In a renewed diplomatic row between two of Asia’s largest nations,
China has once again unilaterally renamed parts of India’s northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, now referring to it as “Zangnan”-the southern part of what Beijing claims is Tibet. This move, widely seen as provocative, has intensified the already fraught relationship between New Delhi and Beijing, highlighting the persistent fragility of their border relations.
A Recurrent Strategy
China’s practice of renaming locations in Arunachal Pradesh is not new. The latest round involves a standardized list of
Chinese names for towns, mountain passes, rivers, and other geographical features in the region. This is part of Beijing’s broader strategy to assert its territorial claims through administrative and cartographic means. China claims approximately 90,
000 square kilometers of Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet,” despite India’s established control and consistent rejection of these assertions.
Issuing new names for places within Indian territory serves to reinforce China’s narrative both domestically and internationally, suggesting these areas have historical ties to China. These moves often coincide with periods of heightened diplomatic or military tension, and this latest renaming comes amid a broader downturn in Sino-Indian relations following recent border clashes and ongoing disputes.
India’s Response
India has categorically rejected China’s actions, labeling them as “vain and preposterous attempts” to assert sovereignty over Indian land. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs has reiterated that Arunachal Pradesh is, and will always remain, an integral and inalienable part of India. Indian officials have emphasized that inventing names does not change the historical or
legal facts on the ground.
New Delhi has become more assertive in countering China’s claims, both diplomatically and through increased engagement with international partners. India has also reinforced its infrastructure and military presence in Arunachal Pradesh, signaling its readiness to defend its territorial sovereignty.
China’s Official Stance
From Beijing’s standpoint, the renaming of Arunachal Pradesh as “Zangnan” (meaning “South Tibet”) is part of a long-standing claim rooted in historical and cultural narratives. China argues that much of Arunachal Pradesh, especially the Tawang region, was historically part of Tibetan administrative zones, which it believes should now fall under Chinese jurisdiction following its control of Tibet since the 1950s.
The Chinese government often cites the 1914 Simla Convention, which it did not sign, as illegitimate — rejecting the McMahon Line that forms the boundary between Tibet and British India (now Arunachal Pradesh and China). In Beijing’s view, this boundary was a colonial imposition, and thus, the current Indian control of the region lacks legal and historical legitimacy.
By renaming places, China says it is correcting what it views as historical inaccuracies. Official Chinese media portray this act as a normal administrative update reflecting sovereign rights. Chinese analysts also argue that the naming is consistent with Beijing’s domestic laws and is not intended to provoke, even though international observers and India strongly disagree.
Beijing’s renaming is also part of a broader campaign to reinforce its territorial narratives — often called “standardization” — where Chinese names and terms are gradually normalized in international and internal discourse. In doing so, China hopes to strengthen its geopolitical claim not just through military presence but also through psychological and semantic assertion.
A Pattern of Provocation
China’s renaming initiative is part of a broader tactic sometimes referred to as “salami slicing”-making incremental changes to the status quo to advance territorial claims without provoking outright conflict. This includes building infrastructure near the Line of Actual Control, issuing new maps, and using diplomatic language to normalize its claims.
Experts note that these actions are designed to psychologically pressure India and test its responses, while gradually normalizing China’s position over time. This approach is not unique to India; China has used similar tactics in the South China Sea and in disputes with other neighbors.
Regional and Global Implications
The latest renaming episode further strains the already brittle relationship between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. It complicates regional stability and shapes international perceptions of China’s rise. For India, this challenge also presents an opportunity to strengthen its strategic posture and deepen alliances with countries wary of China’s assertiveness.
Repeated provocations such as this may accelerate India’s alignment with Western democracies, particularly through forums like the Quad, which includes the United States,
Japan, Australia, and India, and is focused on promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Conclusion
China’s renaming of Arunachal Pradesh as “Zangnan” is more than a symbolic gesture-it is a calculated move in a long-term strategic contest. While names on maps can be changed, the realities on the ground remain unchanged. However, the diplomatic and psychological impacts are significant. For India, this episode is yet another reminder that the boundary dispute with China is unresolved, and that vigilance,
resilience, and international engagement remain essential to safeguarding its sovereignty.
As the region and the world watch closely, it is clear that the contest over borders is no longer limited to military confrontations; it is also fought with names, narratives, and national pride.
