Unresolved India-China Boundary: A Stumbling Block for Relations

General Naravane highlights the urgent need for negotiations on the boundary issue to avoid unilateral force by China along the LAC.

Gopi

•February 20, 2026•5 mins read

India–China Boundary Dispute: Structural Ambiguity and the Need for Diplomatic Resolution

Not Started

1. The Unresolved Boundary as the Core Structural Issue

The India–China relationship continues to be shaped by the unresolved nature of their boundary. Former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane emphasised that the “nebulous” character of the boundary is the central cause of recurring tensions. Unlike clearly demarcated international borders, the India–China boundary remains undefined in several sectors.

He drew attention to the distinction between “boundary” and “border,” noting that the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is not a mutually agreed and demarcated boundary. This ambiguity leads to differing perceptions of territorial alignment, resulting in periodic face-offs.

“The India-China border is notional.” — General M.M. Naravane

The absence of a formally agreed boundary creates space for contestation, miscalculation, and escalation. In governance terms, unresolved territorial questions weaken stability, increase defence burdens, and constrain diplomatic engagement.

The governance logic is clear: where territorial sovereignty is undefined, friction becomes structural rather than episodic. If ambiguity persists, recurring military confrontations become inevitable, affecting national security planning and foreign policy coherence.

2. Boundary vs Border: Legal and Conceptual Clarity

General Naravane highlighted the conceptual distinction between a legally recognised “border” and an undemarcated “boundary.” A border is mutually recognised, surveyed, and marked on maps; a boundary under dispute remains subject to competing claims.

In contrast to India’s clearly demarcated border with Bangladesh, the India–China boundary lacks final settlement and on-ground delineation. This leads to “differing perceptions” of the LAC in sectors such as eastern Ladakh, the central sector, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh.

The conceptual ambiguity complicates military operations and diplomatic negotiations. It also limits enforceability of existing confidence-building agreements.

For public administration and national security, clarity in territorial definition reduces transaction costs of defence management. If left unresolved, legal ambiguity translates into operational instability and escalatory risks.

3. Recurring Clashes and the Galwan Precedent

The June 2020 Galwan Valley clash marked a major turning point in bilateral ties. It occurred during General Naravane’s tenure as Army Chief and underscored the fragility of peace along the LAC despite multiple agreements.

The episode demonstrated that even established protocols may fail under conditions of mistrust and divergent interpretations of ground positions. It also exposed the importance of political–military coordination during crisis management.

General Naravane reiterated India’s long-standing principled position:

“Unilateral use of force will not be acceptable to us.” — General M.M. Naravane

The insistence on opposing unilateral force reflects India’s adherence to sovereign equality and rule-based conduct in international relations.

From a governance perspective, crisis episodes test civil-military relations, strategic communication, and institutional preparedness. If political clarity and military directives are delayed or unclear, escalation risks multiply.

4. Institutional Mechanisms and Escalation Prevention

India and China have signed multiple agreements aimed at maintaining peace and tranquillity along the LAC. These mechanisms are designed to prevent escalation through dialogue, flag meetings, and disengagement protocols.

However, the persistence of clashes suggests limitations in implementation. Agreements without shared boundary perception reduce predictability and increase the possibility of friction.

Key sectors of tension:

Eastern Ladakh
Central sector
Sikkim
Arunachal Pradesh

The recurrence of incidents highlights the gap between diplomatic frameworks and ground-level realities.

Institutional arrangements can mitigate tensions only when supported by mutual trust and clearly defined parameters. Without clarity, agreements become reactive rather than preventive.

5. Comparative Example: India–Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (2015)

General Naravane cited the 2015 Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh as an example of how complex territorial disputes can be resolved through sustained negotiation.

The LBA involved exchange of enclaves and resolution of long-pending anomalies through mutual consent and “give and take.” The agreement demonstrated that political will and trust-building can transform historically contentious boundaries into settled borders.

Comparative Significance:

Negotiated settlement after decades of dispute
Exchange of territories
Parliamentary approval and constitutional amendment

This example suggests that boundary disputes are not inherently insoluble but require diplomatic continuity and domestic political consensus.

The Bangladesh example shows that boundary resolution is a function of political commitment and institutional maturity. If similar diplomatic investment is not made with China, the dispute risks becoming permanently militarised.

6. Dialogue as the Preferred Pathway

General Naravane emphasised that boundary disputes “can be resolved through dialogue and discussion.” This aligns with India’s broader foreign policy principle of peaceful dispute resolution.

Sustainable settlement requires:

Political engagement at the highest level
Military-to-military communication channels
Confidence-building measures
Acceptance of compromise

However, resolution also depends on mutual recognition of interests and adherence to agreed frameworks.

Dialogue reduces strategic uncertainty and defence expenditure pressures. Without diplomatic engagement, the boundary issue may entrench adversarial postures, affecting trade, regional cooperation, and broader Indo-Pacific dynamics.

7. Broader Implications for India

Strategic Implications

Persistent high troop deployment along the LAC
Infrastructure race in border areas
Defence resource diversion

Diplomatic Implications

Strain on bilateral ties
Impact on BRICS, SCO, and multilateral coordination
Increased alignment dynamics in Indo-Pacific geopolitics

Governance Implications

Civil-military coordination during crises
Parliamentary and public accountability
Need for coherent strategic communication

The boundary question affects not only territorial security but also economic priorities, regional diplomacy, and domestic governance.

Conclusion

The unresolved India–China boundary remains a structural fault line in bilateral relations. While agreements exist to manage tensions, durable peace requires formal settlement through sustained dialogue and mutual accommodation.

The experience of the India–Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement demonstrates that even complex territorial disputes can be resolved with political will. Moving from a “notional boundary” to a mutually recognised border is essential for long-term stability, strategic predictability, and developmental focus.

A stable boundary is not merely a cartographic achievement; it is a foundation for secure governance and constructive regional engagement.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The distinction between a ‘boundary’ and a ‘border’ is central to understanding India-China tensions. A border typically refers to a mutually recognized and demarcated line on maps and on the ground, backed by legal agreements. In contrast, a boundary—as used in the India-China context—remains disputed and not formally delimited. The Line of Actual Control (LAC) is a notional line reflecting differing perceptions of territorial control rather than a settled international boundary.

This lack of clarity creates operational ambiguity. Patrols from both sides often operate according to their own perception of the LAC, leading to face-offs in areas such as eastern Ladakh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash exemplified how differing interpretations of the boundary can escalate into violent confrontation.

Therefore, the terminological distinction is not semantic but strategic. A formally negotiated and demarcated boundary reduces uncertainty and miscalculation, whereas a nebulous boundary increases the risk of recurring friction and undermines long-term stability in bilateral relations.

The unresolved boundary question remains the foundational source of mistrust between India and China because it affects sovereignty, national identity, and security perceptions. Territorial integrity is a core interest for both nations, and any perceived encroachment triggers strong domestic and political reactions.

Repeated incidents—such as clashes in eastern Ladakh and standoffs in Doklam—demonstrate how the absence of a mutually agreed boundary allows tactical incidents to assume strategic proportions. Even though confidence-building agreements exist to prevent escalation, these mechanisms operate within the limits of differing territorial claims.

Moreover, the boundary dispute intersects with broader geopolitical competition in Asia. Infrastructure development along the LAC, military mobilization, and diplomatic posturing are influenced by the absence of a final settlement. Thus, the boundary issue is not merely territorial but deeply linked to the overall trajectory of India-China relations.

The principle that unilateral use of force is unacceptable aligns with international law, particularly the UN Charter’s emphasis on peaceful dispute resolution. For India, reiterating this principle reinforces its commitment to a rules-based international order and positions it as a responsible regional power.

However, adherence to this norm requires credible deterrence. The Galwan clash highlighted the challenges of preventing forceful actions in areas lacking clear demarcation. Diplomatic agreements such as the 1993 and 1996 border management accords aim to limit escalation, yet their effectiveness depends on mutual trust and compliance.

Critically, while rejecting unilateral force is normatively sound, practical enforcement demands robust military preparedness, infrastructure development, and sustained dialogue. Without these complementary measures, the principle risks being declaratory rather than operationally effective.

The India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) of 2015 demonstrates that complex territorial disputes can be resolved through sustained negotiation and mutual compromise. The agreement involved exchange of enclaves and recognition of settled populations, reflecting a pragmatic ‘give and take’ approach.

Key lessons include political will, bipartisan consensus, and public communication to build domestic support. The LBA resolved decades-old anomalies peacefully, enhancing bilateral trust and regional stability.

Applying this model to China would require sustained dialogue mechanisms, clarity on claims, and readiness for compromise. However, the scale and strategic sensitivities of the India-China dispute are far greater. While not directly replicable, the LBA offers a normative template emphasizing negotiation over confrontation.

A comprehensive strategy should integrate diplomatic engagement, military preparedness, and economic balancing. First, institutionalized dialogue at multiple levels—Special Representatives, military commanders, and diplomatic channels—must continue to prevent escalation and clarify differing perceptions of the LAC.

Second, India should strengthen border infrastructure and surveillance capabilities to ensure deterrence without provocation. Confidence-building measures such as disengagement protocols and communication hotlines must be reinforced.

Third, economic and multilateral engagement—through forums like BRICS and SCO—can create interdependence that incentivizes stability. Ultimately, resolution will require political courage and mutual accommodation. Until then, managing the dispute responsibly while safeguarding sovereignty remains the most viable approach.