China’s embassy in New Delhi has taken the unusual step of publicly defending India against a surge of anti-India sentiment on Chinese social media, Times of India reported.

The controversy erupted after Ambassador Xu Feihong announced an expansion of visa issuance for Indian travellers, a move intended to signal Beijing’s commitment to improving bilateral ties. Instead of being welcomed, the initiative triggered a wave of online abuse directed at Xu, with nationalist influencers accusing him of betraying China’s interests.

The backlash was swift and intense, with prominent voices on Chinese platforms framing the ambassador’s decision as capitulation to India. Some nationalist commentators went so far as to label Xu a traitor, arguing that easing travel restrictions undermined China’s position in ongoing disputes with New Delhi.

The vitriol reflected the growing influence of online nationalism, which often clashes with the pragmatic tone of official diplomacy.

Faced with escalating hostility, Chinese state-linked media outlets and the embassy itself intervened. They issued statements urging citizens to reject xenophobia and avoid spreading misleading narratives about India.

The embassy stressed that expanding visas was part of a broader effort to stabilise relations, not a concession, and warned against allowing online rhetoric to derail diplomatic objectives. This intervention was rare, highlighting the seriousness with which Beijing viewed the online revolt.

The episode underscores a widening gap between China’s diplomatic priorities and the mood of segments of its online public. While the government seeks to normalise ties with India after years of border tensions, nationalist influencers continue to push narratives of rivalry and suspicion.

The embassy’s defence of India illustrates the challenge Beijing faces in reconciling domestic nationalist sentiment with its strategic need for stable relations.

For New Delhi, the incident is significant. It demonstrates that China’s leadership is willing to confront its own nationalist base to protect the trajectory of bilateral engagement. India should note that Beijing’s defence of its position was not merely rhetorical but a calculated move to preserve diplomatic momentum.

The fact that the embassy directly addressed public opinion shows the importance China attaches to ensuring that its outreach to India is not undermined by domestic backlash.

This moment also reveals the evolving dynamics of Chinese nationalism. Online communities have become powerful enough to challenge official narratives, forcing the state to intervene when diplomatic initiatives are at risk. The embassy’s defence of India is therefore not only a diplomatic gesture but also a test of how far Beijing is prepared to go in curbing nationalist excesses for the sake of foreign policy stability.

As India and China continue efforts to rebuild trust, this episode highlights the delicate balance between diplomacy and domestic politics in Beijing.

It signals that stabilisation of ties will require not just agreements between leaders but also management of public sentiment within China.

For India, the embassy’s intervention is a reminder that diplomatic progress is possible, but it will unfold against the backdrop of contested narratives within Chinese society.

Agencies