My personal understanding of China and South Asia has been shaped by my Pakistani roots and my educational experience in the United States. While I have observed and studied China over several decades, I do not consider myself an expert. My engagement with China began in the late 1960s and 1970s, when, as a Master’s student in Geography, I developed an interest in Political Geography. That decade was marked by profound social upheaval and political turbulence. For students of that era, reading Peking Review and attempting to interpret the Cuban Revolution through the writings of Che Guevara and Mao’s Little Red Book were markers of being progressive and ideologically engaged. For me, dreaming of, debating, and romanticizing revolution in small study circles in Rawalpindi and Lahore were important part of student life and camaraderie.

During this period, the American Center in Rawalpindi served as an excellent library facility. It was there that I encountered early scholarly writings on China by authors such as Pearl S. Buck, most notably The Good Earth and The Man Who Changed China (Sun-yat-sen); and analysts such as Doak Barnett and Fred Green. Edgar Snow, the legendary journalist, offered riveting insights into Mao Zedong and the Chinese Revolution through Red Star Over China, which left a lasting impression.

Interest in China and Exposure in the United States

In 1973, I joined Islamabad University (now Quaid-e-Azam University), and in 1974 I was given the opportunity to teach a course on Geopolitics, which included East Asia and China in a broad sense. Fast forward to 2005–2009, when I designed and taught two online graduate courses at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA): China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan: Changing Dynamics of Religion, Politics, Security, and Great Power Interactions, and Globalization: Religious and Political Transformations in South Asia.

Between 1975 and 2023, I had prolonged stay or visited the United States in every decade—as a graduate student, teaching assistant, faculty member, and guest speaker—across several universities and think tanks, including the Asia Society, Stimson Center, Harvard Kennedy School, USIP, and the Middle East Institute. My first visit to China took place in 2008. Since then, through the Fulbright exchange program and subsequent invitations, I have participated in multiple academic conferences in China and Qatar.

A significant turning point came in November 2012, through the courtesy of Dr. Charles Ramsey, then Executive Assistant to the Rector (Special Projects) at the Faculty of Religious Studies, who later was also affiliated with the Centre for Public Policy and Governance (CPPG). I was introduced to Dr. Adam Webb from Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Chinese and American Studies at Nanjing University. Our discussions led to the idea of organizing a conference at Nanjing University on China-Pakistan relations within the broader context of China’s rise and the changing dynamics of global politics.

By early 2014, we agreed on a tentative theme: The New Silk Web in the 21st Century: Global Landscapes among the West, China, and Southwest Asia. After approaching colleagues in Lahore, we formed a small academic group comprising Professor Sajjad Naseer (Lahore School of Economics), Dr. Hasan Karrar (LUMS), Dr. Charles Ramsey, Raheem-ul-Haque, and myself from Forman Christian College: A Chartered University (FCCU). We all participated in the Nanjing conference held from 7–9 November 2014.

Between 2014 and 2019, I attended several conferences on China–Middle East and China–South Asia relations. Two of these resulted in edited volumes to which I contributed chapters. In Qatar, I came to know Professor Tugrul Keskin, then affiliated with Maltepe University in Turkey and Shanghai University, who has since been a source of inspiration in encouraging research on China and the broader Muslim world.

From the Cultural Revolution to “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” China has undertaken a remarkable journey of social cohesion, economic growth, modernization, poverty alleviation, and sustainable development, while articulating a compelling vision of peaceful rise and global harmony. Critics and skeptics, however, argue that China has advanced by ‘stealing Western industrial knowledge and technology’ and harbors ambitions to replace the United States and the Western rules-based international order. Given President Trump’s “might is right” approach to global affairs, the jury remains out on this question.

Academic Experience and South Asian Studies

As a Pakistani academic, I have taught in universities both at home and in the United States, trained civil servants, headed several think tanks; including the Institute of Regional Studies, the National Institute of Population Studies, and the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), and interacted extensively with policymakers. My research spans culture, demography, governance, civil service reform, political parties, civil–military relations, terrorism, security, and Pakistan’s relations with great powers.

My nearly decade-long association with Columbia University (2001–2009), first as Quaid-e-Azam Distinguished Professor and later as Adjunct Professor of South Asian Studies, provided an unparalleled opportunity to teach courses on South Asian politics, society and security and engage with a vibrant academic community. I am also perhaps among the few Pakistanis who learned Tamil and completed a Master’s thesis at the University of Pennsylvania on the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and its transformational leader, C. N. Annadurai.

The Break-up of Pakistan and the Emergence of South Asian Studies

Turning now to China and South Asian studies, it is worth recalling that prior to the break-up of Pakistan in 1971, most British, European, and American universities housed departments of Indian Studies, within which the subcontinent was taught as a unified area-studies program. Following Bangladesh’s independence, most of these programs were reconstituted as South Asian Studies, though their intellectual focus largely remained India-centric.

In 1975–76, I completed a Master’s degree in South Asian Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. The program was interdisciplinary and heavily focused on India, and it quickly dawned on me how little I knew about British colonial rule, the Hindu caste system, and Indian civilization. The coursework was rigorous, and I benefited immensely from learning under scholars such as Norman D. Palmer (Political Science), Richard Lambert (Sociology- Associate Dean & Director South Asia Studies), Tom Kessinger (History), and Allen J. Heston (Economics). Professor Lambert’s weekly South Asia seminar was particularly inspiring and intellectually transformative.

Learning a South Asian language other than one’s own was mandatory, and I opted for Tamil. What led me to focus my thesis on South India still puzzles me, though in hindsight it may have stemmed from a desire to better understand India and my curiosity about E. V. Ramasami Naicker and the Dravidian movement. Upon returning to Pakistan, however, I realized the naivety of specializing in India, given the absence; then and even now, of any sustained academic exchange between India and Pakistan.

The reality is that South Asia has witnessed very limited educational and cultural exchange among its states, especially between India and Pakistan. Pakistan lacks serious, sustained programs in Indian studies. The establishment of the Institute of Regional Studies (IRS) in Islamabad in 1981, under Lt. General (Retd.) Akram, was a notable exception. The institute developed a valuable collection of Indian newspapers and publications and continues to publish the Journal of Regional Studies. When I served as its President in 1990, IRS was an important resource, though limited funding and structural constraints have since reduced its research output.

China-Pakistan Relations: A Brief Overview

The trajectory of China studies in Pakistan mirrors that of Indian studies. Pakistan was among the first countries to recognize the People’s Republic of China in 1949, though relations in the early years were friendly yet cautious. During the 1950s, especially up to the 1955 Bandung Conference, the slogan Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai symbolized close Sino-Indian ties. Although aligned with the West through SEATO and CENTO, Pakistan managed to attend the Bandung Conference, which opened a diplomatic window with China.

The deterioration of Sino-Indian relations following the Tibetan uprising in 1959 and the 1962 India- China war transformed regional dynamics. India- China brotherhood began to show signs of deterioration following the Tibetan uprising in 1959 and that led to India’s ‘Forward Policy 1961’ and India adopted a muscular approach towards China, which stirred China- India border clashes in the disputed territory of Ladakh in October 1962. By most journalistic and scholarly accounts in the Indo-China war, India was humiliated militarily, and devastated morally, politically and globally. Western world led by the U.S and Soviet Union, both for their own strategic interests tried to restore India’s confidence by providing generous economic and military aid. While, Pakistan protested that such massive military aid to India will disrupt the balance of power in South Asia. However, Pakistan’s hue and cry was largely ignored by the two super powers of the time. India’s military defeat created an opportunity for Pakistan to strengthen ties with China, culminating in the 1963 Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement. Since then, bilateral relations have steadily expanded, evolving into what is often described as an “all-weather friendship”, “Iron clad brothers” and eventually the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as the “game changer”.

Until as late as 2013, however, Pakistan had virtually no dedicated centers of China studies, nor substantial scholarly work by Pakistani academics—aside from Anwar H. Syed’s China-Pakistan: Diplomacy of an Entente Cordiale (1974). The launch of CPEC sparked renewed academic and policy interest, leading to a proliferation of China study centers and research initiatives. Yet, despite growing exchanges in trade, security, and education, Pakistan’s understanding of China’s culture, governance, and political economy remains limited and requires deeper, sustained scholarly engagement. In the past decade or so I have been trying to understand China through its perspective on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), now, its time to have a mature and sophisticated understanding about China.

China Studies in the United States: Boom and Bust

Over the past four decades, China studies in the United States expanded dramatically, becoming multidisciplinary and institutionally entrenched. Following the normalization of U.S.–China relations in 1972 and China’s opening in 1978, academic engagement flourished and peaked around 2017. In 2011, President Obama launched ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy, declared objective of rebalancing relations with the leading East Asian countries, staying engaged with China but cultivating India to curb China’s rise and its strategic objectives in the Asia Pacific. The U.S became cautious and watchful about China’s economic and strategic reach in Asia and persisted with engagement. However, in 2017 as President Trump assumed power, the U.S shifted away from engagement to ‘containment and hostility’; China and the Communist party of China were declared as ‘existentialist threat’ and the Pacific Command was converted into Indo-Pacific Command, thus the idea of Indo-Pacific which was latent since 2007 became a operational concept. ‘De-coupling’ China gained currency in the American public and policy discourse. Confucius Centers, which had grown to almost one hundered on American University campuses were wounded up and the China studies programs came under critical review and student exchange programs were curtailed. The Covid epidemic as it originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan, was labeled by President Trump as ‘China Virus’, thus the foundations of China studies programs, which were so assiduously built over the decades began to withering away in days. By 2023, nearly all the Confucius Centers were wounded up. Thus, under president Trump 02, University education and China studies and exchange programs are undergoing convulsions.

Chinese Intellectual Responses and Global Vision

Concurrently, Chinese scholars and policymakers have articulated an alternative vision of world order centered on harmony and connectivity. Harmony, as articulated by Zhao Tingyang, does not imply sameness but rather emphasizes relational coexistence and mutual benefit. His framework suggests that relations define existence, coexistence is essential for survival, and harmony generates reciprocal benefits. According to Zhao, Harmony is in fact the premise on which successful world institutions need to be established . Along with this another Chinese idea de- non-coercive power through co-empowerment is propounded.

Connectivity, operationalized through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), represents one of the most ambitious global projects of the century. Its scale and speed are unprecedented, reshaping global mobility, trade, and cultural exchange. The BRI is still unfolding, and world leaders and policy analysts are trying to comprehend the potential impact it may have on regional and global connectivity, mobility of goods, ideas and prospects of cultural transformations and meanings of shared community. It has also led to the opening up of Chinese academia and society in exceptional ways. For example, in 2003, 77,715 foreign students were enrolled in Chinese universities, in 2017, this number rose to 489,200 an increase of 600%. Currently, China is the top destination of students from Asia. Of all the BRI partners, Pakistani students are the third largest group, preceded by Thailand and Korea. Over the past four decades, I have witnessed how a large number of Asians have transformed the American educational institutions, through their presence and contributions. Asian scholars and students have changed classroom compositions and teaching positions in American universities. I wonder, if the opening up of Chinese universities to Asians and others might generate a similar trend?

President Xi Jinping, while inaugurating the first International Import and Export Conference in Shanghai, spoke about China’s history and its civilizational roots and also about its contemporary dispensation and outlook towards the global economy. The grandeur of China’s international position was evident when he said:

China is the world’s second largest economy. We have a market of more than 1.3 billion consumers who live on the land of over 9.6 million square kilometers. To use a metaphor, the Chinese economy is not a pond, but an ocean. The ocean may have its calm days, but big winds and storms are only to be expected. Without them, the ocean wouldn’t be what it is. Big winds and storms may upset a pond, but never an ocean. Having experienced numerous winds and storms, the ocean will still be there! It is the same for China. After going through 5,000 years of trials and tribulations, China is still here! Looking ahead, China will always be here to stay!

President Xi Jinping’s metaphor of China as an “ocean, not a pond,” captures this civilizational confidence and resilience. Taking cue from the recent Chinese experience of harmonization and promotion of local, regional and global connectivity through BRI on cultural, educational exchanges and sustainable development— the enhancement of peace, social justice and well-being, within and across generations, I would argue we need to look at the structural and situational factors within the country, particularly in the case of Pakistan. As peace and sustainable development are linked to structural factors that stem from bureaucratic settings (military, judiciary, business groups, academic and media community) and situational factors, such as, sensitivities of the civil society, landscape of political parties, cultural and social movements and regime policies. Internal reform demands crafting domestic harmony, investing in professionalizing and modernizing bureaucracies, strengthening civil society, democratizing political parties and reforming the cultural practices that hamper prospects of structural reform and attitudinal changes.

Increasingly we are living in a world which is Hobbesian and anarchical, the state has primacy in the international system, and invariably the prospects of peace are linked with the resolution of external conflicts— thus unending rivalry and prospects of war make conflict endemic. Ironically, intensifying Great Power rivalry and President Trump’s portrayal of China, Russia and occasionally even NATO and European allies as ‘rivals or inimical to U.S interests’ makes it difficult to build architecture for global peace. In South Asia and in many other cases, states themselves have used the instrument of ‘external enemy’ to fuel rivalry and to deflect and curb inner peace and societal reform. Consequently, achieving an internal culture of peace, tolerance and harmony has become increasingly challenging. This lack of a culture of peace has been used by states to prolong the ‘insecurity syndrome’, animosity and hatred of the ‘other.’ Thus, the notion of ‘external enemy’ has often been used to undermine conditions of domestic order and internal peace, but this has neither curbed social injustices nor led to sustainable development. Rather, at times, external conflicts have forced leaders to restrict the needed re- forms for internal peace. For example, in the 1920’s British India witnessed two models of peaceful reform; first, the Gandhian Model which propounded non-violence and communal harmony; second, E. V. Ramasawami Naicker’s model of self-respect, calling for restoring the dignity of the lowest of the low and the marginalized– the Adivasis. Neither was particularly successful. But since the 2000’s India’s experience of growth, development, innovation and relative stability suggests that Naicker’s model has provided a greater dividend to South India, which appears to have an edge in education, innovation and development while offering better opportunity for peace, growth and sustainable development.

The examples of Britain, France and Germany as perpetual rivals and ‘enemies’ until the end of the Second World War is yet another and often quoted historical example. Was it death, destruction, and a decline of their economies as a result of the two World Wars that brought home the salience of peace and the creation of the European Union (1993) or was it instead internal peace, growth, reconstruction and rejuvenation of their communities in the post-World War period? There is considerable evidence to suggest that more than protracted rivalry and animosity, it is internal reform and economic stability that enabled the promotion of a culture of peace and encouraged regional cooperation which led to the founding of the European Union.

Modern China offers another example, where internal peace and reform have paved the way for economic growth, poverty alleviation, and the rise of China. A China that encourages cross border cooperation—a China that is at peace within the region and advocates multilateralism globally.

A Case for Re-imagining China Studies in Pakistan

This calls for a serious reassessment of China studies in Pakistan. Consider, designing curriculum and course programs and centers of China studies, with clear focus on understanding the history, culture, politics, society and economic development including strategic/military ambitions of China. As noted above, the CPEC has aroused considerable interest among Pakistani academia and policy making elites to have a better understanding of China’s culture, its political system, education, and investment and trade policies and in particular it’s thrust on innovation and modes of infrastructure development. It has also allowed China to open up Confucious Centers in a few universities and it is too early to assess their utility and impact. The federal and provincial governments have opened up China Study Centers in a number of public sector universities and in the past few years have also sponsored ‘China conferences’ in major cities of Pakistan. Teaching of Chinese language has also been introduced at the elementary school and university levels. This is some progress, although the quality and content of research still remain elementary and driven by the government policies. On the other hand, private initiatives including collaborations between local and international universities have facilitated forums, where some insightful research questions have been raised and diverging perspectives on the CPEC are shared. These initiatives provide an opportunity to introduce China specific studies and also explore cooperation and exchange in research and people to people interaction. CPEC resources should therefore be channeled towards the improvement of Pakistan’s own factors of production and facilitate its integration into the global economy as a competitive player. More importantly, CPEC has led to substantive innovative, insightful, data driven and critical research among scholars in the U.S, Europe and the Global South.

In this spirit, I would argue it is time to move beyond CPEC and have a profounder understanding of China as a civilization, state, society and what role could it play in shaping the world order; as a wise, prudent, pragmatic, cautious and at the moment a reluctant great power. A China, that has a vision for multilateralism and enunciates a global, “community with a shared future for mankind’’. Simultaneously recalibrate Pakistan’ s goals and national interest in a volatile, uncertain and rapidly changing global order. Under the Ministry of Planning and Development and Special Initiatives and in collaboration with Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), a CPEC Center has been established in Islamabad and does produce some research to support government policies. It is time for Pakistani academic community to take a lead to develop a shared vision on China Studies and seek collaboration with Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). In that context, I submit two sets of ideas on China Studies Program; first academic and knowledge based programs, second, strategic and policy driven programs for consideration and discussion:

Academic and Knowledge Creation

  1. We need to create a China-Pakistan Research Program (CPRP) that is multidisciplinary, technology savvy, and evidence/data driven. Such a program can help solidify knowledge base and contributes in a manner where interactive learning and data-driven research forms the foundation of the two countries collaborations. That must include appreciation and understanding of history, culture, and philosophies.
  2. Supplementing the CPRP is the need to establish and encourage academic exchanges in partnership with business groups/industry and the government to develop a research, innovation, and technology framework. This framework can be reviewed every three years. The government websites do indicate that collaborative programs have been initiated between the Planning Commission of Pakistan and China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). Media reports show some interaction between the two and that should lead to collaborations with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). In Pakistan, we do need to create a similar entity but must select a few universities where the China Studies Program is merit-driven and fully funded.
  3. Focus on generational shifts: groom and train a young generation of Pakistani experts on China, who study in Chinese and Pakistani universities. Similarly, encourage the younger generation of Chinese to have a robust understanding of Pakistan’s culture, society, economy, and security needs. The objective has to be to strengthen cultural, educational, and sustainable bonds that expand and consolidate bilateral relations with China.

Strategic and Policy-Driven Programs

  1. Synchronize commercial interests with our strategic interests. This demands patience and planning in order to achieve concurring goals with China. Likewise, we need to strengthen and expand the existing military-strategic programs and tailor these to the needs of Pakistan, whereby technology transfer helps build Pakistan’s defense capabilities and strengthens its territorial and political sovereignty.
  2. Maritime connectivity, security, shipping routes, and developing mercantile navy is an area where ensuring seabed cable connectivity is becoming increasingly important, and China-Pakistan collaboration needs further strengthening.
  3. Wages and loss of competitiveness could affect the Chinese investment market in the future; China should consider Pakistan to shift such industrial plants where it can take advantage of lower labor costs under the comparative advantage theory. Low-wage countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam have already benefited from this transferal where foreign investors have shifted their industrial plants. For Pakistan to attract such jobs, it will need to improve its security environment and skills, human capital, and inculcate value of discipline in its manpower. At the same time, Chinese businesses setting up businesses in Pakistan should provide international standards on working conditions including abiding by international labor laws and environment protection laws. Dignified and quality work should be prioritized over the quantity of jobs created. The Sino-Pakistani Free Trade Agreement (FTA), signed in 2006, it was updated and revised in 2018 and should be directed to achieve the goals of investment in new areas plus Technology and AI. Pakistan must be prepared to provide a level-playing field to Chinese investors as should China be able to do the same for Pakistani businesses.
  4. Mineral development: besides investment in energy, infrastructure, and defense, mineral development is a promising area of cooperation. Pakistan has also been gearing itself to attract Chinese investment in agriculture, services, high-end manufacturing, and innovative technologies.
  5. Culture and tourism remain underexplored and less appreciated areas between the two countries. Both need to evolve mechanisms, which go beyond existing avenues, to collaborate in promising areas such as film, music, art, and culture. In that context Pakistan needs to work on opening up and streamlining visit visa to China.
  6. Improve governance and reform federal, provincial, and local bureaucracies in Pakistan by learning from Chinese experience. In the past four decades the Chinese bureaucracy has undergone reform and become an engine of economic growth and social transformation and has demonstrated excellence in managing political order. While its form of government may be different from that of Pakistan, governance techniques are an area to learn from. Therefore, a careful look at the training institutions of Chinese bureaucracy could be edifying.
  7. It deserves attention that academic and policy community in Pakistan has a growing concern that CPEC is raising external debt liability and debt servicing which is impacting our balance of payments. To address this at the federal level, a National Task Force headed by the Prime Minister and comprising parliamentarians, economists, policy experts, business groups, and three secretaries (Finance, EAD and Planning) should be constituted at the earliest. The membership of Task Force should not exceed 15 members.
  8. As yet, the Government of Pakistan has focused on energy and infrastructure projects within the CPEC; it is time to initiate and execute the formation of Specialized Economic Zones (SEZs) as well. To reap the economic dividends that the CPEC offers, Pakistan must align its SEZs with economic corridors in consultation with the federating units, as some of the economic corridors do not need infrastructure development. Therefore, planning and designing of SEZ-economic-corridor linkage needs urgent attention.

Concluding Thought

It is both urgent and timely to initiate a national, deliberative process that brings together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to design a robust China Studies program. Such an initiative should deepen our understanding of China’s civilizational past, contemporary dynamism, and global role. A thoughtful understanding of China that helps us appreciate our own civilizational heritage and distinct geographical position and strengthens bilateral ties in a manner that builds people to people trust and glues enduring partnership. Personally, I have been pursuing and will encourage other interested Pakistani scholars, students and policy makers to contribute in developing a multi-disciplinary scholiastic understanding about China.