India's mineral diplomacy vs China's contentious Tibet mining: A comparative analysis

In recent years, India and China have intensified their mining activities abroad, adopting markedly different strategies with significant implications. While India focuses on securing critical minerals through international collaborations, China’s expansion in Tibet has sparked considerable environmental and cultural concerns.

India’s strategic mineral acquisition

The Indian government is proactively seeking mining opportunities overseas, led by a team of Secretary-level officials under the SGOS-3 framework. Key entities in this initiative include Khanij Bidesh India Limited (KABIL), National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), Coal India, and ONGC Videsh Ltd. Their primary goal is to secure vital minerals essential for India's industrial growth.

Recent efforts have seen Indian delegations, including representatives from Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited and Adani Enterprises Limited, visiting countries such as Chile, Argentina, Australia, and Belarus. India is particularly interested in mining lithium and copper in Chile, with negotiations underway for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In Argentina, mining operations are set to begin across five lithium blocks. Additionally, Coal India is contemplating lithium mining in Chile, while KABIL is conducting feasibility studies for potential projects in Belarus. Four Indian Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) are expected to commence operations in Belarus shortly.

China’s controversial mining expansion in Tibet

In contrast, China’s mining expansion in Tibet under President Xi Jinping has raised widespread alarm over its environmental and cultural impact. Tibet, rich in mineral resources and ecological diversity, faces extensive mining operations that threaten its delicate environment and cultural heritage.

The Gyama Copper Polymetallic Mine in Tibet, notorious for a disastrous landslide that buried over 80 miners, exemplifies the risks associated with these ventures. The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has repeatedly warned about potential disasters linked to such mining activities. The Julong Copper Mine, one of the world’s largest, is set for significant expansion, exacerbating environmental concerns. Reports of worker disappearances underscore the severe human risks involved in these operations.

Critics argue that China’s aggressive mining practices in Tibet are driven by commercial exploitation with little regard for local ecological and cultural significance. They call for sustainable practices and the inclusion of local communities to mitigate the ecological and social impacts of mining in this sensitive region.

Conclusion

India’s overseas mining endeavours aim to secure essential minerals through strategic international partnerships, while China’s approach in Tibet has drawn substantial criticism for its environmental and human costs. India's efforts, emphasising collaboration and sustainable resource acquisition, stand in stark contrast to China’s controversial practices in Tibet. This juxtaposition highlights the differing priorities and methodologies of these two Asian powerhouses in their quest for mineral resources.