How supporting Pakistan-based terrorism is disastrous for China – Firstpost

On April 22, the world witnessed a brutal terrorist attack in Kashmir: 25 Indian civilians and a Nepali citizen were slaughtered in cold blood. A proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) backed by Pakistan, The Resistance Front (TRF), initially took credit before attempting to distance itself. What followed was a telling exercise in diplomatic posturing that exposed the uncomfortable realities of China’s role in South Asia.

At the United Nations Security Council, China played a critical role in watering down the official condemnation of the attack by blocking India’s attempt to explicitly name the terrorist groups responsible. Publicly, Beijing called for an “impartial investigation”, but its behind-the-scenes actions revealed a clear tilt toward shielding Pakistan. This was no accident—it was a deliberate choice to protect its strategic “iron brother”, Pakistan, while avoiding a direct confrontation with India.

India’s response was swift and uncompromising. On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir with surgical precision. Yet, while many countries, including the United States, France, Israel, and others, expressed solidarity with India’s right to defend itself, China chose a different path. Its foreign ministry described India’s strikes as “regrettable”, a phrase that belied Beijing’s deeper discomfort and strategic calculations.

China’s muted condemnation of terrorism when its ally is implicated reveals a fundamental contradiction in its global ambitions. Beijing wants to position itself as a responsible leader of the Global South, a mediator in conflict zones, and a proponent of peace. By refusing to condemn Pakistan-backed terrorism and criticising India’s legitimate counterterrorism response, China undermines that image and compromises its credibility, not just with India but across South Asia and the wider international community.

The truth lies beyond official rhetoric. While China publicly called for investigations, its envoy assured Islamabad of Beijing’s unwavering support. Chinese state media minimised the Pahalgam massacre, and social media platforms carefully avoided directly addressing the attack’s severity. This was not neutrality; it was narrative control designed to protect Pakistan’s interests.

This diplomatic shielding serves multiple Beijing priorities. First, it protects the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which runs through volatile regions including Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—areas prone to militant attacks targeting Chinese investments.

Operation Sindoor sends a clear message that India will escalate costs for Pakistan’s proxy terrorism, which threatens the security of Chinese assets. Beijing’s choice to shield Pakistan thus risks backfiring, as instability in these regions directly threatens China’s economic and strategic investments. China could have seen the benefits of India’s strikes to curb terror camps along its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Second, China must manage the domestic repercussions of jihadist ideology spilling over from Pakistan and Afghanistan into its sensitive Xinjiang region. Any perceived ideological infiltration among Uyghurs or international criticism of China’s selective counterterrorism policies would challenge Beijing’s internal security and global reputation. If the world views China’s anti-terrorism efforts as inconsistent or transactional, it diminishes Beijing’s claim to moral leadership in combating global terrorism.

The diplomatic game extended into the media and social spheres. Following the attacks and Operation Sindoor, Chinese state media and social platforms amplified Pakistan’s victim narrative, blaming India for escalating tensions. False claims circulated about Indian fighter jets being shot down, violations of the Indus Waters Treaty by India, and even fabricated reports of Indian soldiers captured by Pakistan. These disinformation campaigns seek to discredit India’s military credibility and bolster Beijing’s all-weather partnership with Islamabad.

More alarmingly, Beijing’s discourse drew parallels between India’s aggressive posture along the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan and its actions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China. Despite a border agreement in October 2024 aimed at easing tensions after the Galwan clash, these narratives underscore persistent Chinese distrust toward India, suggesting a strategic narrative that views India’s security actions as provocations on multiple fronts.

Underlying these narratives is China’s broader strategic anxiety: that India’s assertiveness seeks to undermine Pakistan’s regional standing and challenge China’s influence in South Asia.

This episode highlights China’s diplomatic tightrope walks: while publicly projecting an image of a neutral peacemaker, it remains firmly aligned with Pakistan, often at the expense of regional trust and its own long-term interests.

Nowhere is this contradiction starker than in the case of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor itself. As the “crown jewel” of the Belt and Road Initiative, CPEC runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, an area India considers illegally occupied, as well as through Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Punjab—the very regions where Operation Sindoor targeted terrorist bases. These zones have long been hotbeds of insurgency and militancy, with Chinese personnel and infrastructure frequently under attack.

India’s willingness to target terrorist sanctuaries in these regions signals a new threshold—proxy war will have consequences. This shift threatens China’s investments and exposes the risks Beijing takes in backing Pakistan unconditionally. India’s exclusion of China from a diplomatic briefing in New Delhi after Operation Sindoor was a pointed diplomatic rebuke, indicating a recalibration of India’s engagement strategy toward Beijing.

The risks extend beyond infrastructure and diplomacy. The ideological spillover of militant extremism from Pakistan and Afghanistan into China’s western Xinjiang province is a real concern for Beijing. If jihadist networks gain influence among Uyghurs or international observers highlight China’s selective counterterrorism policies, it could fuel domestic unrest and tarnish China’s global image. This undermines China’s broader ambitions to lead the Global South and shape international norms on security and counterterrorism.

Operation Sindoor was more than a military strike—it was a geopolitical litmus test. China’s choice to cloak support for Pakistan in diplomatic ambiguity was a missed opportunity to affirm a principled stand against terrorism. In a world where credibility counts as much as power, China’s equivocation risks alienating partners, emboldening adversaries, and complicating an already fragile regional order.

For China to claim a genuine role as a responsible power, it must reconcile its rhetoric on peace and security with its actions on the ground. Shielding Pakistan’s proxy war undermines regional stability, jeopardises China’s economic interests, and strains Sino-Indian relations at a critical juncture.

Ultimately, Beijing’s silence is deafening—and it speaks volumes. In the complex calculus of South Asia’s security landscape, China’s selective engagement on terrorism is a liability, not an asset. The world is watching, and China’s missed moment may well have lasting consequences far beyond Jammu and Kashmir.

The author is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, ASEAN and the African Union. He tweets @AmbGurjitSingh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.