China question facing India after Pahalgam
China's response to the rising tensions between India and Pakistan after the terror attack in Pahalgam is evolving in keeping with its interests. Since the Pahalgam terror strike, India has launched a diplomatic blitzkrieg, briefing global leaders. New Delhi began rallying world opinion, stating that it was in possession of intelligence that linked the Pahalgam perpetrators to Islamabad.
To dispel notions of a Beijing-Islamabad nexus, China's ambassador to India, Xu Feihong, initially tweeted his condolences and urged to 'oppose all forms of terrorism' without naming any party a day after the attack. But sensing that Pakistan may get isolated, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi spoke to his Pakistani counterpart, Ishaq Dar, on April 27, terming Pakistan as an 'all-weather' strategic cooperative partner.
Islamabad has stated that it welcomed a transparent investigation into the matter, a line supported by Beijing. When the matter came to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Pakistan got a leg up from China in diluting the incident. The UNSC statement read that those responsible for the killings should be held accountable, and resolved to push for international cooperation with all relevant authorities. This is a significant deviation from the UNSC's position following the 2019 Pulwama attack that sought collaboration with the Indian government and relevant Pakistani authorities.
Earlier in 2019, China teamed up with Pakistan to raise the Kashmir issue at the UNSC after India revoked the erstwhile state's special status. Beijing has also been instrumental in shielding the perpetrators of acts of terror committed on Indian soil. It has, in the past. blocked efforts to place Jaish-e-Mohammad's Rauf Asghar, Lashkar-e-Taiba's Sajid Mir and Abdur Rahman Makki on a UN sanctions list.
Since the abrogation of Article 370, the border issue between India and China has been in constant focus. In 2020, tensions rose following Beijing's bid to unilaterally alter the status quo along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Following this, the issue of the contested border with China took centre stage while things were relatively peaceful with Pakistan. In October 2024, India and China finalised patrolling arrangements for friction points in Eastern Ladakh following which, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at the BRICS summit in Russia. A cautious normalisation is underway with the decks recently cleared for the Kailash Manasarovar pilgrimage in Tibet to resume. High-level engagement has also resumed with restarting of the Special Representatives mechanism, which was mandated with ways to resolve the boundary question.
Official statements refer to the China-Pakistan relationship obsequiously 'as higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the deepest ocean, and sweeter than honey'. Beyond such platitudes, nations act solely in supreme national interest. China's response to the Pahalgam terror strike is in steady contrast with its own stand on many issues.
First, while Beijing launched crackdowns in the wake of terror strikes on the mainland, it has counselled New Delhi and Islamabad to exercise restraint and de-escalate tensions. While China backs Pakistan in seeking an independent investigation into the terrorist attack, it had hit back at Australia barring its imports after Canberra sought an international investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Second, with India's attention now focused on the western border with Pakistan, China could exploit this situation to extract a better deal and terms of engagement along the LAC.
Third, China would be hoping that relations between India and Pakistan further deteriorate, since any conflagration may leave New Delhi's military firepower depleted. This drained arsenal will further give it leverage in the ongoing LAC negotiations.
The Pakistan-China axis can thus be described as a creeper-client relationship. For Pakistan, this symbiotic relationship may be a ticket out of instability and economic weakness. In turn, a Chinese general has appraised Pakistan's value in its scheme of things as 'China's Israel'.
India's top military leadership has often warned about the possibility of a two-front war. India seeks a multipolar Asia, as the basis of a multipolar world. This is in contrast with China's construct of a multipolar world but a unipolar Asia. Beijing is thus incentivised to prop up Islamabad as a counter to New Delhi. Lastly, what will China's response to a military escalation between India and Pakistan be? In the 1971 and 1999 wars with India, Pakistan's hopes of China opening a front came to naught, the big question remains will Beijing have the bandwidth to come to Islamabad's aid at a time when it is bearing the brunt of US President Donald Trump's tariffs.
Harsh V Pant is vice president, and Kalpit A Mankikar is fellow, China Studies, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
India's population hits 1.46 bn, sees decline in fertility rate
New Delhi: India's population is estimated to reach 1.46 billion in 2025, continuing to be the highest in the world, according to a new UN demographic report, which also revealed the country's total fertility rate has fallen below the replacement rate. UNFPA's 2025 State of World Population (SOWP) Report, The Real Fertility Crisis, calls for a shift from panic over falling fertility to addressing unmet reproductive goals. Millions of people are not able to realise their real fertility goals, it asserts. This is the real crisis, not underpopulation or overpopulation, and the answer lies in greater reproductive agency - a person's ability to make free and informed 150 per cent choices about sex, contraception and starting a family, it says. The report also reveals key shifts in population composition, fertility, and life expectancy, signalling a major demographic transition. The report found that India's total fertility rate has declined to 1.9 births per woman, falling below the replacement level of 2.1. This means that, on average, Indian women are having fewer children than needed to maintain the population size from one generation to the next, without migration. Despite the slowing birth rate, India's youth population remains significant, with 24 per cent in the age bracket of 0-14, 17 per cent in 10-19, and 26 per cent in 10-24. The country's 68 per cent of the population is of working age (15-64), providing a potential demographic dividend, if matched by adequate employment and policy support. The elderly population (65 and older) currently stands at seven per cent, a figure that is expected to rise in the coming decades as life expectancy improves. As of 2025, life expectancy at birth is projected to be 71 years for men and 74 years for women. According to the UN estimates, India's population at present stands at 1,463.9 million. India is now the world's most populous nation, with nearly 1.5 billion people – a number expected to grow to about 1.7 billion before it begins to fall, around 40 years from now, the report said. Behind these numbers are the stories of millions of couples who decided to start or expand their families, as well as the stories of women who had few choices about whether, when or how often they became pregnant, the report said. In 1960, when India's population was about 436 million, the average woman had nearly six children. Back then, women had less control over their bodies and lives than they do today. Fewer than 1 in 4 used some form of contraception, and fewer than 1 in 2 attended primary school (World Bank Data, 2020), the report said. But in the coming decades, educational attainment increased, access to reproductive healthcare improved, and more women gained a voice in the decisions that affected their lives. The average woman in India now has about two children. While women in India, and every other country, have more rights and choices today than their mothers or grandmothers did, they still have a long way to go before they are empowered to have the number of children they want, if any, when they want them. The UN report placed India in a group of middle-income countries undergoing rapid demographic change, with population doubling time now estimated at 79 years. "India has made significant progress in lowering fertility rates – from nearly five children per woman in 1970 to about two today, thanks to improved education and access to reproductive healthcare," said Andrea M Wojnar, UNFPA India Representative. This has led to major reductions in maternal mortality, meaning millions more mothers are alive today, raising children and building communities. Yet, deep inequalities persist across states, castes, and income groups. "The real demographic dividend comes when everyone has the freedom and means to make informed reproductive choices.'
India.com
19 minutes ago
- India.com
India's Birth Rate Hits Historic Low – What It Really Means For The Future
New Delhi: In a country that once worried about having too many mouths to feed, a quieter and more unexpected concern is now surfacing. Indian families are choosing to have fewer children, and it is starting to show. A recent UN report reveals that India's fertility rate has dipped below the replacement level, meaning that, on average, women are now having fewer children than needed to maintain the population size over time. While the total population is still growing and currently stands at 1.46 billion (the largest in the world), the nature of that growth is changing. So what is happening, and why should you care? Back in 1960, the average Indian woman had nearly six children. At that time, India was grappling with rapid population growth, limited access to education for women and almost no reproductive healthcare. Fast forward to today. The average woman now has fewer than two children. According to the UNFPA's State of World Population 2025 report, India's total fertility rate has fallen to 1.9, below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 – the threshold needed for a stable population without migration. This is a important milestone. It means that India is now part of a global shift that is quietly reshaping societies, fewer babies, aging populations and a new set of economic and social challenges. Not a Crisis The UN is not calling this a crisis. In fact, it warns against the fear-driven headlines about 'population collapse'. What is more urgent, the report argues, is the unmet desire of millions of people who still do not have the power to decide if, when or how many children they want. In simple terms – this is not only about numbers. It is about choice. As Andrea Wojnar, UNFPA's India head, puts it, 'The real demographic dividend comes when everyone has the freedom and means to make informed reproductive choices.' Despite falling birth rates, India still has one of the youngest populations in the world – nearly a quarter of its citizens are under 14 and two-thirds are of working age. This is both an opportunity and a responsibility. With the right investments in jobs, education and healthcare, India could harness this 'youth bulge' for massive economic growth. But it is a narrow window. As life expectancy rises (now 74 for women, 71 for men), the proportion of elderly citizens will grow too. In the coming decades, India will face a very different problem – how to care for an aging population without enough younger workers to support them. What's Behind the Shift? The drop in fertility did not happen overnight. It is the result of decades of progress – better education for girls, wider access to contraception, urbanization and changing social norms. More women are staying in school, working and making decisions about their lives. That empowerment, experts say, is what is really driving the change. Still, the report warns that inequality runs deep. In some states and communities, access to reproductive healthcare remains limited. Many women, especially in rural or low-income areas, still have little say in reproductive decisions. India is not alone in facing these changes. Many countries, from South Korea to Spain, are seeing similar patterns – fewer births, smaller families and longer lives. The takeaway? Falling fertility is not failure. It is a sign that more people are making decisions on their own terms. The real challenge now is making sure that freedom extends to everyone, regardless of where they live, what they earn or who they are.
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
The US and China Are Talking Again. Don't Call It a Reset
Trade negotiations between the US and China in London mark a cautious step toward easing tensions, but not a new beginning. It's a short-term strategy to avoid further deterioration — a fragile truce that could be reversed at any moment. At the core is a deeper issue: National security. Both sides now view trade through that lens, and handshakes won't fix it. Washington must recognize that Beijing seeks respect and won't accept a one-sided, long-term deal. China, for its part, needs to understand that it won't be business as usual — and that the US will expect more concessions and market access to the world's second-largest economy. The alternative is continued hostility, which will make for a more chaotic global trade environment, and a more dangerous world. The London climbdown is positive, but precarious. Rapprochement has turned into recrimination before. After the initial euphoria of a trade-war ceasefire agreed in Geneva in May, both sides accused the other of reneging on a deal to temporarily lower tariffs that had climbed well above 100%. Now negotiators say they've reached an agreement in principle on a framework to deescalate trade tensions, based on the consensus forged in Geneva. Delegations from both sides will take the proposal back to their respective leaders, following nearly 20 hours of talks over two days. 'Once the presidents approve it, we will then seek to implement it,' US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. The full details of the accord weren't immediately available, but US officials said they 'absolutely expect' that issues around shipments of rare earth minerals and magnets will be resolved. There are no winners or losers coming out of this, notes Steve Okun, founder and chief executive officer of AC Advisors. The fundamental questions are much larger than any round of talks. 'The Trump administration needs to decide whether it views Beijing as a strategic competitor, or an existential threat,' he told me. 'Washington can take the economic hit from a trade war, but politically, Xi Jinping can suffer the hit for longer than Trump can. So one side has economic leverage, and the other political leverage — that's a standstill, for now.' The Chinese president is biding his time, despite a sluggish economy. In the most recent sign of how the trade war is hurting, exports rose less than expected last month. The worst drop in US-bound shipments since February 2020 — the outbreak of the pandemic — counteracted strong demand from elsewhere. Still, sales to other markets are providing much-needed support for an economy stuck in deflation and struggling with weak domestic demand. Beijing is sticking to its narrative that this trade war is Washington's problem, and that China is being unfairly targeted. A recent Xinhua commentary warned that America's security-focused view of economic issues risks undermining global cooperation. There is a pathway to peaceful coexistence, but compromises are required, notes Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institution. To break through with Xi, Trump will need to acknowledge that both countries are major powers. Neither can dictate terms to the other. Both would be hurt by high tariffs on each other's goods — but on their own, they're not enough to force capitulation. The US public has no appetite for a broader conflict with Beijing. Disapproval of China's behavior may be high, but the top priority is still to avoid war. Americans are clear in their desire to manage competition without that escalating into open conflict. For that to happen, Washington must recognize that Beijing craves respect. The US would be wise to pay heed to the Chinese concept of mianzi or 'face' — Xi will only agree to a long-term deal that he can pitch at home and abroad as a win. Beijing has taken lessons from Trump's first trade war, and judged that agreement to be one-sided in favor of Washington. It won't make that mistake again. China doesn't always like reciprocating face, but officials would be wise to give some to Trump, too. His tariffs have been outlandish, but his supporters also demand that he show strength, not concession. Beijing should be able to understand what happens when politicians need to cater to public pressure. Neither side has the upper hand to make the other come away an obvious loser. At the most, the London talks might have achieved just enough to help shape the future on a less-hostile basis. That in itself is progress — but it would be a mistake to call this moment a reset. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC's lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
