The terrorist attack on 22 April in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians, including a Nepali national, marked another grim chapter in South Asia's ongoing struggle against cross-border militancy. The Resistance Front (TRF), affiliated with the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility but later withdrew the statement.

India promptly launched 'Operation Sindoor', accusing Pakistan of orchestrating the attack. In response, Pakistan denied any involvement, condemned the attack and called for an independent probe. Both New Delhi and Islamabad ramped up diplomatic efforts to shape international opinion and strengthen their respective counterterrorism narratives.

Amid widespread condemnation, China's response stood out– not for what it said, but for what it chose not to say. Beijing issued a generic condemnation of terrorism, extended condolences and called for restraint and dialogue. Crucially, it avoided attributing blame to any party – unlike the United States and other powers that supported India's position more openly.

This ambiguity isn't accidental. It reflects Beijing's strategic diplomacy: maintaining leverage over New Delhi while preserving deep influence in Islamabad, all the while safeguarding its broader regional ambitions.

But the cost of this calculated silence is rising. The Kashmir dispute is no longer merely bilateral – it is increasingly trilateral, with China emerging as a decisive, if silent, stakeholder in the region's complex geopolitics.

China's response aligns with its long-standing diplomatic approach: non-interference, a preference for regional stability and avoidance of direct entanglement. But this stance also masks deeper strategic interests – particularly its strong alliance with Pakistan and increasingly tense relationship with India.

By refusing to name Pakistan or associated militant groups, China avoids alienating its 'iron brother', a vital partner in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key project under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). At the same time, China seeks to avoid further straining ties with India – a major regional competitor and global player with whom it shares a contested border, significant trade and overlapping strategic ambitions.

As terrorism in South Asia becomes more decentralised, transnational and ideologically fragmented – with great-power interests increasingly involved – China's cautious neutrality risks being seen not as impartiality, but as complicity. The very stability required to safeguard Chinese investments and maintain regional credibility is now under threat from the very actors Beijing avoids confronting.

China's muted stance stems from two competing imperatives. First, protecting its enduring partnership with Pakistan, which is central to China's westward strategic and economic outreach. Second, avoiding alienating India, a rising Asian power shaping the Global South, and an influential member of global platforms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

Yet, Beijing is not immune to terrorism's spillover. Its passive stance could endanger its own national security, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet, where South Asia-based Islamist networks may present potential ideological or operational links to Uyghur separatists. Militants in Pakistan's volatile Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – home to CPEC projects –have already targeted Chinese workers and infrastructure. Groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Baloch Liberation Army and Islamic State Khorasan Province expose the limits of China's belief that economic investments ensure regional stability.

From a real politik perspective, China may benefit from prolonged India-Pakistan tensions. Such a scenario diverts India's strategic focus from the Indo-Pacific to its western frontier, reinforces Pakistan's dependency on China and weakens regional forums like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) – where India resists Chinese influence. But this tactical flexibility comes at the cost of credibility, regional trust and strategic foresight. The 21st-century terrorism is fluid, networked and ideologically driven. The notion that China can remain above the fray is increasingly unsustainable.

Even Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif recently admitted that Islamabad supported militant groups for decades, calling it a 'mistake' rooted in Cold War and post-9/11 geopolitics. In a British TV interview, he acknowledged that Pakistan engaged in 'dirty work' on behalf of the West.

The Pahalgam attack, though not aimed at China, has far-reaching implications. It has exacerbated Indo-Pakistani tensions, destabilised a key Chinese partner and exposed Beijing's selective counterterrorism approach.

Global expectations are shifting. The diplomatic posturing of both India and Pakistan following the attack has challenged nations – including China – to go beyond platitudes. For China, the choice is about whether to continue shielding its allies under the guise of neutrality or to shoulder the responsibilities of a major global power. Its all-weather friendship with Pakistan must now be balanced with responsible influence – especially regarding state-linked or transnational terror proxies. The unchecked proliferation of extremist groups near its borders poses tangible threats to its security, reputation and investments.

As the threat of terrorism becomes increasingly interconnected and global, China may soon be forced to abandon passive neutrality and play an active role in shaping a regional counterterrorism strategy. If it fails to adapt, the cost of neutrality may soon outweigh the benefits it currently enjoys.

Maj. General Basnyat (Retd.) is a strategic analyst affiliated with Rangsit University, Thailand. Twitter: @BinojBasnyat