Indo-China: The fault lines that refuse to blur

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

China's latest attempt to assert its territorial claim over Arunachal Pradesh has once again reminded the world that the India-China border dispute is not merely a geopolitical contest but a lived reality with consequences for ordinary people. This recurring pattern of pressure tactics took an unsettling turn when Prema Wangjom Thongdok, a young traveller from Arunachal Pradesh, found herself detained and harassed for nearly eighteen hours at Shanghai Pudong International Airport. Her only supposed offence was that her legitimate Indian passport listed Arunachal Pradesh as her place of birth, prompting Chinese authorities to label the document "invalid". What should have been an uneventful layover on a routine international journey became a distressing ordeal, exposing the fragility that underlies an already strained bilateral equation despite recent gestures of diplomatic warmth.

Thongdok's experience is not an isolated bureaucratic anomaly; it is a manifestation of Beijing's hardened stance under President Xi Jinping. China refers to Arunachal Pradesh as "Zangnan", or southern Tibet, and has long used symbolic and administrative measures to reinforce this claim. Yet, when such posturing spills from diplomatic chambers into civilian life, it signals a dangerous escalation. Detaining an Indian citizen not on grounds of security, misconduct, or visa irregularities but purely on the basis of identity and nationality is unacceptable by any international standard. It reflects an attempt to impose China's unilateral interpretation of territorial sovereignty onto global transit norms, undermining established international protocols for travel documentation and immigration procedures.

This incident must also be viewed within the historical arc of the India-China boundary dispute, particularly the contested region of Arunachal Pradesh. The roots of this conflict lie in the 1914 Simla Convention, where British India and Tibet endorsed the McMahon Line as the boundary between their territories. China attended the conference but refused to sign the final agreement, rejecting both the legitimacy of the treaty and the authority of the Tibetan delegation. When India attained independence, it accepted the McMahon Line as its lawful border, formalising administrative control over Arunachal Pradesh. China, however, has never relinquished its objections. Decades of tension have followed, marked by the 1962 war, the 1975 Tulung La ambush, and the 2020 Galwan Valley clash-each episode widening mistrust and reinforcing the basic ideological gap in how the two countries interpret borders, sovereignty, and history.

China's provocations over Arunachal Pradesh have taken many forms, sometimes symbolic, sometimes strategic. Beijing has repeatedly objected to the Dalai Lama's visits to the state, attempting to frame them as challenges to its territorial sovereignty. It has released periodic lists of renamed villages, attempting to impose Mandarin nomenclature on Indian territory. It has protested Indian infrastructure projects, including hydropower development, even as it continues constructing massive dams and military installations on its side of the Line of Actual Control. The most recent example of such symbolic warfare was China's decision to name a mountain peak after the sixth Dalai Lama, a move clearly aimed at reinforcing its narrative of historical and cultural ties to the region. These tactics reflect a broader Chinese strategy of "salami slicing", in which incremental pressure is applied to normalise claims over contested areas without triggering full-scale escalation.

Beyond symbolism, China has extended its disputes into unexpected areas such as sports diplomacy. Indian athletes-including archers, wushu competitors, and even university-level participants-have been denied entry into China on the basis of their Arunachal Pradesh identity. These actions have disrupted sporting events, insulted Indian institutions, and humiliated young competitors on international platforms. They have also revealed Beijing's willingness to politicise domains traditionally insulated from geopolitical friction. Thongdok's detention belongs to this pattern. While earlier provocations remained largely diplomatic, the intrusion into individual mobility represents a worrisome shift that raises questions about the security and dignity of travellers from contested regions.

Despite these tensions, the two nations have attempted cautious engagement in recent years. High-level interactions between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping signalled attempts to stabilise a relationship marked by volatility. The disengagement process in select border friction points and renewed participation in multilateral forums indicated a desire, at least superficially, to create functional channels of communication. Yet, neither country has fundamentally altered its strategic calculus. China continues to assert expansive territorial claims, while India remains firm on the sanctity of its borders. Trust remains fragile, and incidents like Thongdok's highlight how quickly the veneer of stability can crack.

India must now respond with clarity and firmness. It is essential for New Delhi to insist that international transit norms be upheld and that unilateral territorial claims cannot dictate how sovereign passports are treated by foreign governments. India has invested heavily in strengthening its border management and infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control, and the momentum must continue. Roads, bridges, surveillance systems, and logistic networks are not mere symbols of national pride; they are strategic imperatives that reduce vulnerability and strengthen deterrence. Diplomatically, India must continue pressing China through established mechanisms such as the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination and the Special Representatives' dialogue, reinforcing that civilian harassment will not be tolerated.

Yet even as India prepares to counter such provocations, a broader truth must be acknowledged. The India-China boundary dispute is unlikely to disappear without sustained political will and a mutual recognition of legitimate strategic concerns. The differing interpretations of historical agreements, the asymmetry of military capabilities, and the unresolved tensions in Tibet contribute to the persistence of this conflict. Until there is meaningful progress in negotiations, smaller incidents will continue to erupt, often in unexpected ways, affecting individuals with no role in the geopolitical contest.

Incidents like Thongdok's detention may appear minor in isolation, but they reveal an important underlying reality. When territorial disputes remain unresolved, every interaction-from issuing visas to screening athletes to processing passports at an airport-has the potential to become a battleground. The lives of ordinary citizens become collateral in a larger struggle over maps, identity, and power. The detention of a young woman from Arunachal Pradesh is a stark reminder that boundaries drawn over a century ago continue to shape the present in unsettling ways.

India and China, as two major Asian powers, have the capacity to rewrite the script of their troubled relationship. But doing so requires restraint, sincerity, and a clear commitment to preventing geopolitical differences from spilling into civilian life. Until that happens, the shadow of the border dispute will remain long and heavy, influencing not only military strategies and diplomatic conversations but also the day-to-day experiences of travellers, athletes, and citizens who simply wish to move through the world with dignity and without fear.