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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS