When Indian Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar visited Beijing in March, China yet again invited India to join its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative. Last year in December, Chief of Pak Army's southern command Lt. Gen Amir Riaz had also invited India to join China-Pak Economic Corridor(CPEC) which is part of OBOR and he chose Balochistan's capital to give this statement.

However, India decided to follow the hardline on this issue and summarily declined such offers. China wants India to join OBOR for many reasons foremost being that it will indirectly ratify transfer of Shaksgam valley in POK by Pakistan to China and will regularise Pakistan's occupation of Gilgit-Baltistan. India joining OBOR would obviously have implications on Indian position regarding China-Pak boundary agreement of 1963 whereby Pakistan ceded territory claimed by India to China.

India has never recognized this agreement as a legal one and a slight change in its stance may lead to de jure admission of China as an official third party to the Kashmir issue. Secondly, India joining OBOR will depress and isolate Baloch separatists who are waging an armed struggle against Pakistan and CPEC. Thirdly, by co-opting India in OBOR, China is looking forward to seeking access to Bhutan-Bangladesh-India-Bangladesh (BBIN) corridor which is not possible without India's consent.

China on becoming part of BBIN will get land access to mammoth market of South Asia as well as to the ports along the Bay of Bengal, and thus one more alternative route for Chinese goods to reach high seas. Ominously, for the first time in history, Chinese investment in Nepal is now more than Indian investment there. India is still to make all the calculations about the ultimate impact of allowing BBIN access to China. But before Indian manufacturing sector grows muscles to take on China, BBIN access to Beijing may not be a bright idea from Indian perspective.

Though Chinese position on issues like India's entry into NSG and UN sanctions against Maulana Masood Azhar remains unchanged, certain issues concerning both the countries have created some avenues of mutual cooperation, mutual favors and adjustments. For instance during last year's crisis in Nepal when Madheshis put up a blockade on Indo-Nepal border and Kathmandu threatened New Delhi with finding an alternative in China, Chinese told the Oli government that though they would provide help and assistance , China cannot be India's substitute. New Delhi returned the favour by conveying a similar message to Mongolia last year when China put up sanctions against the land locked country for hosting Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama.

However, that did not stop India from clearing Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang or hosting a Taiwanese parliamentary delegation despite Beijing's warnings coupled with open belligerence of China's state controlled media. In January, China TV claimed that motorised Chinese troops could reach New Delhi in 48 hours. So in February, India would host a 3 member women parliamentary delegation from Taiwan. Communist Party of China mouthpiece, Global Times fumed terming the Indian move akin to "playing with fire".

Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang came at a time when US President Trump was hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping and a bipartisan group of US Congressmen introduced legislation in both the houses of Congress calling for more access to Tibet and urging Trump to take up human right violations in Tibet with Xi.

Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu while accompanying Dalai Lama lashed back at China saying that his province shares boundary with "Tibet and not with China". With this statement, India may have actually played the Tibet card at a low wavelength and conveyed a stern message to Beijing as to what it could expect from New Delhi in coming times. Dalai's April visit to Tawang and CM Khandu's drastic statement is India's counter move to a statement in March by former Chinese interlocutor Dai Bingguo where he termed "the disputed territory in Eastern sector including Tawang" as being "inalienable for China"  and signalled concessions "elsewhere" if India yields to Chinese claim over 90000 sq kms of territory in Arunachal Pradesh.

During his visit to Tawang, Dalai Lama also addressed the issue of Chinese plans to appoint his successor and said that common Tibetans not China will have the right to decide fate of his office. China called his visit to Arunachal Pradesh as a severe setback for Sino-India relations. Beijing threatened India with dire consequences for allowing Dala Lama’s Arunanchal visit and declared standardized Chinese names of six places in Arunanchal. But this time Dalai Lama won’t blink and hit back saying the Chinese will have to worry about Tibet before going to war with China. Given the Chinese obstinacy on issues like UN sanctions on Maulana Masood Azhar, New Delhi seems to be in no mood to hold back Dalai Lama.

As China gets ready to host OBOR summit in May, India upping ante over Tibet assumes even greater significance and Chinese are painfully aware of the implications as OBOR’s integration with BBIN can only happen via Tibet. A recent article in Global Times accused India of stone walling OBOR's integration with BBIN corridor and after some polemics requested India to learn from "China-ASEAN economic cooperation and abandon the cliche mentality of associating everything with Geopolitics". Chinese Ambassador to India also appealed for integration of India’s Act East Policy with OBOR and even offered to rename CPEC to address India’s concerns and clarified the China has no plans to mediate on Kashmir issue unless both India and Pakistan give consent.

Chinese are not understanding that what they are offering as consideration for Indian participation in OBOR consists of peanuts and is anyway taken for granted. China cannot mediate on Kashmir issue anyways, without India agreeing to it. Renaming China Pak Economic Corridor would not address the legal issues relating to sovereignty over Gilgit-Baltistan and illegal territorial transfer by Pakistan to China. If China really wants India to concede, it will have to come up with concrete and substantial concessions of long term strategic value particularly on the border dispute.

(The author tweets at @DivyaSoti)

Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.