
SCO Or 'Strategic Complicity Organisation'? India's Fight Against Double Standards
China and Pakistan's growing nexus is systematically undermining India's security and strategic space
The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting held in Qingdao, China, on June 25-26, 2025, once again exposed the deepening strategic nexus between China and Pakistan —and their growing antagonism towards India. The meeting concluded without a joint communiqué after India refused to endorse a final statement that excluded any reference to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 innocent civilians. New Delhi had insisted on including the attack, which was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, Pakistan, with China's tacit backing, blocked any mention of it—mirroring an earlier episode at the United Nations Security Council on April 30, where Pakistan and China successfully lobbied to remove TRF's name from an official UNSC statement. Despite credible intelligence linking TRF to the attack, and the group itself claiming responsibility via a social media post, the final UNSC statement was deliberately diluted. Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, even publicly admitted that Islamabad had pushed for the exclusion of TRF's name—an act that indirectly confirms Pakistan's awareness and complicity of the group's involvement.
These actions reveal a deliberate and coordinated strategy by China and Pakistan, with Beijing actively shielding Islamabad—a state sponsor of terrorism against India—from international accountability. By obstructing efforts to address cross-border terrorism and weakening multilateral counterterrorism mechanisms, they pose a direct threat to India's national security and diplomatic interests.
The Expanding China-Pakistan Strategic Nexus
sharing real-time satellite-based ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) data with Islamabad. China has integrated its ISR networks with Pakistan's, deploying defence satellites and assisting in reorganising Pakistan's radar and air defence systems. During Operation Sindoor in May 2025 —launched in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack—China not only supplied intelligence on Indian targets but also reportedly helped redeploy Pakistan's radar coverage to better monitor Indian military movements.
According to strategic analyst Iqbal Chand Malhotra, this joint ISR and missile cooperation 'underscores a calculated shift toward integrated defence coordination to counter India", reaffirming that China views Pakistan as an extension of its strategic depth.
Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif confirmed the intelligence-sharing arrangement, calling it 'very normal" given the regional security climate. Supporting this, a research group under India's Ministry of Defence noted that China's satellite capabilities and technical expertise significantly enhanced Pakistan's ability to detect Indian deployments.
Additionally, Pakistan deployed Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles during the skirmish. Although these were intercepted by Indian defence systems, the deployment of these advanced missiles—likely including the export variant PL-15E mounted on J-10C and JF-17 fighter aircraft—demonstrates the deepening military interoperability between the two nations.
Now, in a deeply alarming development, China is preparing to supply Pakistan with fifth-generation fighter jets—at a 50% discounted rate. This is not a routine defence sale. It reflects Beijing's intent to further militarise Pakistan and destabilise India's strategic balance. Clearly, China considers Pakistan an extension of its strategic apparatus in South Asia, using it as a proxy to counter and constrain India.
Beijing pursues a comprehensive and integrated strategic approach. It uses every tool available—diplomatic, military, and economic—while leveraging allies like Pakistan to systematically box India into the South Asian theatre. India, however, has often made the mistake of treating these threats in isolation—formulating separate defence strategies for China and Pakistan, when in fact they are increasingly acting as one coordinated entity.
India's Pushback at the SCO
India's Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, refusing to sign the SCO communiqué, made a decisive stand—reviewing the document carefully on-site and rejecting superficial commitments to anti-terrorism. Footage from the summit shows Singh intently studying the document—clearly aware of the diplomatic trap laid for India.
Singh stated firmly: 'Terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including its cross-border nature, should be condemned in clear terms. There should be no place for double standards in dealing with terrorists." He further warned that 'some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of their state policy and provide shelter to terrorists. These states should be held accountable." These pointed remarks were widely interpreted as a clear rebuke to Pakistan and its enabler, China.
Unfortunately, some voices within India have mischaracterised this as a failure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's foreign policy. Such interpretations are misplaced and fail to account for the broader strategic context. The current global environment is far more complex, with China and Pakistan actively coordinating to undermine India's interests, making diplomacy increasingly challenging. China, emboldened by its global ambitions, is using Pakistan as a strategic weapon against India.
The SCO, hosted by China, reflects this imbalance. India cannot control the behaviour of adversarial states—especially when the host country is itself complicit. This blatant double standard exposes their coordinated agenda and willingness to manipulate multilateral platforms for geopolitical gains.
Critics must understand that India's foreign policy does not operate in a vacuum, nor is New Delhi the sole actor on the global stage directing the actions of others. On a geopolitical landscape marked by shifting alliances, asymmetric threats, and strategic deception, many external variables remain beyond India's control. What truly matters is that India continues to assert its national interests, reject duplicity, and hold accountable those who attempt to whitewash terrorism under the pretext of regional cooperation.
China's Hollow Rhetoric vs Hostile Actions
China continues to peddle diplomatic slogans like the 'shared Asian Century", the 'Dragon-Elephant Dance", and the Russia-India-China (RIC) framework. However, these lofty ideas are consistently contradicted by its actions—shielding Pakistan-based terrorists, arming Pakistan with advanced military hardware, and obstructing regional cooperation on counterterrorism. From betraying Nehru in 1962 despite the 'Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" rhetoric to the deadly Galwan Valley clash in June 2020, where 20 Indian soldiers were martyred, China has repeatedly acted in bad faith, even while professing partnership and regional unity.
China's primary objective remains clear: to contain India's rise, limit its strategic space, and ensure that New Delhi remains preoccupied with continental security challenges rather than expanding its maritime influence in the Indian Ocean. Even if the border dispute between India and China were to be resolved, the underlying geopolitical and geostrategic rivalry would persist, as both powers are rising within the same strategic space and their spheres of influence overlap. Those who dismiss the relevance of 'spheres of influence" in contemporary geopolitics should reflect on recent history: Russia's invasion of Ukraine was driven by its perception that NATO was encroaching on its strategic space. Similarly, China's use of Pakistan and other regional actors to counterbalance India is a clear manifestation of this thinking in the South Asian context.
Beijing's worldview is rooted in realpolitik, shaped by centuries of geopolitical thought and strategic tradition, including the oft-cited belief among Chinese strategists that 'two tigers cannot live on the same mountain". The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), for instance, is more than an infrastructure project; it embodies China's ambition to reshape global power structures and extend its influence across continents. It reflects not only a deep pride in China's strategic heritage but also a long-term vision for global leadership.
The SCO's Shifting Power Dynamics
The very raison d'être of the SCO—counterterrorism—has come under serious question. Despite housing a dedicated anti-terrorism mechanism known as the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), the SCO today is dominated by China and Pakistan, both of whom routinely block any attempt to acknowledge or act against terror groups targeting India. This contradiction has undermined the credibility of the organisation.
As External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recently pointed out, 'India wanted a reference to terrorism in the outcome document of the defence ministers' meeting, but it was not acceptable to one country". He further stated, 'If you can't get everybody to agree on something as basic as terrorism, then it calls into question what the SCO stands for."
India joined the SCO in 2017, largely at the invitation of Russia, which at the time aimed to balance China's growing dominance within the organisation. However, since the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow has become increasingly dependent on Beijing, and its ability to counterbalance China within the SCO has significantly diminished. As a result, China and Pakistan have consolidated their influence, often sidelining India's interests.
Nevertheless, India continues to actively engage bilaterally with Central Asian countries and does not rely solely on the SCO framework. The organisation remains one of several platforms for regional diplomacy, and India views it as part of a broader and diversified engagement strategy with Eurasia.
Conclusion
India must stop viewing the China-Pakistan axis through fragmented lenses. These two countries are acting in coordination to constrain India's rise and dilute its strategic autonomy. New Delhi must adopt an integrated strategic doctrine to confront this dual threat.
China's diplomatic overtures—be it talk of shared prosperity, Asian solidarity, or multilateral dialogue—must be scrutinised against its actions. India must forcefully and clearly convey that Beijing's consistent use of Pakistan to pursue its anti-India agenda is unacceptable. China's protection of destabilising non-state actors, defence proliferation, and ISR integration with Pakistan directly undermine India's security and sovereignty.
top videos
View all
The road ahead requires strategic clarity, national unity, and a willingness to call out hypocrisy on the global stage. As India's stature continues to grow, its neighbourhood will become increasingly challenging—particularly with hostile nexuses like that of China and Pakistan working in tandem. It is time India acknowledged this reality and acted accordingly.
Imran Khurshid is Associate Research Fellow, ICPS, New Delhi, and Adjunct Research Fellow, Peninsula Foundation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
China defence pakistan SCO
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 06, 2025, 01:40 IST
News opinion Opinion | SCO Or 'Strategic Complicity Organisation'? India's Fight Against Double Standards
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Gazette
13 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"India needs to act prudently," China crticises PM Modi's wishes for Dalai Lama's birthday
Beijing [China], July 7 (ANI): China on Monday lodged a protest against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's greetings to the Dalai Lama on his 90th birthday, warning New Delhi against interfering in its internal affairs, Global Times reported. On July 6, Prime Minister Modi sent greetings to the Dalai Lama, while the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Kiren Rijiju attended the celebration on behalf of the Indian government. Responding to the development, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, 'The position of the Chinese government on Xizang-related issues is consistent and clear. As is widely known, the 14th Dalai Lama is a political exile who has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities and seeks to separate Xizang from China under the cloak of religion.' Mao added, 'India needs to be fully cognizant of the sensitivity of issues related to Xizang, see clearly the anti-China and separatist nature of the 14th Dalai Lama, honor the commitments India has made to China on issues related to Xizang, act prudently, and stop using those issues to interfere in China's internal affairs.' She confirmed that China has protested to India regarding its actions. As tensions persist over India's engagement with the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government has reiterated its stance on the reincarnation of the Tibetan spiritual leader, the 14th Dalai Lama, with Chinese Ambassador to India Xu Feihong stating that the process is inherently an internal affair of China, adding that 'no interference by any external forces will be allowed.' In a post on X, Chinese Ambassador to India Xu Feihong wrote, 'It has been noted that some Indian officials recently made some remarks regarding the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.' The Chinese envoy further highlighted that the government 'opposes any attempts by overseas organisations or individuals to interfere in or dictate the reincarnation process.' 'Tibetan Buddhism traces its origins to China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The primary regions where Tibetan Buddhism is practiced are within China. The lineage of the Dalai Lamas took shape and evolved within China's Tibet region,' he wrote on X. The envoy also cleared the government's stance, asserting that the 'conferment of their religious status and titles is the prerogative of the central government of China.' Xu Feihong also stated that the Chinese government upholds the principle of independence and self-governance in religious affairs. He also emphasised that 'no interference by any external forces will be allowed.' 'The reincarnation and succession of the Dalai Lama is inherently an internal affair of China. The Chinese government upholds the principle of independence and self-governance in religious affairs and administers the reincarnation of Living Buddhas, including that of the Dalai Lama, in accordance with the law. No interference by any external forces will be allowed,' the envoy wrote on X. The Tibetan community in exile celebrated the 90th birthday of the 14th Dalai Lama with traditional fervour and devotion at the Sambhota Tibetan School in Chhota Shimla on Sunday. (ANI)


India Gazette
13 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"You are a Minister of the Indian Republic, not a monarch": AIMIM chief Owaisi targets Kiren Rijiju over his claims of minority welfare under Union Government
New Delhi [India], July 7 (ANI): All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi targeted Union Minister Kiren Rijiju while replying to his 'X' post, mentioning his newspaper article related to minority welfare in India. Calling out Kiren Rijiju a 'minister' of the 'Indian republic' rather than a 'monarch', the AIMIM chief stated 'minority rights' are 'fundamental' rather than being a 'charity'. Asaduddin Owaisi asked whether is it a 'benefit' to be called 'Pakistani, Bangladeshi, jihadi, or Rohingya' everyday. He queried whether is 'protection' that Indian citizens are being 'kidnapped' and 'pushed' into Bangladesh. 'You are a Minister of the Indian Republic, not a monarch. Kiren Rijiju you hold a constitutional post, not a throne. Minority rights are fundamental rights, not charity. Is it a 'benefit' to be called Pakistani, Bangladeshi, jihadi, or Rohingya every single day? Is it 'protection' to be lynched? Is it protection that Indian citizens were kidnapped and pushed into Bangladesh?' Owaisi wrote on 'X'. Asaduddin Owaisi also questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asking whether it is an 'honour' to be the 'target' of his 'hate speech'. The AIMIM chief mentioned that the Indian minorities are not even 'second class citizens' but have turned into 'hostages'. 'Is it a privilege to watch our homes, masjids, and mazaars being bulldozed illegally? To be made socially, politically, and economically invisible? Is it an 'honour' to be the target of hate speeches from no less than the Prime Minister of India? India's minorities are not even second-class citizens anymore. We are hostages', the 'X' post said. Owaisi asked Kiren Rijiju whether can 'Muslims' be inducted into 'Hindu Endowment Board' while mentioning about the Waqf Amendment Act which 'forces non-Muslims onto Waqf Boards'. The AIMIM chief alleged that the Union Government discontinued the Maulana Azad National Fellowship and 'limited' the post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarships as they were 'Muslim' students. 'If you want to talk about 'favours', answer this: can Muslims be members of Hindu Endowment Boards? No. But your Waqf Amendment Act forces non-Muslims onto Waqf Boards -- and allows them to form a majority. You discontinued the Maulana Azad National Fellowship. You defunded the pre-matric scholarship. You limited the post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarships. All because they benefited Muslim students. Muslims are now the only group whose numbers have fallen in higher education. Their presence in the informal economy has gone up. They have been among the worst-hit by your economic policies. This is your own govt's data', he wrote on 'X'. Owaisi stated that Indian Muslims are the only group whose children are now worse off than their parents or grandparents. He mentioned that they are not asking to be compared with other minorities of other countries but demand social, economic, and political justice. 'Indian Muslims are the only group whose children are now worse off than their parents or grandparents. Intergenerational mobility has reversed. Muslim-concentrated areas are the ones most starved of public infrastructure and basic services. We are not asking to be compared with other minorities of other countries. We are not asking for more than what the majority community gets. We are demanding what the Constitution promises: social, economic, and political justice', the 'X' post said. (ANI)


India Gazette
14 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Partnership with Russia 'resilient and steadfast'- Indian finance minister
Nirmala Sitharaman held talks with Russian counterpart Anton Siluanov on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Brazil New Delhi's strategic partnership with Moscow remains "resilient and steadfast," Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said on Sunday. The minister's comments came after a meeting with her Russian counterpart, Anton Siluanov on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro. "The Union Finance Minister observed that India and Russia enjoy exemplary levels of mutual trust and understanding and our Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership remains resilient and steadfast," the Indian Finance Ministry said in a post on X. During the talks with Siluanov in Rio, Sitharaman also expressed gratitude for the support extended by Russian President Vladimir Putin to India after the April terror attack in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir that claimed 26 lives. READ MORE: G7 still thinks it is running the world. The global majority has moved on Sitharaman also congratulated Russia for its successful chairmanship of BRICS in 2024 and said that India would continue to leverage the multilateral platform to build South-South cooperation in areas of common interest. The finance ministers discussed modalities of various initiatives recently taken up by BRICS members, Sitharaman said in her post on X. The two sides also reviewed cooperation in the financial sector, along with matters related to the New Development Bank (NDB). The NDB was founded by BRICS in 2015 to address the needs of developing countries that, according to its members, are not equally represented in the international financial architecture. The Rio BRICS summit concluded with a joint declaration that criticized unilateral tariff actions and condemned "indiscriminate" trade measures, without directly mentioning the United States.