India has long refused to recognise any boundary between Pakistan and China across a disputed section of the Himalayas that Delhi claims as its own.
Tensions surfaced after Islamabad and Beijing formalised a joint boundary commission in a remote part of the mountainous borderland, drawing a firm rejection from Indian officials.
The two nations established the Pakistan-China Boundary Joint Commission, an arrangement described by Islamabad as a “significant milestone” aimed at enhancing bilateral cooperation in border administration, trade, and regional connectivity.
Delhi rejected the agreement, stating it carries no legal validity because India does not accept any Sino-Pakistani frontier situated on territory it considers Indian land, reports BBC.
This friction coincides with efforts by India and China to stabilise bilateral relations following years of military standoffs along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Beijing and Islamabad are expanding cooperation along an adjacent segment of the frontier that Delhi also claims.
Diplomatic objections and counter-claims
Responding to the announcement, the Indian foreign ministry declared that Pakistan possesses no locus standi to execute agreements concerning Indian territory under its illegal and forcible occupation.
Conversely, Pakistan asserted that Jammu and Kashmir remains a disputed territory, arguing that Delhi lacks standing to challenge Islamabad’s 1963 boundary treaty with China, which Pakistan regards as valid.
According to Jabin T Jacob, a professor in the Department of International Relations and Governance Studies at Delhi’s Shiv Nadar University, the joint commission marks the operationalisation of an existing mechanism rather than an entirely new agreement.
Jacob explained that a joint commission was originally outlined in the 1963 Sino-Pak Agreement, making the timing of its implementation the key issue.
He noted that China may be motivated by a broader strategy to delimit its international borders and formalise movement along a frontier while Pakistan encounters instability along its other borders.
Jacob warned that India should be concerned by the development, pointing out that it appears to disregard Article 6 of the 1963 treaty itself.
Article 6 stipulated that the boundary would be renegotiated following a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute with whichever nation ultimately holds sovereignty over the territory.
Jacob observed that China’s extensive global information footprint, through platforms such as CGTN, CRI, and social media, allows Beijing to project its narrative and maps globally, leaving Delhi’s protests at risk of being overlooked by foreign capitals.
Strategic implications and frontier infrastructure
Beyond diplomatic rhetoric, extensive cross-border infrastructure links already exist in the region, including the Karakoram Highway and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which connects to Gwadar port.
Husain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the US and now a senior fellow at the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, described the commission as serving both practical and political purposes.
Haqqani noted that Islamabad’s strategy evolved in response to constitutional changes made by Delhi in Indian-administered Kashmir, such as the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, while Pakistan maintains that the sovereign status of Jammu and Kashmir remains undecided, it views the agreement as institutionalising a situation that has existed de facto since 1963.
For Beijing, offering reassurance to Pakistan deepens bilateral strategic ties while reinforcing India’s concerns regarding a potential two-front security challenge.
Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Jaiswal reaffirmed that Delhi’s position remains clear and consistent: any attempt to legitimise what India considers an illegal occupation holds no bearing on Indian sovereignty. While analysts observe no immediate operational impact along the LAC, the broader significance lies in the incremental institutionalisation of border frameworks that Delhi has consistently rejected.
