China’s partnership with Pakistan has long served as a key instrument in Beijing’s efforts to unsettle India. While official narratives frame the two nations’ alliance as one of economic cooperation and regional stability, the underlying strategy suggests a deliberate attempt to check India’s rise through military, economic and diplomatic maneuvering.
China’s growing influence in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with its own global ambitions. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, offers China direct access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing potentially vulnerable trade routes. For Pakistan, these investments provide critical infrastructure, yet they also cement a dependency that Beijing can leverage to keep Islamabad firmly in its orbit.
For India, the expansion of Chinese control over Pakistani infrastructure — especially in regions bordering India — creates security concerns. The CPEC runs through areas that India claims as its own, fueling tensions over territorial sovereignty, and reinforcing friction between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Beyond economic investments, China and Pakistan maintain robust military ties. Beijing has supplied Islamabad with advanced weaponry, including fighter jets, missile systems and naval assets, ensuring that Pakistan remains a formidable adversary to India. Joint military exercises and agreements on intelligence sharing further cement this defense partnership, forcing New Delhi to expend significant resources monitoring threats from its northern and western borders.
This dual-front challenge diverts India’s strategic focus, preventing it from dedicating full attention to its aspirations as a global power. The mere possibility of coordinated military operations between China and Pakistan serves as a potent deterrent that keeps Indian defense planners perpetually on high alert.
China’s diplomatic backing of Pakistan — especially on sensitive issues such as Kashmir — adds another layer to this strategy. Beijing has repeatedly blocked India’s efforts in the UN to designate Pakistan-based militants as global terrorists, frustrating New Delhi’s counterterrorism initiatives. China’s opposition to India’s bids for leadership roles in international organizations ensures that India remains entangled in regional disputes rather than focusing on broader global ambitions.
While China’s alliance with Pakistan serves multiple strategic objectives, one of its primary functions is to keep India constantly engaged in subcontinental conflicts. By ensuring that New Delhi must continuously address security concerns along its borders, Beijing delays India’s efforts to strengthen ties with other global powers or consolidate influence in Asia-Pacific affairs.
India is adapting. Enhanced diplomatic ties with the US, Japan and Australia, along with growing domestic military capabilities, suggest that New Delhi is working to counteract Beijing’s tactics. The long-term trajectory would depend on how New Delhi leverages its own alliances and economic resilience to turn this geopolitical challenge into an opportunity for greater strategic positioning.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS