Engaging The ILD–CPC Is Not Dialogue, It Is Strategic Negligence

New Delhi: The International Liaison Department of the Communist Party of China (ILD-CPC) is not a diplomatic curiosity. It is not a goodwill channel. It is not a harmless party-to-party engagement platform. It is a foreign political influence machine - designed, calibrated, and deployed with one objective: to advance the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party by penetrating political ecosystems beyond China’s borders.

And let us be clear at the outset: the nature of this beast does not change because some leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party and RSS met its representatives, nor does it become more dangerous because the Indian National Congress signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the CPC in 2008. Photographs do not civilise predators. MoUs do not neutralise intent.

What makes this debate intellectually dishonest is the selective outrage that once surrounded the issue. The BJP cried hoarse for years about the Congress signing an MoU with the ILD–CPC. It repeatedly portrayed that agreement which was never made public by Congress, as proof of strategic naïveté, ideological compromise, and even national betrayal. Those criticisms were not entirely misplaced. Party-to-party engagement with an authoritarian regime is inherently problematic, particularly when conducted without transparency or national oversight.

But outrage loses credibility when it becomes conditional.

Now in power, the BJP has not articulated a principled doctrine explaining why engagement with the ILD was unacceptable in one era but acceptable in their times. The rhetoric remains, but the clarity vanished. Engagement has been rebranded. What was once condemned as dangerous is now defended as “dialogue” or “understanding China better.” This inconsistency does not weaken the ILD. It weakens India’s moral and strategic coherence.

In China’s political system, the Party is the state. Every institution, including those masquerading as diplomatic or academic, ultimately answers to the Communist Party’s strategic command. The ILD sits at the heart of this ecosystem. Unlike a foreign ministry, which deals in formal diplomacy, the ILD deals in something far more potent: political access, elite cultivation, and long-term influence over decision-makers.

This is not conjecture. It is doctrine.

The ILD engages political parties across ideologies - not because it respects pluralism, but because ideology is irrelevant to its mission. Communists, conservatives, nationalists, social democrats - everyone is a potential asset. What matters is proximity to power today and influence over policy tomorrow. The method is patient, clinical, and incremental. No drama. No ultimatums. Just engagement after engagement, visit after visit, dialogue after dialogue, until scepticism erodes into familiarity and caution replaces resistance.

International intelligence and security agencies have consistently viewed the ILD-CPC as far more than a benign foreign policy or party-to-party engagement body. While Beijing projects the ILD as a diplomatic interface, multiple Western intelligence assessments underline its covert intelligence, influence, and perception-management functions.

The Czech Security Information Service (BIS) in its 2015 Annual Report explicitly stated that the ILD-CPC, alongside Chinese military intelligence, conducted intelligence activities in the Czech Republic. BIS categorically identified the ILD as an agency under the CCP Central Committee whose remit includes intelligence collection, not merely foreign relations.

Similarly, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission highlighted the ILD’s role in intelligence gathering and influence operations. Its 2016 report detailed how ILD networks used informal and unofficial contacts abroad to identify individuals, collect intelligence, and expand China’s political influence. Earlier, in 2011, the Commission observed that the ILD conducted perception-management operations aligned with centrally determined CCP propaganda objectives.

Further reinforcing this view, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence identified the ILD as a “major collector” of intelligence against U.S. interests. Declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents from 2007 described the ILD as working closely with Chinese embassies to nurture pro-China groups through funding, training, and long-term influence cultivation.

Western intelligence assessments have consistently linked ILD activities with the CPC’s broader “political warfare” doctrine. This doctrine overlaps with the work of the United Front Work Department, which seeks to co-opt, neutralise, or divide political forces abroad, and aligns strategically with objectives pursued by China’s intelligence services, including the Ministry of State Security. While the ILD may not conduct espionage directly, its networks often provide access, leverage, and narrative cover for deeper influence operations.

Concrete examples of ILD activity include formal and informal Memorandums of Understanding with foreign political parties, closed-door leadership exchanges, ideological training programmes in China, and sustained engagement with opposition leaders in democratic systems. Analysts note that these interactions frequently coincide with Chinese strategic interests - such as support on Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Belt and Road projects, and technology policy - raising red flags about political interference rather than benign dialogue.

India has been dangerously casual in treating this engagement as routine politics.

When Indian politicians meet the ILD, they do so as individuals or party representatives. The ILD meets them as an extension of the Chinese Communist Party’s long-term geopolitical strategy. One side seeks optics, legitimacy, or diplomatic signalling. The other seeks leverage, intelligence, and narrative control. This is not equal engagement; it is strategic imbalance masquerading as diplomacy.

The real damage is not immediate. It is cumulative.

Repeated engagement normalises the CPC’s presence in India’s political imagination. Over time, criticism softens. Language is sanitised. Border aggression becomes a “difference.” Coercion becomes “assertiveness.” Human rights abuses are waved away as “internal matters.” Those who raise alarms are dismissed as ideological, hysterical, or anti-dialogue.

Globally, the ILD has executed this playbook with remarkable consistency. In parts of Africa, it has helped entrench ruling elites sympathetic to Beijing. In Europe, it has cultivated political actors willing to dilute criticism of China’s conduct. In Asia, it has exploited instability to deepen strategic dependence. Influence is not imposed; it is invited, normalised, and eventually defended.

India must not pretend it is immune.

The most troubling aspect of this saga is bipartisan complacency. This is not a BJP versus Congress issue. It is an India issue. Foreign political influence cannot be left to party discretion or electoral convenience. Democracies do not collapse only through invasions; they erode when foreign powers learn to shape elite opinion, fragment strategic resolve, and dull institutional resistance.

The ILD–CPC is not misunderstood. It is understood perfectly by those who run it. It exists because Beijing recognises that modern power is exercised not just through armies or trade, but through political ecosystems abroad.

Engagement with China is inevitable. Submission to its political influence is not.

India must draw a firm line between state-to-state diplomacy and party-to-party political intimacy with an authoritarian regime. Transparency, reciprocity, and national oversight are non-negotiable. Without them, outrage becomes hypocrisy - and hypocrisy becomes vulnerability.

The nature of the beast does not change because it smiles for the camera. It remains strategic, calculated, and, if left unchecked, profoundly destructive.

Also Read | Pakistani Drones Spotted In Rajouri Along LoC, Indian Army Opens Fire