In an exclusive interview with senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai of India Today, senior China Policy Analyst Einar Tangen’s assessment sheds light on the complex geopolitical realities underlying China’s continued strategic support for Pakistan, despite persistent international concerns over terrorist activities linked to groups operating in Pakistani territory.

According to Tangen, the deep-seated trust deficit between India and China was once again highlighted during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) joint declaration against terrorism.

While New Delhi has long expressed frustration at Beijing’s consistent shielding of Pakistan at multilateral forums—particularly in cases where the United Nations sought to blacklist organizations such as Jaish-e-Mohammad or designated individuals like Masood Azhar—China’s rationale, as Tangen explains, is rooted not merely in alliance politics but in broader security calculations.

Beijing views Pakistan not only as a strategic partner in South Asia but also as a fragile, nuclear-armed state whose collapse could trigger chaos far beyond its borders.

If Islamabad’s internal stability ruptured, the resulting vacuum could strengthen extremist groups, potentially creating a haven for militancy that would extend insecurity into China’s own restive Xinjiang region as well as destabilize Central Asia.

From this perspective, China’s controversial practice of vetoing UN resolutions against Pakistan-based entities is less a defence of terrorism and more an attempt to preserve regional stability and prevent collapse. Tangen stressed that, in Beijing’s calculus, the risks of cutting Pakistan adrift outweigh the diplomatic costs of shielding it.

At the same time, Tangen proposed that the SCO—a forum where India, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Central Asian states sit at the same table—should consider establishing an independent mechanism to verify claims of state-sponsored terrorism.

At present, accusations are plagued by mistrust and power rivalries, preventing effective counter-terrorism cooperation. A robust verification framework within the SCO could help depoliticize terrorism-related disputes and strengthen mutual accountability, though the success of such a mechanism would rely on political will among members to compromise on entrenched positions.

Framing the issue within the broader shifts of global power, Tangen underscored that the world is moving away from a US-dominated unipolar order toward a multipolar landscape in which regional powers must take greater responsibility for stability.

For India especially, he argued, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. New Delhi, with its growing global stature, must decide whether it wishes to remain a reactive power, focused narrowly on bilateral disagreements, or emerge as a proactive leader helping to design new multilateral frameworks for security, development, and governance in Eurasia.

In Tangen’s words, “If you want a better world and you’re not prepared to invest in it, it’s not going to happen.”

Ultimately, Tangen’s perspective highlights the paradox at the heart of Sino-Indian relations: while both nations articulate a shared commitment to fighting terrorism at global platforms, their competing geopolitical imperatives undermine cooperation.

China’s defence of Pakistan acts as a barrier to trust-building with India, while India perceives China’s moves as contrary to its security interests. Yet both nations remain bound within the SCO, compelled to engage in dialogue.

The challenge, he suggests, is whether rising powers like India and China, despite their differences, can design new mechanisms that transcend old suspicions and invest meaningfully in a multipolar order capable of managing terrorism and instability with shared responsibility.

Based On India Today Video Report