Shaksgam Valley Dispute and CPEC: Why India Rejects China’s Claim

12 January 2026, New Delhi | The Shaksgam Valley dispute has returned to focus amid reports of fresh Chinese infrastructure activity in the high-altitude Karakoram region. The territory, also known as the Trans-Karakoram Tract, spans nearly 5,180 square kilometres and remains legally contested between India, China, and Pakistan. India has reiterated that the valley is an integral part of its sovereign territory and has firmly rejected any construction activity linked to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in the area.

Recent developments have triggered sharp diplomatic exchanges, highlighting the wider strategic and legal implications for India-China relations, border stability, and the unresolved Kashmir issue.

China’s Infrastructure Activity in Shaksgam Valley

Reports indicate that China has intensified road-building and connectivity projects in the Shaksgam Valley region, which Beijing claims as part of Xinjiang. These projects are linked to the expansion of CPEC under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The construction reportedly involves an all-weather road connecting Xinjiang with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This route enhances year-round logistical access across the Karakoram range. It also strengthens military mobility and economic connectivity between China and Pakistan.

Critics argue that such activity alters the status quo in a disputed region. The strategic depth gained through these projects potentially affects India’s security calculus in Ladakh and the Siachen sector. As a result, infrastructure development in Shaksgam Valley has become a sensitive flashpoint rather than a routine engineering exercise.

India’s Initial Objection to Chinese Activities

India objected strongly to the developments on 9 January 2026. The Ministry of External Affairs stated that Shaksgam Valley is Indian territory and that China’s actions amount to an infringement of sovereignty.

MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal categorically rejected the 1963 China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement. He stated that India has never recognised the pact and considers it illegal and invalid. He also reiterated that India does not recognise CPEC, as it passes through Indian territory under Pakistan’s illegal occupation.

India further stated that it has consistently protested against attempts to change ground realities in Shaksgam Valley and reserves the right to safeguard its interests.

China’s Official Response

China responded on 12 January 2026 by dismissing India’s objections. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning asserted that the Shaksgam Valley belongs to China and that all infrastructure activity there is a domestic matter.

She defended the 1963 agreement with Pakistan as a legally binding boundary settlement. According to Beijing, the projects are justified and do not warrant third-party interference. China has maintained that Pakistan lawfully ceded the territory, a position India has rejected since the agreement was signed.

India Reiterates Its Diplomatic Position

Following China’s response, India doubled down on its long-standing stance. The MEA reaffirmed that the Shaksgam Valley dispute stems from an illegal transfer of territory by Pakistan, which had no legal authority to cede the land.

Although External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar did not issue a separate statement, the ministry’s position reflects India’s consistent diplomatic line. New Delhi has repeatedly conveyed its objections to both Beijing and Islamabad over the decades.

Army Chief Flags Security Concerns

On 13 January 2026, Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi addressed the issue from a security perspective. He termed the 1963 China-Pakistan agreement illegal and stated that any activity in Shaksgam Valley is a matter of concern for India.

He also described CPEC-linked expansions in the region as illegal actions. His remarks underscored the military implications of infrastructure development near sensitive border areas and reinforced India’s position that the dispute is not merely diplomatic but strategic.

Historical Background of the Shaksgam Valley Dispute

The Shaksgam Valley was part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir under Maharaja Hari Singh. Following Independence, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947, legally integrating the entire state into India.

During the 1947–48 conflict, Pakistan illegally occupied parts of the region, including areas providing access to Shaksgam Valley. This occupation was never legitimised through a plebiscite.

In 1963, Pakistan signed a boundary agreement with China, ceding the Shaksgam Valley in exchange for a smaller territory. Crucially, Article 6 of the agreement stated that the arrangement was provisional and subject to the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. India argues that this clause itself confirms Pakistan’s lack of sovereign authority over the area.

India’s Legal and Logical Claim Explained

India’s position in the Shaksgam Valley dispute rests on clear legal reasoning.

First, sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir vested with India through the Instrument of Accession. Second, Pakistan could not legally transfer territory it occupied unlawfully. Third, the provisional nature of the 1963 agreement invalidates China’s claim under international law.

India also argues that the agreement violates established principles of treaty law, as territory acquired through force cannot be lawfully transferred. Consistent diplomatic protests since 1963 reinforce India’s de jure claim despite China’s de facto control.

Strategic Implications and the Road Ahead

The Shaksgam Valley dispute carries implications beyond territorial claims. It affects India-China border negotiations, regional security, and the broader CPEC framework.

Possible paths forward include sustained diplomatic engagement through existing border mechanisms, maintaining the status quo to prevent escalation, and strengthening India’s defensive posture in adjoining regions. However, deep mistrust following incidents such as Galwan continues to limit prospects for a near-term resolution.

For India, Shaksgam Valley remains not just a cartographic concern but a symbol of unresolved sovereignty and strategic vigilance in the Himalayas.