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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS