India Rejects CPEC Expansion into Shaksgam Valley, Calls 1963 Pact Illegal
New Delhi, January 10, 2026 — India has firmly reiterated that the Shaksgam Valley is Indian territory, rejecting the 1963 Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement as illegal and invalid. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued the statement amid reports of fresh Chinese infrastructure activity and the extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the Shaksgam tract.
The government stated that it does not recognise any arrangements that attempt to alter India’s sovereignty over its territory. Officials also underlined that such projects violate India’s long-standing and clearly articulated position on Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
Historical Background – The 1963 Cession and India’s Unwavering Claim
The Shaksgam Valley, also known as the Trans-Karakoram Tract, covers approximately 5,180 square kilometres. It lies north of the Siachen Glacier in the Karakoram range. Historically, the region formed part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which legally acceded to India in 1947.
In March 1963, Pakistan and China signed the Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement. Under this pact, Pakistan ceded control of the Shaksgam Valley to China. The agreement emerged during bilateral border negotiations, with Pakistan recognising Chinese sovereignty over the area. In return, China acknowledged Pakistan’s control over adjacent territories.
India has consistently maintained that Pakistan had no legal authority to cede the territory. The region remained under Pakistan’s illegal occupation following the 1947–48 conflict. Therefore, India considers the agreement null and void in its entirety.
Provisional Clause and India’s Legal Position
The 1963 agreement included Article VI, which stated that the arrangement was provisional and subject to a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. However, India has rejected even this conditionality. New Delhi holds that no provisional clause can legitimise an illegal transfer of sovereign Indian land.
Since 1963, India has never recognised the cession. It has also protested every instance of Chinese activity in the Shaksgam Valley. The region holds high strategic importance due to its proximity to Siachen and other sensitive military positions.
Recent Developments and India’s Firm Response
On January 9, 2026, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal addressed media queries during the weekly briefing. He responded to announcements around CPEC 2.0, made earlier in January, which reportedly extend infrastructure and economic cooperation into PoK and the Shaksgam areas.
According to reports, Chinese entities are constructing all-weather roads and related infrastructure. These projects aim to enhance connectivity across the region.
“Shaksgam Valley is Indian territory. We have never recognised the so-called China-Pakistan ‘Boundary Agreement’ signed in 1963. We have consistently maintained that the agreement is illegal and invalid,” Jaiswal stated.
He further emphasised that the entire Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are an integral and inalienable part of India. The government has conveyed this position to both Chinese and Pakistani authorities on multiple occasions.
India has lodged repeated diplomatic protests against attempts to change the ground situation. It has also reserved the right to take necessary measures to protect its sovereignty and interests.
Strategic Implications of CPEC Expansion
Analysts view the inclusion of Shaksgam Valley in CPEC as a significant escalation in the trilateral contest involving India, China, and Pakistan. The move potentially enhances Chinese and Pakistani logistical and military positioning near India’s northern frontiers.
The developments hold particular relevance for areas around Siachen and eastern Ladakh, where tensions have remained high in recent years. India continues to oppose the CPEC project in its entirety. New Delhi has repeatedly stated that the corridor passes through territory under Pakistan’s illegal occupation.
India’s position remains consistent and unequivocal. It rejects unilateral actions that undermine its sovereignty and international legal norms.
