7 reasons why China may not gamble India ties for Pakistan’s terror agenda

India and Pakistan teetered on the brink of war during the recent four-day military conflict in which Indian forces compelled the Pakistani establishment to seek a ceasefire, following a deadly attack in Kashmir. The world’s gaze turned to China during India’s robust response in its war on terror with Prime Minister Narendra Modi declaring that “India will not tolerate nuclear blackmail”.  

The question that is being debated is: Would Beijing, Islamabad’s staunchest ally, throw its weight behind Pakistan’s hardline tactics? The answer, as recent events reveal, is a nuanced but resolute “no”.

China’s relationship with Pakistan is often described as “ironclad”, forged in the crucible of Cold War rivalries and cemented by billions in Belt and Road investments. Some see BRI as China’s long game in Pakistan,while others also see it as a contributing factor to the instability in Pakistan and also as a trap that Beijing finds itself in.  

More from World

How India can counter China’s sinister renaming of Tibetan places Opinion | Post Operation Sindoor, China struggling to regain reputation of its military products

Yet, when it comes to overtly backing Pakistan’s terror-linked provocations against India, Beijing exercises marked restraint. Seven key factors seem to underpin this calibrated approach by China:

Economic stakes with India: With annual bilateral trade nearing $140 billion, China has far more to lose than gain by antagonising India. New Delhi is not only a vital export market but also a key node in global manufacturing shifts away from China. Any disruption would reverberate through both economies, especially as India tightens restrictions on Chinese tech and investment. India is the biggest emerging markets for global manufacturers, from consumer items to strategic products.

Border stability is paramount: After the deadly 2020 Galwan Valley clashes, both nations have worked — though fitfully — towards de-escalation along their disputed borders. Direct support for Pakistan’s terror agenda would instantly unravel this fragile progress, risking new confrontations in Ladakh or Arunachal Pradesh. The aftermath of the Galwan clash saw India exposing faultlines of China’s economy with a series of ban orders against Chinese apps that triggered a disruption shaking Beijing economy. India’s action also set a template for the rest of the world to emulate. China may not risk a new vulnerable front.

Impact Shorts

View All

What do Trump's India tariffs have to do with Alaska talks? 'Very strong link,' says South Asia expert

West Asia News Live: Israel’s heat wave, Turkey’s earthquake defines a turbulent day in Middle East

Leadership in the Global South: China aspires to lead the Global South, a grouping that prioritises stability and development over conflict. Openly abetting Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism would tarnish Beijing’s image as a responsible power and alienate emerging economies it hopes to court.

Avoiding regional chaos: A full-blown India-Pakistan war would threaten China’s flagship Belt and Road projects, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Recent attacks on Chinese workers in Pakistan underscore the risks Beijing faces from instability — risks it is loath to exacerbate. Also, China is facing a mammoth challenge from the second term of Donald Trump as the US president. An uncertain US policy structure means greater risks to Chinese economy that is faltering despite months-long push by the Xi Jinping regime.

Strategic diversion, not confrontation: China prefers to keep India strategically distracted through arms sales and diplomatic support to Pakistan, rather than direct involvement in terrorist activities. This approach maintains pressure on India without crossing red lines that could provoke a broader conflict. With India becoming vocal in bilateral engagements and on multilateral forums about tacit support by countries to Pakistan, resulting in funds flowing to terror outfits flourishing with deep linkages to Pakistani military.

Diplomatic deniability: In their statements, China has made official calls for peace, coupled with behind-the-scenes support for Islamabad. This allows China to maintain plausible deniability. By condemning terrorism in generic terms but blocking UN sanctions on Pakistan-based groups, China walks a diplomatic tightrope. However, recently, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, on his return from post-Operation Sindoor tour of Beijing, acknowledged that he assured the Chinese leadership that his country would not allow its soil to be used for terror activities against any third country.

Then, there is the US factor: India’s growing defence ties with the United States, particularly through the Quad, make China wary of pushing New Delhi further into Washington DC’s embrace. Any overt support for Pakistan’s militant agenda could accelerate India’s strategic realignment. India has already launched a massive global diplomatic outreach to expose Pakistan’s terror links and those backing Pakistani establishment through overt and covert means. The US has now also started openly admitting that Pakistan’s terror patronage is known to its agencies and governments for decades. A likely India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by July is expected to cement Indo-American alignment, putting China in more disadvantageous position.

In the nutshell

China’s approach to the India-Pakistan rivalry is best described as “strategic ambivalence”: quietly empowering Pakistan while publicly urging restraint, and never quite tipping the balance. The calculus is clear — Beijing values its economic and diplomatic relationship with India too highly to risk it for Islamabad’s more extreme ambitions.

As India-Pakistan tensions simmer and heat up South Asia, China’s balancing act is likely to persist. For all the talk of “ironclad” friendship, Beijing’s true allegiance is to its own interests — and, for now, that means keeping India onside. This also means that China may ultimately discipline Pakistan or risk its global power ambitions.