Follow us on social

google cta
2018-07-27t093234z_2022494017_rc1faa2f1f30_rtrmadp_3_safrica-brics-scaled

What’s next after the border clash between India and China

While details of the incident remain murky, tensions have significantly elevated between the two countries with the world's largest populations.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

In 1975, an Indian Army patrol, in the midst of a fog, had inadvertently strayed across the poorly demarcated (and contested) Sino-Indian border near the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, all of which is the subject of a Chinese territorial claim.

In a skirmish in the region that ensued with forces from the People’s Liberation Army (as China’s armed forces are known), four Indian soldiers were killed. Since that fateful incident, a spate of clashes have taken place along the Himalayan border, including a major mobilization of forces in 1986.

However, until this week, neither side had seen any loss of life in the various clashes. Accordingly, the recent scuffle in the Galwan Valley which has claimed the lives of at least 20 Indian soldiers, and an unspecified number of their Chinese counterparts, represents a new and unprecedented level of escalation.

The border dispute has long and tangled roots. It started shortly after India’s independence in 1947 and culminated in a short, vicious war in 1962. Indian forces that were grossly unprepared for combat at high altitudes, and lacked either thermostatic clothing or modern weaponry, confronted battle-hardened PLA soldiers and were easily routed. Memories of that military debacle continue to haunt both Indian military commanders and political leaders alike.

After a hiatus of several years, and a number of border incidents most notably in 1967, India and China restored full diplomatic ties in 1976. Over a decade later, in 1988, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited Beijing. In its wake, a high-level diplomatic mechanism was set up designed to resolve the border dispute. Despite 22 rounds of discussions, and concomitant agreements on a spate of confidence-building measures, the two sides are no closer to a resolution of the dispute.

Worse still, for about a decade, the relationship — despite several high-level summits involving both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping — has been deteriorating. In fact, during Xi Jinping’s 2014 visit to India, even as Modi was feting him in his native state of Gujarat, the PLA made a series of incursions in the region of Ladakh in northwestern India. The shock of these military intrusions led Modi to tell his visitor that “even a little toothache can paralyze (the) entire body.”

What precipitated this most recent incursion and the ensuing lethal brawl remains a bit murky. However, press reports suggest that it may have stemmed from an Indian Army attempt to demolish some tents that the PLA had erected, and then abandoned, in areas inside territory that India deems to be its own.

Following long-agreed-upon protocols, both Indian and Chinese forces were unarmed and, according to Indian officials, as the Indian troops set about with a patrol of the area, PLA forces attacked. Three soldiers were killed outright while 17 others succumbed to their injuries. Indian intelligence officials say dozens of Chinese soldiers may have been killed but did not provide evidence.

Beyond the immediate precipitant of the deadly scuffle, the purported PLA intrusion into disputed areas probably stemmed from other, recent developments in the region. In August of last year, Modi’s government, with a parliamentary sleight-of-hand, revoked the special status of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, thereby legally integrating it into the Indian Union.

Since both China, and its “all weather ally” Pakistan, are parties to the dispute, the reaction from Beijing was swift and harsh. However, it did not undertake any military steps at the time to express its displeasure, probably because of the inhospitable weather that is characteristic of the area in the fall and the winter. It is, however, not surprising that with the onset of spring and more propitious conditions for troop movements, the PLA would choose to make limited probes across the disputed border.

Passions in India, especially after the soldiers’ deaths this week, quite understandably, are running high. Despite some curbs that have been imposed on the Indian press during Modi’s time in office, it still remains remarkably freewheeling and feisty. More to the point, India has no dearth of armchair strategists who have lost no time in fanning populist sentiments.

In the carefully controlled Chinese press, especially in the English-language outlets, there has been harsh condemnation of India’s putative aggressiveness. Since the vast majority of the population does not read English, it is reasonable to surmise that these harsh denunciations of India are primarily intended for foreign consumption.

Also, the population possibly preoccupied with the new outbreak of COVID-19 in Beijing, may be less exercised than their Indian counterparts about a conflict in a remote part of the country. Nevertheless, high-level authorities including the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, have admonished their Indian interlocutors about the seriousness of the crisis and have sought to blame India for initiating it. In effect, neither side appears willing to back away from the precipice.

Prime Minister Modi has publicly and forthrightly stated that while he seeks peace, he will nevertheless not compromise India’s sovereignty. His bravado notwithstanding, India is clearly in a weaker position. China’s military budget is three times that of India, while its GDP is nearly five times larger. Nevertheless, Modi may feel compelled to stand firm as both the political opposition at home as well as segments of an aggrieved citizenry attack him.

As for the United States, which has been building a strategic partnership with India, it is unlikely to get militarily involved in this dispute. President Trump, apart from his feckless offer to mediate this dispute, has a stated aversion to deploying American forces in far flung places.

Consequently, beyond affirming a degree of diplomatic support, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has already proffered, it is most unlikely that it will do much else. Given the fraught features of this dispute, such a stance may suit all the parties involved. Given the tortured history of this conflict, in the end, both India and China will have to devise the means to tackle it and bring it to an eventual resolution.


Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and China's President Xi Jinping attend the BRICS summit meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, July 27, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.