Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi has said that the situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China is stable but not normal, the Army Chief said that India wants to restore the situation to its pre April 2020 status, before the military standoff that began in May 2020.

He also cautioned against Chinese “grey zone” warfare tactics.

What is the Line of Actual Control (LAC)?

• The Line of Actual Control (LAC) is the notional boundary that divides Indian-controlled territory from Chinese-controlled territory.

• The LAC is not formally agreed upon by the two countries and is neither depicted on a map nor physically marked on the ground.

• India considers the LAC to be 3,488 km long, while China estimates it to be around 2,000 km.

The LAC is divided into three sectors: 

1) The eastern sector, which encompasses Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. 

2) The middle sector, which spans Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. 

3) The western sector, which includes Ladakh.

• India’s claim line follows the official boundary outlined in the maps released by the Survey of India, including both Aksai Chin and Gilgit-Baltistan.

• Consequently, India’s claim line extends beyond the LAC. In contrast, China's LAC generally aligns with its claim line, except in the eastern sector where it claims the entire Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet.

Disagreements surrounding the LAC

The disagreements surrounding the Line of Actual Control between India and China stem from differing interpretations of its alignment, especially in the eastern and western sectors.

i) Eastern Sector Disputes: In the eastern sector, the LAC roughly follows the 1914 McMahon Line, but there are minor disputes over exact ground positions. India recognizes this line, while China has long contested it.

ii) Western Sector Disputes: The western sector disagreements are more pronounced. In 1959, Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai outlined a claim in a letter to Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru, which India rejected.

• China’s description of the LAC was general and based on non-scaled maps, leading to ambiguity.

• Following the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China claimed to have withdrawn 20 km behind the LAC, but the exact location remained unclear, further complicating border demarcation.

• Doklam Crisis (2017): The issue resurfaced during the Doklam standoff when China urged India to respect the ‘1959 LAC’, a version India has consistently rejected. Despite attempts at clarification, significant differences over the LAC’s alignment persisted.

India’s response to China’s LAC designation:

• India initially rejected the LAC in 1959 and again in 1962, citing concerns over its vagueness and potential for misuse by China to alter facts on the ground through force.

• By the mid-1980s, increasing border encounters prompted India to reconsider its approach.

• In 1993, India formally accepted the LAC and signed the Agreement to Maintain Peace and Tranquility with China. However, while both sides exchanged maps for the middle sector, they only “shared” maps for the western sector without formal exchange, halting progress on clarification since 2002.

Recent Military Confrontations:

• The LAC has been the site of several military clashes, including the Galwan Valley incident in 2020 and the confrontation in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh in 2022. 

• Since 2013, observers have noted an increase in serious military confrontations, highlighting the ongoing volatility of the LAC despite attempts at negotiation. 

Challenges in Disengagement

• The challenges in disengagement along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China are rooted in complex geopolitical, military, and diplomatic factors. These challenges have contributed to prolonged tensions, despite various rounds of negotiations aimed at de-escalation.

Key Challenges:

• Stalled Negotiations: Despite multiple rounds of talks, agreements on critical areas like Demchok and Depsang remain elusive. Both sides have been unable to reach a consensus on disengagement, particularly in these sensitive sectors, creating a stalemate in broader negotiations.

• Diplomatic dialogues between military commanders and political representatives have been inconclusive, preventing any major breakthrough in disengagement.

• Military Build-Up: Both India and China have engaged in significant military infrastructure development along the LAC. This includes the construction of roads, air bases, and forward posts, along with the deployment of advanced weaponry and technologies.

• An estimated 50,000-60,000 troops from both sides are currently stationed along the LAC, creating a tense and heavily fortified environment.

• This large-scale troop presence complicates disengagement efforts, as both sides remain vigilant and maintain strong defensive postures.

• Vulnerability to Escalation: China’s substantial military build-up, including new weapon systems and advanced infrastructure, has altered the status quo, making the region more volatile.

• India’s response, which includes bolstering its own military infrastructure and enhancing capabilities, has mirrored China’s efforts. This competitive military positioning increases the risk of miscalculations that could lead to an unintended escalation.

• Even minor skirmishes or misunderstandings could potentially trigger larger conflicts, making disengagement efforts more difficult to implement.

Key areas in India-China standoff

i) Pangong Lake Region: The north bank of Pangong Lake has been a frequent site of skirmishes between Indian and Chinese forces. The area is divided into 8 mountain spurs, called “Fingers” in military terms. 

• India claims territory till Finger 8, while China asserts control up to Finger 4, leading to frequent standoffs and patrolling clashes. The control of these spurs is critical as they provide a vantage point over the lake and surrounding areas.

ii) Demchok Region: The Demchok region has seen reports of Chinese activity, including the movement of heavy equipment and the establishment of infrastructure.

• This area is close to the LAC and is of strategic importance to both countries. Incidents of Chinese incursions and infrastructural build-up here have escalated tensions.

iii) Galwan River Basin: The Galwan Valley became a flashpoint in 2020 when satellite images revealed Chinese tents near the river, indicating incursions into areas traditionally patrolled by Indian forces. The confrontation in this area led to a violent clash between Indian and Chinese troops, resulting in casualties on both sides.

iv) Gogra Post: The Gogra post has seen a Chinese military build-up, adding to the tensions in the region. This area, situated close to the LAC, has strategic importance for monitoring movement across the border.

v) Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO): Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO) is a critical airstrip for India’s winter operations and troop reinforcements. It is located near the Karakoram Pass and is essential for maintaining Indian presence in the region. The Darbuk-Shyok-DBO road connects the airstrip and allows India to reinforce its troops, making it vital for India’s logistics in the area. Chinese incursions in this sector threaten India’s supply and troop movement capabilities.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)