IRIA News

7 minute read

Tensions within the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) erupted on June 26, 2025, when India refused to sign a joint statement during a key summit of defense ministers, alleging that the document exhibited a pro-Pakistan bias.

The disagreement unfolded during a ministerial-level meeting of SCO defense chiefs, where Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh strongly objected to the final communique, which did not mention the deadly April 22 attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

According to some sources, Singh contended that the omission effectively validated Pakistan’s narrative, while ignoring India’s security concerns. The sources also reported that Singh believed the draft “aligned with Pakistan’s narrative” by including references to alleged militant activity in Balochistan but making no mention of the Kashmir attack that claimed mostly Hindu lives.

India has accused Pakistan of backing the attackers responsible for the April incident, in which a bus carrying Indian tourists was ambushed and set ablaze in Kashmir. Pakistan has denied any involvement in the attack, and the disagreement over its inclusion in the SCO’s joint statement has now sparked diplomatic friction within the bloc.

Although Singh did not name Pakistan directly during the summit, his comments were pointed. He called upon the SCO to condemn countries that use “cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists.”

“Peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups,” Singh said in a statement released by the Indian Ministry of Defense. “Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action.”

SCO Defense Ministers Meeting

The 22nd meeting of Defense Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) concluded in Qingdao with a display of regional solidarity on paper—but also deep divisions on the issue of terrorism.

All ten SCO member states participated in the talks, including China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and newly joined Belarus. However, India refused to endorse the joint communique, citing failure to explicitly address the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam that killed Indian civilians.

During the meeting, attending officials exchanged views on the current situation in global and regional security, as well as further ways to strengthen SCO cooperation in the defense sector.

SCO Secretary-General N. Yermekbayev emphasized the critical role of defense cooperation among member states in effectively addressing today’s complex security challenges. He highlighted the importance of building mutual trust in the military domain, expanding joint military drills, and enhancing collaboration in military medicine.

Participants were also briefed on ongoing efforts to reform and modernize SCO operations, as mandated by the heads of state. The briefing included updates on current political and diplomatic initiatives as well as preparations for the upcoming SCO Heads of State Council meeting, scheduled to be held in Tianjin this autumn.

India’s growing frustration with the SCO framework

India’s refusal to sign the statement underscores growing discomfort in New Delhi about the SCO’s direction under Chinese leadership, especially considering deepening China-Pakistan ties and the group’s apparent unwillingness to equally acknowledge regional security threats.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, with India and Pakistan joining in 2017. Originally formed to counterbalance Western influence and enhance regional cooperation, the SCO has gradually become an arena where China seeks to project political and strategic dominance.

China has increasingly taken over operational leadership of the SCO, organized military exercises and summits, while positioning the bloc as a pillar of its foreign policy in Eurasia. Russia, preoccupied with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has taken a back seat, leaving Beijing in the driver’s seat. This has raised concern in New Delhi that the SCO is being used to advance Beijing’s and Islamabad’s priorities at the expense of Indian interests.

While the SCO presents itself as a platform for regional collaboration against terrorism, separatism, and extremism, India has long accused Pakistan of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Pakistan, on its behalf, frequently accuses India of meddling in its internal affairs, particularly in the restive Balochistan region. These longstanding rivalries have often undermined the bloc’s ability to present a unified front.

The absence of any mention of the April 22 killings, one of the deadliest attacks in the region in recent years, reinforced Indian suspicions that the SCO’s collective statements are being shaped to avoid criticizing Pakistan. This was particularly striking because the statement did include references to militancy in Balochistan, a subject frequently raised by Islamabad.

April’s attack and aftermath

The attack on April 22 marked one of the most serious escalations between India and Pakistan in recent years. According to Indian officials, gunmen ambushed a bus carrying Indian tourists returning from a pilgrimage, killing 26 people and injuring several more. Most of the victims were Hindu tourists, and the attack occurred in the sensitive region of Kashmir, which remains at the heart of India-Pakistan disputes.

Following the attack, a period of intense military exchanges erupted between Indian and Pakistani forces along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border in Kashmir. After several days of artillery and drone strikes, a U.S.-brokered ceasefire helped de-escalate the confrontation, but tensions remain high.

India has repeatedly demanded international condemnation of the attack and accountability for the perpetrators, who it claims were supported by Pakistan-based groups. Pakistan, however, has rejected these claims and maintains that it had no role in the incident.

SCO’s relevance in question

The dispute over the joint statement has thrown into question the SCO’s effectiveness as a multilateral platform. Despite its stated goals of combating terrorism and promoting regional stability, the organization has often struggled to reconcile the competing national interests of its members.

India’s decision not to endorse the final document is a rare public rebuke and a significant diplomatic gesture. It also raises doubts about the viability of future cooperation within the bloc, particularly when it comes to security matters where consensus is crucial.

For India, which has grown increasingly close to Western powers through forums like the Quad, comprising the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India, the SCO’s utility is under scrutiny. As the organization tilts further toward China’s strategic objectives, including closer coordination with Pakistan, India may find itself increasingly isolated within the group.

Meanwhile, China’s efforts to use the SCO to deepen its influence across Central and South Asia appear to be encountering resistance. India’s firm stance at the summit not only challenges China’s leadership of the organisation but also signals that New Delhi is unwilling to compromise on national security concerns for the sake of regional optics.

This diplomatic standoff at the SCO summit could set the tone for future Indian engagement with the bloc. While New Delhi has not yet indicated any plans to downgrade its participation, its dissatisfaction was made unmistakably clear.

By standing apart from the joint declaration, India has drawn a line, one that reflects its broader strategic recalibration in an increasingly multipolar world. As the great power competition between China and the United States intensifies, India appears more willing to challenge China’s influence in multilateral forums, especially when it believes its core security interests are being ignored.

Whether the SCO can maintain its cohesion in the face of such fissures remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: India is no longer content with being a silent partner in regional organizations where its voice is not adequately heard.