Beijing says the Shaksgam Valley belongs to China and has defended its infrastructure construction there, citing a 1960s China–Pakistan boundary agreement
New Delhi earlier have rejected China’s claims, calling the 1963 China–Pakistan boundary agreement and CPEC illegal and invalid
India has raised security concerns, warning China’s infrastructure development in the region could alter the status quo and undermine security.
On January 12, 2026 China firmly rejected India’s claim over the Shaksgam Valley in Jammu and Kashmir, asserting that the territory belongs to China and defended its ongoing infrastructure construction in the region. The response comes days after India objected to Chinese activities under the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), calling them illegal and invalid.
Speaking at a media briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning on January 12, 2026 dismissed India’s concerns, saying China is carrying out development work on its own territory. “The territory you mentioned belongs to China. It’s fully justified for China to conduct infrastructure construction on its own territory,” she said. Mao added that China and Pakistan had signed a boundary agreement in the 1960s and demarcated their borders, describing it as a lawful decision taken by two sovereign states.
Defending the CPEC, Mao said the project is an economic cooperation initiative aimed at promoting local economic and social development and improving people’s livelihoods. She stressed that neither the China–Pakistan boundary agreement nor the CPEC affects Beijing’s position on the Kashmir issue, adding that China’s stance remains unchanged. China maintains that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is a historical issue that should be resolved peacefully in accordance with “the UN Charter, relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and bilateral agreements.”
India, however, has strongly rejected China’s claims. On January 9, 2026, the Ministry of External Affairs termed China’s infrastructure activities in the Shaksgam Valley “illegal and invalid” and reiterated that the region is an integral and inalienable part of India. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has never recognised the so-called China–Pakistan boundary agreement of 1963 or the CPEC, which passes through Indian territory under the forcible and illegal occupation of Pakistan.
“Shaksgam Valley is an Indian territory. We have never recognised the so-called China–Pakistan boundary agreement of 1963. We have consistently maintained that the agreement is illegal and invalid,” Jaiswal said. He reaffirmed that the entire Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are integral parts of India and said New Delhi has consistently protested with China over attempts to alter the ground reality in the region, while reserving the right to take necessary measures to safeguard its interests.
The Shaksgam Valley, also called the Trans-Karakoram Tract, is a remote, high-altitude region located north of the Karakoram range. The region borders China’s Xinjiang province, Pakistan-occupied Gilgit-Baltistan, and the Siachen Glacier region. India maintains that the valley was part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lawfully acceded to India in 1947, making it Indian territory. Pakistan occupied the area during the 1947–48 war and later ceded it to China without legal title under the 1963 Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement, an arrangement India does not recognise. The strategic sensitivity of the area has heightened concerns in recent years, particularly amid reports that China is building an all-weather road in the valley.
According to satellite imagery, the road, estimated to be around 10 metres wide branches from an extension of Highway G219 in Xinjiang and moves closer to Indira Point, India’s northernmost point near the Siachen Glacier. Defence experts have warned that such infrastructure could alter the status quo in the region and complicate the security environment, including the possibility of military movement by Chinese and Pakistani forces
[VP]
Suggested Reading: