China’s Belt and Road Initiative and India’s refusal to join it rest on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’s passage through Gilgit-Baltistan. Examine how this sovereignty position has shaped India’s connectivity diplomacy.

Introduction: India boycotted the first Belt and Road Forum in 2017 because CPEC's $62 billion route runs through Gilgit-Baltistan, breaching the Instrument of Accession 1947 and Article 1(3)(c) of the Constitution.

Body: Three dimensions trace the consequence for connectivity diplomacy. First, sovereignty rationale — Delhi's position is that activity on Indian-claimed territory is 'inherently illegal, illegitimate and unacceptable'. Second, alternative corridors — IMEC (signed 9 September 2023 at the G20 New Delhi Summit), INSTC via Chabahar (US sanctions waiver lapsed 26 April 2026) and I2U2 (14 July 2022) offer connectivity that respects sovereignty. Third, scale and hedge — BRI spans about $1 trillion across 147 countries; India's response is a portfolio of partial connectivities rather than a single bet, embedded in MAHASAGAR.

Conclusion: Maintain the BRI boycott as principled, operationalise IMEC pilot cargoes via UAE-Israel Haifa, formalise INSTC with Russia-Iran, and accelerate the Trincomalee energy hub.