The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute.
The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which argues that Tibet was not a sovereign state capable of entering into international agreements. This line demarcates what India considers the boundary of Arunachal Pradesh, a region China refers to as South Tibet.
China has historically shown a willingness to engage in warfare to resolve border disputes, as evidenced by the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 and the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979.
These conflicts, although violent, eventually led to negotiations and settled borders. The resolution with Russia was finalized in 2003, and with Vietnam, despite ongoing tensions, there has been a formal demarcation of the border.
In contrast, the Sino-Indian border remains unsettled. Several factors contribute to this impasse:
The region holds significant strategic importance for both nations. It serves as a buffer zone and is crucial for the security of India’s northeastern states and China’s sensitive Tibetan region.
Both countries view the control of the disputed area as a matter of national pride and territorial integrity. China’s claim over Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet is rooted in its assertion of sovereignty over the historical region of Tibet. Both nations have been competing to build infrastructure along the border, which exacerbates tensions and leads to frequent standoffs.
The stalemate persists due to a combination of historical grievances, nationalistic sentiments and geopolitical strategies. Unlike its settled borders with Russia and Vietnam, where pragmatic diplomacy eventually prevailed, the Sino-Indian border is mired in a complex interplay of history and politics. The lack of a mutually recognized legal framework, such as the McMahon Line for India, and China’s insistence on historical claims complicate the dispute.
For a resolution to be reached, it will require sustained diplomatic engagement, mutual respect for each other’s concerns and a willingness to compromise. The resolution of the Tibet issue, as suggested by the Tibetan government-in-exile, could potentially pave the way for a broader settlement of the border dispute. However, this would necessitate a significant shift in China’s stance on Tibet, which seems unlikely in the near future.
The Sino-Indian border dispute over Arunachal Pradesh stands out as an unresolved issue in China’s border history due to its unique historical, cultural and geopolitical complexities. While China has settled its border disputes with other nations through war and subsequent diplomacy, the path to resolution with India remains fraught with challenges that go beyond the mere demarcation of a boundary line.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS