India-China ties have once again come under strain after the two countries exchanged sharp remarks over Ladakh. On October 13, China objected to India's decision to standardise the names of 28 places and geographical features in the Union Territory, reiterating that it does not recognise Ladakh as an Indian Union Territory. India rejected Beijing's objections, asserting that Ladakh is an integral and inalienable part of the country and that no amount of denial by China can change this fact.
The latest exchange has brought the long-running territorial dispute between the two Asian neighbours back into focus. While India says the naming exercise will improve the identification of geographical features and public awareness, China maintains its claim over areas along the western sector of the border.
The disagreement comes against the backdrop of the 2020 military standoff in eastern Ladakh and years of unresolved border tensions. Why has India's decision drawn a strong reaction from China, and how did the dispute begin? Here's a closer look.
On October 2, India formally identified 28 places and geographical features in Ladakh by assigning them standard names on the official maps of the Survey of India. The exercise was undertaken by the Union government in consultation with the Ladakh administration.
According to the government, the move aims to improve the accurate identification of these locations, streamline official cartography and raise public awareness about the sensitive border region. The list includes several geographical features as well as locations such as Gogra and Hot Spring, which were key friction points during the 2020 India-China military standoff.
The 28 locations and geographical features are:
Gogra, Hot Spring, Alisha Giri, Brangsa, Chapchingal Pass, Kanishka Peak, Karun Pir Mountain, Kuksel, Martand Giri, Parpik Glacier, Skamri Glacier, Shachmirik Pass, Shkorga Valley, Zorawar Peak, Dehra Compass, Drak Karpo, Jolmori, Kumarayana Point, Panglung, Rinchen Zangpo, Sakyasri Giri, Guru Rinpoche, Shamal Lungpa, Yangpa River, Marpa Lotsava Ri, Milarepa Kangri, Shiva Ri and Maheshwara Ri.
The Ministry of Home Affairs said the features included peaks, mountains, glaciers, passes, valleys, rivers, lakes, water bodies and land areas. Their inclusion on official maps is intended to ensure consistent identification and greater awareness of their geographical locations.
China has opposed India's move, claiming that some of the areas identified by New Delhi belong to it. Beijing has also reiterated its long-standing position that it does not recognise Ladakh as a Union Territory of India.
Responding to a question about the naming exercise, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said China had never recognised the “so-called Union Territory of Ladakh” and firmly opposed India's decision to publicise standardised names for the locations.
China also maintained that the western sector of the China-India boundary belongs to it, describing India's move as illegal and invalid.
India, however, rejected the objection. The Ministry of External Affairs reiterated that Ladakh is an integral part of India and said China's denial could not change that established position. New Delhi has maintained that the exercise is intended to facilitate accurate recognition of the locations and improve public awareness.
The inclusion of Gogra and Hot Spring has particular significance because both areas figured in the 2020 border standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in eastern Ladakh.
The military confrontation began on May 5, 2020, following a violent clash in the Pangong Lake area. After months of military and diplomatic engagement, both sides began the disengagement process at several friction points in 2022. However, the wider boundary dispute remains unresolved.
The territorial dispute between India and China has roots in boundary arrangements dating back to the British colonial period. However, the two countries' disagreements concern different sectors of their long Himalayan frontier, including the western sector around Aksai Chin and the eastern sector associated with the McMahon Line.
The McMahon Line was drawn during the 1914 Simla Convention involving British India, Tibet and China. British India and Tibet accepted the boundary, but China later rejected it, arguing that Tibet did not have the authority to conclude such an agreement independently.
In the western sector, China claims Aksai Chin, a strategically important high-altitude region that India considers part of Ladakh. The area is significant to China because a road built during the 1950s connects the Xinjiang and Tibet autonomous regions through Aksai Chin.
According to historical accounts, India became aware of the road's existence in the 1950s, with its presence confirmed through Chinese maps published in 1958. Then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru maintained that Aksai Chin was part of India, while Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai argued that the region fell within China's territory under a boundary alignment associated with the British colonial period.
Attempts to settle the dispute failed, and tensions escalated into the 1962 Sino-Indian War. China subsequently declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew its forces in parts of the eastern sector, while retaining control over Aksai Chin. The war did not resolve the underlying boundary dispute, and disagreements over the alignment of the border continued.
Over the decades, several confrontations have highlighted the fragility of India-China relations. These include the Depsang standoff in 2013, face-offs at Chumar and Demchok in 2014, the prolonged military standoff in eastern Ladakh in 2020 and the deadly clash in the Galwan Valley that year.
These incidents have reinforced the importance of border management and military disengagement in preventing local confrontations from escalating into a wider crisis.
The latest disagreement over Ladakh comes amid continuing efforts to manage the broader relationship between India and China. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's remarks at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum on October 14 underscored India's position that peace along the border is essential for normal bilateral ties.
“The point we make to the Chinese is: 'If you want a normal relationship, if the rest of the relationship is to move, it's common sense -- It is a no-brainer that the boundary has to be stable and that we need peace and tranquillity in the border areas',” he said.
Jaishankar also referred to the absence of bloodshed along the India-China border between 1975 and 2020, contrasting that period with the deadly clashes in eastern Ladakh in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
His remarks reflect India's stated position that progress in other areas of the bilateral relationship depends on maintaining peace and stability along the disputed frontier. The two countries have pursued diplomatic and military talks to address border tensions, but a lasting settlement of the boundary question remains elusive.
The latest disagreement does not, by itself, mean that a new military confrontation is on the cards. However, it highlights how questions of territorial sovereignty, official maps and the interpretation of the boundary continue to complicate bilateral ties.
Ultimately, the challenge for both countries remains the same: managing their competing claims without allowing diplomatic disagreements to undermine peace along the frontier. Until a mutually acceptable boundary settlement is reached, border stability and sustained dialogue will remain central to India-China relations.