SOURCE: AFI
On April 23, 2025, Chinese Ambassador to India Xu Feihong posted a message on X expressing condolences for the victims of the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people, mostly tourists. The attack, claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), sparked widespread outrage in India.
However, the ambassador’s gesture was met with sharp criticism and accusations of hypocrisy from Indian users on X, who highlighted China’s history of blocking India’s efforts to designate LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) leaders as global terrorists at the United Nations.
The Pahalgam attack, one of the deadliest civilian strikes in Jammu and Kashmir since the 2019 Pulwama attack, occurred on April 22, 2025, at Baisaran meadow, a popular tourist spot dubbed “mini Switzerland.” Terrorists, believed to have infiltrated from Kishtwar via Kokernag, opened fire on tourists, killing 25 Indians and one Nepali national, and injuring over 20 others. The TRF, linked to LeT co-founder Hafiz Saeed, claimed responsibility, with intelligence sources pointing to Saifullah Kasuri, a top LeT commander, as a key planner.
In response, Ambassador Xu Feihong posted on X: “Shocked by the attack in Pahalgam and condemn. Deep condolences for the victims and sincere sympathies to the injured and the bereaved families. Oppose terrorism of all forms.” China’s foreign ministry echoed this sentiment, with spokesperson Guo Jiakun stating, “We mourn the victims and extend our sincere sympathies to the families of the victims and the injured,” while condemning the attack and opposing all forms of terrorism.
The ambassador’s post quickly drew a torrent of criticism from Indian X users, who accused China of duplicity given its track record at the UN Security Council (UNSC). Between 2009 and 2019, China repeatedly used its veto power to block India’s proposals to designate JeM chief Masood Azhar and other LeT operatives as global terrorists under the UNSC’s 1267 sanctions regime. These vetoes, often justified by China as a need for “more evidence” or “consensus,” shielded Pakistan-based terror leaders, frustrating India’s counter-terrorism efforts.
The backlash was fueled by China’s defense of its vetoes, notably articulated by then-Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who argued that Beijing’s actions were based on procedural fairness. Indian users highlighted the contradiction: China’s condemnation of the Pahalgam attack, linked to LeT, clashed with its historical protection of LeT-affiliated terrorists like Azhar, who was only designated a global terrorist in 2019 after China lifted its veto under international pressure.
China’s use of its UNSC veto to block terrorist designations has been a long-standing irritant in India-China relations. The 1267 sanctions regime allows the UN to impose asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes on listed individuals and entities. India, supported by the US, UK, and France, sought to list Azhar for his role in attacks like the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and the 2019 Pulwama attack. However, China’s vetoes—four times between 2009 and 2019—delayed action, drawing accusations of shielding Pakistan, its “all-weather friend.”
Even after Azhar’s eventual listing, China has continued to resist India’s bids to designate other LeT and JeM operatives, citing technicalities or lack of consensus. X user @0Abh1sh3k pointed out, “China keeps defending the move to block listing of LeT terrorists at UN using its veto power. Now showing fake sympathy? If China really wants to support India against the terrorism, it should [stop] funding Paxn in all ways.” This sentiment reflects India’s broader frustration with China’s strategic alignment with Pakistan, including through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and military support.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.