Introduction

The Line of Actual Control is not a mutually demarcated boundary but a result of differing historical perceptions. China has progressively shifted from negotiating boundary clarification to leveraging uncertainty to alter ground realities. This strategy enables incremental territorial assertion without triggering full-scale conflict, fundamentally altering the nature of India-China border management.

Why in the news?

India-China border tensions persist despite multiple agreements and disengagement talks, underscoring a deeper structural problem: the absence of a mutually accepted alignment of the LAC. China is no longer merely disputing territory but strategically weaponising ambiguity itself. Unlike earlier periods where border negotiations aimed at eventual settlement, China now treats unsettled borders as a permanent pressure lever, enabling coercion below the threshold of war. This marks a sharp departure from confidence-building frameworks established since the 1990s and highlights a major failure of past assumptions that economic engagement would moderate China’s territorial behaviour.

How did the LAC originate and why does ambiguity persist?

1. Historical Construction: The LAC emerged after the 1962 conflict as a de facto line reflecting troop positions rather than a legally negotiated boundary.
2. Divergent Interpretations: China interprets the LAC using selective historical maps, while India relies on watershed principles and traditional usage.
3. Absence of Final Alignment: No exchange of mutually accepted maps has occurred for the entire LAC, particularly in the Western and Eastern sectors.
4. Strategic Utility of Ambiguity: China benefits from uncertainty, as clarity would constrain its manoeuvrability on the ground.

How has China operationalised ambiguity as a strategic tool?

1. Grey-Zone Operations: Incremental troop movements, patrol obstruction, and infrastructure build-up alter facts without overt combat.
2. Salami-Slicing Tactics: Small, cumulative actions avoid escalation while steadily shifting the status quo.
3. Denial of Disengagement: China accepts disengagement in principle but resists restoration of pre-2020 positions.
4. Psychological Pressure: Persistent friction imposes military, economic, and diplomatic costs on India.

Why is Arunachal Pradesh central to China’s claim strategy?

1. Rejection of McMahon Line: China contests the eastern boundary despite historical acceptance by Tibet’s representatives.
2. Political Rebranding: Use of alternative nomenclature seeks to delegitimise India’s sovereignty claims.
3. Diplomatic Signalling: Repeated objections to Indian infrastructure and political activities reinforce claims.
4. Negotiation Leverage: Eastern sector claims are used to extract concessions elsewhere.

What role have border agreements played and why have they failed?

1. 1993 and 1996 Agreements: Established peace and tranquillity but avoided boundary clarification.
2. Confidence-Building Focus: Emphasised troop restraint rather than territorial settlement.
3. Breakdown Post-2020: Galwan clashes exposed the fragility of trust-based arrangements.
4. Structural Limitation: Agreements regulate behaviour but do not resolve competing perceptions of the LAC.

How has India responded to China’s pressure strategy?

1. Firm Rejection of Claims: India has consistently rejected Chinese assertions in Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Infrastructure Development: Accelerated border roads and logistics to reduce asymmetry.
3. Military Posture Adjustment: Forward deployment and sustained presence across friction points.
4. Diplomatic Signalling: Insistence on restoration of status quo ante as a prerequisite for normalisation.

Conclusion

The continued absence of a clearly delineated Line of Actual Control has transformed the India-China boundary from a negotiable dispute into a strategic pressure instrument. China’s deliberate exploitation of ambiguity has weakened confidence-building mechanisms and normalised coercion below the threshold of war. For India, effective border management now requires not only military preparedness and infrastructure development but also sustained diplomatic firmness anchored in restoration of the status quo and long-term boundary clarity.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2020] Analyze internal security threats and transborder crimes along Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan borders including Line of Control (LoC). Also discuss the role played by various security forces in this regard. 

Linkage: UPSC has repeatedly asked questions on border area management and transborder security threats, particularly along the LoC and international borders. In the current context, the LAC has emerged as an equally critical security frontier, where China’s use of ambiguity and grey-zone pressure mirrors the management of persistent, low-intensity threats without escalation.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now