide between the rulers and the ruled. The thought that those representing the people in the corridors of power might be out of touch with the daily struggles of the common man isn’t new. Still, this increase in salary only reinforces that idea.

The psychological impact of such a move can be enormous. People might start questioning the integrity and sincerity of their MPs. How can someone who is supposed to be working for the people justify such a large increase in their salary when the average citizen is struggling to survive on a meager income? This feeling of alienation can further erode public faith in the political system and its leaders.

Let’s not forget the former MPs who benefit from this increase in pension. Former members of Parliament, who no longer serve the people, are also entitled to pensions that will now rise from Rs 25,000 per month to Rs 31,000 per month. While it might seem like a modest increase, one must ask: Is this fair?

Are we, as a society, comfortable with providing these individuals who have served only a few years in office with such perks, while millions of hardworking Indians do not have a stable pension scheme or social security? Former MPs are entitled to additional pension for every year of service in excess of five years, meaning that for those who served longer periods, the payout could become substantial. 

Moreover, the additional pension for every year of service beyond five years being raised from Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500 per month means that former politicians, after having served for several years, stand to gain a fairly comfortable retirement compared to the average citizen.

The Political Economy: The Need for a Broader Debate

We need to understand that increasing MPs’ salaries isn’t simply a matter of “fairness” to those in public service. It’s a question of how such policies fit into the broader political economy of the country. What does this say about the government’s priorities when it comes to wealth distribution?

In a country where income inequality is growing, where millions still live below the poverty line, and where jobs are scarce, increasing the salary of MPs should be a part of a larger debate. Instead of just increasing the salary of parliamentarians, why not push for policies that directly benefit the common man? Why not focus on providing better healthcare, affordable education, or social security? Why not address issues like unemployment, rising prices, and economic instability?

The real question is: can India afford to keep rewarding its political class, when so many of its citizens remain trapped in cycles of poverty and economic distress?

A Step Toward Reform or More of the Same?

At the end of the day, the 24% hike in MPs’ salaries is symbolic of a much deeper issue at play – the disconnect between the political establishment and the common citizen. While the increase may have been justified by the rising inflation and cost of living, the timing and the optics of the move raise uncomfortable questions about fairness, accountability, and the priorities of the government.

Is this a necessary step toward reform, an adjustment to ensure MPs’ wages keep up with inflation? Perhaps. But at a time when the public’s trust in the political system is already at a historic low, such moves should be accompanied by broader policy shifts that directly benefit the people of India. Without addressing the root causes of public discontent, such measures risk being seen as yet another example of a political class that is more concerned with its own well-being than the well-being of the nation.

India’s democracy can and should be a reflection of its people. And until politicians start sharing the same concerns and struggles as the citizens they represent, the divide between the powerful few and the powerless many will only continue to grow.

( Author is Managing Editor of The Emerging World)

Zaheer Mustafa

Prakash Karat’s recent statement advocating for fostering better India-China relations without forming a formal alliance underscores a multifaceted issue embedded within the broader context of geopolitics, domestic political considerations, economic interdependence, and historical tensions. The statement comes amidst longstanding disputes between the two nations that have been punctuated by territorial disagreements, economic dependencies, and episodes of diplomatic engagements. It merits careful analysis to unravel its implications and the layers of meaning it might carry.

India and China share a deeply complex relationship characterized by unresolved border disputes, economic interdependence, and differing political systems. Among the most contentious issues is the territorial dispute over Arunachal Pradesh and the Aksai Chin region. These disagreements, dating back to the mid-20th century, resulted in the Sino-Indian War of 1962, an event that profoundly influenced bilateral relations. More recently, the skirmishes in Galwan Valley in 2020 further highlighted the volatility and fragility of the relationship. While India has sought to strengthen its territorial claims and bolster its defense posture, China has continued to assert its own claims, creating an environment of mistrust that complicates any efforts at reconciliation.

Economically, the relationship between the two countries is marked by significant asymmetry. While India has a burgeoning economy with a diverse industrial base, it remains heavily reliant on China for certain goods and sectors. For instance, in 2024, India’s trade deficit with China reached $85.1 billion, underlining the extent of economic interdependence. This reliance is particularly pronounced in sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and machinery. While economic engagement offers potential benefits, it also presents risks, as it allows China to wield considerable economic leverage. Critics argue that this dynamic could be exploited by China to advance its geopolitical objectives, particularly in the absence of trust and mutual respect.

Karat’s call for improved relations must also be viewed through the lens of India’s foreign policy objectives and its position in a multipolar world. India has historically pursued a policy of strategic autonomy, seeking to balance its relationships with major global powers without aligning too closely with any one bloc. In this context, fostering better ties with China could be seen as a pragmatic move to enhance India’s position in the global order. By engaging with China, India could potentially strengthen its negotiating position on global issues and counterbalance the influence of other powers, such as the United States. However, such engagement must be carefully calibrated to ensure that it does not compromise India’s core interests or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.

The timing of Karat’s statement also raises questions about its political motivations. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), has experienced significant setbacks in recent years, particularly in its former strongholds of West Bengal and Tripura. These electoral defeats have left the party grappling with questions about its relevance and future direction. In this context, Karat’s remarks could be interpreted as an attempt to reposition the party and align its foreign policy stance with the broader national interest. By advocating for improved relations with China, the CPI(M) may be seeking to demonstrate its pragmatism and relevance in the current political landscape.

However, the CPI(M)’s historical alignment with China adds another layer of complexity to this narrative. The party has often been perceived as ideologically sympathetic to China’s communist regime, a perception that has fueled criticism from its political opponents. Karat’s emphasis on maintaining autonomy and avoiding formal alliances could be seen as an attempt to distance the party from its ideological ties and present a more balanced and pragmatic approach to foreign policy. Whether this shift will resonate with the broader electorate and enhance the party’s political fortunes remains to be seen.

The ongoing tariff discussions between India and China further underscore the strategic calculations at play. These negotiations, which aim to address trade imbalances and reduce economic dependency, have significant implications for both countries. For India, the discussions represent an opportunity to address its trade deficit and strengthen its economic position. For China, engaging in these talks could help mitigate the impact of its own economic challenges, including deflation and a housing market crisis. Karat’s advocacy for dialogue and engagement aligns with these broader economic imperatives, highlighting the potential benefits of a more collaborative approach.

At the same time, it is essential to consider the risks associated with closer engagement with China. The unresolved border disputes and instances of aggressive behavior, such as China’s construction of infrastructure in disputed areas, underscore the challenges of building trust and fostering genuine cooperation. Additionally, China’s track record of using economic leverage to advance its geopolitical objectives raises concerns about the potential consequences of deepening economic ties without addressing the underlying issues.

Karat’s statement also reflects broader debates about India’s role in the global order and its approach to navigating a multipolar world. As emerging powers like China and India seek to assert their influence on the global stage, the dynamics of their relationship will play a crucial role in shaping the contours of the international system. By advocating for improved relations without forming an alliance, Karat underscores the importance of strategic autonomy and the need for India to chart its own course in the face of complex global challenges.

In conclusion, Prakash Karat’s call for fostering better India-China relations offers a nuanced perspective on a multifaceted issue. While his proposal aligns with the principles of strategic autonomy and pragmatism, its feasibility and implications must be carefully examined. The unresolved territorial disputes, economic dependencies, and historical tensions between the two countries present significant challenges that must be addressed to build a foundation for genuine cooperation. At the same time, the potential benefits of improved economic and diplomatic engagement cannot be overlooked, particularly in the context of a rapidly evolving global order.

Ultimately, any shift in India’s approach to China must prioritize national interests and strategic autonomy. While dialogue and engagement offer a pathway to addressing shared challenges and advancing mutual interests, they must be accompanied by a clear-eyed assessment of the risks and a commitment to safeguarding India’s core interests. As India navigates the complexities of its relationship with China, the principles of pragmatism, resilience, and strategic autonomy will remain essential in shaping its foreign policy and securing its place in a multipolar world. Karat’s statement, while rooted in political and ideological considerations, serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced and forward-looking approach to one of India’s most complex and consequential relationships.