China claims mediator role as India, Pakistan tensions simmer
China’s Mediator Claim Rekindles Debate in New Delhi as India–Pakistan Fault Lines Resurface
China’s self-declared role as a “mediator” between India and Pakistan during the brief but tense May 7–10 conflict—codenamed Operation Sindoor—has stirred fresh controversy in New Delhi. At the heart of the dispute lies a familiar and sensitive question for India: should any third party be allowed a role in managing its relationship with Pakistan?
The issue resurfaced this week when Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, speaking at a symposium in Beijing on December 30, claimed that China had “helped mediate” several international crises in 2025, including those involving India and Pakistan. Presenting an overview of what he described as one of the most turbulent years in modern history, Wang said China adopted an “objective and just stance” in addressing major global conflicts.
The list of conflicts Wang referred to included northern Myanmar, Iran’s nuclear programme, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Cambodia–Thailand tensions—and strikingly for India, the confrontation between New Delhi and Islamabad.
But his comment was enough to rekindle one of South Asia’s longest-standing diplomatic debates: whether foreign powers should have any say in India–Pakistan affairs. For New Delhi, the answer has always been an unequivocal “no.”
India’s Firm Line on Bilateralism
Reacting to questions from reporters, Indian officials dismissed China’s statement as an exaggeration, bordering on misrepresentation. The Ministry of External Affairs reiterated its long-standing position that all matters between India and Pakistan, including conflict and peace, must be resolved bilaterally—without intervention or mediation from external actors.
At a press briefing earlier in May 2025, shortly after the standoff ended, the ministry had already clarified the sequence of events that led to de-escalation. during their phone call on May 10, commencing at 15:35 hours,” the spokesperson said. India’s military leadership coordinated directly with its Pakistani counterparts, with no external channel involved.
That clarity, New Delhi argues, leaves no room for interpretation. For India, dialogue with Pakistan happens only through military or diplomatic channels established between the two sides. Bringing in outside powers—especially one so closely aligned with Islamabad as China—violates both the spirit and the letter of India’s diplomatic doctrine.
Beijing’s Claim and the Perception Problem
From Beijing’s standpoint, its narrative fits a broader agenda. In recent years, China has tried to cast itself as a responsible global power and a stabilising influence amid worsening international conflicts. By claiming involvement in diffusing tensions between India and Pakistan, China adds another feather to its self-image of being a “peace broker.”
However, India and many regional observers see this claim through a more skeptical lens. In their view, China’s supposed neutrality is compromised by its long-standing strategic and military partnership with Pakistan. That alliance spans everything from defense cooperation and infrastructure investment under the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor to joint exercises and weapon transfers.
This dual role—both as Pakistan’s closest ally and as a self-proclaimed peacemaker—undermines Beijing’s credibility in India’s eyes. “How can a country that openly supports one side claim to be a neutral mediator?
Indeed, during Operation Sindoor itself, China’s reaction was telling. On the first day of the conflict, Beijing called India’s airstrikes “regrettable” while simultaneously urging restraint on both sides. That language, Indian officials note, leaned more towards Islamabad’s position and was viewed in New Delhi as indicative of Beijing’s bias rather than balance.
Operation Sindoor: A Brief But Tense Flashpoint
While details of Operation Sindoor remain heavily classified, what is publicly known paints a picture of fast escalation followed by remarkably swift containment. Between May 7 and 10, 2025, Indian and Pakistani forces exchanged fire and air sorties along the border, creating a tense standoff that many feared could spiral beyond control.
Behind the scenes, hotline communications between the two militaries ensured that both leaderships remained in contact, preventing miscalculations. It was this direct communication—what India refers to as the “DGMO line”—that ultimately led to de-escalation. According to New Delhi, no external involvement, Chinese or otherwise, was part of that process.
For Indian policymakers, that fact matters deeply. The principle of bilateral resolution with Pakistan is not merely procedural—it is political, historical, and emotional. Ever since the 1972 Shimla Agreement, India has consistently rejected third-party mediation, arguing that internationalising bilateral disputes often invites more complications than solutions. China’s attempt to insert itself, many feel, touches a raw nerve.
Bigger Goals Behind Beijing’s Rhetoric
For China, however, Wang Yi’s statement serves a different purpose. Beijing’s diplomatic messaging over the past few years has increasingly sought to portray China as a “global peacemaker”—one capable of guiding others out of crisis while maintaining its own strategic balance. Citing the India–Pakistan episode alongside conflicts in West Asia and Southeast Asia elevates China’s global profile at a time when its relations with the West remain economically strained and politically adversarial.
By declaring a mediating role, Beijing strengthens the perception that it is an indispensable actor in global crisis diplomacy—much like the United States used to be. In symbolic terms, it reinforces President Xi Jinping’s goal of projecting China not merely as a superpower, but as a moral and stabilising force in an unstable world.
But that narrative, however appealing internationally, runs into obvious limitations when applied to crises involving China’s own strategic interests. In the South China Sea, Taiwan, or the Himalayas, Beijing’s actions often reveal a hard-edged pursuit of national objectives, not impartiality. Thus, when it claims to have “mediated” the India–Pakistan conflict, many see it less as a factual statement and more as a reflection of propaganda-driven ambition.
India’s View: Keep It Between Neighbours
In the end, the episode underscores the widening gap between India’s and China’s worldviews. For New Delhi, the red line is clear: India–Pakistan issues are a bilateral matter, and any suggestion otherwise—no matter how diplomatically worded—is unacceptable. For Beijing, presenting itself as a global mediator plays well in international forums and adds to its narrative of leadership.
Operation Sindoor may have lasted only four days, but its aftershocks continue to ripple across Asia. The difference between mediation and commentary may appear semantic to outsiders, but in South Asia’s volatile context, words carry weight.
If China truly seeks regional stability, India believes that respecting its diplomatic boundaries is a better gesture than claiming credit for mediation that never took place.
As both countries navigate their complex relationship—marked by cooperation in global trade and competition in geopolitics—the latest controversy is a reminder that trust remains fragile. For India, peace with Pakistan will always be shaped by its own terms, not dictated or certified by a third party. And for China, its desire to be seen as a peacemaker will ring hollow as long as its shadow looms so heavily over the subcontinent’s most sensitive divide.