This paper examines the growth of the Chinese think tank ecosystem under Xi Jinping and the implications of India’s engagement with them. While think tanks are often seen as intermediaries between knowledge production and policymaking, their role in China is shaped by the logic of an authoritarian one-party state. The rapid growth of this field over the past decade, also known as “think tank fever,” highlights not only the demand for expert consultation, but also the Chinese Communist Party’s strategic intent to strengthen its governance capacity, strengthen ideological control, and expand China’s global soft power.
By analyzing official policy documents, institutional frameworks, and the experience of India-China think tank exchanges since the 2000s, the study argues that under Xi Jinping, think tanks have been deliberately institutionalized as controlled but vibrant spaces for expertise. They simultaneously serve as channels of Track II diplomacy, platforms for public diplomacy, and carriers of regime legitimacy. For India, it is essential to understand this duality to overcome the asymmetries and strategically leverage them in bilateral think tank relations.
China has seen extraordinary expansion in its think tank sector over the past decade. In 2012, the Global Go-to Think Tank Index (GDTTI) reported 429 think tanks in China; As of 2022, the China Think Tank Directory listed 1,928 active institutions, second only to the United States (US). This rapid growth has been dubbed the “Great Leap Forward of Think Tanks”.
This growth has been driven by structural demand as well as deliberate state action. Xi Jinping’s Directive 2015, Opinion on strengthening new types of think tanks with Chinese characteristicsCalled for the creation of “influential and internationally reputable” think tanks that would serve the Party and government in scientific decision-making and strengthen China’s voice abroad. This reflects a change from the earlier reform era when think tanks, although never completely independent, had relatively greater flexibility. Xi has placed the think tank at the center of two strategic goals: (a) modernization of national governance by providing intellectual support to address China’s complex domestic challenges, and (b) soft power projection (i.e., telling China’s story well) through Track 1.5 and Track 2 diplomacy and international exchanges.
This paper highlights two enduring dilemmas that have driven Chinese state policy on think tanks.
* Technological Innovation vs Authoritarian Control: The Chinese party-state needs special expertise to promote China’s rapid economic and social transformation. Nevertheless, there are political risks to autonomous intellectual activity. Think tanks can be potentially controlled spaces where expert advice is sought but kept within acceptable ideological boundaries.
* Plurality of voices versus unified national narrative: A diverse and expanding think tank sector naturally generates multiple viewpoints. But the CPC insists on maintaining narrative control, particularly in foreign policy and ideological areas. Institutionalization, administrative affiliations, and oversight by the publicity department are intended to ensure that the multiplicity of actors does not undermine the unity of the narrative.
Chinese think tanks today perform a variety of functions:
- Policy Advisor: Supply of internal reports (nikan) and providing expert input to Party and government leaders and technical expertise on governance challenges in areas such as public finance, energy, environment and urban planning.
- Theoretical innovations: Contributions to the CPC ideological framework, such as the “China Dream” and “Xi Jinping Thought.”
- Public Diplomacy: Hosting international conferences, think tank forums, and publishing English-language reports to shape foreign perceptions.
- Social Services: To convey government policies to the public in accessible language.
Despite these actions, structural barriers remain. These include dependence on the state for funding, unclear legal status, ability to attract talent, lack of credibility, and a greater focus on organizing than research.
Regular think tank exchanges between India and China began in the early 2000s and increased in scale by the 2010s. Indian institutions such as the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), Indian Council for World Affairs (ICWA), Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Studies and Analyzes (MP-IDSA), and the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) have partnered with leading Chinese institutions such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS), and the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). Has hosted delegations from institutes. The establishment of the India-China Think Tank Forum in 2015 under government auspices marked a peak in institutionalization, with four forums held between 2016 and 2019. Exchanges fell sharply due to pandemic restrictions following the 2020 Galwan clashes. However, from the end of 2024, as bilateral relations temporarily stabilize, think tank interaction is resuming.
Key Features of Attachments
- Institutional Actors: The exchanges are dominated by government-, academy-, and university-affiliated Chinese think tanks (for example, CICIR, State Council Development Research Center (DRC), CASS, SIIS), with occasional participation from party schools, NGOs, provincial governments, and media platforms.
- Engagement Pattern: From 2006–2019, regular exchanges took place, peaking around leadership changes and high-level visits, with the India-China Think Tank Forum (2016–2019) institutionalizing the dialogue. Engagement declined sharply after the 2020 Galwan clash but has cautiously resumed since late 2024.
- Delegation and subjects: The delegation comprises senior scholars, regional studies experts and officials, who discussed bilateral politics, regional/global geopolitics, border issues, energy and governance.
The study identifies several implications of these dynamics for India’s policy community:
strategic value of engagements
- Even though Chinese representatives presented prescribed narratives, the exchange provided Indian participants with insights into party-state priorities and intellectual currents in China.
- They serve as signaling channels, especially when official relations are strained.
challenges of inequality
- The diversity of Indian think tanks, while intellectually valuable, can appear fragmented in dialogue.
- Chinese think tanks often benefit from greater resources, government contacts and research capacity than their Indian counterparts.
opportunity for india
- Strengthen domestic think tank capacity
- Invest in regional studies, language training and special expertise on China.
- Institutionalizing record-keeping and coordination between Indian think tanks engaging with Chinese counterparts.
- Build convening capacity to host regular, well-documented exchanges.
- pursue strategic partnerships
- Engage Chinese think tanks with realistic expectations, recognizing both their value as information channels and their limitations as extensions of the party-state.
- Use the dialogues to pinpoint Indian concerns, gather perspectives, and develop long-term networks.
- Take advantage of multilateralism and partnerships
- Expand India-China exchanges in multilateral platforms such as forums involving Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Group of Twenty (G20).
- Collaborate with international think tanks from the US, Europe, Japan and Southeast Asia to triangulate insights on China.
- Diversify engagement beyond capitals
- To facilitate exchanges with provincial and university-based think tanks in China to understand the regional perspective.
- Encourage mutual exposure of Indian scholars to local Chinese institutions.
Chinese think tanks in the Xi era are both products and instruments of authoritarian rule, simultaneously providing controlled intellectual input at home and projecting China’s story abroad. For India, engaging with them requires neither naive optimism nor blanket dismissal, but rather a nuanced strategy that combines critical understanding with pragmatic dialogue.
It is important to strengthen India’s own think tank ecosystem to address disparities. By building institutional flexibility and fostering creative approaches to engagement, Indian think tanks can more effectively manage relations with Chinese counterparts and contribute to the China studies ecosystem in India.
This paper can be accessed Here.
This paper is written by Shruti Jargad, Non-Resident Research Associate, Foreign Policy, CSEP, New Delhi.
