India Rejects Chinese Criticism Over Naming of Places in Arunachal Pradesh

India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Tuesday rejected China's criticism regarding the assignment of standard names to 27 places and features in Arunachal Pradesh. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal asserted that the state is an inalienable and integral part of India and described this as an indisputable reality. The move follows China's condemnation of the naming process, which Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun termed illegal, null and void. China further stated that the Zangnan region belongs to China and that it does not recognize Arunachal Pradesh.

During a media briefing, Jaiswal stated that the maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is of utmost importance. He emphasized that the state of border affairs will reflect on the state of the larger bilateral ties between the two nations. These points were reportedly reiterated during a meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India China border affairs (WMCC) held last week, where both sides engaged in frank discussions and reviewed the situation along the LAC. The two nations agreed to continue using existing diplomatic and military mechanisms, including local commander level meetings, to resolve outstanding issues and prevent miscalculation.

These developments occur as India and China seek to rebuild ties following the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes and a subsequent military face off that lasted over four years. In October 2024, the two sides finalized a disengagement agreement for Depsang and Demchok in eastern Ladakh. This was followed by talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping in Kazan, as well as further discussions on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin last August.

Reporting on the event varied by political lean. Center and center left sources focused on the diplomatic implications for bilateral relations and the official MEA statements. In contrast, the center right source provided more granular detail on the cartographic nature of the move, framing it as a riposte to China's previous efforts to rename locations in the state and a means of reinforcing sovereign jurisdiction.