The Hindu: Published on 08 September 2025.
Why in News?
The India-China border issue remains unresolved even after decades of negotiations. Despite agreements in 1993 (Border Peace and Tranquillity Agreement – BPTA) and 1996 (Confidence Building Measures Agreement), the lack of a common definition of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has left the border indeterminate, leading to repeated military face-offs, most notably in 2020.
Background:
- Historical complexity: India and China never agreed on a clear border since the 1950s. The 1962 war further deepened mistrust.
- Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 Beijing visit marked a thaw and led to the creation of the Joint Working Group (JWG) to address the boundary question.
- 1993 BPTA Agreement: First reference to the LAC, emphasized peaceful resolution, force reduction, and mutual respect.
- 1996 Agreement: Expanded confidence-building measures, prohibited large-scale military exercises near the border, and called for map exchange to clarify the LAC.
- Failed map exchanges (2000–2002): Both sides withdrew maps due to “maximalist” positions. By 2005, the process was abandoned.
Key Issues:
Undefined LAC: Both sides have different perceptions of the LAC, especially in the western sector (Ladakh) and eastern sector (Arunachal Pradesh/Tawang).
Military imbalance: China’s infrastructure advantage (roads on the Tibetan plateau) versus India’s difficult terrain access creates asymmetry.
Broken trust: Agreements promised “mutual restraint,” but China’s 2020 Ladakh incursions violated the spirit of the 1996 pact.
Swap deal failure: Earlier proposals to exchange Aksai Chin (China) for Arunachal (India) collapsed, leaving disputes open-ended.
Domestic political instability in India (1989–1991) and differing strategic priorities delayed consistent engagement.
Impact:
Recurring stand-offs: Unclear borders lead to frequent confrontations (Depsang, Pangong Tso, Chumar, Galwan).
Strained relations: Border tensions spill over into trade, diplomacy, and regional security.
Security dilemma: Both sides deploy troops heavily, undermining the 1993 and 1996 agreements on minimal force presence.
Geopolitical ripple effect: India moves closer to the U.S. and Quad allies, while China strengthens ties with Pakistan.
Economic cost: Border instability hinders regional connectivity projects and bilateral trade trust.
Way Forward:
- Re-engagement on maps: Without mutually accepted delineation of the LAC, agreements remain toothless.
- Revival of confidence-building measures: Both sides must re-commit to military restraint and transparency in exercises.
- Preventive diplomacy: Mechanisms to prevent patrol clashes escalating into conflicts need strengthening.
- Incremental trust-building: Trade, cultural, and academic exchanges (as in the 1990s) may soften rigid positions.
- Long-term settlement: Requires political will from both sides to balance sovereignty claims with pragmatic peace.
Summary:
The India-China border dispute persists because of the inability to define the LAC, despite multiple agreements since 1993. While both nations have pledged peaceful resolution, political mistrust, asymmetry in infrastructure, and failure to exchange maps have ensured that the boundary remains contested, leading to recurring tensions and military stand-offs.
