Updated Geopolitical Map of China's Border Regions

Updated Geopolitical Map: Despite successfully resolving border disputes with 14 countries, China remains concerned about the continued presence of illegal occupations in its territories by India and Bhutan.

Recently, China released a new land-border map asserting territorial claims over Ladakh in the north and Arunachal Pradesh in the east, challenging our sovereignty and integrity. However, there are two significant inaccuracies in this narrative.

Firstly, there has never been a direct land border between India and China. The regions of Tibet and East Turkestan have historically acted as buffer zones separating our territories from China. The imposing Karakoram and Himalayan mountain ranges further demarcate the boundary between our lands and Tibet and East Turkestan.

Secondly, Tibet and East Turkestan do not belong to China. They have been independent states, which China aggressed and occupied in the previous century. The Indian province of Gilgit-Baltistan, a part of Jammu & Kashmir, under Pakistani occupation, is now located north of our Kashmir Valley. The region to its east is what is called as ‘Xinjiang’ by China but known otherwise as East Turkestan. The Red Chinese army attacked it in c. 1949. Tibet is located south of this state.

Tibet once stood as a formidable state, successfully repelling Chinese incursions for two centuries. However, over time, it periodically became a vassal state, akin to the contemporary situations of Vietnam, North and South Korea. It also held a unique spiritual significance for the Mongols, who, after defeating China and establishing their rule, considered Tibet their spiritual capital. Tragically, in approximately 1951, the Chinese Army captured Tibet, leading to the loss of numerous Buddhist monks’ lives. In March 1959, the Dalai Lama, who served as both the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet, fled Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, and sought asylum in India. Since then, he has resided in India, along with his followers and the Tibetan Government in exile.

In 7 CE, the Tibetans gained prominence as a significant power in the region. Initially, the Chinese Tang Dynasty did not pay much attention to them. However, the Tang Dynasty came to grasp the serious threat posed by the Tibetans when they effortlessly seized Chinese territories in the western and northern regions. Recognizing the impracticality of engaging the Tibetans in the high-altitude Tibetan plateau, which averages around 16,000 feet above sea level—an aspect that remains true to this day—the Chinese opted for a diplomatic approach. They entered into a peace treaty with the Tibetans, acknowledging a form of vassalage and cementing the alliance by arranging marriages between their princesses and Tibetan Kings.

Ladakh, an integral part of the Jammu & Kashmir region, finds itself nestled between the regions of Tibet and East Turkestan. China’s interest in Ladakh stems from several factors. Firstly, neither Tibet nor East Turkestan has fully assimilated into Mainland China, and both regions have ongoing separatist movements. Additionally, the area holds invaluable water resources, with major rivers like the Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Salween, and Irrawaddy originating in Tibet. Tibet’s vast number of glaciers also lends it the title of the third Pole, following the North and South Poles. Moreover, Tibet offers access to various natural resources, including metals, oil, and gas, which further piques China’s interest in the region.

Hence, China has employed a strategy of suppression to maintain its control over these regions. As early as 1953, even during a period of relatively good India-China relations, China constructed the G-219 highway to connect these unsettled areas via the Aksai-Chin region of Ladakh without seeking India’s permission. However, as relations soured around 1962, China expanded its occupation of Ladakh, incrementally encroaching upon our territory whenever possible, a tactic often referred to as “salami-slicing.” As part of this approach, China entered into an agreement with Pakistan in 1963 and claimed the Shaksgam Valley in Gilgit, encompassing an area of 5000 square kilometers, citing security needs. China’s aggressive actions in Ladakh, including the May 2020 incidents in Galwan, Depsang, Pangong Tso, and Demchok, are all part of this calculated strategy.

Tibet, a vast region, has been under Chinese control for seven decades. It comprises a substantial one-eighth of China’s total land area. Similar to the situation in East Turkestan, Tibet experienced aggression and occupation around 70 years ago. As previously highlighted, Tibet possesses critical natural resources, particularly water resources, which are of immense value to China. Tibet’s water resources alone could potentially satisfy a quarter of China’s total water requirements. This strategic advantage positions China to exert significant influence over numerous downstream states by assuming the role of the upper riparian power for the major rivers mentioned earlier. These factors collectively drove China’s decision to occupy Tibet.

In the year 8 CE, an Abbasid army dispatched by the Caliph of Baghdad introduced Islam to the northwest region of China, known as East Turkestan, where Turkic people resided. The Uyghurs, as we recognize them today, are Turkish-speaking and originally hailed from Central Asia. Despite the Qing Emperor’s capture of East Turkestan in the 18th century, his authority over this distant periphery of the Chinese Empire remained precarious. East Turkestan operated as an autonomous state in the early 20th century. Following the Communist Party’s ascent to power in China on October 1, 1949, they worked to more closely integrate peripheral regions like Yunnan, Tibet, East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria with the mainland through assertive measures. East Turkestan only achieved full integration around 1955 when its name was changed to Xinjiang. Since then, the Uyghurs have consistently opposed Chinese rule.

As illustrated in the accompanying map, all these regions are depicted as independent entities under China’s occupation. China’s border disputes extend not only with our nation but also with numerous others. It shares land boundaries with a total of fourteen countries. Despite having resolved most of these border disputes, with the exceptions of those involving India and Bhutan, China remains discontented with what it regards as illegal occupation of its territories by these nations. For instance, it asserts claims over the entirety of Siberia, a region belonging to its closest ally, Russia.

Beyond land border disputes, China is embroiled in maritime boundary conflicts with all its neighboring coastal nations. One notably contentious claim is its assertion of Indonesia’s Natuna Sea, a region located a considerable 1500 nautical miles from the nearest Chinese coastline. Historically, China lacked a self-designated name; it was others who referred to it as China. Similarly, China once identified the seas around it as the East Sea and South Sea. However, in the 16th century, the Portuguese renamed the South Sea as the ‘South China Sea,’ a name that has endured. This nomenclature has driven China’s ambition to exert complete dominance over the area, as evidenced by its placement of nine dashes, which it uses to lay claim to this critical waterway. To enforce its control, China deploys its formidable Navy, Coast Guard, and unofficial Maritime Militia, occupying islands, converting reefs into islands, stationing naval forces in these locations, and constructing missile launchers and radars. Moreover, China has disregarded the 2016 award issued by the UN Arbitral Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Over the course of more than two millennia, India’s influence in this region has been profound and far-reaching. India’s impact was not achieved through war or aggression but through a rich tapestry of contributions encompassing religion, language, literature, epics, scientific knowledge, maritime trade, unique commodities, and diplomatic interactions. Exemplary instances of India’s influence can be observed in the emergence of great empires such as Funan in the Mekong delta of South Vietnam and Cambodia from 1 to 6 CE, the Champa in Central Vietnam spanning from 2 to 18 CE, Sri Wijaya of Sumatra during the years 7 to 12 CE, and the Majapahit in neighboring Java from 13 to 16 CE. These maritime empires served as cornerstones of sea trade and cultural exchange for two millennia, operating on the foundation of Hindu and Buddhist principles, utilizing Sanskrit as a lingua franca, adhering to the Indian Luni-Solar calendar, embracing the concept of ‘Chakravartin’ rulership, and drawing upon Indian philosophical ideas, architectural techniques, and town planning.

Indian influence reached as far as present-day Papua-New Guinea in the Pacific Ocean. Indian ports served as organic hubs for traders from both the western and eastern regions, facilitating transshipment activities. Indian dhows, adept at navigating the oceans, engaged in maritime trade connecting the Chinese seas with the Indian territories we now know as Bengal, Orissa, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. The expertise of Indian sailors in forecasting monsoons and trade winds contributed significantly to the flourishing of sea trade in the region.

In contrast, it wasn’t until the 10th century CE that the Song Empire permitted Chinese traders to venture across distant seas. However, this practice ceased with the fall of the Song Empire in the early 12th century CE. Although the Ming Empire briefly revived Chinese overseas trade in the 15th century CE, it was short-lived. Notably, French archaeologists who extensively explored these regions from the 18th century aptly coined the term ‘Indo-Chine’ to reflect the profound and extensive Indian influence. Given China’s current assertive and coercive actions, there is growing demand to refer to this region as ‘Indo-China.’

The waters surrounding Vietnam were historically recognized as the ‘Champa Sea,’ while the Filipinos have consistently referred to the sea to their west as the ‘West Philippines Sea.’ Given the substantial and enduring influences of both India and China in this region spanning over two millennia, it would be appropriate to designate the remaining expanse as the ‘Indo-China Sea.’ This serves as a significant lesson, particularly for China, which has engaged in cartographic aggression by renaming areas and subsequently asserting ownership over these newly labeled territories.