“The attack stems from deep-rooted political and religious tensions in Kashmir,” Liu Zongyi, a senior research fellow at the Center for South Asian Studies of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies. “India’s response is unsurprising; it has long blamed Pakistan for such incidents. This could further strain India-Pakistan ties and increase regional instability. The Narendra Modi government may also try to leverage the crisis politically.”
Liu also the attacks to the abrogation of Article 370. “The revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status fuelled local resentment by curtailing rights and encouraging demographic changes. This discontent, exploited by extremist groups, is evident in the targeting of male Hindus during the attack,” he added.
Another commentator : “Kashmir is no longer normal. The insistence on a ‘return to normalcy’ is perhaps the most regrettable aspect of this administration’s Kashmir policy.”
Chinese analysts broadly view the international response, especially from the United States, as favouring India. One common framing on is: “The West stands with India, and Pakistan for support”.
A commentator : “The US and Israel have openly sided with India, supplying weapons and ammunition, effectively endorsing Modi and preparing India for a full-scale war. But they underestimate the preparedness of the Pakistani army.”
On Baidu, a user wondered about China’s role. “With the US and Russia both backing India, and Pakistan increasingly isolated, how can China continue to support its long-standing ally without jeopardising its own interests?” he . India’s growing importance in the US Indo-Pacific strategy is widely seen as narrowing China’s regional manoeuvrability, even as Russia signals increased openness to Pakistan, he added.
Meanwhile, Chinese scholars are stressing regional stability. “Restraint and rationality between India and Pakistan are key to South Asia’s stability. The international community must encourage both sides to de-escalate,” a researcher at Fudan University’s Institute of International Studies.
Wang Shida, Executive Director and researcher at the South Asian Institute of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, for a calm and measured response. He urged against the temptation to satisfy domestic nationalist demands at the risk of regional stability. Notably, he also wrote that in the sabre-rattling between India and Pakistan, the latter should not be perceived as showing weakness.
While some Chinese voices recall past troop mobilisations along the China-India border as symbolic support for Pakistan, few expect any now. Most anticipate that Beijing will maintain a diplomatic posture—advocating calm, protecting its interests, and avoiding direct provocation.
A Baidu commentator that China’s current caution on Kashmir is a way to maintain balance between its relations with India and Pakistan. He suggested that Beijing could take on a more active role through the Belt and Road Initiative, facilitating dialogue while strengthening its own border infrastructure.
While commentary on platforms like Baidu and Guancha remains relatively measured, Weibo and WeChat reflect stronger pro-Pakistan sentiment. One Weibo post described Pakistan as “” to China’s strategic security, highlighting their “all-weather” relationship, which is rooted in defence cooperation, nuclear partnership, and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Some users even that in a wartime scenario, China could provide Pakistan with intelligence and material support.
A WeChat accused India of trying to escalate tensions rather than identifying the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. He added that India has begun a “water war” by controlling river flows, posing a grave threat to Pakistan’s agriculture and economic stability. Another post took the conspiracy theory further.
“US Vice President Vance arrived in New Delhi on 22 April, a terrorist attack occurred the next day. Without any investigation, Modi immediately blamed Pakistan. Coincidence—or not?” the post .
A warned India against escalation, implying that China could step in to support Pakistan both diplomatically and militarily.
“We aim to support Pakistan and bring India to its knees. India, blindly following the US, is sabotaging China’s transport routes and trying to sever our economic lifeline. It is a vicious wolf and a hungry tiger at our doorstep—aggressive, cunning, and poised to strike. Our goal should be to cripple India permanently, leaving it a deflated power incapable of rising again,” read a particularly hostile .
Chinese discourse has deliberately avoided holding Pakistan accountable for the Pahalgam terror attack. Rather than condemning terrorism, many Chinese voices blame India, express sympathy for Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation, and call for deeper Chinese support. This is not neutrality; it is calculated alignment. Beijing continues to use Pakistan as a proxy to destabilise India and undercut its regional influence.
For decades, China has enabled Pakistan’s anti-India agenda through diplomatic cover, military support, and economic aid. The result is a sustained campaign of cross-border terrorism that Beijing refuses to confront as long as it serves the goal of containing India’s rise. China is deliberately ignoring Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism, even as the threat mirrors the kind of violence it claims to oppose. India is not collateral; it is the target.
The irony is stark: China, too, has lost its citizens to terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, it chooses to dismiss India’s security concerns, eroding the possibility of regional stability and exposing its calls for peace as hollow rhetoric.
This posture may yield short-term strategic gains for Beijing, but the long-term consequences are catching up. As global support and solidarity for India deepen, China’s turning a blind eye to Pakistan’s state–sponsored terrorism risks becoming a lasting liability.
Present Chinese discourse makes one thing clear: India is the target of state-sponsored terrorism, and Beijing remains complicit by design.
Sana Hashmi is a fellow at Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
