Unilaterally naming places of Zangnan risks harming steady trajectory of ties: China Daily editorial

After years of strain following the Galwan Valley clash in 2020, China-India relations have gradually entered a phase of relative stabilization, marked by a measured return to dialogue and strategic communication. This progress has been hard-won, achieved against a backdrop of mounting global uncertainties. It has required political judgment, diplomatic patience and sustained communication through both diplomatic and military channels.

Therefore, unilateral actions that add tension to the territorial disputes serve neither side's interests. India's latest attempt to give "standard names" to multiple locations in China's Zangnan region won't change the reality on the ground, but unfortunately it could compromise the steadying momentum in bilateral relations.

On Friday, India announced the names of 27 locations in the region. But as Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said, Zangnan is China's territory, and India's unilateral move to rename places there is illegal, null and void.

The latest naming move came shortly after the 36th meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs was held in New Delhi on Thursday. At that meeting, the two sides discussed boundary delimitation, border management and control mechanism building and cross-border cooperation. They also agreed to maintain communication through diplomatic and military channels and jointly safeguard peace and stability in border areas. It is difficult to see how India's unilateral renaming serves these objectives.

Names on a map cannot alter historical facts, nor can they substitute for negotiations. The only sustainable way to address the territorial disputes is through equal-footed dialogue and consultation and a fair settlement based on historical and legal principles.

The history of the China-India boundary itself calls for caution rather than political posturing. As even some Indian researchers point out, the modern boundary that India unilaterally recognizes was not simply an ancient and clearly demarcated frontier inherited intact by India when it gained independence in 1947. British colonial authorities developed competing boundary proposals for the western-sector borders between India and China, and pursued different strategic approaches as their perceptions of regional threats changed.

The eastern-sector borders likewise have a complicated history. The so-called "McMahon Line" emerged from the 1913-14 Simla Conference, a process in which the Chinese government did not accept the final arrangement at all. But India fully recognized the illegal line and adopted it after 1947, irrespective of China's opposition. The historical facts speak plainly: the unlawful "McMahon Line" cannot and should not serve as the foundation for the eastern-sector borders between China and India. New Delhi might do well to ask itself: would it ever accept a so-called border drawn by a colonial power — one that it itself refuses to recognize anywhere else?

History should help the two sides better understand the origins of the dispute, not become a pretext for perpetuating it. This is particularly important because China and India have already demonstrated that differences over the boundary need not prevent broader engagement. The two sides have agreed to view bilateral relations from a strategic and long-term perspective, stressing that they should regard each other as partners rather than rivals and their development as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Practical exchanges have also resumed. Direct flights between the two countries restarted in 2025, pilgrimage activities resumed and traditional border trade markets have been reopened. Bilateral trade has remained resilient despite various policy barriers. These developments point to an important reality: The border issue is only one part of China-India relations, and it should not define the entire relationship.

China and India have immense common interests. Together, they account for more than 2.8 billion people. Their economic development and cooperation on maintaining regional stability and on international affairs have implications far beyond their shared borders. The two countries therefore have every reason to continue the stabilization of bilateral ties, strengthen strategic communication and expand mutually beneficial cooperation while properly managing differences.