India’s security forces remain locked in face-offs with Chinese troops along the disputed Himalayan border in Arunachal Pradesh, according to the head of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), reopening questions about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s handling of China six years after a deadly clash in Ladakh.
Shatrujeet Kapur, the ITBP director-general, said last week that the confrontations in the remote northeastern state were still continuing. His remarks came months after local groups reported that Chinese forces had been pushing into territory India considers its own and blocking Indian patrols from traditional points along the frontier.
The statement followed a cautious improvement in ties between New Delhi and Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India last month for the BRICS summit, his first trip to the country in seven years, and met Modi on the sidelines. Both governments have sought a careful thaw, partly encouraged by US President Donald Trump’s trade policies.
Yet the reported stand-offs show how fragile that improvement remains. The 3,500 kilometre border between India and China has never been fully demarcated, and disagreements over its exact course continue to produce friction.
The dispute is rooted in history. India regards the McMahon Line, drawn during British colonial rule, as its boundary with China. Beijing rejects that line, arguing that Tibet had no authority to sign the 1914 agreement that created it. China also claims Arunachal Pradesh in full, calling it “South Tibet,” while it controls Aksai Chin, territory also claimed by India.
In 1993, the two countries agreed to maintain peace along the Line of Actual Control, their de facto border, while talks on a final settlement continued. But the arrangement has repeatedly come under strain.
The most serious rupture came in June 2020, when Indian and Chinese soldiers fought hand-to-hand in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh. At least 20 Indian troops were killed, while China later acknowledged four deaths among its forces. The clash triggered a major military build-up on both sides.
For Modi, the episode created a domestic political problem. His government had long projected strength on national security, but opposition parties accused it of failing to detect China’s troop movements and withholding information from Parliament. The prime minister’s statement that no foreign soldier had entered Indian territory appeared to conflict with the foreign ministry’s account that Chinese forces had crossed the Line of Actual Control.
Those questions have returned with the new reports from Arunachal Pradesh. Opposition Congress leader Bosiram Siram said Chinese troops had moved nearly 50 kilometres into Indian territory in the Upper Subansiri region. “You can see the [Chinese] Army. They are on top of the mountains, while we are down below,” he said after visiting border areas in August.
India’s foreign ministry did not directly confirm the ongoing face-offs. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said border situations are sometimes disturbed when Chinese forces depart from established patrol patterns.
Analysts say the tensions may reflect a deliberate Chinese strategy. Praveen Donthi of the International Crisis Group described the incidents as possibly a pressure tactic by Beijing, noting that an undemarcated border makes stand-offs difficult to prevent.
India and China have diplomatic and military mechanisms intended to stop local disputes from escalating. The latest round of their border consultation mechanism took place in August, followed by a commander-level meeting in Arunachal Pradesh in September. But experts argue that such contacts can reduce immediate risks without resolving the deeper dispute.
For Modi, the challenge is political as much as strategic. He must reconcile a diplomatic opening with Beijing against evidence of continued Chinese pressure on the frontier. His critics see the latest face-offs as another test of his government’s transparency and its promise to defend Indian territory.
With no settlement in sight, the Himalayas remain a place where diplomacy and confrontation move together.
