In the complex world of international relations, the actions of a state are often scrutinized for the invisible hand of a powerful ally. When Amnesty International released its damning report on Pakistan’s Operation Sindoor—a campaign that systematically targeted the Hindu minority through forced marriages and conversions—a critical question emerged in analytical circles: Where did the responsibility truly lie? Given the era-defining alliance between Pakistan and China, symbolized by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), it is a valid geopolitical inquiry to ask: Did China support Operation Sindoor?
The short, direct answer is no, there is no evidence whatsoever that China directly supported, funded, or orchestrated Operation Sindoor. However, to simply stop there would be to ignore the nuanced and profound ways in which powerful international alliances can indirectly enable domestic human rights abuses. The relationship between China’s strategic interests and Pakistan’s internal actions is not one of explicit instruction, but of implicit permission and strategic silence.
Understanding Operation Sindoor: A Domestic Affair
First, it is crucial to understand what Operation Sindoor was. As detailed by Amnesty International and local Pakistani human rights groups, it was a coordinated campaign primarily in Sindh province that used the pretext of verifying Hindu marriage documents to harass, intimidate, and target the minority Hindu community. This operation created a legal framework for the abduction of young Hindu women, their forced conversion to Islam, and forced marriage to Muslim men.
The drivers of this operation were deeply entrenched in Pakistan’s domestic landscape:
- Non-State Actors: Hardline Islamist groups and local feudal landlords (waderas) with religious and political agendas.
- Local Complicity: Allegiances between these groups and local law enforcement and judiciary, leading to a culture of impunity.
- Discriminatory Laws: The misuse of blasphemy laws and the delayed implementation of the Hindu Marriage Act, which created a legal vacuum exploited by perpetrators.
This was a homegrown crisis, born from sectarian politics, religious extremism, and systemic corruption. There is no paper trail, no whistleblower testimony, and no analytical evidence to suggest that Beijing had any interest in micromanaging such a localized, socially complex issue.
China’s Stated Policy: Non-Interference
China’s foreign policy is famously, and rigidly, built on the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations.” This is the cornerstone of its bilateral relationships, especially with partners like Pakistan, Iran, and Russia. For Beijing, openly supporting a domestic operation targeting a religious minority would be a catastrophic violation of this principle, inviting international condemnation and damaging its carefully crafted image as a neutral economic partner in the Global South.
China’s primary interests in Pakistan are unequivocally strategic and economic:
- CPEC: The $60+ billion infrastructure project is the crown jewel of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), aimed at creating a secure trade route from Xinjiang to the Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea.
- Geopolitical Rivalry: Pakistan is a crucial ally in countering Indian influence in the region and providing strategic depth.
- Economic Expansion: Securing contracts for Chinese companies and establishing new markets for Chinese goods.
Supporting a brutal operation against a tiny minority community offers zero advancement toward these goals. In fact, it would only create instability and negative press, potentially jeopardizing CPEC projects.
The Indirect Enablement: The Strategic Silence
While China did not support Operation Sindoor, its role as Pakistan’s most powerful ally creates a context of indirect enablement. This occurs through two main channels:
1. The Blank Check of Unconditional Support:
China’s relationship with Pakistan is arguably its most unconditional. This unwavering diplomatic and economic support—shielding Pakistan from international criticism at forums like the UN Security Council and providing billions in loans—frees the Pakistani establishment from significant pressure to reform its human rights record. When a government knows its most powerful ally will never condition support on its treatment of minorities, it has less incentive to curb the excesses of its hardline elements. Beijing’s silence on issues like Operation Sindoor, Balochistan, or blasphemy laws is interpreted by hardliners in Pakistan not as disapproval, but as implicit acceptance.
2. The Securitization of Pakistan:
China’s immense economic investments have one paramount need: security. The fear of insurgent attacks on Chinese nationals and CPEC projects has led Beijing to press Islamabad intensely for tighter security measures. This has resulted in the expansion and hardening of Pakistan’s security state, particularly in Balochistan and Sindh.
While aimed at separatists and militants, this securitization empowers the very state apparatuses—the police, paramilitary forces, and intelligence services—that are often accused of complicity in operations like Sindoor. By strengthening these institutions without any parallel pressure for human rights accountability or reform, China indirectly contributes to an environment where such abuses can be perpetrated with impunity. The tools provided for one purpose (protecting Chinese assets) can be easily misused for another (oppressing minorities).
Conclusion: A Question of Complicity Versus Direct Action
So, did China support Operation Sindoor?
To accuse China of direct support is to misunderstand the nature of the operation and China’s foreign policy objectives. The evidence points to a domestic Pakistani issue, driven by internal actors and prejudices.
However, to completely absolve China of any responsibility is to ignore the realities of geopolitics. Powerful allies bear a moral responsibility for the actions of their partners. China’s strategic choice to offer unconditional economic and diplomatic support, coupled with its absolute silence on human rights abuses, provides the Pakistani state with a protective shield. This allows systemic issues like those exposed by Operation Sindoor to persist without fear of meaningful international repercussion.
Therefore, the question shifts from “Did China support it?” to “Does China’s unwavering alliance inadvertently allow it to continue?” The answer to the latter is a more resonant and troubling yes. Ultimately, the primary responsibility for Operation Sindoor rests with the Pakistani state and non-state actors who conceived and executed it. But in the shadow of CPEC and the embrace of the “Iron Brother,” the silence from Beijing is not neutral—it is a deafening endorsement of the status quo.