China’s Secret War: Is It Using Pakistan to Undermine India with Terror?

China’s official narrative on terrorism has remained consistent over the years — at least on paper. It describes terrorism as “a common enemy of humanity” and emphasizes that there should be no ambiguity or double standards in combating it. But when these words are held against China’s longstanding and strategic friendship with Pakistan — a country globally criticized for harboring terror groups — they begin to ring hollow.

From blocking the designation of known terrorists at the United Nations to avoiding direct condemnation of Pakistan-backed attacks in India, China’s behavior raises a difficult but necessary question: Is Beijing quietly enabling terrorism in South Asia under the guise of strategic diplomacy? One of the clearest indicators of China's indirect support is its behavior at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). As a permanent member, China has repeatedly blocked or delayed efforts to blacklist Pakistan-based terrorists.

• Masood Azhar Case (2009–2019): India moved multiple proposals to list Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist after major attacks — including the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing. Despite JeM openly claiming responsibility for such incidents, China used its veto power to block his designation at least four times. It finally relented in May 2019, only after facing global diplomatic pressure from the U.S., France, and the UK.
• Other “Technical Holds”: Between 2009 and 2020, China placed at least six “technical holds” on UN proposals seeking to sanction various Pakistan-linked individuals and groups under the 1267 Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee. Most were eventually withdrawn or dropped due to lack of consensus, which China ensured by delaying or stonewalling.

This pattern of obstruction clearly illustrates that China prioritizes its alliance with Pakistan over global counterterrorism obligations.China’s continued protection of Pakistan on international platforms is not an accident. It is a conscious foreign policy decision grounded in strategic interests.

• China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): The $60+ billion corridor is a flagship project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It runs through Gilgit-Baltistan — territory claimed by India but under Pakistan’s control — giving China both economic and political stakes in defending Pakistan’s position.
• Geopolitical Leverage Against India: Beijing views Islamabad as a counterbalance to India’s growing regional influence. Keeping Pakistan diplomatically intact, even when it hosts terror infrastructure, serves China’s long-term goal of limiting Indian strategic reach.
• Military Ties and Arms Transfers: China has supplied advanced weapons and nuclear technology to Pakistan for decades, including assistance in building the Khushab nuclear reactors and training Pakistan’s missile systems — a relationship that deepens security dependency between the two.

This close alliance incentivizes China to avoid confronting Pakistan, even when the latter’s behavior compromises regional security. China's stance on terrorism is not only selective but deeply contradictory. Domestically, it cracks down harshly on what it labels extremist threats. Internationally, it deflects and denies when its allies are involved.

• Xinjiang vs. Kashmir: In Xinjiang, China justifies the detention of over one million Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps on the grounds of preventing Islamic extremism and separatism. Yet when it comes to Kashmir — where groups like LeT and JeM operate openly from Pakistani soil — China refuses to even name the perpetrators.
• Language of Equivalence: Whenever a terror attack takes place in India, Chinese foreign ministry statements carefully avoid mentioning Pakistan. Instead, they call for “dialogue and restraint from both sides” — a narrative that dilutes the role of the aggressor.

This reveals not a principled stance against terrorism, but a selective and strategic application of the term, based on who commits the act. The most recent example of China’s ambiguous approach came after the Pahalgam terror attack in May 2025, which killed several Indian security personnel. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, warned against “ambiguity or double standards on terrorism,” referencing China's support to Pakistan.

In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian maintained that China’s position on terrorism is “clear and consistent.” However, he refused to name Pakistan or condemn the attack specifically — continuing a familiar pattern of evasion.

This response came during the visit of Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong to New Delhi, the first high-level visit since the attack and subsequent escalation between India and Pakistan. Despite claims of peace and cooperation, there was no real indication that China was willing to reevaluate its support for Pakistan in matters related to cross-border terrorism. China’s silence and obstruction on Pakistan-related terrorism has drawn increasing criticism from the international community.

• Credibility as a Global Power: Countries that seek to lead on the global stage must show consistency in matters of global security. By shielding known terror groups and their sponsors, China undermines not just its own moral standing but also the credibility of institutions like the UNSC and FATF.
• Impact on Counterterror Coalitions: China's actions weaken global consensus against terrorism. For instance, the U.S., France, UK, and India have often found their efforts blocked by China in multilateral forums, making global cooperation more fragmented and less effective.
• Encouragement to Terror Proxies: By refusing to hold Pakistan accountable, China indirectly encourages the continued use of proxy warfare by terrorist groups against India, which not only destabilizes South Asia but also makes terrorism a viable strategic tool.

China may not be sponsoring terrorism directly, but it is certainly complicit through silence, inaction, and selective diplomacy. Its repeated use of veto power to shield Pakistan, its refusal to name perpetrators, and its strategic investment in Pakistan all point toward a foreign policy that prioritizes alliance over accountability.

Words like “global peace” and “shared responsibility” lose meaning when they are not matched with action. If China wishes to be seen as a genuine global leader — not just a transactional power — it must stop enabling states that give safe haven to terror.

Until then, the question remains not just relevant but urgent:
Is China quietly supporting terrorism through its friendship with Pakistan?
The evidence suggests that the answer is yes — not through weapons, but through willful diplomatic cover.


Explore the latest trends and tips in Health & Fitness, Travel, Life Hacks, Fashion & Beauty, and Relationships at Times Life