By Rahul Pandey
The India-China border dispute originates from colonial-era agreements and post-independence territorial claims. The Sino-Indian War of 1962 significantly exacerbated tensions, resulting in a military standoff between both armed forces. The standoff resulted in the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin (China occupied 42,735 sq km), an Indian territory (part of Ladakh). The conflict was primarily fueled by differing perceptions of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and unresolved territorial claims, which have persisted for decades.
Over the years, numerous talks have been held to address the border issues, yet a lasting solution still needs to be discovered. Tensions escalated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly during the political unrest in Tibet and border incursions. The distrust and competitive nature of regional politics, fueled by the desire for regional influence, resulted in the signing of numerous peace treaties, such as the Peace and Tranquillity Agreement and the Confidence-building Measures Agreement, which aimed to foster peace and Development.
However, diplomatic engagements, such as agreements on maintaining peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), temporarily eased tensions. The situation turned dramatically with the Doklam standoff in 2017. The Indian and Chinese troops faced off near the tri-junction of India, Bhutan, and China. However, the Indian Express reported in 2020 that the number of Chinese transgressions across the disputed border had increased from 428 in 2015 to 663 in 2019. Some of these transgressions eventually escalated into standoffs between the two armies. The most notable examples occurred near Chumar and Demchok in eastern Ladakh in 2014 and at Burtse in northern Ladakh in 2015. The Doklam standoff was triggered by China’s attempt to extend a road in a disputed area claimed by Bhutan. India intervened, leading to a 73-day standoff that ended without significant military engagement but underscored the fragility of Sino-Indian relations.
Galwan’s bloody hand-to-hand battle in June 2020 (June 15/16, 2020) marked a significant deterioration in relations, resulting in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers and an undisclosed number of Chinese casualties (Officially 4, Xinhua). This violent confrontation was unprecedented since the 1962 as multiple agreements signed from the early 1990s to early 2010s, such as the Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement, 1993, Agreement on Confidence Building Measures, 1996, Protocol for the Implementation of Military Confidence Building Measures, 2005 and the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs, 2012 - limited the scope of violence.
In the aftermath of the Galwan clash, both countries engaged in extensive military and diplomatic discussions to de-escalate the situation. Over the following months, military commanders and diplomatic officials met multiple times to negotiate disengagement (31 rounds of diplomatic meetings and 21 rounds of military talks) at various friction points along the LAC. The key focus areas included the Galwan Valley, the banks of Pangong Tso Lake, and the Gogra-Hot Springs region.
The process was complex and challenging, as both sides sought to protect their territorial claims while avoiding further conflict. Initial agreements led to the establishment of buffer zones to reduce the risk of clashes. Local commanders have been encouraged to meet regularly to foster understanding and mitigate the risk of skirmishes. Implementing buffer zones has led to conflict resolution, but issues in the Depsang Plains and Demchok persist.
On October 21, 2024, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced a breakthrough in the negotiation. He stated that significant progress had been made in resolving issues regarding patrolling arrangements along the LAC. This marked an important step toward normalising the situation, which had remained tense for over four years. As part of the recent negotiations, both sides recognised the need for a mutual understanding of patrolling rights and troop deployments.
The discussions emphasised a return to pre-April 2020 positions, where normal patrolling was conducted without obstruction. On 12 September 2024, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, the External Affairs Minister, during his conversation with Amb Jean-David Levitte at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, confirmed that about 75% of the disengagement issues had been resolved. However, problems regarding the militarization of the border persisted.
Intense diplomatic efforts marked the process leading to the latest disengagement agreement. Meetings between high-ranking officials, including National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, in September 2024 at the sidelines of BRICS summit meeting played a crucial role in bridging gaps and facilitating dialogue. These diplomatic channels were complemented by military discussions, which focused on practical measures to reduce tensions on the ground.
The continuous engagement at both levels demonstrates the importance of sustained communication in conflict resolution. Despite the historical mistrust and complexities involved, both nations have recognised the necessity of dialogue to prevent escalation and ensure stability along their shared border. The recent agreement on patrolling arrangements and the disengagement process is critical to normalising relations. Continued vigilance and diplomatic efforts will be necessary to address the underlying issues and prevent future conflicts.
Implications of Disengagement:
Among numerous short-and-medium-term implications, there are four broader implications of this disengagement process: border stability—the agreement could reduce tensions in disputed areas, enhance security along the LAC, and foster stability in border regions; further strengthening confidence-building measures—by creating a formal process of dialogue and crisis management mechanisms, the agreement could pave the way for greater diplomatic trust, potentially easing long-standing regional rivalries; trade and economic exchanges—it can improve trade relations that could benefit both countries and open up more investment opportunities; and people-to-people connectivity will also be restored, particularly among students who wish to pursue higher education in both countries. For instance, the well-known Chinese language fellowship supported by the Ministry of Education of China and the Ministry of Human Resource Department of India (now the Ministry of Education) has been suspended since the Doklam issue. This was a significant language fellowship for Indian students pursuing language training in Chinese universities. With the opening of dialogue, these issues can be resolved.
Challenges and Opportunities:
Interpreting past agreements is the most significant challenge between the border issues of both countries. Several factors complicate the situation beyond differing interpretations of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). One of the most entrenched issues is the historical basis of each country’s territorial claims, which are deeply intertwined with national pride and identity. From the Chinese perspective, these claims stem from their political opportunism, rooted in the extension of their past empires.
Another significant challenge is the strategic importance of the contested areas. India and China have developed extensive military infrastructure in these regions, including roads, bases, and supply lines, which has led to a substantial military presence on both sides. This militarisation complicates disengagement because each side is reluctant to pull back, fearing that it could weaken its defensive position or allow the other side to gain strategic advantage. The result is a situation where even minor skirmishes or misunderstandings carry the potential for escalation, as neither side wants to appear weak in the eyes of the other.
What are the ways forward? The path to peace and tranquillity lies in maintaining continuous diplomatic dialogue, supported by back-channel diplomacy, at all levels: government, academia, business, and people-to-people. The territorial disputes between the Chinese and Indian states in the Eastern and Western sectors can be resolved peacefully by addressing the border issue and establishing boundaries at suitable locations along the long border between the two countries.
To sum up, the India-China border dispute remains one of Asia's most complex geopolitical challenges. While significant progress has been made in recent months toward disengagement and dialogue, both countries' historical context and entrenched positions mean that a comprehensive resolution will require sustained effort and commitment. As both nations navigate their path forward, they must focus on building trust and cooperation to ensure lasting peace along the LAC.
This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.
Rahul Pandey is a PhD candidate at the Chinese Centre of the Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He regularly contributes to domestic and global media on China-related issues, offering insights into Chinese politics, governance, and international relations