India’s real task is to make sure diplomacy is supported by strength. That strength must be backed by a frontier region that works well for the people who live there.
Recent remarks by ITBP Chief Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor about the ongoing face-off with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Arunachal Pradesh raise a direct question about whether peace can be sustainable or not. The reason is that no matter how much effort is made for peace negotiations at various levels, the standoffs between India and China have been endless. It is not about stopping one clash after another. India and China still hold claims over territory. Their views of where the Line of Actual Control lies do not match.
This gap invites conflict on the ground. In Arunachal Pradesh, the issue is not just military. It carries weight and political meaning. That makes it more serious than a border dispute. For India, the challenge is to manage the border rather than just reacting to every new incident. Long term stability will depend on deterrence that works. It will also need checkable agreements. Building up infrastructure along the frontier is essential. The lives of people living near the border must be better supported through better governance.
Why does Arunachal Pradesh matter to China?
China’s claims on Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing calls “South Tibet “, bring a political side to the disagreement. A 2012 study by Namrata Goswami titled China’s Claim on Arunachal Pradesh: Alternative Scenarios 2032 provides a helpful way to see these overlapping parts. It looks at how Chinese politics and national pride changes in Tibet and how Arunachal Pradesh is run could come to influence future problems.
The study is not a guess about what China’s trying to do right now. Its lasting idea is that fights over land are influenced by more than just soldiers being in place; stories from the past and the situation at the border are important too. This is especially true for the Tawang region, which has historical ties to Tibet, making it more important than just its location.
Resilience must extend beyond military deployments
India faces challenges in the Himalayan terrain due to China’s strong infrastructure and logistics in the Tibetan Plateau. India has improved its border connections. The real test is whether roads, communication systems, surveillance and supply lines can support its forces during long periods of tension.
New technologies, such as drones and satellites, can help with knowing what is happening. They cannot take the place of trained people, reliable supplies or clear rules for handling problems. India’s goal should be deterrence backed by strong abilities. The same idea applies to managing the border areas.
Roads, health care, schools, phone services and job opportunities are not unimportant to security. They decide if people living near the border can get help and be part of the country’s economy and community life. India’s Vibrant Villages Programme understands this link. Its success must be measured by how well it is carried out and by improvements in local well-being, not just by statements.
Water security needs information. The Yarlung Tsangpo–Brahmaputra river system causes worries for those downstream, but claims that water is being used as a weapon should not be accepted as true without evidence from water studies. However, the probabilities of water weaponisation due to delays in sharing data are open to evaluation. Hence, sharing data, working together technically and planning for emergencies are better than letting the worst possible situations decide what to do.
From managing Friction to building Predictability
India should focus on these vital things. First, make the current border systems stronger. This means setting up rules for reporting incidents, having dependable communication and creating trusted ways to patrol. These steps help prevent misunderstandings that can turn into face-offs.
Second, India needs to boost its logistics and technology. It should be ready for any situation with systems that can handle pressure. It should be aimed at credible deterrence.
Third, development in border areas must go hand in hand with governance. Local people should have a say. Decisions should be based on facts, especially when it comes to protecting the environment. This builds trust and long-term stability.
Fourth, Strategic planning for import diversification to reduce trade dependence on China. For example, India can make use of the EU FTA. Further, infrastructure projects such as the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) in Arunachal Project as a strategic buffer.
Fifth, focus on robust development of new-age drone capabilities integrated with AI and microwave and laser technology for sharp surveillance and deterrence in the face of conflicts. The goal doesn’t have to be solving the border dispute alone. That’s been hard for decades. Instead, the aim should be to stop disagreements from turning into dangerous clashes again and again. Peace without an agreement might still be possible.
If there’s no way to check what’s happening no strong institutions and no steady support, from leaders that peace will be fragile. India’s real task is to make sure diplomacy is supported by strength. That strength must be backed by a frontier region that works well for the people who live there.
*Girish M is an independent policy researcher based in Mysuru, Karnataka. He is certified in Public Policy Analysis by the London School of Economics (LSE) and in Public Policy skills through the Research Analysis and Advisory Hub (RAAH) think tank.
