Online Registration

ISO 9001:2015

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, MODERN MANAGEMENT, APPLIED SCIENCE & SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJEMMASSS) [ Vol. 8 | No. 1 (III) Special Issue | January - March, 2026 ]

Arunachal Pradesh in Indo-China Relations: Historical Roots, Contention, Security and Pathways for Peace

Miti Taying

India and China, two rising Asian powers, share one of the world’s most complex and contested borders. Among all disputed regions, Arunachal Pradesh remains the most politically sensitive, historically contested and symbolically charged issue in bilateral relations. China claims nearly all of Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet,” while India considers the state an integral and inalienable part of its sovereign territory. The dispute involves issues of history, identity, nationalism, territoriality, military strategy, civilization narratives and international geopolitics. This article explores the historical roots of the disagreement, examines the strategic and geopolitical significance of Arunachal Pradesh for countries, analyses diplomatic tensions and military stand-offs, security and presents possible pathways toward resolution. It further evaluates international law, confidence-building mechanisms (CBMs), multilateral frameworks, border management reforms, and the challenges of political trust. The study concludes by proposing a set of pragmatic, multi-layered conflict-mitigation strategies that offer the most realistic prospects for long-term peace between India and China.

  1. Bajpai, K. (2019). India’s strategic culture and national security. Oxford University Press.
  2. Bhatia, R. (2021). The Eastern Sector dispute: Understanding the McMahon Line. Journal of Himalayan Studies, 14(2), 45–67.
  3. Bower, E. (2020). China's territorial revisionism and its implications for South Asia. Asian Security Review, 18(1), 34–56.
  4. Chansoria, M. (2018). Sino-Indian border disputes: Historical roots and contemporary challenges. Routledge.
  5. Das, P. (2022). Strategic significance of Arunachal Pradesh in India–China relations. Defence and Diplomacy Quarterly, 5(3), 78–102.
  6. Ganguly, S. (2017). India and China after Doklam: Competition without conflict? Foreign Affairs, 96(5), 112–120.
  7. Garver, J. (2001). Protracted contest: Sino-Indian rivalry in the twentieth century. University of Washington Press.
  8. Herz,J.H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics,2(2), 157-180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009187.
  9. Johnston, A.I. (1995). Cultural realism: Strategic culture and grand strategy in Chinese history. Princeton University Press.
  10. Joshi, A. (2020). Borders, identity and geopolitics in Arunachal Pradesh. International Journal of Border Studies, 9(1), 56–82.
  11. Kaplan, R. D. (2014). Asia’s cauldron: The South China Sea and the end of a stable Pacific. Random House.
  12. Kundu, B. (2019). China’s renaming of Arunachal Pradesh: Symbolism and strategy. Strategic Studies Review, 12(4), 89–103.
  13. Malik, M. (2016). China and India: Great power rivals. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  14. Pant, H. V., & Joshi, Y. (2020). The contested borders of Asia: Sino-Indian rivalry. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Sahni, V. (2021). Border infrastructure competition between India and China. Himalayan Defence Journal, 10(2), 14–34.
  16. Singh, A. (2015). The 2005 India–China Agreement: Implications for the Eastern Sector. Asian Diplomacy Review, 7(3), 155–170.
  17. Smith, S. (2001). Foreign policy is what states make of it: Social construction and international relations theory. International Studies Review, 3(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00236.
  18. Tsering, G. (2018). Tibet, identity and the geopolitics of the Himalayas. Journal of Asian Political History, 12(1), 202–223.
  19. Waltz,K.N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
  20. Zhang,Y. (2015). China’s territorial disputes and foreign policy. Journal of Contemporary China, 24(96), 1015-1032.

DOI:

Article DOI:

DOI URL:

Download Full Paper:

Download