Indian and Chinese forces have reportedly clashed several times in the recent past in Arunachal Pradesh. So, all is not well with China, contrary to the government’s optics. It is a well-known fact that India has been actively trying to reverse its anti-China policy initiated after the deadly 2020 Galwan clash. Soon after Galwan, India had banned over 350 Chinese-linked mobile applications. High-profile platforms like TikTok, WeChat, Helo, ShareIt, UC Browser, and Club Factory were completely blocked. The market share of Chinese apps in India dropped from 60% to near zero. Furthermore, the Indian government effectively blocked Chinese telecom giants Huawei and ZTE from participating in the country’s national 5G trials and deployment. However, all that has changed as India initiated a dilution in investment scrutiny to invite Chinese investment, resumption of direct air travel, and normalisation of business and tourist visas.
Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India (after 7 years) last month for the BRICS summit. The repair in relations with China is part of India’s strategy after the great shock and awe India received at the hands of the Trump administration in the form of tariffs and curbs on H1B visas. Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) chief, was set to retire on 31 October 2026. A few days before his retirement, Kapoor addressed personnel at an ITBP base in Alwar, Rajasthan. All hell broke loose when Kapoor revealed in his speech that confrontations in Arunachal Pradesh with Chinese forces began in July and were continuing at several locations in the state. This went against the government’s narrative that there was a thaw in relations with the Chinese and India was assiduously guarding its borders from any foreign trespass. It also damaged the credibility of a government that has made national security a central pillar of its political identity.
A Dispute That Never Went Away
The boundary dispute can be traced back to the 1914 Simla Convention and the McMahon Line. India recognises it as its boundary in the eastern sector. China does not accept it and claims several of those areas as its own. Beijing claims Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet. Meanwhile, New Delhi claims and maintains that Arunachal is an integral part of India. The Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China has always been in dispute. In such a situation, whoever dominates militarily on the ground can claim that portion to be its own territory. So, these LAC disputes are not a minor technical problem. They provide opportunities for serious confrontation and the gradual alteration of possession on the ground. The latest reports from Upper Subansiri in Arunachal Pradesh prove this phenomenon.
According to the former ITBP chief, Chinese troops returned in large numbers after an initial withdrawal and pitched tents around 6-7 kilometres inside India’s perception of the LAC. Local representatives and journalists have claimed that Chinese personnel have moved 50 to 60 kilometres into territory claimed by India. These figures are disputed and require independent verification.
Diplomatic Engagement Without a Settlement
India’s approach towards its boundary with China is characterised by agreements and dialogue mechanisms designed to prevent military escalations. The 1993 agreement was meant to commit both sides to maintaining peace and tranquillity along the LAC. This was followed by additional procedures for confidence-building and handling face-to-face encounters. High-level meetings of military commanders and diplomatic channels were used to prevent local confrontations from becoming a wider conflict. But these mechanisms failed to pave way for a final settlement of the boundary. They were designed to manage the disputes and could never have possibly resolved them.
The latest face-offs show the futility and failure of this process when it comes to settling the LAC. Since the people of India have been fed the narrative that India is now led by a strongman who has turned the country into an acknowledged ‘global leader’, bilateral meetings with China are presented as evidence of durable peace. However, this narrative was seriously punctured with news about the continuing territorial disagreement and fresh military confrontations and alleged loss of territory on the Indian side.
The Leadership’s Credibility Problem
The latest episode highlighted by the former ITBP chief shreds the government’s cultivated image of ruthlessness and decisiveness on national security. What did the government do when its own border force chief publicly acknowledged continuing face-offs with the enemy? There were only general and vague statements about Chinese forces deviating from established patrolling patterns. Naturally, this gave an opportunity to the Opposition to lambast the government.
Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh tweeted, “India is still paying the price for the Prime Minister’s infamous clean chit to China on June 19, 2020. After the martyrdom of our 20 brave soldiers, the Prime Minister had stated: “No one has entered our border there, nor is anyone present inside, nor has any of our posts been captured by anyone else.”
The nation is asking: Amid ongoing tensions on the border, what kind of nationalism is this softness toward China and the growing economic dependence? The country doesn’t need hollow claims of a 56-inch chest; it demands clear answers on national security.”
China Not in the League of Pakistan
Not many people know that the title of Salman Khan’s upcoming war film was changed from “Battle of Galwan” to “Maatrubhumi: May War Rest in Peace”. It is reported that Salman Khan received advice from ‘official and strategic quarters’ to rethink the title of his film. As India was trying to actively de-escalate border friction with China, naming a film after the 2020 military clash was seen as a diplomatic concern. Could such a thing be even imagined if Khan was making a film on some battle with Pakistan?
Whether one likes it or not, enmity with China does not stand on the same pedestal as our fabled hostility with Pakistan. Would the public outrage have been the same if what happened with India in Arunachal Pradesh occurred along India’s Western border with Pakistan? Would the Government of India have reacted, or rather not reacted, in a similar situation with Pakistan?
It is very obvious that our foreign policy, military posturing, defence policy, and diplomatic manoeuvring are so heavily influenced by our communal approach to governance that we have lost track of how history will judge us as a free nation. It is time we remind ourselves of Swami Vivekananda, who said: “Always keep the mind cheerful. … Bullies are always cowards. Cowardice is no virtue. Cowards never win victories.”